STRUCTURAL PATTERNS OF EXTENSION ORGANIZATION Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOSEPH THERSON AGBOKA ' 1976 éJ/OAaaj‘ ABSTRACT STRUCTURAL PATTERNS OF EXTENSION ORGANIZATION BY Joseph Therson Agboka The nature and kind of organizational structures have tremendous impact on organizational goal attainment. Out- reach decision-makers have often been faced with the problem of determining which outreach structure best answers the needs of the community they serve. Several proposals for coordinating outreach functions within Land-Grant Institutions have been made and tried. These proposals have resulted in varied outreach structures x'/such as merged, amalgamated, consolidated or even separated X I systems. The key question here is: Are these different organizational structures geared toward the attainment of different outreach goals? Whatever the answer to this ques— tion, two other question can be asked: 1) Can a pattern be generated which relates the structure of one type of extension organization to another with regard to goals and objectives; 2) What are the key factors that determine the organizational structure of each type of extension organiza- tion. Such fluidity of the field coupled with its lack of Joseph Therson Agboka definite structure(s) has made it difficult to find a common purpose for large-scale research. Research with more general purpose, if it is to arise naturally from the field, must depend upon the existence of a common percep- tion of strategical problems or a synoptic overview of the entire outreach organization among land—grant universities. This study was designed to describe and analyze the various types of extension organizational structuring of land-grant universities. It is to provide basic issues and other pertinent information on structuring a university's outreach unit(s). From a population of 68 land-grant insti- tutions, 57 outreach organizations were randomly selected for the study. Participating in this study were 44 outreach organizations representing 34 land—grant universities from 32 states in the U.S.A. Several outreach organizational and structural vari- ables were analyzed and discussed. The analysis covered respondents, clients and organizational characteristics. The study covered the information on the respondent's knowledge and experience of the field of extension. Also covered were analyses of the financial status, residence and educational background of clients who participate in outreach programs, and the kinds of programs offered to these participants. Investigated, analyzed and discussed were the structural variables of size, goals, decision- naking base, staff membership, departmental configuration, total university affiliations and control, budgetary base Joseph Therson Agboka for operations, political, legislative and bureaucratic pressures and restraints that contribute to the structuring of university outreach organizations. Finally, the study covered the mode of outreach structuring, major factors that lead to particular type of outreach organization in land-grant institutions, advantages and the disadvantages of particular types of outreach structuring, and the future predictions for outreach organizational structuring in land- grant institutions. The findings of the study tend to uphold the assumption that all types of outreach organizations have many character- istics in common. Each represent a major two-way communica- tion linkage between their universities and the public seg- ment they serve. All types of outreach organizations are faced with many similar problems, concerns, and opportunities in administering their off-campus programs. They have the same basic mission, namely, lifelong education of the peOple; and the same basic goal--public service. In cases where universities have separate outreach units, the study also upholds the assumptions that these separate outreach services: 1) provide services to a great variety of clientele groups with many of these services common to both, yet with a portion of the population to be served, not reached (no man's land principle) by either of the services; 2) 3) Joseph Therson Agboka exhibit a strong need for some coordinated or cooperative inservice activities as their univer— sities thrust for better services for their publics; exhibit a strong need for internal organizational structuring to maximize their effectiveness and to minimize the duplication of efforts, costs, etc. Finally, outreach organization has not followed defin- ite structural pattern from which outreach decision-makers can pattern their own outreach organization(s). Instead, the structural pattern of outreach today has become a "do it your own way" affair. However, the following major grouping of outreach units for a particular land-grant university can be made: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Decentralized and under a Dean with an academic unit; Centralized and under a Vice—President's office in the central administration; A mixture of (l) and (2); Centralized and coordinated (unified) unit in the form of mergers under a President, Vice-President or a Chancellor; Decentralized but coordinated (unified) outreach units in the form of consolidation or amalgamation either at the top administrative level or at the field level. STRUCTURAL PATTERNS OF EXTENSION ORGANIZATION BY Joseph Therson Agboka A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1976 DEDICATED TO GOD, the Author and Finisher of my faith (Hebrews 12:1-2) TO MY PARENTS, Pastor and Mrs. David N. Agboka, Under whose loving care, protection, guidance and leadership I have lived through this experience and TO MY WIFE, Aufwiedersehen and children, Tettey and Ofori, whose love, encouragement and support I cannot measure. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Melvin Buschman, Chairman of my Guidance Committee, for his con- tinuous direction throughout my program. Sincere apprecia- tion is also extended to the members of my Doctoral Committee whose understanding, and encouragement have made it possible for me to complete this dissertation. Appreciation is extended to the Office of Institu— tional Research and its director, Dr. Thomas Freeman, who worked cooperatively with me in the data collection process. To Dr. Armand L. Hunter, Director of Continuing Education and Acting Dean of Life-Long Learning; Dr. Gordon E. Guyer, Director of Cooperative Extension and Assistant Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources; and to Dr. Carroll H. Wamhoff, Director of Agriculture and Natural Resources Educational Institute, I express my sincere thanks for their contribution. I owe this dissertation to the Chan- cellors, Vice-Presidents, Deans and Directors in direct charge of the Extension Organizations studied, who took time off their busy schedules to provide this study with the needed data. Finally, to my dear wife, Aufwiedersehen, for her love, understanding and support throughout the course of iii my studies, I express my gratitude. My sincere appreciations also go to her for typing the drafts of this dissertation. Doctoral Guidance Committee Dr. Melvin C. Buschman, Chairman. Assistant Director, Continuing Education Director, University Extension; Professor, Administration and Higher Education Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Member. Assistant Dean, Continuing Education; Professor, Secondary Education and Curriculum Dr. Daniel H. Kruger, Member. Associate Director, Manpower Program Service; Professor, Labor and Industrial Relations Dr. Floyd G. Parker, Member. Assistant Director, Continuing Education Director, Programs and Staff Development; Professor, Education and Continuing Education iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I II III IV INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . The Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . Definition of Terms Used . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . The Philosophical Foundation for Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Variables of Organizations. On the Reorganization of the Coopera- tive Extension and Continuing Educa- tion Services . . . . . . . . . . . . Extension Mergers . . . . . . . . . . Future Structure of University Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Research Setting . . . . . . . . . The Population . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . Random Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . Administration and Ret rn of Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures for Statistical Analysis . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART I. THE RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . Page viii xi 11 12 13 15 15 16 23 39 31 35 35 36 36 37 42 42 45 50 51 53 53 53 Chapter Page Organizational Position . . . . . . 54 Professional Experience . . . . . . 56 Educational Attainment . . . . . . 6O Areas of Educational Specialization 62 PART II. CLIENTS' CHARACTERISTICS . . 62 Income Level . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Educational Attainment . . . . . . 70 Programs Offered to the Public . . 72 PART III. ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTER- ISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Goals and Objectives of Outreach Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Name of Outreach Organization . . . 78 Brief History of Extension Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 78 How Outreach Organizations were Established . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Structural Changes . . . . . . . . 81 Organizational Size as a Measure of Both On and Off Campus Student Population . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Staffing of Outreach Organizations. 83 Major Departments of Outreach Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Structural Organization . . . . . . 88 Initiation of New Programs and Program Development . . . . . . . . 95 Use of Citizens Advisory Councils/ Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Functions of Advisory Committees . 100 Outreach Budgets . . . . . . . . . 101 Sources of Funds . . . . .’. . . . 102 PART IV. OPERATIONAL AND DECISION- MAKING BASE FOR THE CHOICE OF TYPES OF OUTREACH ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . 109 Separate Outreach Units . . . . . . 110 Major Factors for Keeping Univer- sity Outreach Organizations Separate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Unified Outreach Units . . . . . . 120 Major Factors for Unifying Univer- sity Outreach Organizations . . . . 122 How Total Coordination was Achieved 123 vi Chapter systems 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Forecasting the Future Outreach Organizational Structure . . . . . V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . Clients' Characteristics . . . . . . . Organizational Characteristics . . . . Operational and Decision-Making Base for the Choice of Types of Outreach Ogranizations . . . . . . . . . . . . Advantages and Disadvantages for Separate Outreach Structures . . . . . Unified Outreach Units . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT (QUESTIONNAIRE) AND COVER LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B RECEIVED AND USABLE ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS OF THE GENERAL UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION, COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, CONTINUING EDUCA- TION AND UNIFIED EXTENSION SERVICES OF THE LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES STUDIED (COMPILED ALPHABETICALLY BY STATE . . . . . . . . . C LIST OF LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS IN THE Funding of Unified Outreach Units . Advantages of Unified Systems . . . Disadvantages of Unified Outreach ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS (1974) . . . . . vii Page 124 124 126 126 129 129 129 131 134 142 144 145 150 156 160 169 197 Table 3.1 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.6 LIST OF TABLES Numerical Count of the Administration and Return of Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . Geographical Breakdown of Regions of Use- able Responses Received from Outreach Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Names of University Outreach Organ- izations that Participated in the Study, by State, University and Type of Outreach Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Position of Respondents: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Administrative Position and by Type of Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Years of Experience of Respon- dents in Their Present Position . . . . . Number of Years of Service of Respon- dents with Their Present Extension organization 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Respondents Experience in Related Exten- sion Fields but with Other Extension Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Level of Respondents . . . . . Major Areas of Educational Specialization of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Percentage Distribution of Partici- pants in Outreach Programs (Other than Radio and Television) by Residence and by Type of Organization, Region, University Size and Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 43 47 48 55 57 58 59 61 63 65 Table 4.8 4.9 4.11 4.14 4.15 4.16 Page Mean Percentage Distribution of Partici- pants in Outreach Programs (Other than Radio and Television) by Income Level and Type of Organization, Region, Univer- sity Size and Budget . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Mean Percentage Distribution of Educa- tional Attainment of Participants of Outreach Programs (Other than Radio and Television) by Type of Organization, Region, University Size, and by Budget . . 71 Mean Distribution of Number of Programs Offered to the Public by Type of Exten- sion Organization for the Fiscal Years 1972/73 to 1974/75 . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Mean Distribution of Estimated Working Staff Size of Outreach Organizations for the Years 1974-77 . . . . . . . . . . 84 Breakdown of Type of Structure by Type of Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Percentage Distribution of the Location of Outreach Units Within the Total Organ- ization Structure of Land-Grant Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 The Percentage Distribution of University Officers to Whom Heads of Outreach Organ- izations are Responsible (Reporting To) . 91 Administrative Titles of the Head of Outreach Organizations in Land-Grant Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 The Percentage Distribution of the Indi- cated Extent to which Specified Groups Associated with Outreach Organizations Initiate New Program Development or Future Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Use of Citizens' Advisory Councils and/or Committees in Outreach Program Planning and Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Distribution of Total Outreach Organiza- tions by Budget Size for the Year 1974-77. 102 ix Page Percentage Distribution of Sources of Funds by Types of Outreach Organizations . . . . . 103 The Percentage Distribution of the Utiliza- tion of Outreach Salary Budget by Type of Outreach Organization . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Expenditure of Yearly Outreach Budget . . . 105 Nature of Support (Financial) for Outreach Programs 0 O O O O O 0 ~ 0 O O O I O I O O O O 106 The Degree to which Extension Organizations Operate from Special Outside Funds . . . . . 107 The Distribution of the Controlling Power of Outreach Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 The Percentage Distribution of Outreach Organization by the Strength of Outside Pressure on Funds Utilization . . . . . . . 110 Percentage Distribution of Outreach Organi- zations by Indicated Internal Pressures on Fund Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Map showing the Research Regional Group- ings of land-grant institutions in the United States of America. Locations of institutions studied are marked by X. Merger Model . . . . . . . . . . Consolidated at tOp administration level model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolidated at field level model xi Page 41 151 152 153 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Organizations consist of social, technical, economic, cultural and political components woven into a system de- signed to accomplish specific or multiple purposes. This socio-technical system is the organizational concept empha- sizing that both human and nonhuman factors--including technology, structure and process--interact to determine individual and organizational functioning.l A breakdown of these factors bring into focus certain processes of governmental and legislative policies, needs of the clients an organization serves, needs of the personnel of the organ- ization, self-image, values, expectations, goals, standards and norms, perceptions and attitudes which play an important part in determining individual and organizational function- ing. With concern to the educator, for example, is how education shapes public policy and how public policy in turn shapes the direction of educational activities. Poli- cies generally govern the specific behavior of people and lGordon L. Lippitt, Organizational Renewal, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 1-3. institutions. They can be relaxed or enforced depending on how people or institutions conform to policies voluntarily, or how they deviate from them. Policy formation therefore depends on existing conditions of a society or of an insti- tution. Officials, administrators, analysts, planners and others concerned with outreach are realizing that the successful delivery of services to clients is dependent upon access to reliable, timely, detailed and structured information on clients' needs, Clients' and organizational goals and aspirations, governmental policies, legislative provisions, values, etc., which relate to the functioning of outreach organizations. Unfortunately, these realiza- tions have for the most part resulted either in less than adequate information being used asaabasis for providing services to clients, or largely, uncoordinated and ineffi- cient efforts to assemble the data required. To avoid these problems, a system through which large amounts of data can be accumulated, processed, disseminated to all staff and used efficiently in the delivery of services is required. Organizations exist as facilitators of delivery systems. The concern for organizational structure, there- fore, is to develop an important and efficient organiza- tional arrangement for the efficient delivery of educational services. Structure therefore becomes one of the important means to organizational goal attainment. The nature and kind of organizational structures have tremendous impact on organizational goal attainment. Care- ful definition of goals and objectives are therefore con- sidered very vital and primary in all decisions concerning what type of structure an organization should have. Organi— zational planners and administrative decision makers can never escape the challenge of organizational structuring for the maximum attainment of organizational goals. University outreach organizations normally referred to as Extension Organizations of a university are seriously facing new challenges and goals commensurable to the rapidly changing needs of the people such outreach organizations are to serve and to meet the needs of a changing society they serve. Whatever route of action is taken in determin- ing the outreach structure that decision makers hope best answerstjmaneeds of the serving community, such an organi- zational structure must be such that it best maximizes the goal attainment objectives of community service and lifelong education. The university as an organization "is, in fact one of the most complex structures in modern society."2 It is made up of autonomous and semi-autonomous suborganizations or systems which either function independently or coordinate 2James A. Perkins, The Universityyas an Organization, (Berkeley: The Carnegie Foundation, 1973), p. 3. their services toward a larger goal. The predicament of universities organizational diversity has arisen in part because of their seemingly conflicting missions.3 Basic- ally, the primary functions of a university are teaching, research, and public service (extension). According to Perkins,4 the assumption of the third large function--that of public service--has added one more dimension to the university's organizational agony. The university has in a general sense, always provided service to society but since the beginning of Land-Grant colleges and universities in the United States, a century ago, the pressure on universities, especially Land-Grant institutions, to perform public service are more complex and divisive. Many Land-Grant universities have therefore come out with varied organizational structures which hopefully will best meet the extension needs of the people they serve or are to serve. For these colleges and universities, their Cooperative Extension Service and their Continuing Education Service (sometimes referred to as General or University Extension) are considered one of the best organs of uni- versity outreach. The organization of these two services as well as some others have posed some problems to univer- sity administrators. 3Ibid., p. 10. 41bid. Writing on the history of Extension Work, Edward D. Eddy, Jr. has this to say: In addition to teaching and work in research, the Land Grant Colleges have embraced the idea that knowledge should be disseminated widely throughout the population. Their concern for the general improvement of life led to the establishment of two types of extension work. The first, COOperative Extension, is carried on in the fields5 of agriculture and home economics in association with the U.S. Department of Agri- culture. Each Land-Grant College has a staff of {agents in every country to bring the newest dis- coveries of research to the farm, home and market. I“' _The second extension branch, sometimes called General or University Extension, provides instruc- tion for the adult population through credit and noncredit courses, correspondence work, and conferences and institutes. Commenting on the effect of such extension movement on American Education as well as on the development of under- developed countries throughout the world, Eddy wrote: The emphasis within the colleges on opportunity according to ability and without regard to fin- ancial means, on the cooperative relationship of the Federal and State governments, on a close interweaving of academic matters and life, on a social consciousness leading to educational ser- vice in behalf of all people, and on the balance of teaching, research, and extension has had pro— found effect on all levels of American Education. Since World War II, the Land-Grant pattern has 5Cooperative Extension fields have since expanded to include 4-H, Natural Resources and Public Policy, etc. 6Edward D. Eddy, Jr., "The Land—Grant Movement" in :Lanerrant Fact Book, Centennial Edition. (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, 1962), p. 3. been copied widely in underdeveloped countries throughout the world.7 Several preposals for Coordinating Extension functions within the Land-Grant institutions have been made and tried. These proposals have resulted in the merger, amalgamation, consolidation, cooperation or even keeping separate the functions of the Cooperative Extension and Continuing Educa- tion Services of the Land—Grant universities. Whatever proposal is adopted, decision-makers hopefully believe that such an organizational structure will meet the specific commitment of service to the state; to serve, truly, as the "people's university“ by extending the resources of the university to all the state. As stated by Peter Blau, The role of organizations in a changing society must be distinguished from the forces affecting change within organizations, however, the exter- nal dynamics involves the adaption of formal organizations to changing conditions as well as the role of formal organizations as instruments of social change. The internal dynamics consists of changes that occur within an organization with growth, development of structural complexity, and adaption to external conditions. For the university to fulfill its functions as an agent .of change, its internal structure must be respon- sive to society's needs. In short, social inno- vations in the university's structure are recur- rently required to enable it to provide the knowledge and skills needed to solve the dominant social problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Although the university contributes to society 71bid., p. 3. both ideas and men to implement them, ordinarily its efforts at structural innovations do not extend beyond its own walls. . . .Finally, the internal dynamics, including actual changes as well as a readiness for structural change, is related to the external dynamics; but the two must be kept analytically distinct in order to study their relationship. The Problem The fluidity of the field of extenion or university outreach coupled with its lack of definite organization, has made it difficult to find a common purpose for large4scale research.9 Research with a more general purpose, if it is to arise naturally from the field, must depend upon the exis- tence of a common perception of strategical problems, or at least upon some general awareness, such as a sense for the attainment of such mission, among the key figures. Accord- ing to James Carey,10 past investigators, in the 19505, have had to deal with Special and basic problems in the field itself but within the existing organization, such as curri- culum, staffing, financing, etc., but contemporary educators and administrators of university outreach organizations by and large concentrate both teaching and research efforts on 8Peter Blau, "The University As A Distinctive Organi- zation." In Institutional Backgrounds of Adult Education, Dynamics of Change in the Modern University. R. J. Ingham CEdJ), (Boston: CSLEA, Boston University, 1966), pp. 101-2. 9James T. Carey, Forms and Forces in University Adult Education, (Boston: CSLEA, 1963), p. 10. 1°Ibid., p. 10. the education of the community (a university's public service function). Thus the trend at best points to the unification or the coordination of the three basic university functions, namely, teaching, research and public service. Viewed other- wise, the trend is towards a better cooperation between uni- versity organizations exercising these functions. Insofar as contemporary educators and administrators have touched on the problems of extension organization, they have hardly centered their inquiries on the internal structure of their organizations. Periodically, published research reports on the varying degrees of success or failure of outreach programs, however, there has been little research on extension organizational structures as they best relate to the needs of the people they are to serve. In this re- gard, there has not been any known research study which takes a synoptic overview of the entire extension organization among Land-Grant universities and colleges in the U.S., com- paring certain basic information which will generate a general direction or trend for extension organization. The general literature on both C00perative Extension and Continuing Education services of Land-Grant institutions show that both services have many characteristics in common. The assumptions here are that the two services: 1. represent two major outreach units of these uni- versities; 2. provide services to a great variety of clientele groups with many of these services common to both units; 3. represent a major two-way communication linkage between these universities and the public they serve; 4. are faced with many similar problems, concerns, and opportunities in administering their respec- tive off-campus programs for their particular community; 5. have the same basic mission, namely lifelong education of the people; 6. exhibit a strong need for continual inservice activities as these universities thrust for better services to their communities and the education of society as a whole. Over 25 Land-Grant institutions in the 19605 alone, have undertaken reorganization of their extension services.11 The trend is continuing in the 19705. The combination of .*all off-campus extension function of these institutions into one unit have resulted in organizational structures termed "’"a merger" or "a consolidation" or "amalgamation." Other Land-Grant universities which have not merged their off— campus extension functions have extension organizational llMohammad Douglah and Howard A. Shriver, "A Merger of Extension: West Virginia," JOurnal of Cooperative Extension, V01. 7, No. 3, (Fall 1969), p. 137. 10 structures that could be termed "separate," "cooperative" or "coordinating" units. Giving reasons why mergers, consolida- tion or amalgamation of university wide extension functions arise, Douglah and Shriverlzlisted the following: 1. the duplication and lack of coordination in regard to structures, clientele, and programs; competition between extension units for funds, status, and leadership; restriction of services to specific clientele groups by extension divisions resulting in the exclusion of various segments of society; Socio-economic problems which are not confined to specificcflientelegroups or to geographic areas; increased federal funds available for adult educa- tion programs. Among the chief reasons why other Land-Grant universi- ties have kept their outreach functions separate may be: 1. 3. If they are tion is: strong internal politics and competition for supre- macy of one unit over the other; problems associated with federal, state and local funding of university outreach (extension) programs; unrelated functions of outreach units. all Land-Grant colleges and universities claim that truly serving their publics; the key research ques- Are the different organizational structures of 12 Ibid., p. 137. 11 these university outreach units geared towards the attain- ment of different goals? Whatever the answer is, two ques- tions can be asked: 1) Can a pattern be generated which relates the extension organizational structure of one type of extension organization, for example, the Cooperative Exten- sion to the goals of that extension organization? and 2) What are the key factors that determine the organizational struc- ture of each of the extension units of a university? Need for the Study Both empirical and theoretical studies have shown that, given certain environmental and task requirements, some patterns of organizational structure and behavior are more apprOpriate than others, and that organizations conforming more closely with these patterns are more effective.13 The obvious implication is that there is no simple or "best" "”fipael of organization appropriate to all environments. An- other implication is that changes in an environment require appropriate changes in the pattern of organization needed 11) deal with that environment. For educators, administra- 'bors and decision makers to be able to differentiate between 'types of organizational structure that hopefully would best meet the needs of a changing society, there is the need for 23 study which would bring out an overall picture of the 13See particularly Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation, (London: Tavistock Institute, fisl) and Paul R. Lawrence and J. W. Lorsch, Organization and Emnflironment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Tfioston: Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1967) . 12 patterns of university outreach organizations as they are related to their different environments in their mission or goal attainment efforts. This study is intended to provide the researcher and other interested parties with the basic issues and other per- tinent information on structuring a university outreach (extension) organization especially as practiced or experi- enced in Land-Grant colleges and universities in the con- tinental United States. As an incidental outcome, the study will provide educa- tors and administrators, especially university outreach decision-makers with a common background to analyze, organize or restructure their outreach functions where there is the need. Such a study will also make it more possible for researchers to find a common purpose for large-scale research in the field of extension especially as it relates to extension organization. The Purpose of the Study The basic purposes of this study are to collect, analyze and classify pertinent materials and information that relate to the organization of extension among Land-Grant colleges and universities in the U.S. In doing this, the patterns of extension organization, especially as they relate to the Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education Services in the institutions to be studied, will be investigated. This study will relate these patterns to certain data about the 13 institutions with regard to internal and external factors giving rise to such a particular extension organizational structure. Definition of Terms Used Amalgamation: The combination or blending of a university's outreach organizations either at the top administra- tive level or at the field level for the purposes of coordinating the efforts of the outreach staff at that level. Bureaucratic: Governmental or any administrative inflexible routine of management. Cooperation: The association of the manpower resources of two or more organizations, working together for a common purpose but maintaining organizational identity. Consolidation of Extension Systems: Coordination of exten- sion units affected by organizational changes at the state administrative level. Consolidation of Higher Education: Coordination of the admin— istration of all higher educational institutions in a state. Cooperative Activities: Such activities as joint meetings, joint staff appointments, joint conferences, etc. Coordination: The adjustment of the functions of two or more organizations within a unified administrative system. The form of its organizational structure could be that of a merger, consolidation or amalgamated systems. Merger: The structuring of all of a university's extension units into a single focus, with the intent of coordina- ting efforts at all organizational levels. Outreach: (University outreach) - Those educational acti- vities carried on outside the traditional walls of an institution. It implies all off—campus educational efforts of an institution. The term is used inter— changeably with "Extension." Outreach Organizations: Refers to such extension units as the Cooperative Extension, University Extension, General Extension, Continuing Education Services, etc. 14 Para-professionals: Semi or nonprofessional persons employed to work alongside professional personnel due to the shortage or availability of, or the lack of funds to hire professional staff. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Philosophical Foundation for Outreach The university is said1 to be: a community of scholars; a repository and guardian of the cultural heritage and his- tory of man; an agency for the discovery and dissemination of knowledge; the corporate realization of man's desire to learn, to know, to understand; the institutional fulfillment of man's successful struggle against ignorance, himself and his environment and a combination of faculty, students, faci- lities, programs and resources. The university then, is a primary educational resource and knowledge center. University outreach, therefore, is the process of extending university resources and knowledge to meet the educational needs of society and the public community outside of the framework of the campus community. Unlike nations, universities can no longer consider themselves apart as an island separate from society.2 According to Cardinal Newman, To say that the university has obligations to the 1Subcommittee 4 of the Life Long Education Committee, "MSEIOutreach: The PhilOSOphical Foundation." An unpublished manuscript (May 14, 1972), p. l. 21bid., p. 1. 15 16 social order is not to say that it must satisfy only the demands which society can articulate, for a university should make society aware of what society ought to want as well as satisfy those wants it readily says it has. It is not therefore . . .asking too much to suggest that many out~ reach or university public service activities be combined to make better use of resources and to provide easier assess by citizens to the assis— tance they seek. Reaching out to assist clients requires personal contacts with ". . .those citizens systematically excluded from, unaware of, or unreceptive to an agency's services or those . 5 . . of related agen01es." How then can a univer51ty's resources be organized to carry out these tasks? Structural Variables of Organizations According to Etzioni,6 organizations are social inven— tions which specialize in "getting things done." Their effectiveness is based on their ability to effectively 3Cardinal Newman, quoted in "MSU Outreach: The Philo- sophical Foundation," Ibid., p. 5. 4Harry P. Day, "University Public Service: Which Pub- lic? Which Service," Adult Leadership, 24, (November, 1975), p. 91. 5J. J. Bannon, Outreach: Extending Community Service in Urban Areas, (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1973), p. viii. 6Amitai Etzioni, A Sociological Reader on Complex Organ- izations, 2nd. Ed., (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), p. 197. 17 coordinate their human and material resources and subunits which comprise the organizations.7 The major assumptions underlying this study is that this coordination and/or coop- eration among a university's outreach units, as organizations within the major university organization, necessarily pre- sumes such a degree of interdependence that, changes in any structural variable, or set of structural variables, have ramification throughout the outreach organizations involved, the total university organization and also the society these organizations serve. Commenting onifiuaneed for coordination between outreach units, Knox8 said, As many of the academic units on each campus become heavily involved in continuing education, some form of coordination is needed so that initiative and diversity doesn't produce frag- 'mentation and confusion, especially for clients. This structural concern is even more difficult and important for institutions with multiple campuses. He said such coordination is especially crucial at two points: 1. Where contact is made with individuals and the organizational clients, and 2. Within the office of the president or chancellor. In the first instance he suggested one extension center at each locality. In the second instance, he suggested the designation of an overall leader in the president's office 7J. Thompson, Organizations in Action, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 39-50. 8A. B. Knox, "New Realities," NUEA Specator, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, (December 1975), p. 8. 18 with the responsibility for the coordination of the univer- sity's outreach functions. .According to Knox,9 having a single door to the insti- tution regarding continuing education and public service has major advantages for potential clients as well as for the institution. The existence of one outreach inquiry center at each local community increases program visibility, helps adults to develop more effective inquiry strategies to relate action problems to knowledge resources, and to identify requests for which there are no available programs. With this type of structuring, field staff members provide major input regarding needs and effectiveness. On the marginality of extension organizations, Sternlo comments that "Extension as an idea defies the tendency to stratification and ossification in academic structures." Such organizations represent the university even without the awareness of the authorities because it is hard to get the attention of those in authority over extension. He said extension functions at the edge of history. 11 at present, Continuing Education According to Stern, services have no common organizational pattern. In a few instances, like the University of Wisconsin and New York 9Ibid., p. 9. 10Milton R. Stern, "The Invisible University, NUEA Spectator, Vol. XXIX, No. 22, (December 1975), p. 10. 11 Ibid., p. 11. 19 University, independent extension arms may even have a full- time faculty cadre. But even in those cases, the basic teaching provision is part-time, using people from the parent institution on an overload basis, moonlighters from other colleges or nonacademic specialists if the community is intellectually rich enough. According to Stern12 The urgent issue, which we must consider is whether continuing education shall be 'centralized' or 'decentralized.' That is, shall continuing educa- tion be-mandated to a single comprehensive exten- sion division, or shall it be undertaken by other- wise internally oriented departments and colleges of the institution. The same argument applies to other outreach units. Organ- izational arrangements for extension varies widely. For example, the University of California is said13 to be cen- tralized with all of Continuing Education mandated to the extension divisions on its nine campuses and with few things dangling from the systemwide office. On the other extreme, in some universities like Michigan, the principle of unit autonomy is applied administratively throughout the univer- sity. The allocation of fiscal resources is increasingly becoming critical in these hard times, but a carefully letern, gp. cit., p. 11. 13Ibid. 20 developed system for carrying out the process of effective fund allocation should be a part of the decision-making process.14 According to Alan Knox,15 the levelling off and even reduction in institutional budgets bring out the latent cannibalism that exist in most large organizations and increases the pressure to reduce or eliminate the tax support for Continuing Educationprograms. In some instances programs must be self-supporting. In other instances aca- demic units incorporate Continuing Education and public service into their functions and within their tax budgets. The resulting subsidy creates a paradoxical internal instance of unequal competition. Universities as organizations are increasing in size 16 I I O O This increase in Size and complexity in recent times. and complexity according to Hutchinsl7 and Brown18 is bring- ing about the deterioration in interrelationships of subunits 14Floyd B. Fisher, "Allocation of Resources for Contin- uing Education/Community Services," The NUEA Spectator, Vol. 39, No. 22, (December 1975), p. 19. 15Knox, op. cit., p. 7. 16W. R. Boland, "Size, External Relations, and the Dis- tribution of Power: A Study of Colleges and Universities," Comparative Organizations, Wolf V. Heydebrand (ed.), (Engle- ‘wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973). See also P. M. Blau, The Organization of Academic Work, (New York: John ‘Wiley and Sons, 1973). 17R. M. Hutchins, The Learning Society, (New York: Praeger, 1968). 18D. J. Brown, The Liberal University, (New York: .McGraw-Hill, 1969). 21 of higher education institutions. Blau stated that univer- sities and colleges have administrative structures that are similar to those of other bureaucracies but that the same structural features do not have the same significance for each.19 Dykes, for example, writes, . . .as universities grow larger and more complex, they tend to take on characteristics of other large (business) organizations; structural super- ordination and subordination are accentuated, rules and regulations become more important, hier- archical authority increases and universities move away from the characteristics of community and collegiality.20 University institutions are likely to become business minded and thus lose perspective of their public service function. Size defined in terms of the population membership of 21 is one of the first structural variables an organization used in organizational analysis and was initially considered the causal variable affecting the degree of complexity in organizations and societies. In other words, size immediately determines the form of an organization. The debate on size as a determinant of organizational structures had been con— tested between the best known structurists in the 19505 and 19Blau, 1973, op. cit., p. 279. 20A. R. Dykes, Faculty Participation in Academic Deci- sion-Making, (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Educa- tion, 1968), p. 13. 21R. J. Hall, J. E. Haas and N. J. Johnson, "Organiza- tional Size, Complexity and Formalization," American Socio- logical Review, Vol. 32, (December 1967), p. 905. 22 19605. According to Michels22 increased size leads to in- creased complexity leads to increased specialization and finally increased centralization of information for coor- dinated purposes. Dykes writes, ". . .the ability of facul- ties to play a meaningful role in decision-making is increas- ingly challenged as institutions grow larger and more complex and as the decision-making processes become more bureaucratized and formalized."23 Cowley believes that professors have lost sight of those for whom the education system was created—-the students and the general society--and consequently have developed a collegial system of control of higher education for their 24 Blau believes that the increases in size own benefits. and complexity actually serve to give professors autonomy and research possibilities rather than binding them by greater 25 Illustrating, he said that larger bureaucratic restraints. universities have disproportionately smaller administrative units and instead of being rigid, are more likely than smaller institutions to innovate by the development of new fields of study. Larger size also tends to reduce the "pa- ternalistic" centralization of authority possible in a smaller 22R. Michels, "The Conservative Basis for Organization," in Reader in Bureacracy, R. K. Merton, Ailsa P; Gray, Barbara Hockey and H. C. Selvin, (ed.) (New York: Free Press, 1952). 23 Dykes, gp.cit., p. v. 24W. H. Cowley, "Professors, Presidents and Trustees," AGB Reports, Vol. 9, No. 5, (February, 1967), pp. 14-15. 25 Blau, 1973, op..cit., p. 279. 23 institution. Concluding this debate, the review of this literature supports Dykes' position that "faculty power and administrative power are in a sense fused"26 and that each depend on the other for support. On the Reorganization of the Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education Services Several proposals for coordinating extension functions within the Land-Grant institutions have been made and tried. These proposals have resulted in the merger or amalgamation or consolidation, cooperation, and even keeping separate the functions of the Cooperative Extension and Continuing Educa- tion Services of the Land-Grant universities. Whatever pro- posal is adopted, decision-makers believe that such an or— ganizational structure will meet the specific commitment of service to the state to serve, truly, as the "people‘s uni- versity" by extending the resources of the university to all the state. At the national seminar on agricultural administration in the Land-Grant system in 1963, a committee of Land-Grant university presidents stated: With the history of success (of the C00perative Extension Service) in mind, we make a prOposal of policy that the extension idea be broadened and extended to include more of the university's structure-—perhaps all of it. 26Dykes, QB. cit., p. 41. 24 The environment in which the university serves is such and the adult education needs of the nation are so great that it is logical to assign these greater responsibilities to the extension arm: of the university. In the period ahead the nation will be greater served if the land-grant system has an organized way to focus its intel- lectual resource on problems and needs of a developing society in a world setting. Just how this is to be accomplished is a matter of decision for each university in accordance with what it considers appropriate. It seems, however, that some means of association or coordination should be attained between C00per- ative Extension Service activities and the other off-campus and extension teaching activities of the institution, whether these activities be classified as university extension? continuing education, or by some other name. This statement clearly showed that Land-Grant univer- sities' responsibility to the people had only been met in part and that there was the need of reorganization of all extension activities of the university to meet the expanding needs of developing society. E. T. York, Jr.28 proposed some alternative approaches to offering this coordination. They were: 1) a merger or amalgation of cooperative and general university extension, 2) close coordination between the cooperative and general extension programs within the institution, with clearly 27The Century Ahead, Proceedings of a Seminar on Agri- cultural Administration in the Land-Grant System, June 16 to 19, 1963, Fort Collins, Colorado, (Ames: Center for Agricul- tural and Economic Development of Iowa State University, 1963), pp. 13-14. .283, T. York, Jr., "Coordinating Extension," Journal of Extension, Vol. 4, No. 2, (Summer 1966), PP. 70-73. 25 delineated responsibilities for each, 3) to have cooperative extension represent the total university in the conduct of most educational programs of an informal nature, with exten- sion (general) providing the more formal educational programs. Such general extension activities, according to York, would complement the work of the Cooperative Extension Service as it focuses upon community problems and needs. York, however, stated that in the first approach "it appears that experience with a merger or amalgation has been generally favorable"--the best experience apparently being in those states with one state university or one major uni- versity concerned with extension. On the second alternative, he said that responsibilities between cooperative and general extension could not be divided on the basis of either geo- graphic or subject matter, but may be by the form or type of educational effort carried out by the two organizations. To implement the third alternative, York stated that subject matter resources would have to be added from other parts of the university as dictated by the problems and needs of the people. In another article discussing the Cooperative Extension and Adult or Continuing Education programs of colleges, 29 Daniel Hill said that "the challenge confronting adult 29D. J. Hill, "Can Cooperative Extension and Community Colleges Work Together?" Journal of Extension, Vol. 8, No. 4, (Winter 1970), p. 25. 26 education is that of coordinating the efforts of these insti- tutions." Listing the forces that favor coordination, Malcolm Knowles30 identifies the following: 1) the overlapping of the "marketf;outreach activities that results in pressure from the consumer for better integrated services, 2) the marginality of the adult educational role that induces adult educators to seek mutual support, 3) advances in the field that cause adult educators to seek beyond their knowledge of personal growth and 4) adult educators who look to each other as natural allies in the struggle for recognition and financial support. Giving reasons that prompted many university adminis- trators of over 25 Land—Grant universities, since 1960, to combine all off-campus extension functions, Douglah and Shriver listed the following: 1. the duplication and lack of coordination in regard to structure, clientele, and programs; 2. competition between extension units for funds, status, and leadership; 3. restriction of services to specific clien- tele groups by extension divisions, resulting in the exclusion of various segments of society; 4. socio-economic problems which are not con- fined to specific clientele groups or to geographic area, and 30M. S. Knowles, The Adult Education Movement in the United States, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1962), PP. 265-68. 27 5. increased federal funds, available for adult education programs. They reported that the reorganization efforts have resulted in two organizational structures--a consolidated system and a merger. The two systems were differentiated as follows: A consolidated extension system occurred in instances when coordination of extension units was affected by organizational changes at the state administrative level. The organization was consolidated administratively; however, field Operations were not directly affected in terms of program content or scope of activities. A merged extension system resulted when all ex- tension units were restructed into a single focus, with the intent of coordinating efforts at all organizational levels. In such a merger, field personnel are responsible for organizing programs in all subject matter areas at the county level. Personnel from the appropriate campus or field-based unit assumed the actual teaching function.32 On forces that weaken coordination, Knowles33 lists the following: 1) lack of agreement on the goals of adult edu- cation; 2) feeling of rivalry caused by competition for target audiences because of overlapping programs; 3) per- ceptions of different status groupings within the field that generate feelings of inferiority, fear of domination, and other emotions that obstruct cooperation; 4) adult ¥ 31M. A. Douglah and H. A. Shriver, 9p. cit., p. 137. 32Ibid., pp. 137—138. 33Knowles, 9p. cit., pp. 265-68. 28 educators from various groups who enter their educational roles from different backgrounds, with different vocabu- laries, philosophy, and methods of approach that interfere with communication; and 5) the difficulty of constructing a coordinating organizational structure because there is no clear pattern of the field to be coordinated. According to an Extension Council Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC): Success in the field of Extension and Continuing Education requires 1) conceptualization of the need and opportunity; 2) commitment, verbal and financial; 3) leadership; 4) policy and organi- zational arrangement components that expedite the accomplishment of the overriding mission in an efficient manner.34 ‘I It is the fourth area of concern that has posed the greatest problem to extension reorganization. Commenting on such reorganization efforts, Earl Coke35 calls for "a single off-campus educational service to urbanized America." In the conclusion of their article "Whether Goests the CES?" Shannon and Schoenfeld also noted: 34"Guidelines for Developing a Comprehensive Extension IProgram in NASULGC Institutions," NUEA Spectator, Vol. XXV, ‘No. 4, (April-May 1970), p. 12. 35E. J. Coke, "The Evaluation of Agriculture in the ZLand-Grant Institutions," Proceedings of the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities, 'Vol. 11, No. LXXV (1961), p. 13. 29 The Cooperative Extension Service is, without question, a magnificent instrument for informal education for action. . . . Yet this instrument represents only a segment of the university and reaches only a segment of society. The time is seemingly at hand for agricultural extension to lend its considerable skills and resources to the fashioning of a truly university-wide, community-wide outreach enterprise. 6 Extension Mergers One of the successfully reorganized and unified off- campus extension functions classified as a "true merger" is the case of West Virginia University's Appalachian Center. The merger came about on May 1, 1963.37 Under one adminis- trative head, all off-campus functions of the university are coordinated through the county offices, whether initiated by the county staff or from the campus. A study38 to determine the impact of this merger after five years of operation was undertaken by Howard Shriver. :Based.on evidence of his study, the following conclusions were drawn: 36T. J. Shannon and C. A. Schoenfeld, "Whither Goest the CES?" Journal of Cooperative Extension, Vol. 3, No. 4, (Winter, 1965), p. 204. 37Douglah and Shriver, pp. cit., pp. 138-39, 38H. A. Shriver, "Role Perception and Job Attitudes of West Virginia County Extension Agents in a Merged Exten- sion System." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wiscon51n, 1968). See also M. Douglah and.IIo Shriver, "A Merger of Extension," pp. 923., p. 144. 30 l. The role perceptions of agents in West Virginia have changed substantially since the merger of Extension units. These changed perceptions are reflected by a) an increase in importance attributed to many clientele groups not considered within the sc0pe of responsibility prior to the merger and b) an increase in subject-matter areas consid- ered to be within agent's responsibilities. 2. The change in role perception was not ex- pressed by drastic changes in program emphasis for any agent group. All groups reflected working to some extent with new clientele groups considered appropriate since the merger. However, this work had not been as intensive or comprehensive with post—merger as with pre-merger identified clientele. 3. Home agents appeared to be more oriented to post-merger identified clientele and subject matter than county or 4-H agents. 4. Overall attitudes of agents toward Appala— chian Center was generally good when consid- ering that the change was brought about in a short period with a minimum of advanced pre- paration for personnel. However, there were some aspects of the merger that were perceived more favorably than others. 5. Agents realize the extent of role change brought about by the merger. Implications are that Extension personnel can and will accept broadened role expectations. Another example of a successfully merged Extension Service is that of the University of Wisconsin which came about.in.1965 under President Harvey Harrington. After 50 years of administrative indecision, especially by Administra- tors before him, President Harrington gained the Regent's approval to set in motion a merger of the Agricultural Exten- sion, General Extension, and Radio-TV units, which became a truly effective mechanism for university public service in Wisconsin. 31 Writing about the Wisconsin's merger, Robert Carlson stated that: Having combined Agricultural Extension, General Extension, and radio-TV, the University of Wis- consin had effectively concentrated its resources for public service outreach. Merger in Extension enabled the University to focus its public service activities more efficiently. The University of Wisconsin in 1968 was in a position to give better service to the taxpayers of Wisconsin, provide student activities interested in humanistic values with a moral equivalent for violent demonstrations, and gained increased financial support. Poten- tially, the University of Wisconsin had much to gain by Harrington's decision for merger in Extension. There are other fine examples of extension mergers. There are also other examples where there were once exten- sion mergers but internal politics and frictions of their manpower resources had caused the unified organization to be separated again. Whatever the outcome of a decision to merge or not to merge a university's outreach efforts de- pends heavily on the cooperation as well as the involvement of the manpower resources who will carry out the decision's purposes and objectives. Future Structure of University Outreach Determining the future organizational structure for outreach is a function of good management and administration. 39R- A. Carlson, "Merger in Extension, A History and Analysis of Merger at the University of Wisconsin" (Unpub- lished Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968) pp. 109-110. 32 As Fulmer stated, Planning, of which forecasting is an important part, is the most fundamental of the management functions. Planning successfully or choosing from among alternative courses of action depends on management's ability to accurately anticipate the future.40 Drawing also from the ideas of Munsterman and Masters, II,41 it is clear that in order to develop plans for the future of extension, the future must be accurately assessed and analyzed and if higher educational institutions intend to serve the public, they must adopt new methods of forecast- ing their own future in order to keep pace with a changing environment. Over a decade ago, Lowell Watts said the following about the future of the Cooperative Extension and other extension programs of the land-grant universities: It is significant that a real broadening of the extension function will, of necessity carry organizational implications throughout the entire university; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This, first of all, carries with it a require- ment that extension and the colleges of 40R. M. Fulmer, Managing Associations for the 1980's, (Washington D.C.: Foundation of the American Society of Association Executives, 1972), p. 10. 41R. E. Munsterman and R. J. Masters, II, "Alternative Futures for Continuing Education in Region IV," The Specta- tor, Journal of the National University Extensiofi—AEEBEIEEIon, VET. XXXIX, No. 22, (December 1975), pp. 22-24. 33 agriculture reorganize on universitywide patterns. It means extension directors may need to relin- quish some degree of autonomy. . . .It means that both deans and presidents must face squarely, in whatever manner is appropriate to each parti- cular institution, the matter of administrative organization. Cooperative extension of the future may be a part of a college of agriculture, it may be part of a universitywide extension function, or it may even embrace international as well as national responsibilities. One thing seems obvious: If the land-grant system fails to . develop extension functions to its fullest capa-i \(bilities, it will fail to maintain its unique place in education.42 43 said "extension Seven years later, Donald McNeil is in a revolution" and in order to plan for the future, decision makers should take "a risk and pull (their) re- sources with those of vocational technical institutes, high schools, private schools, outside industries, or arms of government to devise the best possible educational pro- grams for all the peOple." McNeil said that extension can not ignore the support and cooperation of other vested interest allies. He said, "extension needs money, support, 3 commitment, and the will to take risks." He urged extension 42L. H. Watts, "The Extension Service: An Interpre- tative Analysis of Seminar Discussions Concerning the Role of Cooperative Extension in the Land-Grant System," An address presented at the Seminar on Agricultural Administra- tion in the Land-Grant System, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 19, 1963. 43D. R. McNeil, "Extension: A Risk Taker in the Revolution," Journal of Extension, Vol. VIII, (Fall, 1970), p. 9. 34 administrators to move regardless of a neat administrative structure. "The time for change in extension is now," he said. Adding to the idea of risk taking in change, James Miller44 said, . . .should the Cooperative Extension Service provide leadership in coordination and planning, but delegate action and implementation to others, thereby avoiding criticism, complaints, or risk of failure? On the future role of Continuing Education and Cooperative Extension, Miller again said, "an impending collision has been predicted for the path taken by informal education and the current structure of formal education in the United States."45 46 In conclusion, Miller said, . . .if Cooperative Extension Service is to have the organization and be present on location where huge programs need to be transfused into local conditions, then organizational restructuring is necessary for Extension to function most effectively in today's social environment. . . It is then that Extension can resolve the traditional dialogue as to dual roles, community leadership, motivation of supervisors, faculty status, and political and social understanding, to name a few. 44J. R. Miller, "Are New Models for Location Extension Organization Needed?" Journal of Extension, Vol. XI, (Spring 1973), p. 58. 451bid., p. 58. 46Ibid., pp. 65-66. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction This study was designed to describe, classify, compare and analyze the various types of extension organizational structuring of the Land-Grant universities in the United States of America. The nature of this study, therefore, is descriptive as well as comparative.l This chapter will focus on the research setting, defin- ing the population and sample selection procedures, describ— ing the instrumentation used for the collection of the re- search data as well as the procedures for the administration of the survey instrument. University outreach (extension) organizations that participated in this study will be named and classified. Finally, the statistical procedures used in analyzing the research data and interpreting such data will be outlined. 1According to John Best, descriptive research allows the researcher to describe and interpret what exists from the data that has been gathered. J. W. Best, Research in Education, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 102. 35 36 The Research Setting Land-Grant institutions of the United States belong to the National Association of State Universities and Land- Grant Colleges (NASULGC). This association serves as a co— hesive force for a special segment of public higher education. Its 130 members (as of 1975) include the principal public (state) universities and the 71 Land—Grant colleges and universities of the fifty states of the United States of America, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia2 (see Appendix C). Certain characteristics that these institutions hold in common are: 1. A commitment to the extension of educational opportunities for the masses of American people. 2. A dedication to research as a solution to many of the world's problems. 3. A history of service to their neighbors through large extension and continuing education programs.3 The Population The population for this study consisted of the 68 land- grant institutions of the fifty states of the United States and the District of Columbia. Since this study was to 2National Association of State Universities andiLand- Grant Colleges, Fact Book, 1974. 3National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Fact Book, 1972, pp. 1—3. 37 investigate the structural patterns of extension organiza- ‘tions in the continental United States, the Land-Grant .institutions in Guam, the Virgin Islands and of Puerto Rico avere not considered part of the population.4 Two Land—Grant :institutions, Cornell University and Massachusetts Institute (pf Technology are privately controlled. Affiliated with Clornell are certain contract colleges of the State Univer— sity of New York. With the exception of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, (annnecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Ddzassachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Okla- 11rganizations for this study. The first and foremost .~_~‘___________ 4National Association of State Universities and Land- Gréllt Colleges, 1974 Facts: National Association of State Unl‘fersities and Land-Grant Colleges. 38 selection criterion was that the outreach organization to toe studied must belong to a Land-Grant institution in the IJnited States. This criterion automatically eliminated the Land-Grant universities of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands which are not in the continental United States. The second criterion was that as closely as possible the Land-Grant institutions to be randomly selected should have both a Cooperative Extension Service and a Continuing Education Service (names may vary with institutions) either as separate outreach organizations or as a combined out- reach organization. Since there are more than one land- grant institution in some states, as stated earlier, but (>111y one Cooperative Extension Service for each state, the survey sample was automatically limited to those 51 Land- C;J:ant institutions (including the District of Columbia) With a Cooperative Extension Component. On the assumption that each Land-Grant institution have both outreach compon- ents, disregarding merger cases, 102 outreach organizations We re expected. From a "List of State Cooperative Extension Service Di-‘l’:‘ectors" obtained from the Office of the Associate Direc- tor of Personnel, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, Land-Grant institutions qualifying under the second criterion were identified. Also identified were the names and addresses of the Directors of these 51 Coopera- tive Extension Service Organizations. 39 From the 1975-76 Handbook and Directorygofthe National University Extension Association, the names and addresses of Continuing Education (names may vary with each institution) Directors of the same Land-Grant institutions identified for Cooperative Extension were obtained. These two lists of names and addresses were compared for each Land-Grant institution. As part of the preliminary "elimination" exercises, names and/or addresses that were the same were considered as unified (i.e., merger, consolidated, etc.) cases and hence only one organization representing the two units was considered for such Land-Grant institution. Seventeen cases of these types were identified. The two separate outreach organizations of the 34 remaining insti- tutions were considered. I The third selection criterion was regional represen- tation to ensure equitable geographic distribution of the Land—Grant institutions to be studied. The United States was divided by the researcher into six regional groupings as closely as possible to the regional grouping of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (see Figure 1). Department of HEW regions one, two and three were combined as the Research Region I (Eastern Region). Department of HEW regions nine and ten were combined as Research Region VI with Alaska as a part of this (Western) region. Depart- ment of HEW regions seven and eight were combined (with the exception of Iowa and Missouri which were added to Research no; 0.5.me :<3<: . O . . , AS , a g Din-l. ., 3.: 2:3. . .3on . I 2.5:}: .9 £33.25 OQ 9:21 3 52-23:: 1... 32.3 33:23} . 5.2.5 2.5 I... o 4 3.23.5... .6585... X K 93.2.3 JV 1.... xi. o 5...... :...~._..3_3_c2u:._ O .33.... :.E...c:\ Skim 33.3 .3222: End un..oEII./\Ic|ll‘. # I. i Sag—SMf a _n5._:u_.a< 3:» L .323... y T33... . .. f q 22...... _cu..o< So «.2253. m a n u . all"! s... :4 2.5. ._ a 9.33;. €233»... _ \ _ 3‘35. .3. .k 32.3 .35 I :1: _ IIIIIIIJ b.2255 a... 237.1 .a g >u__u> :3 O z _ 1.. .C 2.; m 1 a x < x x < r . _ 3.: _m » Eric I)»: .. D J/ o / a .2 a .. . 4 _fiamnad 7))??3 _ o. .30 _o . _ 5 : . 3 E .1 o . “.6 /I 3.2.5 (5:8 5.: a_ yo. 60o Menz‘m I.) _ o u . n u: .. . . o 2.5 for. ovum ...c..././\ 2...: /u....3u..nn.321 3.55.:.3535; ‘ x o x < 3. 0 .fi _— / ow .o I. . ll. II I: / 9.: “3...;an 0U. Ir \II .. z u. £513 _ K 5.35 :2... _ _ u z //I\ I; \ 55.31”“, 9:295 _ tr\ 1 .o 35:... .21.: O r - $2.3 50:8 .3553a.‘ Illu‘L “1.35 92 m _a. 5:”: I r I. _ 91.1; .3... 95...... I . _ . = o a m . .. , ._ .III .I 2* . (/ tea“... r2223 n a m x < _— __ g . _ 18...... 53:... . {shim fit. . M).§...C§ n 3.5... . _ o a a x o a o u N l . to z .1: / .3252 .o 0 3.2.5 _ . 1.13: C . 3...... 2232...; \ .. a a 4 3:39 .35 7.1.3: . _ =2... . a . I. IIIIIIIIL :...:...5 . e was to 0 >3... .5 . O 22...: y“ _ 305 93.200 \ _ 5 . .9 >325: c 6...”... a x .2»... pl £.lu.t\¥* ~ / vln. av .33 :3 5.5.5 :35: J .. . z. _. : IIAIIXIII _I .3. L s 5.2:: 3:6 95 \l .21.: III 38.2 .o 5.225.: . \ . . m . . a a ._ \ so...» .5659” X . 5 f 92.5; .o rite: \ 1.2.3:: 26.5.5.3 9.» «areas: so.“ I] 9:01:53. \ Sly-foo .a tit...) \) J;r I, \ {1:32. _o . .. 8:; rIIIIl III 4IIIIP . .0 3.3.55 / O 55......» \ I, :91; .9223 . . /J 1.....ou 29¢ a. o x u n _ x l/ 572:» 33...... +5.14: 9.30 5.6m -: .iuoSo...\ x x _ m x o u m _n y 2322.: x p sew Tl], N 22.1.5223 $235.5 IIIIIII .4 3% .. o a . u u I . Ilia was .......& \ Ohm/II . 2.95..) .o .3: N 4/ 32.3 32¢ 23.83 3.3.5.5 mm_._._mmm>_ZD m._.<_.w .m wmwmjoo ._.Z::I)&:e rate to mailed questionnaires will be between 10-25 . JErlltkzent. C. A. Moser and G. Kalton, Survey Methods in Soc1al is::12%§stigation, 2nd Ed., (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972), ¥ Table 3.3. 48 List of Names of University Outreach Organiza- tions that Participated in the Study, by State, University and Type of Outreach Organization Ettate Institution Type of Organization lelabama Arizona Arkansas (Zealifornia C2<>lorado (Seeorgia IIciaho Indiana ZIcrwa Louisiana Maine Maryland Mas sachusetts Michigan Minnesota MJ-SSissippi M133 ouri M133 ouri Lmbtltzana IqeakDJSaska N . hqeiVV Hampshire 63" Jersey ¥ Auburn University U. of Arizona U. of Arkansas U. of California, Berkeley Colorado State U. U. of Georgia U. of Idaho Purdue University Iowa State U. Louisiana State U. U. of Maine U. of Maryland U. of Massachusetts Michigan State U. U. of Minnesota Mississippi State U. of Missouri of U. Lincoln U. Missouri* Montana State U. U. U. of New Hampshire Rutgers State U. of Nebraska 1) 2) l) 2) l) 2) l) 2) l) 2) 1) 2) Unified Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension University Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension (University Extention) Unified Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension Cooperative Extension University College Continuing Education Continuing Education Continuing Education and Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension Unified Extension Cooperative Extension Unified Extension Cooperative Extension Continuing Education Cooperative Extension (Coordinated Systems) 49 {Fable 3.3. Continued SState Institution Type of Organization (Dhio Ohio State U. Continuing Education C)klahoma Oklahoma State U. l) Cooperative Extension 2) Continuing Education I?ennsylvania Pennsylvania State U. Cooperative Extension IZhode Island Tennessee Tennessee Texas ‘Vflermont Washington ‘Whest Virginia U. of Rhode Island Tennessee State U. U. of Tennessee Texas A & M U. U. of Vermont Washington State U. West Virginia U. l) 2) l) 2) l) 2) Cooperative Extension University Extension Unified Extension Unified Extension Engineering Extension Agricultural Exten- sion Service Cooperative Extension Continuing University Studies Cooperative Extension Unified Extension VVisconsin U. of Wisconsin Unified Extension Whyoming U. of Wyoming Unified Extension fiiBtal Eitates = 32 Land-Grant Universi—3 Total Outreach Organi- ties = 34 zations = 44 *On ly Cooperative Extension at University but member of I“attional Association of University Extensions. 50 Procedures for Statistical Analysis Obtained data were coded, key punched and compter- jized. The researcher wrote the computer program which included : 1. Basic frequency counts and statistics which yielded means, medians, modes, standard devia- tions, standard errors, variances, ranges, .95 confidence interval for each of the question items analyzed. 2. Multivariant and univariant analysis of variance techniques which allowed for the comparisons of credit and noncredit courses over a span of‘ time, and the comparison of differentiated staff- ing over a span of time. The research analyses were carried out according to the following groupings: 1. General variable analysis of university outreach organizations; 2. Comparative analysis of Cooperative Extension organization versus Continuing Education organi— zation versus Unified Extension Organization; 3. Comparative analysis of separate extension systems versus unified systems organization; 4. Comparative analysis of university outreach organ— ization according to the variables of size, budget and regional grOupings. 51 Limitations of the Study Outreach organizations vary in size, complexity and estructure. Because of the large number of outreach organi- zzations in the population of 68 Land—Grant institutions it vwas not possible to study the organizational patterns of 5111 of these institutions. This study will, however, pre- ssent data and findings which generally will apply to most (>11treach organizations in the land-grant system. Due to the complex nature of this society and the xraried form of outreach organizations, this study did not jgntend to come out with specific structural arrangements ()1 models suitable to all outreach organizations. Such E1 task will require individual case studies of each Land- (3Iant institution in order to arrive at a suitable model :Eor that particular institution. However, general models ifor outreach organizations have been suggested. Even though the response rate (77.19 percent) to the Inailed questionnaires was high, the effect of the nonrespon- dellts information upon the data analysis and the final c0rlclusion constitutes a limitation. This is particularly SC) since the will to respond to any survey should be vol- un1::ary. According to McSweeney, ethical principles in Slllrvey research should be adhered to. She said, From the beginning of each research investiga- tion, there should be a clear and fair agree- ment betwen the investigator and the research participants. . .the investigator should 52 respect the individuals freedom to choose to participate in the research or not. A final limitation was that the biases of the resear- c:her and the respondents could have effects on the results 51nd conclusions of the study. 9M. McSweeney, Advanced Research Methods in Education, (2(3urse Handbook, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State (iniversity, 1974), p. 36. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction For the purposes of analyzing the research data, this chapter will be divided into four parts: I) the respon- dents' characteristics, 2) characteristics of the clients, 3) outreach organizational characteristics, and 4) the operational and decision-making base for separate, amal- gamated, merged or coordinated outreach organizations in the Land-Grant system of institutions. In particular the analysis will attempt to bring to light the reasons why the outreach organizations of some Land-Grant institutions are separate while others have unified and coordinating S tructural arrangements . PARTI. THE RESPONDENTS Part I of the survey instrument was designed to as- certain information about respondents' administrative and pro fessional experience, highestlacademic attainments and areas of professional specialization. Information about respondents' organizational position was sought, collectively wi‘th the other information about the respondents to give the responses added credibility and authority. Since it was likely that some of the originally designated ¥ 53 54 respondents (heads of outreach units) may delegate the authority of responding to the instrument to one of their crucial subordinates, another question item was introduced later in Part III to find the same information about the head of outreach units, if different. Organizational Position Table 4.1 shows the percentage distribution of re- spondent administrative positions by type of outreach or- ganization. About 51 percent of the respondents were Directors of outreach units (60 percent for Continuing Education; 63 percent for Cooperative Extension; and 11 percent for Unified Extension organizations). Twenty-two percent of the respondents were Deans; 7 percent were both Directors and Deans; 10 percent were Vice- and Assistant Vice-Presidents; and the remaining 10 percent held other administrative positions such as Chancellor, Associate Dean or Directors of an integral unit. The most frequent (61 percent) title reported for separate outreach systems was the Directorship, followed by the Deanship (23 percent). Titles for unified extension systems are fairly spread out. The most frequent (33 percent) title reported for this type of organization was the Vice-Presidentship. This was followed by the Deanship (22 percent) and others, such as Chancellor, etc. (22 percent). The inference here is that the more complex the organizational structure, the higher is the title of the administrative head of the extension system. 55 .cowumosom mcflscwpcoo msam coamcmuxm w>wumnmmooo much now mpcsoo n coamamuxm mumnmmwm Hmuoa« m mm me o OH mumnuo o o o o o umo>oum m mm o s OH pcmoflmmnm moa> pcmumflmmm can unwoflmwum mofl> w Ha o e n Houomufla paw ammo mm mm m mm mm ammo Hm Ha mm om Hm Houomnflo Insulinulnuulnlnnllllnnlnunluucmoumm lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll s.co..nmce..:.nm_ mumummwm GOflmcmuxm coflmcmuxm coaumosom cowmcwuxm wanes annoy weaned: m>Humummooo mcfiscflucou Hmuoa coauamom coaumNficmmHo mo mmha um mam Goauflmom m>flumnumacHEfid ma mucwocommwm mo cofludnfluumflo mmmucmonmm "mucmocommmm mo qofluflmom HmcoaumNHcmoHo .H.e magma 56 Professional Experience Administrative experiences of respondents in their present position range from 1 to 20 years. Table 4.2 shows that about 56 percent of respondents have had from 1 to 5 years of administrative experience in their present posi- tion, 44 percent have had about 6-10 years of experience, 12 percent have had about 11-15 years of experience and the rest (2.4 percent) have had about 16-20 years of experi— ence. There seems to be no significant difference in the mean years of experience of respondents in their present positions between Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education organizations, however, 100 percent of the respon- dents of unified extension systems have had 10 or less years of experience in their present extension positions with the mean at 3.22 years. Table 4.3 shows that 46 per- cent of respondents have had 10 years of service with their present outreach organization, 7.4 percent have had 11-20 years of service, 39.0 percent have had 20-30 years of service and 7.3 percent have had 31-40 years of service experience with their present organization, the mean being 15.76 years. Cooperative Extension heads have more exten— sive experience (mean = 19.38 years) than their counter- parts in Continuing Education organizations (mean = 12.00 years). Heads of unified extension systems have more exPerience (mean = 16.56 years) than their counterparts in the separate systems. Table 4.4 shows the number of years 57 mcflscflucoo msam coemcmwxm .aoaumonom m>fipmummoou mpoa How mucsou I deflmcmuxm mumummmm Hmuoet he.m mm.m hm.m mm.m nHm.m com: o o o o o om m>on¢ m o o w v.m omlma ma 0 om ma N.NH mHIHH mm mm mm ma m.mm calm mm mm mm mm H.mm mIH IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII unmoummlllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII «coemcmuxm oumummmm coamcmuxm COHumosom coflmcmpxm deflmcwuxm Hmuoe Umaqub mcflsqflucoo m>aumsmm000 Hmuoa whom» deflpfimom pcwmwum Hedge CH mucmoqommmm mo mocmflummxm mo mummw mo Hmnfisz .~.v magma 58 mgflDCHuGOU msam GOHmcwpxm w>flpmummooo nuom .:0Hpm05©m Mom mucsou n GOHmcmuxm mpmnmmwm Hmuoat Hm.ma mm.ma oo.mH mm.ma mh.ma cam: o o o o o ow m>on¢ m o 5 NH m.> ovlam mm mm mm we o.mm omlam m o 0 ma v.> ONIHH me we no mm m.m¢ oalo lullIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllpawoummII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII encamcmuxm mumummmm coamcopxm qoflumosom Goamcmnxm :ofimgmuxm Hmuoe owAMHcD mcflscfiucou m>flpmummoou Hmuoa mnmww coauwuficmmho GOHmcmuxm ucmmmnm Hanna suwz mucmocommmm mo 00H>Hmm mo mumww mo HmnEsz .m.v manna 59 .aoaumospm mcflscfiucoo msam coamcmuxm m>fiumummooo suon How mvcsou u cOflmcmuxm mpmnmmmm HMDOB« mm.m o.v hm.NH mH.¢ mm.h com: o o o o o ow ®>OQ¢ m o b o m.v owlam ma 0 mm NH m.vH omIHN ma HH om m N.NH ONIHH mm am 54 am m.mm oauo IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllucmonmm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII «coflmcmuxm mumummmm scamsmuxm coaumosom GOflmcmuxm cowmqmuxm Hmuoe UOHMHCD mcflscflucou m>flumummooo Hmuoa mummw mGOflpmNHcmmHo :oflmcwpxm Hmnuo sues udn moamfim GOfimcmuxm omumamm GH mocmfinmmxm munwocommom .v.w magma 60 of experience of respondents with other related organiza- tions. Most of the respondents have had little or no related experience with other organizations. Respcndents from Con- tinuing Education units in general have had more related experience (mean = 12.87 years) than their counterparts from Cooperative Extension (mean = 4.19 years) or unified extension units (mean = 4.0 years). The mean number of years of experience of all respondents is 7.98 years. It should be seen that since Cooperative Extension seems to be the oldest of the three types of extension organizations, their heads have more likely served longer years in their present positions. On the other hand, Con- tinuing Education and unified extension heads have gathered more relative experiences from other related organizations prior to either the establishment of their extension unit or to joining their present organizations. Education Attainment All respondents hold higher graduate degrees; 24.4 percent hold the Masters degree, 2.4 percent hold the Specialist degree and 73.2 percentholdthe Doctorate. Sixty-nine, 80 and 70 percent of Cooperative Extension, Continuing Education and unified extension systems respec- tively hold the Doctorate. On the whole heads of continu- ing education units have more academic orientation than their counterparts in the other outreach units. Table 4.5 gives the detailed educational attainments of respondents. —_1—— 6l .cowpmosom mCflDGHDGOU msam coamcwuxm 0>Humummooo muon MOM mpqsou n GOHmcmuxm mpmummmm Hmaoet vmv.m mm.m om.m mhm.m mwv.m can: we we om mm . m.mn Hmuouooo o o o o v . m 3330QO mm mm om Hm v.vm mumummz o o o o o muoaonomm IlluulnllllllnlllIIIIIIIIIllnlllucwonmm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII «coflmcmuxm . mumummmm coamcmuxm coflumocpm :Oflmcmpxm coamcwuxm Hmuoa omwmwcb mcflscflunoo m>flumummooo Hmpoe mmummo mucmocommom mo Hm>mq HMGOHumodom .m.v manna 62 Areas of Educational Specialization Table 4.6 shows that heads of extension units have areas of specialization relevant to their extension posi- tions. Fifty-six percent of Cooperative Extension heads specialized in agriculturally related fields. Some others, 25 percent of heads in this category have specialization in Administration and Higher Education. Seventy-three per- cent of heads of Continuing Education units Specialized in Adult Education and Administration and Higher Education. Other areas of specialization (19.5 percent) listed were: Industrial Education, Public Administration, Sociology, Law, Production Economics, Government, Psychology, Speech, Industrial Engineering, Accounting, Economics and Productive Physiology} Communication. It is however evident that ex- tension units are becoming more specialization minded in the employment of outreach personnel. PART II. CLIENTS' CHARACTERISTICS To determine the characteristics of the clients that university outreach organizations serve and to further de— termine the extent to which each client group is served, client groups were identified by their residence, income level and educational attainments. University outreach organizations were also identified by their organizational type, geographical (regional) grouping, organizational size measured by each university's total student population and 63 .coauwospm msflscfiucoo msam GOflmcmuxm m>wumummooo anon How muqsoo n cOquwuxm mumummwm Hopoat ma mm om o m.mH mumsuo mm N a pm m.m~ manuasoauma mm o ow ma m.ma coflumonom uad©< mm 44 mm mm s.Hm monuments “mamas goaumnumwcwaod IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllnllluuuluucooumm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII *GOflmcouxm mumnmmmm scamcmuxm coaumosom coamcmuxm coamcwuxm Hmuoa owHMfiGD mcfisaflucoo w>eumnwmooo Hmuoa :OHDMNHHmHommm mucmpaommmm mo COHpMNfiHMflowmm HMGOHumocom mo madam Hohms .m.v magma 64 finally by the budget size (in millions of dollars) of the responding outreach organizations in each land-grant system studied. Table 4.7 shows the mean percentage distribution of participants in outreach programs (other than Radio and Television) by residence and by type of organization, uni- versity student size, region and by university outreach budget. Whereas about 62 percent of the participants in Cooperative Extension programs reside in rural areas, Cooper- ative Extension services have spread their services to in- clude about 18 percent and 19 percent urban and suburban communities, respectively. Continuing Education services, on the other hand, serve some 23 percent of rural communi- ties, 33 percent urban communities and 30 percent suburban communities. Even though this study confirms the fact1 that Cooperative Extension systems serve more rural communities than Continuing Education and Continuing Education serves more urban and suburban communities than Cooperative Exten- sion organizations, it appears to be no longer true that each of these two units hold a monopoly over the type of clients they serve. There is a definite overlap of client service areas. This can be further tested by comparing similar figures for unified extension and for total extension 1E. D. Eddy, Jr., "The Land-Grant Movement." In Lgnd—Grant Fact Book,‘Centennial Edition, gpg‘cit., p. 3. 65 Mean Percentage Distribution of Participants in Outreach Programs (Other than Radio and Television) by Residence and by Type of Organization, Region, University Size and Budget Table 4.7. By Type of Organization Residence Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Total Extension Extension Education Extension Separate System System ------------------------------- Percent----—------------------------ Rural 41.44 61.56 22.60 41.67 42.71 Urban 22.42 18.25 32.80 25.67 25.29 Suburban 22.76 18.69 29.60 21.11 23.97 Other 3.63 1.50 8.33 0.00 4.81 No Idea 9.75 0.00 6.67 12.22 3.22 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 By Regional Grouping Residence East Central Midwest West Southeast Southwest ------------------------------ Percent----------------------------- Rural 44.00 24.29 63.00 25.00 50.00 48.43 Urban 19.00 22.14 23.00 29.17 23.80 27.43 Suburban 27.00 26.43 14.00 14.17 17.30 23.43 Other 8.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 8.90 0.00 No Idea 2.00 27.14 0.00 29.99 0.00 0.74 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 By Organizational Size Residence Under 20,000 20,001 to 40,000 40,001 and Over --------------------------- Percent----------------—------------ Rural 49.33 41.07 34.91 Urban 24.33 16.57 20.18 Suburban 18.67 25.64 26.73 Other 1.00 9.57 0.00 No Idea 6.67 7.14 18.18 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 By Budget (1976-77)(In Dollars) Residence Less than 4 - 7.9 8 - 11.9 Over 12 4 Million Million Million Million --------------------- Percent--------------------------------- Rural 40.94 30.56 88.33 42.00 Urban 25.63 31.11 8.33 17.00 Suburban 19.00 38.33 3.34 22.75 Other 8.13 0.00 0.00 1.58 No Idea 6.24 0.00 0.00 16.67 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 66 systems. Both have about 40 percent of their program par- ticipants from rural areas, about 25 percent from urban residence and about 22 percent from suburban residences. It is therefore obvious that unified extension systems are doing as much as separate extension systems together. Coop- erative Extension and Continuing Education services are serving the same client system or at best are complementary in their services to the same client systems. Reasons for these trends are that farming or rural populations which the Cooperative Extension service was to serve are gradu- ally reducing whereas at the same time the quest for formal or nonformal education by rural communities is on the rise; a possible reason for the infiltration of Continuing Edu- cation services into rural residential areas. Smaller universities (with total student population of less than 20,000) serve more rural communities than the bigger universities. Larger universities with student popu- lation over 40,000 tend to serve all residential populations evenly. Budgetwise, university outreach organizations with yearly extension budgets between 4 to 8 million dollars tend to serve more suburban communities than urban and rural communities in that order. Services to the client groups by other outreach units with varying budget sizes are the opposite. For reasons unknown to the researcher, extension organizations with budget size between 8 to 12 67 million dollars tend to have about 88 percent of their program participants from rural areas. On regional basis, university outreach organizations in the central and western regions tend to serve evenly all residential communities. The rest of the regions serve about 44 percent and over rural communities with the re- maining fairly distributed between the other two residen- tial groups. It is surprising, however, that 28 percent of outreach units in both the central and west have no idea about the type of residences their program partici- pants are from. The same holds true for outreach units from universities with student size over 40,000 and outreach units with annual budget size over 12 million dollars. Income Level Table 4.8 shows the mean percentage distribution of participants in outreach programs (other than radio and television) by income level and by type of organization, region, university size and by outreach yearly budget. Clients with income less than $3,000 a year participated the least in university outreach programs by all categories of classification. Cooperative Extension services provide the highest (9.25 percent) percentage of services to pro- gram participants with income level less than $3,000. Universities with outreach budgets over 12 million dollars also tend to reach out more to peOple with income below the $3,000 level. Land-Grant universities in the south 68 Table 4.8. Mean Percentage Distribution of Participants in Outreach Programs (Other than Radio and Television) by Income Level and Type of Organization, Region, University Size and Budget Type of Organization Income Level Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Separate (In Dollars) Extension Extension Education Extension System System ---------------------------- Percent--------------------------- Less than $3,000 5.20 9.25 2.73 2.67 6.10 $3,000-$6,000 11.15 12.38 6.73 17.56 9.65 $6,001-$10,000 18.27 21.69 16.33 17.44 19.10 $10,001—$15,000 24.17 21.00 29.67 23.33 25.19 $15,001-$20,000 15.81 14.44 21.20 11.00 17.71 Over $20,000 9.98 12.44 10.00 5.78 11.52 No Idea 15.42 8.30 13.34 22.22 10.73 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Organizational Size Total Student Under 20,000 20,001 to 40,000 40,001 and Over Population ------------------------- Peréent—---------——-----—-—-——- Less than 3,000 6.67 3.40 5.64 3,000-6,000 16.67 7.60 8.46 6,001—10,000 19.53 19.13 15.36 10,001-15,000 23.27 30.80 16.36 15,001—20,000 12.47 19.20 15.73 Over 20,000 6.20 12.87 11.18 No Idea 15.19 7.00 27.27 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 Budget (1976—77) In Dollars Less than 4 - 7.9 8 - 11.9 Over 12 4 Million Million Million Million ------- ¥-----------------Percent--------------------——-— Less than $3000 4.59 2.22 2.33 9.00 $3000-$6000 14.77 6.67 3.67 11.25 $6001-$10,000 20.53 14.44 14.67 18.83 $10,001—$15,000 25.65 29.89 13.33 20.50 $15,001-$20,000 9.94 33.33 3.33 14.03 Over $20,000 5.24 13.44 27.67 9.67 No Idea 15.19 0.01 35.00 16.77 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Regional Grouping Population East Central Midwest West Southeast Southwest --------------------------- Percent--—--------------—---—----- Less than 3,000 5.10 1.43 5.20 4.17 7.83 7.71 3,001-6,000 14.10 4.29 5.40 6.17 27.17 8.43 6,001-10,000 30.60 8.57 16.20 9.50 23.00 15.29 10,001-15,000 27.80 21.43 38.20 15.00 24.67 19.14 15,001-20,000 15.20 25.57 6.40 18.00 13.33 15.86 Over 20,000 7.20 12.14 3.00 13.83 4.00 18.57 No Idea 0.00 26.57 25.60 33.33 0.00 15.00 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 69 also serve quite a proportion of participants in this income bracket. All extension organizations seem to serve the middle and upper-middle income level persons than they do lower income persons. Whereas Cooperative Extension ser- vices and Unified Extension services fairly evenly serve all income levels, Continuing Education serves more middle and upper-income level persons.. Land-Grant universities with student population over 20,000 tend to serve more middle and upper-income level participants. Services to different income level clients by smaller Land-Grant universities (student population below 20,000) are faily evenly distributed. On regional basis, university outreach organizations in the East and Midwest States of the United States provide more client services to persons in the lower brackets (below $15,000) than they do for persons in the income brackets above $15,000. Bud- getwise, university outreach organizations with yearly out- reach budgets below $4 million tend to serve more (about 65 percent of program participants) persons from the lower income brackets. On the whole and by all categories of 'variables, outreach organizations seem to be more interested .in.the middle and upper-middle income level persons than they do the other income levels. The present system ignores the low income people thus Galiminating many minorities and the economically disad- ‘Lantaged from program participation. By the nature of the 70 funding base for extension, especially for Continuing Educa- tion programs (here programs are 78 percent self-supporting, see Table 4.22) extension organizations have to go where the money is. No doubt, they can get more program support (financially) from middle and upper level: income persons than they could from lower level income persons. Education Attainment About 41 percent of all participants in university outreach programs have had up to high school level of education (see Table 4.9). Of the participants in Coopera- tive Extension, Continuing Education and Unified Extension systems, about 55 percent, 24 percent and 52 percent, re- spectively, have had up to 12th grade, high school educa- tion. The majority (76 percent) of Continuing Education program participants have had higher educational attainments either at college level or above. Services by this type of organization have shown heavy orientation (41 percent) to college degree holders. About 21 and 25 percent of the participants in Cooperative Extension and Unified Ex- tension programs respectivelylnnflahad college education and beyond. There is no substantial difference in the educational attainments of clients by university size. However, smaller ILand-Grant universities (student population of under 20,000) 'tend to serve more less-educated clients than larger uni- ‘versities. The largest Land-Grant universities (over 40,000 71 Mean Percentage Distribution of Educational Attainment of Partici- Table 4.9. pants of Outreach Programs (Other than Radio and Television) by type of Organization, Region, University Size, and by Budget Type of Organization Educational Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Separate Attainment Extension Extension Education Extension System System ------------------------------- Percent--------------------------- No Formal . Education 1.39 3.25 0.27 0.11 1.81 Grades 1-8 12.20 14.44 4.40 22.56 9.58 Grades 9-12 27.63 36.13 19.60 29.00 28.13 Some College 22.00 14.81 35.00 15.44 24.61 Bachelors Degree Plus 19.28 6.38 41.00 10.56 23.29 No Idea 17.50 25.01 0.00 22.33 12.58 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Organizational Size (Total Student Population) Educational Under 20,000 20,001 to 40,000 40,001 and Over Attainment ---------------------------- Percent--------------------------- No Formal Education 3.07 0.28 0.64 Grades 1-8 21.87 7.33 5.64 Grades 9-12 32.07 28.27 20.73 Some College 21.33 27.80 15.00 Bachelors ‘ Degree Plus 15.00 23.33 22.00 No Idea 6.66 13.55 35.00 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 Budget (1976-77) (In Dollars) Educational Less than 4 - 7.9 8 - 11.9 Over 12 Attainment 4 Million Million Million Million ------------------ t--------Percent-—--—--------------------- No Formal Education 9.94 1.00 0.67 2.42 Grades 1-8 15.18 12.00 2.00 10.58 Grades 9-12 26.88 38.50 10.67 24.50 Some College 25.59 25.50 18.33 15.00 Bachelors Degree Plus 25.47 23.00 1.-7 14.17 No Idea 5.94 0.00 66.56 33.33 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Regional Grouping Educational East Central Midwest West Southeast Southwest Attainment -------------------------------- Percent-------------------------- No Formal Education 0.80 0.00 1.2 2.5 3.67 0.86 Grades 1-8 16.20 2.29 8.8 6.0 29.50 9.29 Grades 9-12 39.00 15.00 33.0 21.0 22.83 30.00 Some College 32.20 18.57 13.8 26.30 19.67 15.00 Bachelors Degree Plus 11.80 22.00 23.0 44.17 24.33 2.71 No Idea 1.50 42.14 20.2 0.03 0.00 42.16 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 72 students) and universities with large outreach budgets (over $8,000,000) more often than not do not know or have no idea about the educational levels of clients they serve. The same is true for outreach organizations in the Central and Southwest states in the continental United States. On the whole, it seems that educational attainment is a silent but a salient requirement for clients in order to benefit from university outreach programs. Programs Offered to the Public Table 4.10 shows the mean distribution of the number of programs offered to the pUblic by type of extension organi- zation for the fiscal years 1972/73 to 1974/75. Whereas most Cooperative Extension services in the past have as much as possible avoided offering credit courses to the pub- lic, the trend shows that more credit and noncredit courses are being offered by this type of organization to the public. On the other hand, Continuing Education services are seri- ously getting in the area of offering noncredit courses to their clients. In fact, as much as there is also an increase in both credit and noncredit courses offered by Continuing Education services, there seems to be a fair balance of credit and noncredit courses offered by this type of organi- zation. In the same manner, Unified Extension organizations have also shown increases in their credit and noncredit course offerings during the same period of time. The general inference here is that there is no restriction on the offering 73 of either credit or noncredit courses on any type of exten— sion organization except in the case of some institutions whose governing bodies have mandated the Cooperative Exten- sion service to offer noncredit courses only. Table 4.10. Mean Distribution of Number of Programs Offered to the Public by Type of Extension Organization for the Fiscal Years 1972/73 to 1974/75 Type of Extension Fiscal Years Organization 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 Total Extension Credit 151 228 244 Noncredit 1,562 1,816 1,917 Cooperative Extension Credit 1.0 1.2 1.6 Noncredit 2,943.0 3,102.0 3,286.0 Continuing Education Credit 359 432 450 Noncredit 317 356 375 Unified Extension Credit 83 315 360 Noncredit 1,354 2,161 2,266 Total Separate Extension Credit 174 210 219 Noncredit 1,673 1,774 1,877 PART III. ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Goals and Objectives of Outreach Organizations Several goals and objectives for a total university outreach were listed by heads of outreach organizations of the land-grant univerSities studied. Some of the goals were 74 broad, others specific. A brief summary of broad goals and objectives listed are classified as follows: Institutional Goals (As a Means to an End) 1. To plan and implement educational programs in re- sponse to identified and expressed diverse needs of the state as manifested individually or through organized groups and official agencies. To emphasize on program delivery on agriculture, Family and Youth Education, Community and Economic Development, Continuing Education for the appropri- ate vocations and general education. To provide educational programs, as well as a frame— work through which diverse university resources may be focused upon the needs of people in the community, county, area, state, and nation without regard to race, color, or national origin. To create an atmosphere that encourages feedback from the people of the state, their communities, and that encourage the use of this information by the university faculty and staff in evaluating and developing educational programs. To undertake research studies designed to generate knowledge and improve the content and efficiencies of the university's off-campus activities. 75 Client Oriented Goals (as Ends) 1. To provide continuing education programs directed to the solution or amelioration of social problems and issues which affect our ability to thrive and grow as a social system, to assiSttxaimprove their job skills and knowledge for occupational and professional improvement. To provide programs to help people with personal life problems and needs with the further develop- ment of intellectual skills and with knowledge and skills which contribute to the enrichment of the quality of life. To provide the citizens of the state with the latest research results and unbiased information so they can make decisions to accomplish the mission of making the state a satisfactory and desirable state in which to live, work, raise families and enjoy high quality of life. To improve the competencies of adult and youth to: organize and maintain productive, efficient and profitable farms; establish and maintain homes which will meet family objectives as to level of living and to use family resources wisely; organ- ize and maintain productive, efficient and profit- able nonfarm agricultural farms and finally to develop skills in leadership and citizenship. 76 The more specific goals and objectives listed by the heads of outreach organization studied are classified (some of these may slightly overlap) as follows: A. Institutional Goals (As Means to an End) 10. ll. 12. 13. To plan and implement programs To develop honest and valid needs assessments To meet responsibilities and commitments to the state To develop nontraditional programs to reach audiences not being served To provide alternatives and options to life- long learning To bring the strength of the university's resources to bear upon local and state policies To identify and respond programmatically to individual and community needs To coordinate outreach efforts of the univer— sity To promote innovative programs To increase public fiscal support for nonformal education To expand the availability of offerings to people To provide organizational maintenance Assist the university to fulfill its mission as a land-grant institution and state university B. 77 To equalize educational services with respect to geography, socioeconomic status, race, color, sex Reorganization into a more effective management and delivery system through which all off—campus To provide service to people (professions, schools, To assist people in improving their competency in the identification and solution of their To increase peoples ability to maintain and im- Assist students in fulfilling their educational To increase Clients' efficiency in agriculture To help citizens improve their social and To provide preparatory and preemployment training To provide nontraditional degree programs for adults 14. and national origin. 15. educational programs are coordinated. Client Oriented Goals (As End) 1. To develop leadership among citizens 2. To develop youth and family life 3. the disadvantaged, communities) 4. problems 5. prove their physical environments 6. goals 7. and natural resources 8. economic conditions 9. to upgrade employability 10. 11. To provide farmers with production technology 78 12. To provide citizens with public decision—making information 13. To provide consultation services and technical assistance to people. Name of Outreach Organization About 41 percent of the outreach organizations studied were officially named either Cooperative Extension or Agri— cultural Extension Services. Another 39 percent were called either Continuing Education,University Extension, Adult Edu— cation Services or the like. About 20 percent of the outreach organizations studied were however unified either as a mer- ger, consolidated or amalgamated systems. Names most often used for such unified systems were Extension Services, Ex- tension and Public Services, and Center for Extension and Continuing Education. Brief History of Extension Organizations Establishment The first extension or university outreach organization, according to this study was established in 1901. Before the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, about 19 percent of the present university outreach organizations were already 111 existence. The passage of the Smith-Lever Act added more inupetus to the establishment of more outreach organizations. TWC) years after it's passage (1916), about 51 percent of the Praisent outreach organizations were in existence. By the 79 middle of the century in 1950, about 75 percent of the pre- sent outreach organizations were in existence. Approxi- mately 7 percent of the present outreach organizations were established in the 605 and about 12 percent in the 705. About 31 percent of the present Cooperative Extension organizations were established prior to the Smith—Lever Act of 1914. By 1916, about 88 percent of‘the present Coopera— tive Extension organizations had been established. The new- est establishments of Cooperative Extension organizations in the Land—Grant system were in 1948 (6 percent) and in 1971 (6 percent). The study also showed that about 7 percent of the pre— sent Continuing Education organizations were established in 1901 and prior to the Smith—Lever Act of 1914. ,The passage of this Act had little or no effect on the immediate and further establishment of Continuing Education units. By 1916, only 20 percent of the present Continuing Education or- ganizations were in existence. By 1950, only about 57 per— cent of the present Continuing Education services had been established. Between 1958 and 1974 about 43 percent such organizations were established with the 19705 claiming about 20 percent. According to this study, the establishment of the parent organizations for the present Unified Extension units began as far back as 1906, and as recently as 1970. The iIrend however for formal coordination of the once separate ‘r—___ 80 extension systems to unified extension systems began about 1960. In the 19605 alone, 75 percent of the present unified extension systems were formally established. About 25 per- cent of this type of organization were established in the 19703. This finding clearly supports Douglah and Shriver's earlier report on the trend of extension mergers in the 1960s. This finding also indicates a likeliness that the trend will continue in the 19705 and the years ahead. How Outreach Organizations Were Established About 49 percent of the outreach units indicated that their outreach units were established as a result of State/ Federal Legislation. This reflects 94 percent of Coopera- tive Extension organizations, about 13 percent of Continu- ing Education organizations and 13 percent of Unified Exten- sion organizations. About 24 percent of the total outreach organizations indicated that their outreach units were established as a result of the action of their Board of Education/Trustees/Regents or of their governing boards. This reflects about 6 percent of Cooperative Extension organ- izations, about 33 percent of Continuing Education organi- zations and about 38 percent of Unified Extension organi- zations. About 27 percent of the total outreach organiza- tions indicated that their outreach organizations were (established as a result of university administrative action. Iflaese were classified as sole decisions made either by the President, provost or any other administrative figure in the 81 capacity of making such a decision to effect outreach organ- izational change. This reflects the establishment of 0 per- cent Cooperative Extension, 53 percent Continuing Education and 25 percent Unified Extension systems. Structural Changes About 61 percent of universityoutreach organizations indicated that they had gone through structural changes in the past 25 years. This includes 38 percent of the Coopera- tive Extension organizations studied, 67 percent of Continu- ing Education organizations and 100 percent of Unified Ex- tension organizations studied. Structural changes indicated were as follows: 1. From separate extension organizations to one uni- fied extension organization. Some 22 percent of outreach units fall into this category. Some of the outreach units in this category are Montana State University, Auburn University, University of Wyoming, West Virginia University, University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Tennessee State University and the University of Wisconsin. In 1960, the University of Georgia coordinated all it's extension functions under a Vice-President. The University of Tennessee is also coordinated at the presidential level. 2. Separate to unified but back to separate. Some examples of this type of organizational 82 restructuring are outreach organizations of Purdue University, the University of Maine, Oklahoma State University (consolidated in 1965 but separated in 1975), Texas A & M, University of New Hampshire and the University of California at Berkeley. This reflects about 15 percent of outreach units studied. Remained as one unified organization with little or no changes. An example of this is the Univer— sity of Massachusetts which had undergone slight internal organizational changes but has still remained unified. Remained as separate units with little or no changes. About 58 percent of the outreach organizations .studied indicated that their outreach organiza- tions had remained separate with only internal organizational changes, within the last 25 years. About 75 percent of Cooperative Extension organi- zations, 74 percent of Continuing Education ser— vices and 0 percent of Unified Extension services fall into this category. The Separate outreach units of Michigan State University are two of the many examples that can be cited. 83 Organizational Size as a Measure of Both On and Off Campus Student ngulation About 5 percent of outreach organizations studied be— long to Land-Grant universities with student populations less than 5,000. About 14.6 percent belong to a university with student population between 5 and 10 thousand, 19.5 percent were a part of a university with student population between 10 and 20 thousand, about 24.4 percent belong to a university with a population between 20 and 30 thousand, about 9.8 percent each to a university with a population between 30 and 40, 40 and 50 thousand, respectively; finally, about 17 percent of outreach organizations studied are part of Land-Grant universities with student population over 50,000. Staffing of Outreach Organizations The 1975-76 fiscal year may be the end of the increas- ing trend of staffing outreach organizations. Heads of the outreach units studied indicated that there would be loses of positions for both full-time and part-time workers for the fiscal year 1976-77. Table 4.11 shows the average number of working staff for outreach organizations studied for the years 1974-77. The table is subdivided into full—time and part—time working staff. Outreach organizations continue to make good use of para— professionals both as full- or part-time staff. About 65 percent of the paraprofessionals work however as part—time 84 Table 4.11. Mean Distribution of Estimated Working Staff Size of Outreach Organizations for the Years 1974-77 Working Staff 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Full-Time Staff Administrative 25 26 25 Field 129 155 149 Paraprofessionals 41 . 49 46 Others 37 52 38 Part-time Staff- Administrative 8 9 4 Field 1 2 7 Paraprofessionals 80 90 78 Others 45 47 39 employees. Over 95 percent of field staff members of outreach organizations are employed as full-time staff, although the study shows an increasing need for part-time field staff either as specialists or consultants. There is a balance of about 50/50 part-time and full-time secretarial staff, account- ants, clerical staff, etc. of outreach organizations. Rea— sons for this balanced full-time, part-time mix of these supporting staff members were not asked by the researcher because such a disclosure was not anticipated. Administrative positions continue to be more full-time position with an increasing trend in full-time positions and a decreasing trend in part-time positions. The study showed, however, that about 20 percent of outreach staff members hold joint appointments with the various academic departments within each Land-grant system. Also, about 8 percent of 85 faculty members from the academic units of the Land-Grant universities studied hold joint appointments with the out- reach organizations studied. This is a clear indication that outreach organizations do not divorce their human re- sources and operations from the main university syStem. However, an increasing demand in the utilization of faculty resources by both the academic and outreach units of the Land-Grant system of universities has been strongly indicated. .Major Departments of Outreach Organizations The number of major departments of outreach organiza- tions range from one department to 16. Land-Grant univer- sities like the Universities of Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Nebraska,Georgia, Wyoming, and Minnesota, Texas A & M, Purdue and Mississippi State universities have 13 or more major departments. The majority (46 percent) of outreach organizations have either 4, 5, or 6 major outreach depart- ments. Some of the listed major departments were: A. Unified Extension Departments 1. Social and Economic Development 2. Personal and Family Development 3. Off-Campus Credit & Continuing Education 4. Agricultural, Forestry & Community Development 5. 4-H Youth Development 6. Conferences and Institutes 7. Open University 8. Evening and Week-End 9. AEuropean and Far East Department 10. Engineering Extension 11. Center for Industrial Research & Services 12. Office of Cooperative Extension Service 13. Political Science 14. Social Welfare/Service 15. Physical Education/Health Sciences 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 86 Rural Sociology Office of Continuing Education Business and Industry Women's and Family Living Labor Education Human Development Communication Government and Community Development Natural and Environmental Resource Agri—Business Office of Public Service and Research Pharmacy Architecture and Fine Arts Aging Projects Broadcast Service School Services Public Administration B. Cooperative Extension \OmQOAU'IDBWNH . WNNNNNNNNNNHHHHI—‘l—‘l—‘Hl—‘H OkDmflONmAWNHOLOmfl¢U15bWNHO O I H O I O C I O .- O I O o .0 O .0 O 31. Agricultural Economics Agricultural Engineering Agronomy Entomology Forestry Agriculture Education Plant Pathology Horticulture Animal Science and Veterinary Science Biochemistry 4—H Youth Education Home Economics Area Resource Development Business and Industrial Science Education Natural Resources Agricultural Communication Food and Nutrition Food Science and Technology Human Development Poultry and Wild Life Sciences Textiles, Clothing and Design Housing and Equipment Institutional Management Music Recreation Soil Conservation Landscape Farm Management Rural Development Fiscal and Management Affairs 87 C. Continuing Education Department KOmdmm-thI-J O 35. Evening Class Program University Extension Conferences and Institutes Community Services/Development Special Interest Courses (Special Classes) Correspondence Information Insurance Marketing Institute Supervisory Development Institute Radio and Television Courses/Audio Visuals Instructional Services Communication Services Management Services Resource Center Independent Study Extramural Teaching Law Enforcement Fireman Training Civil Defense Professional Services English Language and Orientation Governmental Services Adult DayTime Degree Noncredit Programs Academic Programs Vocational Education Music Animal Science Engineering Industrial Science Occupational & Professional Development Rural Sociology International Extension Highway Traffic Safety Continuing Legal Education Public Policy D. Engineering Extension Departments2 1. 2. 3. ONU1J> Building Codes Inspection Construction Equipment Electric Power Utilities Electronics Fire Protection Loss Control 2Some universities like Texas A & M have three principle outreach programs 1) Agricultural Extension, 2) Engineering Extension, and 3) the Office of Continuing Education. 88 7. Public Works 8. Telecommunications 9. Oil and Hazardous Material Control 10. Law Enforcement and Security 11. Supervisory Development 12. Vocational Industrial Teacher Education 13. Water and Waste Water 14. Apprentice Coordination It can be seen from the numerous departments listed by each type of extension organization that there is no clear cut area of functioning across the board for any type of extension organization. In other words, one function or department of the Cooperative Extension Service in one Land- Grant university may be the function of a Continuing Educa- tion Service in another Land-Grant university. The function of extension units has become broader and limitless, accord— ing to this study. Extension units have taken on areas of functioning hitherto specified for other disciplines. This clearly shows the possiblity of duplication of services and resources in a university. Structural Organization According to this study, 29 percent of university out- reach organizations have centralized administrative functions with respect to the general university administration; 32 percent have decentralized administrative functions; 34 per- cent in one way or another, have both centralized and decen- tralized functions with some 5 percent in functional transi— tion. The University of Massachusetts indicated that they had been decentralized but their outreach organizations were 89 quickly becoming centralized. Due to the multicomplex campus approach to the university system, the University of California has become decentralized from their original centralized outreach administration. Table 4.12 shows the breakdown of university outreach organizational structuring. Table 4.12. Breakdown of Type of Structure by Type of Outreach Organization Structure Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Extension Extension Education Extension System Percent Centralized 29 25 53 0 Decentralized 32 31 20 62 Both 34 44 20 38 Others 5 0 7 0‘ Unified outreach organizations are more decentralized than any type of outreach organization; Continuing Education service organizations are more centralized than decentralized and Cooperative Extension service organizations oscillate between centralized and decentralized forms of outreach administration. Table 4.13 shows the percentage distribution of the location of outreach units within the total organizational structure of Land-Grant universities. Most Cooperative Extension organizations (63 percent) are located within an academic unit. More often than not, this academic unit 90 Table 4.13. Percentage Distribution of the Location of Outreach Units Within the Total Organization Structure of Land-Grant Universities Location of Unit Total Coop. Cont. Unified Ext. Ext. Educ. Ext. Syst. ------------- Percent-------—-—~—--- Under a Dean Within an Academic Unit 27 63 0 13 Under a Vice-President Office in the Central Administration 39 25 60 38 Others (Specified) 34 13 40 50 happens to be the College of Agriculture and Natural Re- sources. Continuing ducation organizations, as a practice, are not located within an academic unit. They are more often located under a Vice-President/Chancellor's office within the central university administration of the Land-Grant universities. Approximately 38 percent and 25 percent of unified extension organizations and Cooperative Extension organizations, respectively, are also under a Vice-President or Chancellor. All types of extension organizations studied also have some other substantial form of administrative arrangements. Examples of some of these are as follows: 1) outreach organizations at Louisiana State University are placed under the President's office; 2) outreach organizations at Texas A & M are under the President's office but they report through Deans; 3) outreach organizations at the Uni- versity of Massachusetts are under a Provost's office; 91 4) similar units at Auburn University, the University of Rhode Island and Oklahoma State, in each case, are both under a Dean within an academic unit for parts of their functions and under a Vice-President's office within their university's administration for the remaining part of their functions. Finally, located under a Chancellor's office are such out- reach organizations as those of the University of Nebraska, California and Wisconsin (at Wisconsin, the Chancellorship is equivalent to a President of a campus unit of a multi- campus university). Table 4.14. The Percentage Distribution of University Officers to whom Heads of Outreach Organiza— tions are Responsible (Reporting To) University Officers Total Coop. Cont. ,Unified Ext. Ext. Educ. ;'Ext. Syst. ------------- Percent—------4------- President 22 13 7 63 Vice-President/ Chancellor 44 44 67 13 Provost/Assistant Provost 10 6 20 0 Dean 15 31 0 12 Others (Specified) 9 6 7 12 Table 4.14 shows the percentage distribution of univer- sity officers to whom Heads of outreach organizations report. Similar to the foregoing discussion on the location of out— reach units, Heads of outreach organizations report to 92 certain university officials as identified. Approximately 13 percent, 7 percent and 63 percent, respectively, of Cooperative Extension, Continuing Education and Unified Extension Systems report directly to the President of their respective university. About 44 percent, 67 percent and 13 percent in that order of the same outreach organizations report directly to a Vice—President or a Chancellor of a multicampus system. Thirty—one percent of Cooperative Extension, 0 percent of Continuing Education and 12 percent of unified extension organizations report directly to a Dean (but not through such a Dean) in an academic unit. A small proportion of Continuing Education organizations studied (3 or 20 percent) such as those of Purdue, Univer- sity of Massachusetts and Michigan State University and approximately 6 percent of Cooperative Extension organiza— tions report to a Provost. Other heads are responsible to or report to two different university officials with split functional responsibilities. Examples of such arrangements are: l) at Tennessee State, heads report to both the Vice- President for Academic Affairs and to the President; 2) at the University of California at Berkeley, the head reports to a Dean (who in turn reports to a Chancellor) and to a Vice-President; 3) at Pennsylvania State University, the Cooperative Extension Director reports to both the Provost and to the Administrator of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Extension Service; 4) at the University 93 of Wisconsin each head of a campus outreach unit reports to a system President through that system's Provost and 5) at the University of Georgia, the head reports to a Dean and also to a Vice-President for University Services. Table 4.15 shows the extent of the usage of variouS' administrative titlesiknrthe heads of university outreach organizations by the type of outreach organization and by the size of the university to which the outreach organiza— tions belong. By organizational type, both the Cooperative Extension and the Continuing Services most frequently (56 percent and 60 percent, respectively) use the title of Director for their outreach heads. Unified Extension Systems most frequently use the title of Vice-President for their outreach heads. The next most frequent title used by all types of outreach organizations for their heads is the Dean, very few use the title of both Dean and Director. Another title seldomly used was that of Chancellor as in the case of the outreach heads of the University of Wisconsin. At the University of California, Berkeley, the head of a campus outreach unit carries the title of Dean whereas the head of the outreach unit at the statewide level carried the title of Vice-President. Taking another look at this, according to the size of the Land-Grant institution, it was found that the title of Directorship was most frequently used (53 percent and 64 percent, respectively) by land-grant universities with 94 Table 4.15. Administrative Titles of the Head of Outreach Organizations in Land-Grant Institutions Titles By Type of Organization Total Coop. Cont. Unified Ext. Ext. Educ. Ext. Syst. ---------------- Percent----------------- Director 43.9 56 60 0 Dean 22.0 19 27 25 Dean and Director 12.2 25 0 13 Vice President 9.8 0 7 38 Others 12.2 0 7 25 By Organizational Size (Total Student Population) Under 20,000 20,001 to 40,000 40,000 and Over ---------------- Percent---------------- Director 53 64 9 Dean 27 21 18 Dean and Director 7 14 18 Vice-President 7 0 27 Others 7 0 27 student population size under 20,000 and between 20,001 to 40,000. The next most frequently used title for outreach heads was the Dean. On the contrary, unified outreach units of land-grant universities of size over 40,000 more often than not use the title Vice-President or Chancellor for the heads of their outreach units. was Dean. The next title often used 95 Initiation of New Programs And Program Development It has been often said3 that programs to aid clients in the past were sometimes not grounded in the needs of the clients outreach organizations serve. Programs were some- times said to reflect the views and needs of organizations and administrators who found and administer such programs. Sometimes, program operators decide who they must please to stay in business. This study has shown some tremendous improvements on this speculation. Even though 49 percent of outreach organizations indicated that they do not have any client input in their program development, about 46 percent of outreach organizations indicated that on the average clients initiate new program development. Table 4.16 shows the percentage distribution of the indicated extent to which certain specified groups initiate new out- reach programs. On clients input, Continuing Education services enter- tain more clients' participation in program development than its counterparts. Administrative staff initiation of new programs is higher with unified extension systems than in Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education services (in that order). However, unified extension services make more use of built-in mechanisms such as programs evaluation, 3See J. E. Gordon, "What Shapes Poverty Programs: Preconceptions Play Crucial Role and May Outweight Client Needs,"' anpower, April 1971, pp. 3-8. 96 Table 4.16. The Percentage Distribution of the Indicated Extent to which Specified Groups Associated with Outreach Organizations Initiate New Pro- gram Development or Future Changes Type of Initiator Not at Avg. Greatly Organization All Total Clients 49 46 5 Extension Field Staff 32 49 19 Admin. Staff 37 61 2 Built in Mechanism 17 57 29 Others 5 10 85 Continuing Clients 40 60 0 Education Field Staff 27 33 40 Admin. Staff 53 47 0 Built in Mechanism 27 47 27 Others 7 13 80 Cooperative Clients 63 38 0 Extension Field Staff 38 63 0 Admin. Staff 31 69 0 Built in - Mechanism 13 50 38 Others 6 31 63 Unified Clients 38 50 13 Extension Field Staff 25 63 13 Admin. Staff 13 88 0 Built in Mechanism 0 88 13 Others 13 25 63 testing, monitoring clients' interest and lack of parti- cipation in programs, when determining new program develop- ment than any of its counterparts did. With the exception of Continuing Education services, the extent to which the field staff of outreach organizations initiate new program development is lower than that of administrative staff members. The opposite would have been expected since the 97 field staff of outreach organizations are supposed to be nearer to their clients (where the action is), hence should have a better knowledge of the needs and interests of the clients they serve with respect to new program development. One thing stands out clearly, however. This study has shown that the traditional role of handing down administra- tively initiated instructions and decisions from top pro- gram administrators with little or no input from the staff‘ they work with and the clients they serve seems to be dying out. At the University of Georgia, for example the initia- tion of new program development is a responsibility of all professionals in the university, from the top central administration to the faculty to the Continuing Education staff. A variety of approaches are used, including organ- ized and systematic studies of need, regular and continuing interface with clientele groups, a posture of responsive— ness to the initiatives of clientele groups, and the like. Use of Citizens Advisory Councils/Committees The use of citizens Advisory Councils and/or Committees by outreach organizations as in Table 4.17 was shown to be high. Eighty—eight, 40 and 100 percent of Cooperative Ex- tension, Continuing Education and unified extension organi- zations respectively have one or more citizens advisory committee(s) or council(s) to aid them in their outreach decision-making. Outreach organizations of Land-Grant universities in the East, Central, Midwest and Southwest 98 Table 4.17. Use of Citizens' Advisory Councils and/or Committees in Outreach Program Planning and Decision-Making By Type of Organization Makes Use of Total Coop. Cont. Unified Advisory Bodies Ext. Ext. Educ. Ext. Syst. ---------------- Percent Yes 71 88 ‘ 40 100 No 29 13 60 0 By Regional Grouping Makes Use of East Central Mid- West South- South— Advisory Bodies west east west Perpcnt Yes 90 86 80 33 50 71 N0 10 14 20 67 50 29 By Organizational Size (Total Student Population) Makes Use of Under 20,001 to _ 40,000 Advisory Bodies 20,000 40,000 . and Over -------------- Percent-—-------------- Yes 73 64 82 No 27 36 18 Budget (1976-77) (In Dollars) Makes Use of Less than 4 - 7.9 8 — 11.9 Over 12 Advisory Bodies 4 Million Million Million Million Percent-----------—--—-- Yes 63 67 100 50 No 38 33 0 50 99 states of America make use of more Citizens' advisory coun- cils/committees than their counterparts in the West and Southeast. There was no substantial theoretical difference and meaning in the use of Citizens' advisory councils con- sidering university sizes and annual outreach budget allo— cations, however, it seemed as if larger universities (40,000 and over student population), and universities with budget size between 8—12 million dollars did use more Citizens' advisory councils/committes than their counter— parts. Many different kinds and forms of advisory councils/ committees were named by outreach organizations who make use of these committees/councils. These range from very broad to specific task—oriented councils. Some of the listed advisory councils/committees (states in parenthesis) are: 1. Visiting Extension Committees (West Virginia) 2. State Extension Advisory Councils (Oklahoma, Iowa State, Arkansas, Montana State, Missouri, Wyoming, Nebraska) 3. Councils for Home Economic Education (Arkansas, New Jersey, Indiana, Nebraska) 4. 4-H Review and Expansion Committees (Washington State, New Jersey, Montana State, Nebraska, Arkansas) 5. Cooperative Extension Council (Missouri) 6. Family Living/Homemakers (Washington State, Montana State) 7. Program planning and Advisory Committees (Okla— homa State, Massachusetts, Ohio State, Pennsylvania State, Missouri, Mississippi State, Maryland, Nebraska, Texas A & M) 100 8. Board of Agriculture or Agriculture Consulting Councils--State and County Levels (New Jersey) 9. Rural Area/Community Resource Development Ad- visory Councils (Montana State, Arkansas) 10. County Extension Board or Advisory Councils (Purdue, Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Louisiana State, Maine, Texas, Wyoming) 11. Extension Classes Student Board (Minnesota) 12. Standing Advisory and Planning Councils (Minnesota) 13. Engineering Advisory Committee, CINAS Advisory Committee (Iowa State) Other outreach organizations of some Land—Grant uni- versities such as the University of Georgia do not have continuing citizens advisory councils, either overall or around specialized interests; rather, they create and develop citizen input for designing board programs as well as specific courses and conferences. These committees/ councils go out of existence at the completion of their charge and are reactivated with different personnel when the needs arise. Functions of Advisory Committees Apart from being just advisory, some advisory councils or committees perform other duties such as provide financial support, serve as part—time staff, approve professional personnel recruitment and placement, secure and administer local funds, help identify Clients' needs, help develop ,programs, and the evaluation of programs. Other listed func- tions were budget development, liaison with faculty, guide, 101 assist and recommend policy, provide legal guidance, assist professional staff in developing annual plans, help to in— crease public relations, help establish program objectives, interpret clientele needs and to provide liaison with other private and public agencies on extension work. Outreach Budgets Budget allocations for outreach has increased over the three-year period (1974—77) studied. Many outreach organizations who were in lower outreach budget brackets have moved up into higher budget brackets. As the number of outreach organizations or the percentage distribution of organizations in the lower budget brackets keep falling from the years 1974 to 1977, the number of outreach organi- zations or their percentage distributions keep rising for the same period of time. In 1974 only seven outreach organizations enjoy budgets larger than 12 million dollars. For the 1976/77 fiscal year, thirteen organizations have budgets over 12 million dollars. Whereas unified extension systems studied had no budget growth for the years studied, the Cooperative Exten— sion and the Continuing Education services have had tre— mendous budget growths. The Cooperative Extension service in particular has shown the most substantial budget growth. Whereas in 1974,51 percent of Cooperative Extension services have budgets between 8 and 12 million dollars, by 1976 only 19 percent of these were in the same budget brackets. 102 Table 4.18. Distribution of Total Outreach Organizations by Budget Size for the Years 1974-77 Budget (In Dollars) 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 # % # % # % Less than 4 million 21 48 20 46 18 42 4 - 7.9 Million 9 20 7 l7 9 22 8 - 11.9 Million 6 15 5 12 3 7 Over 12 Million 7 17 ll 25 13 <29 Instead the percentage increased from 6 percent in 1974 to 31 percent in 1976 for the budget brackets over 12 million dollars. Most (86 percent) Continuing Education organiza- tions have annual outreach budgets below 8 million dollars. This compares to 50 percent and 51 percent of Cooperative Extension and unified extension systems respectively. Sources of Funds Table 4.19 shows the sources of funding for the various types of outreach organizations. Cooperative Extension ser- vices rank highest in funding from federal, state and local sources. Unified Extension systems follow closely. Con- tinuing Education systems show that 71 percent of their funds come from tuition and fees collected form self-supported programs, 12 percent from university appropriations and about 17 percent funding from federal and state sources. On the whole, all types of outreach organizations are funded in part by all sources of funding indicated in Table 4.19. Table 4.19. 103 Percentage Distribution of Sources of Funds by Types of Outreach Organizations Sources of Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Funds Extension Extention Education Extension Percent---——------------- Federal 28 43 8 36 State 23 34 9 32 Local 10 20 0.3 12 University Appropriations 6 4 12 2 Tuition and Fees 32 3 71 17 Others 1 2 0.5 2 Table 4.20. The Percentage Distribution of the Utilization of Outreach Salary Budget by Type of Outreach Organization Personnel Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Extension Extension Education Extension System Percent—-—------------- Admin. Staff 17 11 28 10 Field Staff 27 46 6 31 Academic Faculty 20 18 34 30 Paraprofessional 8 10 5 8 Others 22 13 10 104 Fund Utilization Approximately 17 percent of outreach salary budget is expended on professional administrative salaries, 27 percent on field-staff salaries, 26 percent on academic faculty salaries, 8 percent on paraprofessionals and some 22 percent on supporting-staff salaries. Cooperative Ex— tension services expend more of their salary budget on field-staff since they have more field staff than admin- istrative staff. Continuing Education services spend more of theirsalary budget on part-time academic faculty who teach their outreach courses than they do on administra- tive and field staffs, in that order. Table 4.20 shows the breakdown of salary budget distribution as discussed. As indicated in Table 4.21 about 74 percent of total outreach budgets are expended on salaries, and 18 percent on equipment, supplies and services. The remaining out- reach budgets are expended on other items such as travel and other incidental expenses. Generally the C00perative Extension service spends the greatest portion (81 percent) of their outreach budget on salaries and the least (16 per- cent) on equipment and supplies. The size of a university has little or no significant difference on how outreach budgets are expended. On the whole 35 percent of outreach programs are self- supporting and 58 percent are funded by other sources. Continuing Education programs are heavily self-supporting (78 percent). Cooperative Extension are mainly (91 percent) 105 Table 4.21. Expenditure of Yearly Outreach Budget Type of Organization Expended on Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Extension Extension Education Extension System ------------------- Percent Salaries 74 81 70 77 Equipment and , Supplies 18 16 21 18 Others 5 4 6 5 By Organizational Size (Total Sutdent Population) Expended on Under 20,000 to 40,001 20,000 40,000 and Over --------------- Percent Salaries 79 70 78 Equipment and Supplies 17 21 19 Others 5 7 3 funded from other sources. As would be expected, some of the programs of unified outreach units are funded but others are self-supporting. To be precise, about 67 percent of unified extension programs are funded. Table 4.22 shows the detailed percentage distribution of source of support of programs. Closely in line with the preceding discussion, the operational capabilities of outreach organizations heavily hinge upon their sources of funding and how much they are funded. Apart from funds received as tuition fees, etc. 106 Table 4.22. Nature of Support (Financial) for Outreach Programs Nature of Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Support Extension Extension Education Extension System Self-Supporting 35 3 78 22 Funded 58 91 22 67 from program participants and the regular federal, state and local fundings, most or all of the other sources of funding come from outside governmental or private agencies such as foundations, etc. Stating the degree to which out- reach organizations operate on special funds from outside sources, 80 percent of Continuing Education services, 56 percent of Cooperative Extension services and 38 percent of unified extension services said less than 25 percent of their funds came from outside sources. About 50 percent of unified extension units indicated that over 75 percent of their special funds came from outside sources. Table 4.23 shows the details. On the whole, most extension organizations do not depend on foundations and special grants in order to operate. This is more so (82 percent) with larger universities with student population over 40,000. Some 47 percent of smaller universities studied said that less than 25 percent of their special funds came from foundations, grants, etc. Also 107 Table 4.23. The Degree to which Extension Organizations Operate from Special Outside Funds Degree Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Extension Extension Education Extension System Percent -------------------- Less than 25% 63 56 80 38 25-50% 7 0 20 0 51-75% 7 l3 0 13 Over 75% 22 31 0 50 another 47 percent of such universities said they received over 75 percent of special funding from outside sources. Control of Outreach Funds Table 4.24 shows the breakdown of who seems to control how outreach budgets are used by outreach administrators. Outreach budgets are not quite controlled by their funding bodies, instead, there seems to be a blend or cross and check situation between outreach organizations and their funding organizations as to what the funds provided are used for. Cooperative Extension organizations (44 percent) seem to enjoy a great deal of freedom from interferance on how their funds are used. Some 38 percent of such organi- zations, however, consult with their funding agencies before funds are expended. Whereas some 33 percent of Continuing Education services enjoy the freedom of the use of their funds, some 33 percent of such organizations had to check their proposal for spending with their university 108 o e o m peso oesmpmoa + GOHpmnumficfifiod muHmHo>HGD me 0 mm we aommuuno + aoeumuumeaespa muemnm>flcb + Hmuooom\oumum mm n ma NH nomoupno + HmuoUGM\oumum 0 mm a me nommuuao + muemum>eao me o o N aommnnso + oesmpmoa mm 0 ma 0H 3mg Hmuoomm\mumum mm mm we hm peas nomouuso o o o o “as: oeewomom e on O OH scanneumecespa muemu0>eao IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInulucoouom IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Emummm coemcouxm coaumosom consouxm soflmsmuxm enemas: mcascwecoo o>ewwnodoou Hopoe Ho3om macaw noemenao no Meson meeaeoeucoo man no coensneeumeo was .e~.e menus 109 administration. A further 20 percent of such organizations operation their funds with total control from their univer- sity's administration. Approximately 54 percent and 22 percent, respectively, of outreach organizations are under either strong or very strong pressure (political, bureaucratic, legislative, etc.) from outside their university systems on how their outreach funds are expended. This was true for all types of outreach organizations (see Table 4.25). This was also true for all sizes of Land-Grant universities. Similar to the strength of outside pressure on fund utilization, the majority of all types of outreach organ- izations said they were always under some strong internal pressure on how their funds were expended. Table 4.26 shows the details of such internal pressures on the expenditure of outreach funds. PART IV. OPERATIONALI‘AND DECISION-MAKING BASE FOR THE CHOICE OF TYPES OF OUTREACH ORGANIZATIONS Of the 44 outreach organizations studied, 18 or 40.91 percent were C00perative Extension organizations, 17 or 38.64 percent were Continuing Education organizations and 9 or 20.46 percent had unified extension systems. In one or two cases, there was not a very clear separation between Continuing Education and Cooperative Extension. For example, at the University of Minnesota, all extension (except Agri- cultural Extension), is under the charge of the Dean of 110 Table 4.25. The Percentage Distribution of Outreach Organ- ization by the Strength of Outside Pressure on Funds Utilization By Type of Organization Outside Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Pressure Extension Extension Education Extension System Percent----—------- ------- No Pressure 2 0 0 0 Occasional 22 31 7 25 Strong 54 63 40 75 Very Strong 22 6 53 0 By Organizational Size (Total Student Population) Outside Under 20,000 20,001 to 40,001 Pressure 40,000 And Over --------------- Percent - No Pressure 0 0 0 Occasional 20 21 27 Strong 60 50 55 Very Strong 20 29 18 Continuing Education and Extension. Agricultural Extension therefore becomes a separate extension organization. In such a case, Agricultural Extension organization was classi- ifield with Cooperative Extension organizations. Separate Outreach Units Approximately 31 percent and 47 percent of Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education services, respectively said their outreach organizations were autonomous and de- centralized with no cooperation between their units and other 111 Table 4.26. Percentage Distribution of Outreach Organiza~ tions by Indicated Internal Pressures on Fund Utilization Strength of Total Cooperative Continuing Unified Pressure Extension Extension Education Extension System Percent ------------------- No Pressure 5 0 7 0 Occasional 12 19 13 0 Strong 66 50 73 88 Very Strong 17 31 7 13 By Organizational Size (Total Student Population) Strength of Under 20,000 20,001 to 40,000 Pressure 40,000 And Over Percent------—-—---------- No Pressure 0 7 0 Occasional 20 14 0 Strong 53 64 91 Very Strong 27 14 9 outreach units. About 56 percent and 46 percent, respec— tively, of the same outreach organizations, however, claimed there was some healthy cooperation between their outreach units and other outreach units even though they were auto- nomous and decentralized. Examples are the extension units of the University of Georgia, Washington State and Michigan State University. Other units were consolidated administratively (e.g., Auburn1 University and University of Maryland), decentralized top administration but the same field offices and staff 112 (e.g., Texas A & M University) and highly centralized administration but decentralized field services (e.g., University of California). About 69 percent and 67 percent of Cooperative Exten- sion and Continuing Education services said they always exchange ideas with other units; 13 percent of each hardly did exchange professional ideas with other units, while 6 percent and 7 percent of Cooperative Extension and Contin- uing Education outreach units, respectively, said they never exchanged ideas with other outreach units. Some areas of cooperation and/or cooperative activities listed by separate outreach organizations were as follows: 1. Joint meetings and conferences between staff; 2. Summer and Winter Extension School/programs; 3. Joint representations on education and extension councils; 4. Joint planning committees for collaborative projects; 5. Quarterly outreach administrative meetings; 6. Field communications on credit and noncredit courses to be offered by general extension and by c00perative extension; 7. Joint administrative appointments to two outreach organizations; 8. Joint publications and circulation of program schedule; 113 9. Participation of staff members of one outreach organization in programs of other outreach organ- izations; 10. Joint field appointments; 11. Exchange use of specialists; 12. Office sharing; 13. Joint evaluation projects; 14. Joint funding; 15. Tourism and Recreation Programs; 16. Close organizational (including personnel) relations; 17. Joint training/staff development programs. Where the above activities are carried on, the rationale has been to avoid duplication of services, reduce cost and increase their efficiency in carrying out their mission. Outreach organizations often team—up with community groups for community development or community problem solv- ing. Some of such groups identified by the outreach organ- ization studied were: 1. Consumers Council 2. Chamber of Commerce 3. Tourism Council 4. United Way Agencies 5. City, County, Local Government agencies 6. County and Regional Planning and Development Commission 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 114 Civic Groups Law Enforcement/Judicial Systems Real Estate Nursing Home Community College Community Development Committees Trade Associations Professional Associations Community Group Training Vocational/Technical/Public Schools Health Organizations USDA Parents Teachers Associations School Board/State Department of Education Adult Education Association/Agencies) Churches Services Clubs/Youth Service Bureaus Urban Design Centers State Department of Transportation State Economic/Reserve Commission Homemakers Council Commodity Groups Farm Organizations Soil Conservation Services Municipal League. 115 Major Factors for Kegping University Outreach Organizations Sgparate Top university administrative decision-makers consider certain factors critical in their decision(s) to keep their university's outreach organizations separate. Some of the collective factors (may vary from university to university) which the heads of the outreach organizations studied numerated as their reasons why outreach units were kept separate were: 1. Differences in the pattern and sources of income or funding; Fiscal inconsistencies of the two programs; lack of financial base; Cooperative Extension considers itself an arm of government; Continuing Education is an arm of the university; Possible legal problems of fund utilization if funds are co-mingled; Internal political ramifications-power struggles; dean, staff of units oppose to unified extension because of the fear of losing ground; Differences of missions; Lack of public support for Continuing Education; Prestige factors; Historical and traditional--different growth patterns, allegiance and sentimentality; 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 116 Informal versus formal nature of Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education services; The bureaucratic systems of Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education have been established, or entrenched and hence only partially alterable; No additional funds for a merger situation; Differences in the needs of participants served; Differences in the areas of emphasis; Differences in clientele; Public service versus academic approach to education; The lack of full understanding of the Land-Grant philosophy by university central administration officials; Personal interests and ambitions; Economical Knowledge base differential; Cumbersome administration of a complex unified extension system; Relative size of Cooperative Extension service has been too large to merge; would swallow other programs of other outreach organization; Differences in program development; Differences in goals and philosophy; No top administrative support; Outreach has no high priority; Cooperative Extension much stronger than Continuing Education; 29. 30. 117 University not ready to commit support for Contin- uing Education. Differences in organization. The justification or nonjustification of these reasons given may be assessed in each Land-Grant university's situ— ation. Advantages of Separate Outreach Organizations Certain advantages listed by heads of outreach units for keeping outreach units separate were: 1. 2. 11. Freedom to explore nontraditional programs; More creative response to and greater concentration on Clients' needs; Wider range of delivery systems; More course alternatives for clientele; Less chances of draining resources from cooperative extension; Flexibility in funding and services; Allows for specialization of administration and staff Distinction between formal and informal education; Clearer definition of target groups; Federal restrictions and legal requirements of Cooperative Extension service do not affect Con- tinuing Education; Avoids university red tape with respect to regis- tration, the payment of fees and overload teaching; 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 118 Avoids distortion of unique missions of the dif- ferent types of outreach organizations; Smaller programs not dwarfed by larger programs; Allows closer relationship with unique client groups; Retains organizational identity; Avoids confusion of mission; Simplifies support and confusion of support; Allows for more effective communication; More group spirit, sense of pride in smaller organizations; Keeps public image of separate units. Disadvantages of Separate Outreach Systems The disadvantages listed by heads of outreach units for seaparate outreach organizations in a Land—Grant uni- versity were: 1. 2. Statewide system of outreach not fully utilized; Problems in reporting total outreach efforts of the university; Less efficient use of public (outreach) dollars; Some duplication (or overlap) of efforts and support services; Difficulties in mounting a unified thrust in a priority area; There is not a full utilization of human resources to serve the state and its people (e.g., less use 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 18. 19. 119 of university talent); Clientele of one unit finds it difficult to have access to expertise in Department (of other outreach unit) not associated with their own out- reach unit; Separate outreach programs result in additional administrative costs, generally, its more expen- sive to operate two units; Difficulty of (or lack of full) coordination at all levels; Lack of improvement of long-run mission of total outreach; Lack of human relations between outreach units; Indifference among staff of different outreach units; Competitionbetweenoutreach units to deliver services; Disagreement or conflict between outreach units over the extent of each unit's empires; Lack of strength from unity; Lower visibility of extension/public service pro- grams; Lack of full commitment for outreach activities; no man's land game; Difficult to administer outreach because of sep- arate policy/procedure variations; 120 20. Loss of common interest; 21. Lack of communication with and thus support of one outreach staff for the other outreach staff; 22. Universitywide resources not available for Cooper- ative Extension's use; 23. Lack of financial support for Continuing Education; 24. Lack of full coordinated thrust for off-campus education programs . Unified Outreach Units Fifty percent of the unified outreach units studied had restructured all their extension units into a single focus of the type of a merger with the intent of coordina- ting all efforts at all outreach organizational levels. About 38 percent of the unified extension units were con- solidated with a unified top administration (usually at the Vice-President or Chancellor level) but separate field services. Approximately 13 percent of unified outreach organizations studied had separate top administration with unified field services and offices. There was no other cases. Formal coordination (merger, consolidation, amalgama- tion, etc.) of outreach units into a single focus began about 1960, according to this study. The latest record of coordination of a university's outreach units was in 1975. During this relative short time of their existence, unified extension units have been able to assess their performance 121 and operation vis-a-vis their own performance and opera- tions when they were separate units. Whereas none of the unified outreach organizations studied said they had accomplished great efficiences, (better performance and operations) 63 percent said they had accomplished some efficiencies, 13 percent said there had been no differences in efficiencies and another 13 percent said that they accom- plished fewer efficiencies. Approximately 38 percent of the unified outreach units studied had made some savings as a result of their merger situation, 50 percent said there was no difference in their financial position and some 13 percent said they had made less savings. None of the unified units studied indicated that they have greatly improved services to their clients, however, 63 percent said they have had some improved services to their clients; 25 percent said there was no difference in the improvements of their services to their clients as a result of their unified situation, and 13 percent said they have had less services to their clients as a result of unifying their out- reach organization. About 63 percent of the unified out- reach organizations studied had total coordination of all outreach areas. The remainder have partially coordinated their outreach activities. 122 Major Factors for Unifying Universipy Outreach Organizations Here again, top university administrative decision makers considered certain critical factors in their deci- sions to unify or not to unify their university's extension units. When asked what some of these factors were, the heads of unified outreach units listed the following rea- sons: Unified Extension provides for efficiency of oper- ation and administration; Unified Extension provides a vehicle for extending more university resources to the people they serve in a better coordinated manner; Unified extension provides a mechanism for respond- ing to the broad range of felt problems of the people they serve; Unified extension combines the best methods and philosophies of both Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education; Unified systems provide for administrative unity as well as institutional unity; Unification provides for some cost savings through coordination; Unification provides for centralized reporting of outreach progress to university's president; Unified outreach provides for the development of natural outreach organization structure; 123 9. Program interests of separate outreach units were converging, overlaping and becoming competitive hence there was the need for a unified system; 10. Successful unification of outreach units of other institutions and the desire for more outreach made top university administrative decision-makers unify the particular univerSity's outreach units. How Total Coordination was Achieved Coordination or the unification of unified outreach units studied showed that decisions to unify outreach units varied. In some cases, board policy and accompanying admin- istrative support; strong and positive leadership at the extension helm; maintained practice of open communicationfiv provision of joint staff development and training helped the new unified outreach organization to assume new responsi- bilities. In other cases, intensive internal outreach organ- izational studies, establishment of priorities and the develop- ment of organizational and personal committments to total outreach and finally an announcement by the president caused the unification of the separate outreach units. Yet in other cases, a straight presidential decree and continuing efforts therefore caused the unification of separate outreach units. Finally, in very few cases, one of the heads of the outreach units of a university, who was found to be outspoken on the issue, too powerful, and too radical to hurt, was made a 124 Vice-President and the outreach units were consolidated under him. Funding of Unified Outreach Units Unified outreach units are funded collectively from federal, state and local appropriations as well as from tuition, fees” and university appropriations. Other sources of funding were stated as 80 percent - 90 percent from Smith-Lever Act, grants and contracts such as Title I - Higher Education Act, Title V — Rural Development Funds and self generated income. Of particular interest was that even though Cooperative Extension, Continuing Education and other outreach units had been unified, spending could still be specified for each division's programs. Advantages of Unified Systems The advantages listed by heads of unified outreach units were as follows: 1. A single university outreach representation in each county; 2. Greater utilization of academic personnel in off-campus programs; 3. Some quality control system for on and off campus programs; 4. Greater exposure of resident faculty to the people of the state; 125 5. Increased interaction between outreach and resi- dent faculty; 6. Improved quality and wider range of programs; assurance of more efficient programs; 7. Clearer structuring of programs related to con- stituent needs; 8. Increased capability of university to respond effectively to identified problems; 9. Reduced administrative cost; 10. Better centralized reporting system to president; 11. Greater ability to respond to needs across aca- demic disciplines; 12. Better delivery systems to all sections of the state for all schools and colleges; 13. Different segments of university develop fewer conflicts; 14. Reduction of duplicated outreach functions; 15. Stronger public relations 16. More flexibility in budgeting; l7. Easier administration of outreach policy; 18. Reaches new audiences; 19. Administrative unity; 20. Institutional unityi? 126 Disadvantages of Unified Outreach Systems The disadvantages listed by heads of unified outreach units were as follows: 1. Greater time lag in the development and implemen- tation of new program thrusts; 2. Greater breadth of interests: as total outreach staff meets, one unit has primarily a service orientation, another has academic orientation; 3. Coordination iteself is troublesome administra- tively; 4. As unified outreach unit gains in size and admini- strative strength, campus departmens tend to View it as an "outsider." Close ties need to be main- tained to campus resources; 5. Goals and objectives become broader to accommo- date all sectors of the outreach function; 6. Alienation of traditional audiences, support base groups become fearful of loss of identity with university community; 7. More complex organizational structure required. Forecasting the Future Outreach Organizational Structure Forecasting the future structure of university outreach by heads of outreach units was not an easy task. For the separate outreach units of a university, 39 percent of such units studied said their outreach units may remain separate 127 with some cooperation between outreach units. Universities in this category are the University of Maine, Colorado State, Michigan State, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University and Louisiana State University. With some coor— dinated areas but separate outreach units will be Purdue and Ohio State (in dollar budgeting) and Rutgers University. About 10 percent of the separate outreach units studied said their structure will remain separate but there will be increasing cooperation approaching a matrix structure with coordination taking place at either the president or the vice-president level. Examples of universities in this category are the Universities of Georgia and Tennessee. To be centralized under a vice-president (consolidated top administration) are 16 percent of the separate outreach units such as the Universities of Idaho, Arizona, Vermont, and Mississippi. Oklahoma State University will still have separate outreach administrative units but will cooperatively move towards having the same or unified field offices and services. Washington State may be considering amalgamation of her outreach units. In the distant future, the univer- sity of Idaho may be consolidated. The extension activities of the University of California, Berkeley, will be further decentralized to schools and departments of the university. About 19 percent of the separate outreach units studied said they cannot predict the future organizational structures of their university's outreach units. 128 Future of Unified Units About 89 percent of the unified outreach units studied said their structure would remain the same. Where the structure can be described as a consolidated unit, there will be more efficient cooperation between their subunits. In merger cases, there will be more "complete" merger of existing units at the state and field levels. About 13 per- cent of the unified outreach organizations studied could not predict the future organizational structure of their out- reach units. Received copies of the present organizational charts of some of the outreach organizations studied appear in Appendix B. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This study was designed to describe, classify, compare and analyze the various types of extension organizational structuring of the land—grant universities in the United States of America. From the population of 68 Land-Grant institutions of the 50 states of the United States of America and the District of Columbia, 57 university out- reach organizations were selected randomly for the study. Mailed questionnaires were sent to heads of each of the outreach organizations selected for the study. The return rate of 77.19 percent represents returns from 44 university outreach organizations drawn from 34 Land-Grant universities and also from 32 states. The Respondents About 51 percent of the heads of the units who parti- cipated in this study were officially called Directors, 22 percent were Deans, 7 percent carried two titles-—Director and Dean; and the remaining 20 percent were either Vice- President, Assistant Vice-Presidents or Chancellors. The years of administrative experience of the respondents ranged from 1 to 20 years. About 56 percent of the 129 130 respondents have served their organization less than 5 years, 44 percent have served between 6-10 years; 12 percent have had about 11-15 years of service and 2.4 percent have served between 16-20 years. There seems to be no significant dif- ference in the mean years of experience between Cooperative Extension and Continuing Education organizations, however, 100 percent of the respondents of unified outreach organi— zations have had 10 or less years of experience in their present organizational position. This may be due to the relative newness of unified outreach organizations. Con- sidering other related experiences, Cooperative Extension heads have more extensive experience (mean = 19.38 years) than their counterparts in Continuing Education (mean = 12 years). Heads of unified extension systems have more ex- perience (mean = 16.56 years) than their counterparts in the separate extension systems (mean = 15.81 years). Generally, sincethe Cooperative Extension service seems to be the oldest of the three types of extension or— ganizations, heads of Cooperative Extension services have more likely served longer years in their present positions. On the other hand, Continuing Education and unified exten- sion heads have gathered more relative experiences from other related organizations prior to either the establish- ment of their extension units or to joining their present organizations. Heads of Extension units have very high educational attainments. About 73.2 percent hold the Doctorate degree, 131 2.4 percent hold the Specialist degree and the remaining 24.4 percent hold the Masters degree. Fields of their educational specialization however varied. Even though most of the heads have major areas of qualifications that relate to the positions they hold, others have unrelated major qualifications with regards to the positions they hold. Clients' Characteristics Approximately 62 percent of the participants in cooperative extension programs reside in rural areas, 18 percent reside in urban communities and 19 percent reside in suburban communities. Continuing Education services, on the other hand, have 23 percent of their program parti- cipants from rural areas, 33 percent from urban communities and 30 percent from suburban communities. Whereas Coopera- tive Extension serve more rural communities than Continuing Education organizations, Continuing Education serves more urban and suburban communities than Cooperative Extension organizations. However, each of these two services have spread their services into all other communities. It seems as if it is no longer true that each of these two outreach organizations hold a monopoly over the types of clients they serve. The services of these separate outreach units are likely to overlap somehow. Unified extension organi- zations have been found to be covering as much area and client population as the separate units put together. The major reasons for these trends are that farming or rural 132 populations which the Cooperative Extension service was to serve are gradually reducing whereas, at the same time, the quest for formal or nonformal education by rural communities is on the rise. These are possible reasons for the infil- tration of Continuing Education services into rural areas and also Cooperative Extension services into urban and suburban areas seeking clients to serve. Smaller universities serve more rural communities than the bigger universities. Universities with larger budgets also tend to serve more rural communities. On regional bases, as a whole, university outreach organizations evenly serve all residential groupings of clients. Clients with income less than $3,000 a year parti— cipated the least in outreach programs. The Cooperative Extension service provided the highest percentage of ser- vice to program participants from low income communities, so did universities with annual outreach budgets over 12 million dollars. Outreach organizations in the South also served more low-income participants than their counterparts elsewhere. Larger universities (student population over 20,000) tend to serve more middle and upper-income level of participants than they do all other income groups. Most participants (76 percent) in outreach programs have had more than high school education. Continuing Education serves the least participants (24 percent) who have not completed their high school education. Fifty-five per- cent of the clients of Cooperative Extension and 52 percent 133 of the clients of unified extension services have had up to the 12th grade of education. Outreach organizations have shown some heavy orientation to providing programs for their educated communities than they do for their less educated communities. However, outreach organizations of smaller universities serve more less educated communities than those of the larger universities. All types of outreach organizations are now offering both credit and noncredit courses except in the case of very few organizations which by mandate must either offer 1 credit or noncredit courses only. The Continuing Education services do offer as many credit courses as they do non- credit courses. Unified extension organizations have also shown increases in their credit and noncredit offerings. The offering of either credit or noncredit courses by any one type of outreach organization is no longer the sole monopoly of that type of outreach organization. Generally, outreach organizations are committed to the extension of educational opportunities for the masses of American people. The reference to the masses of American people, even though that includes everybody, indicates that the thrust should be to the sections of those masses--the poor or economically disadvantaged, the geographically dis- advantaged and the educationally handicapped-—for which otherwise educational opportunities and offerings would not have been possible. Outreach organizations should turn 134 their attention now to the service of nontraditional and the "lost student" population due to various disadvantages. This may be almost improbable for outreach organizations especially the continuing education services since their existence depends on self-supporting income. It is time for the legislature to recognize that their failure to fully fund or increase their funding to all types of outreach organizations results in the exclusion of minor- ities and the poor and the disadvantaged1 from the partici- pation in outreach programs. Organizational Characteristics Several goals and objectives for a total university outreach organization were cited by the heads of outreach units studied. These varied goals cited indicated the com- plexity of the field and the lack of a common comparative base for outreach organizations. A possible reason, as this study found, for these many varied goals and objectives is that outreach organizations had to respond to so many varied mandates and pressures from their program sponsors as well as from their university administration. These outside and inside pressures are such that outreach organi- zations cannot ignore. ‘ 1According to the Manpower Report of the President (March 1970, p. 60), a poor person who does not have a suit— able employment and who meets the criteria established for his income in relation to the size and location of his family-— is said to be disadvantaged. 135 In summary, the main goal of outreach is public ser- vice. This can be made a reality with the improvement of educational programs in response to identified and expressed needs and problems of clients in such a way that the clients become better adjusted to life, socially, economically, physically and mentally. In doing this, the general life of the citizens of the state is improved and people, with the availability of new research information, become more self directing. The role a university plays in making this a reality is by extending the university's resources to all corners of the state they serve. This is the needed improve- ment in delivery services to clients. Of the extension organizations studied, one of the first established units was formed in 1901. Before the passage of the Smith—Lever Act of 1914, there were about 19 percent of the present extension organizations already in existence. However, the passage of this act added more impetus to the establishment of more outreach units espe- cially the Cooperative Extension units. The establishment of unified units began about 1960. In the 1960s alone, about 75 percent of such units were established. Most of the Cooperative Extension organizations studied (75 percent) were established as a result of state/federal legislation. About 33 percent and 38 percent of Continuing Education and unified extension units respectively, were established as a result of their governing board's action. 136 Approximately 53 percent of Continuing Education units, 25 percent of unified units and 0 percent of Cooperative Exten- sion units were established as a result of a university administrative action, namely, decision by their presidents or similar authorities. About 61 percent of university outreach organizations have undergone structural changes during the past 25 years. Twenty-two percent of outreach structures have changed from separate extension units to unified extension units. About 5 percent of the outreach units studied have changed their structure from separate to unified and back to separate outreach units. Ten percent of the outreach units studied had changed structures from unified to separate extension units. However, 58 percent of the outreach organizations studied had not undergone any major structural changes but for minor internal organizational structuring within their respective separate units. Outreach organizations continue to make good use of paraprofessionals both as full or part-time staff. Over 95 percent of the field staff members of outreach organiza- tions are full-time staff members, however, there is an increasing need for specialists and consultants who can be employed as part-time field staff. Outreach administra- tive positions continue to be more full-time than part-time. This study showed that 20 percent of these administrators hold joint appointments with various academic units of their 137 parent university. About 8 percent of the academic faculty members also hold joint appointment with outreach organiza- tions. Even though those are clear indications that out— reach organizations, to some extent, do not divorce their resources and operations from the main university system, there is however, an increasing demand in the utilization of faculty and staff resources by both the academic and thecmtreachunits of the land-grant universities. The numbers and names of major departments of outreach organizations vary. Some organizations (outreach) have as many as 16 departments and others have as few as one depart- ment. Studying the names and functions of each outreach organization, it is obvious that one department that passes under the departmental organization of the Cooperative Ex- tension in one university passes under the department of Continuing Education in another university. In fact, there are instances where the Continuing Education and the Coop— erative Extension services of the same university have the same departments by name and function. Clear examples of these are the departments of Community or Rural Development, Communication Services, Supervisory/Institutional Development, Management Services, Music (justification of the inclusion of this department in outreach departmental organization was not given), etc. Obviously, there is no clear-cut area of functioning across the board for any type of outreach organ— izations. Functions of extension units have become broader 138 and limitless, according to this study. As it stands, extension units carry on any function(s) that promise(s) the availability of funds and of client participation. By the nature of their funding sources, extension organizations cannot help but go in the direction whereby their units can be kept alive. Unified outreach organizations are more decentralized (with respect to the general university administration) than any type of outreach organization; Continuing Education ser- vice organizations are more centralized than decentralized. Cooperative Extension service organizations oscillate be- tween centralized and decentralized forms of outreach admin- istration. Most Cooperative Extension services (63 percent) are located within academic units of their parent university. Continuing Education organizations are mostly located under a Vice-President/Chancellor within the university's central administrative system. Other outreach organizations such as the unified extension systems often are placed directly under the President of the University and to him they do report. Reporting systems of outreach organizations vary. Most C00perative Extension and Continuing Education services report to a Vice-President/Chancellor either directly or through a dean if the unit is in an academic department. An small proportion of Continuing Education units studied re- port to the provost. Other heads report to two different officials, usually one in an academic unit and the other in the university's central administration. 139 Most heads of Cooperative Extension (56 percent) and of Continuing Education services (60 percent) use the title of Director. Unified extension heads frequently use the title of Vice-President. Some outreach heads, however, use the title of Dean, both Dean and Director, and Chancellor for their outreach heads. The initiation and development of new programs is fast becoming the responsibility of everybody associated with outreach programs; from the top administration to the clients who participate in the programs. If this trend continues, the probabilities are that programs will more effectively reflect the needs of clients than they used to in the past. Clients and the field staff of outreach units will be expected to do most of their program initiation, planning and development in the future if this trend continues. The use of citizens advisory councils and/or committees by outreach organizations was shown to be high. These committees/councils were to aid outreach organizations in their decision-making. Many different kinds of advisory councils/committees were named. The functions of these were found to go beyond the traditional advisory role. Some of their functions include program planning, consultations, financial support, serve as part-time staff, approve profes- sional recruitment and selection, administer funds, etc. Budget allocations for outreach have increased over the three-year period (1974-77) studied. Most outreach 140 organizations who were in the lower outreach budget brackets have moved up into higher budget brackets. Whereas unified extension systems studied have had no budget growth for the years studied, the Cooperative Extension, in particular, and the Continuing Education services have had tremendous budget growths. Continuing Education services have the smallest budgets compared to other types of outreach organi- zations. Most (86 percent) Continuing Education organizations have annual outreach budgets below 8 million dollars. This compares to about 50 percent and 51 percent of Cooperative Extension and unified extension systems, respectively, who have budgets below 8 million dollars. Cooperative Extension services rank highest in funding from federal, state and local sources. Unified extension systems follow closely. Approximatley 71 percent of the funds of Continuing Education services come from tuition and fees collected from self-supported programs; 12 percent from university appropriations and 17 percent from governmental sources. Approximately 17 percent of outreach salary budget is expended on professional administrative salaries, 27 percent on field—staff salaries, 26 percent on academic faculty salaries, 8 percent on paraprofessionals and some 22 percent on supporting staff salaries. Cooperative Exten- sion services spend the greater part (46 percent) of their salary budget on their field staff, whereas Continuing Education services spend the greater portion of their salary 141 budget (34 percent) on part-time academic faculty. About 74 percent of total outreach budgets are expended on salaries, 18 percent on equipment, supplies and services, and the remaining outreach budgets are expended on other things such as travel and other incidental expenses. The Cooperative Extension services spend the greatest portion (81 percent) of their outreach budget on salaries'and the least on equip- ment and supplies. Almost 35 percent of outreach programs are self-suppor- ting with about 58 percent of the programs funded. Continu- ing Education programs are 78 percent self-supporting. Cooperative Extension programs are 91 percent funded. Uni- fied extension programs are 67 percent funded and 22 percent self-supporting. Other sources of funding for all extension organizations are from foundations, grants, contracts, gifts, etc. Extension organizations therefore do not depend on special grants from foundations, etc., in order to function. Outreach budgets are not controlled to any great extent by their funding organizations, instead, there seems to be a blend of control between funding bodies, outreach organi- zations and their university's central administration, as to what funds provided are to be used for. The only excep- tion to this type of control are 44 percent of Cooperative Extension organizations and 33 percent of Continuing Education services which enjoy total freedom from control as to how their outreach budgets are to be expended. Approximately 142 54 percent and 22 percent, respectively, of outreach organi- zations are under either a strong or very strong pressures outside the university system on how their outreach funds are expended. Similarly, the majority of all outreach organizations studied said they were under some strong internal pressure on how their funds were expended. Control of funding and spending shall continue so long as the tax- payers' dollars are involved in funding outreach. However, this can be minimized if the public develops a high degree of trust and faith in outreach administrators on how their tax dollars are being used. This situation can be possible if outreach administrators become also accountable to the clients and the public they serve. Operational and Decision-Making Base for the Choice of Types of Outreach Organizations Of the 44 outreach organizations studied, about 41 percent were Cooperative Extension organizations, 39 percent were Continuing Education organizations and 20 percent were unified extension organizations. With autonomous and de- centralized administrative structure were 31 percent and 47 percent of the Cooperative Extension and the Continuing Education services, respectively, studied. There was no functional cooperation between these units and other out- reach organizations of their respective universities. The remaining separate outreach organizations claim that there was some healthy cooperation between their outreach units 143 even though their units were autonomous and decentralized. Some separate outreach units were consolidated administra- tively and usually at the vice-president's level. Their functions and outreach administration were however separate and decentralized. Others were decentralized administra- tively but have the same field offices. Even though their outreach units were separate, 69 percent and 67 percent, respectively, of Cooperative Exten- sion and Continuing Education services said they always exchanged ideas and carried on cooperative activities with other outreach organizations of their universities and team up with community groups for community problem solving. Several areas of cooperation and/or cooperative activities listed included joint staff meetings, conferences, planning sessions, publications, appointments, evaluation projects, funding and staff training. Others are office sharing, joint staff representation on councils, exchange of special- ists, etc. Several reasons were listed as some of the major and critical factors top administrative decision-makers con- sidered for keeping their outreach units separate. These include funding base differentials and the legal problems involved in fund utilization, internal politics--power struggles and fear of losing identity if units were unified, historical and traditional growth patterns, sentimentality and allegiance to the old order, and the lack of full under- standing of the land-grant philos0phy. Others are interests 144 and ambitions and many numerous cited reasons which may apply to particular universities. The justification or nonjustification of these reasons given may be assessed in each Land-Grant university's situation. AdVantages and Disadvantages for separate Outreach Structures Several advantages and disadvantages were given for having separate outreach units for a university and for the purposes of public service. Some of the advantages and dis- advantages cited may or may not be advantages or disadvan- tages considering the total picture of outreach. On the other hand, a study of particular cases may justify why an advantage is really an advantage. For example, one of the reasons given for keeping one university's outreach unit separate was that "it costs less." It becomes very difficult to justify this without a further study of why this is so. Numerous reasons given for advantages and disadvantages can fall into this same problematic classification. It is therefore the responsibility of outreach administrators and top university decision-makers of each outreach unit to study carefully all these factors as they relate to their particu- lar university and to determine which is the best direction to go in order to maximize their efficiencies in serving the public. 145 Unified Outreach Units Fifty percent of the unified outreach units studied had restructured all their extension units into a single focus of the type of a merger with the intent of coordina- ting all efforts at all outreach organizational levels. About 38 percent were consolidated with a unified top administration but separate field services. The remaining have unified field services with separate top administration. Formal and conscious coordination of outreach units began about 1960. The latest coordination of outreach units, according to this study was in 1975. During their short period of existence, 63 percent of unified outreach organi- zations have testified that they had accomplished some efficiencies. The remaining unified units had seen no (or lesser degree of) change. Approximately 38 percent had made some savings as a result of their unified situation; 50 percent said there was no change but 13 percent said they had made less savings. About 63 percent of the unified outreach organizations studied said they had some improved services to their clients, 25 percent said that there was no difference in their services to their clients but 13 percent said they have had less services to their clients as a result of their merger situation. Reasons why unified outreach organization can make less savings (if the organi- zation had not undertaken any more functions), or have less services to their clients or accomplished less efficiencies 146 as a result of a merger or unified situation was not directly asked by the researcher. However, the study of the advan- tages and/or disadvantages of the unification of those particular universities’outreach units show the presence of political and power struggles, less staff disagreements on certain moves, lack of proper groundwork towards merger, etc. within those universities. In these cases, unlike the other cases, the declaration of a merger situation had often been a one man decision or a unilateral decree with little or no input in the decision-making process by either the staff or the administration of those outreach units involved. Several factors were listed as the critical reasons for keeping a university's= outreach units unified. Among the reasons given were those of: more efficient services to clients; better extension of university's resources to the people; better response to broad range of felt problems; combining the best methods and philosophies of separate outreach units; cost savings; administrative unity; duplica- tion or the overlapping of services; etc. Asked how the coordination or unification of their outreach units came about, heads of unified outreach units mentioned the following: board action and administrative support, strong leadership, open communication, joint staff meetings, conferences, train- ing, intensive case study of internal outreach organization, the establishment of priorities with respect to Clients' needs and interests and other similar but varied moves and 147 activities. Where these (or some of these) were not done, a straight presidential decree brought about coordination of the separate outreach units. Unified outreach units are funded collectively from federal, state and local appropriations as well as from tuition, fees and university appropriations. Other sources of funding came from grants and contracts from foundations, Title 1 - HEA, Title V - Rural Development Funds and other self-generated income. Just as in the case of separate outreach organizations, several advantages and disadvantages were given for keeping outreach units unified. Here again, top university deci- sion-makers must have considered very carefully the ad- vantages and disadvantages of unifying their university's outreach organizations. Where the new structure has been successful, it is assumed that the move toward restructuring was well done with the groundwork for a unified system very well laid. Where the move had not been very successful, top administrative decision-makers ought to take another close look at their particular case, consider the advantages and disadvantages, the problems of unification and determine the best future outreach organizational structure for their outreach units. In doing this, it is important that the mission and philOSOphy of outreach should be supreme to other factors in their consideration of the choice of their future outreach structure. 148 Not very many heads of outreach units could forecast the future organizational structure of their outreach unit.2 About 38 percent of the separate outreach units studied will maintain their present organizational structure with little or no cooperation between their units and other outreach units. About 10 percent of the separate outreach units studied said their units will remain separate but there will be increasing cooperation between their units and other outreach units. Sixteen percent of the separate outreach units studied will be consolidated under a vice-president in a centralized type of outreach administration. Others will still maintain separate top administration but will move cooperatively towards having the same or unified field services and offices. About 89 percent of the unified outreach units studied said their structure would remain the same. Where the structure can be described as consolidated units, there will be more efficient cooperation between their subunits. In merger cases, there will be more "complete" merger of the existing units at the state and field levels. The findings of the study tend to uphold the assumption that all types of outreach organizations have many character- istics in common. Each represent a major two-way communication 2Received copies of the present organizational charts of some of the outreach organizations studied appear in Appendix B. 149 linkage between their universities and the public segment they serve. All types of outreach organizations are faced with many similar problems, concerns, and opportunities in administering their off-campus programs. They have the same basic mission, namely, lifelong education of the people; and the same basic goa1--public service. In cases where universities have separate outreach units, the study also upholds the assumptions that these separate outreach services; 1. provide services to great variety of clientele groups with many of these services common to both, 'yet with a portion of the population to be served, not reached (no man's land principle) by either of the services; 2. exhibit a strong need for some coordinated or cooperative inservice activities as their univer- sities thrust for better services for their publics; 3. exhibit a strong need for internal organizational restructuring to maximize their effectiveness and to minimize the duplication of efforts, costs, etc. Finally, outreach organization has not followed a definite structural pattern from which outreach decision- makers can pattern their own outreach organization(s). Instead, the structural pattern of outreach today has become "do it your own way" affair. However, the following 150 major grouping of outreach units for a particular land- grant university can be made: 1. Decentralized and under a Dean within an academic unit 2. Centralized and under a Vice-President's office in the central administration 3. A mixture of (l) and (2) 4. Centralized and coordinated (unified) unit in the form of mergers under a president, vice- president or a chancellor 5. Decentralized but coordinated (unified) outreach units in the form of consolidation or amalgama— tion either at the top administrative level or at the field level. The following models for extension structuring are suggested for study and adoption where appropriate (see Figures 2, 3 and 4). Recommendations for Further Research This study was basically an exploration of the field of extension for the purposes of providing extension admin- istrators and decision makers with an overview of the struc— tural patterns of extension organization. The study was also intended to provide researchers with a background for further research in the field. Since it was beyond the scope of this study to explore further the various dimensions 151 .Hoooz Hummus .m ounmflm mofluflawnflmcommom mmmum mowuflaflnflmcommwm mafia IIIIIII mumflameoodm mmH¢\mmmum oHon _ e Aam>mq HMGOHmom Ho poenpmflmo Apamflmo HOmH>HomDm 1. AmqucD 20amcmuxm Hoaeo A. coaumosom mcflssflpgou pawn \\ teem \ a \— A l' ‘- ‘ \.\' III! .III III ‘ ‘1 IIII. III .9 I ‘ weeds oeaoomom mHOHMCHUHOOU pom momma soamcopxm m>flpmuomoou comm lemmum soapmenmeeespa met peel coemcouxm mo omom pompflmmnm tumom l'hlll II-IIIII III— 152 .HmUOE Ho>oa wwwwm UHme Amvuflcb coamcmpxm Homeo w>flpmuumeceatm doe um touthHOmcoo .m enumem moHEHHHQHmcommom mmmum moauHHHQHmQOQmwm mafia III: mmmpm Uflmflm sofipmosom mcHDQHpqoo mmmem UHme_ seamsoexm 0>Hpmuodooo Ummm .mvmmm Ummm 71‘ ‘1, |\ ‘\I 1| 1); ‘1 l|u\.l I\t\lHHWU mpHcD Deadwood Ammmum GOHEMMEmMCHEU< we: came Houmcatuooo tam mqmon QOflmcmpxm mo Comm Unmom 153 .amp02 Hm>me tamed up popepeeomcoo .e apnoea moflueaflnamcommmm mmmum moaneawnflmsommom ween IIIII mmmem paoem stuo tam mumHHMHommm .mpcmmm _ L _ _ Aam>oq uoauumao Ho HMQOHmom use Atmom HOV Homfl>ummdm paoflm [I t .I’ I AmVUHGD coamcouxm Hmnuo soapmosom maesceucou coeucmuxm o>aumummooo mafia: oafiotmom ommm comm comm mnoumcHtHObm tam manna H .................... 3L ................... 3L ........ H HOHHmocm30\ucopflmonmnooa>\GMoo HOHHmUGM£U\u:prmmHmlooH> HHGD oefioomo< .cmoo I, \ I.‘ III‘ I, 1‘ I \ ‘I BzmaHmmmm \ . .deom 154 (variables) of extension structuring, it is appropriate at this point to recommend to future researchers some pro- blematic areas in the field of extension, either locally, statewide or nationwide, which researchers may like to explore further. Researchers may want to: 1. Examine the extension organization and struc- turing of a particular university considering how the variables of size, budget, staffing, funding, etc. affect that university's goal attainment efforts. 2. Examine the structure of the extension unit(s) of a particular university with particular interest in why and how the extension unit(s) was (were) structured that way. 3. Examine extension program planning and the extent to which Citizens Advisory Groups as well as program participants have impact (if any on program decision making. 4. Evaluate a university's outreach efforts (de- livery services) vis-a-vis the goals and objec- tives of that university's extension organiza- tion(s). 5. Find out how best universities (outreach organi— zations) will change from being "middle class institutions" to "lower class institutions" with respect to the income level of participants they serve. 155 6. Examine and find out the best methods of getting the poor and disadvantaged to participate better in outreach programs considering the factors that keep them from program participation. 7. Examine other factors such as legislation, governmental policy, etc., that affect univer- sity outreach organization and functioning. 8. Examine the combination of any of the above. It is hoped that further exploration of these pro- blematic areas which impede the successful functioning of extension will increase the knowledge (of the field) needed for the development of effective strategies to solving these problems. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bannon, Joseph J. Outreach: Extending Community_Service in Urban Areas. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1973. Best, John W. Research in Education. New Jersey: Pren- tice Hall, Inc., 1959. Blau, Peter M. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. . "The University as a Distinctive Organization," Institutional Backgrounds of Adult Education, Dyna- mics of Change In the Modern University. Edited by R. J. Ingham. Boston: CSLEA, Boston University, 1966. Boland, Walter R.) "Size, External Relations, and the Distribution of Power: A Study of Colleges and Universities." Comparative Organizations. Edited by Wolf V. Heydebrand. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1973. Borg, Walter. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: David McKay Co., 1973. Brown, Douglas J. The Liberal University. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Burns, Tom and Stalker, G. M. The Management of Innova- tion. London: Tavistock Institute, 1961. Carey, James T. Forms and Forces in University Adult Education. Boston: CSLEA, Boston University, 1963. Carlson, Robert A. "Merger in Extension, A History and Analysis of Merger at the University of Wisconsin." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968. Coke, Earl J. "The Evaluation of Agriculture in the Land- Grant Institutions." Proceedings of the AmeriCan AssociatiOn“of'LandeGrant'Colleges and State Univer- sities, LXXV (November, 1961), 13. 156 157 Cowley, W. H.. "Professors, Presidents and Trustees." AGB Reports, IX (February, 1967), 14-15. Day, Harry. "University Public Service: Which Public? Which Service?" Adult Leadership, 24, (November,. 1975), 91-93. Douglah, Mohammah A. and Shriver, Howard A. "A Merger of Extension." Journal of Cooperative Extension, 7, (Fall, 1969), 137-144. Dykes, Archie R. Facultngarticipation in Academic Deci- sion-Makigg. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. , Eddy, Edward D., Jr. "The Land-Grant Movement." Land- Grant Fact Book, Centennial Edition. Washington D.C.: American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, 1962. Etzioni, Amitai. A Sociological Reader on Complex Organ- izations 2nd Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Fisher, Floyd B. "Allocation of Resources for Continuing Education/Community Services." NUEA Spectator, XXXIX, (December, 1975), 19. Fulmer, R. M. Managing Associations for the 1980's. Washington D.C.: Foundation of the American Society of Association Executives, 1972. Gordon, Jesse E. "What Shapes Poverty Programs: Pre- conceptions Play Crucial Role and May Outweigh Client Needs," Manpower, (April 1971), pp. 3-8. Gordon, Lippitt L. Organizational Renewal. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. "Guidelines for DevelOping A Comprehensive Extension Program in NASULGC Institutions." NUEA Spectator, XXXV, (April-May, 1970), 12-14. Hall, Richard J.; Hass, Eugene J.; and Johnson, Norman J. "Organizational Size, Complexity and Formalization." American SociolOgical Review, XXXII, (December, 1967), 903-905. ' Hill, Daniel J. "Can Cooperative Extension and Community Colleges Work Together." Journal of Extension, 8, 158 Hutchins, Robert M. The Learninngociety. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Knowles, Malcolm S. The Adult Education Movement in the United States. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1962. Knox, Alan B. "New Realities." NUEA Spectator, XXXIX, (December, 1975), 8. Lawrence, Paul R. and Lorch, W. Organization and Environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1967. Manpower Report of the President, Reports by the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of HEW. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1974. McNeil, Donald R. "Extension--A Risk Taker in the Revolu- tion." Journal of Extension, 8, (Fall, 1970), 6-9. McSweeney, Maryellen. Advanced Research Methods in Education, Course Handbook. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1974. Michels, Robert. "The Conservative Basis for Organization." Reader in Bureaucracy. Edited by Merton, Robert K.; Gray, Ailsa P.; Hockey, Barbara and Selvin, Hanan. New York: Free Press, 1952. ‘ Miller, James R. "Are New Models for Location Extension Organization Needed?" Journal of Extension, XI, (Spring, 1973), 57-63. Moser, C. A. and Kalton, G. Surveprethods in Social Investigation, 2nd Ed. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972. Munsterman, Richard E. and Masters, Robert J., II. "Alter- native Futures for Continuing Education in Region IV." Journal of the National Universitijxtension, The Spectator, XXXIX, (December, 1975), 22-24. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Fact-Book. 1972. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. ‘FaCt-Book. 1974. 159 Oppenheim, A. N. Qpestionnaires Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Perkins, James A. The University as an Organization. Berkeley: The Carnegie Foundation, 1973. Shannon, T. J. and Schoenfeld, C. A. "Whither Goest the CES?" Journal of Cooperative Extension, 3, (Winter, 1965), 200-204. Shriver, Howard A. "Role Perception and Job Attitudes of West Virginia County Extension Agents in A Merged Extension System." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968. Stern, Milton R. "The Invisible University," NUEA Spectator, XXXIX, (December, 1975), 14-19. Subcommittee of 4 of the Life Long Education Committee. MSU Outreach: The Philosophical Foundation. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1972. The Century Ahead, Proceedings of a Seminar on Agricul- tural Administration in the Land-Grant System, June 16 to 19, 1963, Fort Collins, Colorado.{ Ames: Center for Agricultural and Economic Development of Iowa State University, 1963. Thomason, James. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Watts, Lowell H. "The Extension Service: An Interpre- tative Analysis of Seminar Discussions Concerning the Role of Cooperative Extension in the Land-Grant System." An address presented at the Seminar on Agricultural Administration in the Land-Grant System, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 19, 1963. York, E. G. "Coordinating Extension." Journal of Extension, 4, (Summer, 1966), 69-74. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT (QUESTIONNAIRE) AND COVER LETTER APPENDIX A THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT (QUESTIONNAIRE) AND COVER LETTER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Marsh 26, 1976 Your institution has been selected from the institutional membership of Land- Grant Colleges and Universities in the United States for a study on the structural patterns of Extension (University Outreach) Organization. This study is being carried on at Michigan State University. As you already know, university outreach organizations, in their commitment to extend educational opportunities to the masses of American people, and in their efforts to provide solutions to many of the world's problems, have come about with varied organizational structures which hopefully best meet the extension obligations to the peeple they serve. Since societies and societal needs are constantly changing, university administrators are constantly faced with the organization and re-organization of their extension organs in order to cope with the changing times. Such administrative decision makers can never escape the challenge of organizational structuring for the maximum attainment of organizational goals. The attached survey instrument has been prepared, based only on those variables and characteristics which tend to bring out similarities and differences in extension organizational structural studies. Reaponses from participating Land-Grant institutions should provide an overview and the raison d'etre for the varied outreach organizations we now have. Results should also provide university outreach decision makers with a broad background for outreach structuring. It is haped that you will consider this study of value and that you will take a few minutes from your busy schedule and answer the questions as best you can. Your cooperation in completing and returning the questionnaire by April 23 will be sincerely appreciated. .A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your cg//enience. Thank ypd for your prompt attention. ,/ Sincere ,{ é;;7;/// .’ .l/’ . ‘J yde/ , 23 _/_ >4 : «(we ‘ fr ”744,. as pr Gardon E. Guyer,/Director of Extension and Armand L. Hunter, Director Assistant Dean College of Agriculture and Continuing Education Natural Resources 4w / ‘l/ awe—- Ampl Q2 5% (<9 Thomas M. Freeman, Ph. D., Director and J08 ph Agboka Associate Professor Institutional Research Res arch Fellow 160 _‘u'-'- '1 161 QUESTIONNAIRE STRUCTURAL PATTERNS OF EXTENSION (UNIVERSITY OUTREACH) ORGANIZATIONS SECTION A Kindly complete the information below. Under no circumstances will your personal information be revealed to anyone. You are assured that individual information will remain confidential. Please refer to the last page for the definition of major terms used. Respondent's Characteristics (Head of University Outreach Units) 1. Present organizational position: 2. How many years have you been working; a.) in this position b.) with your present organization c.) in the same or related field but with another organization 3. What is the highest academic degree you have completed? Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctoral 4. What is your major area of specialization? Clients' Characteristics 5. Please estimate the approximate percentage of participants in your program (other than radio and TV) in the following categories. Residence Income Level (in dollars) ____Rura1 ____ Less than 3,000 ____Urban (T___% Inner City ____ 3,000 ‘ 6,000 In Urban Group) 6,001 - 10,000 Suburban 10,001 ~ 15,000 15,001 - 20,000 Over 20,000 Other (Specify) 100% Total 100% Total 6. Approximately how many programs (including conferences, workshops, courses, etc.) were Offered to the public by your outreach organi- zation for: (Please estimate if necessary) 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 Credit Non-Credit Total 7. 162 Please estimate the educational attainment of your program partici- pants (other than Radio and TV) % No formal education % Grades 1-8 % Grades 9-12 % Some college education % Bachelors degree and beyond ~100% Total ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. (a) Name Of your institution: (b) Name of your outreach organization: (a) In what year was your outreach Unit established: (b) How was it established? (E.g., by state legislation, etc.) Has your total university outreach unit(s) gone through organiza- tional structural change (merger, consolidation, separate systems, etc.) in the past 25 years? Yes No If YES, briefly state what the changes were: Briefly list three major goals Of your outreach organization: 1) Z) 3) What is the approximate Size of your university's total student population? (both on and Off-campus) 0 to 5,000 20,001-30,003 40,001-50,000 S,001-10,000 30,001-40,000 50,001 and Over 10,001-20,000 Please indicate your actual or estimated professional outreach staff size for: 1974-1975 1975-1976 1976-1977 *F-T *P-T ' F-T P-T F-T P-T Administrative: Field (Regional, County, etc.) Para-professionals Other(s)--Specify *F-T (Full-time) *P-T (Part-time) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 163 What percentage of your present outreach staff holds joint appoint- ments with various academic departments in the university? % How many academic faculty members hold joint appointments with your outreach organization? Please name the major departments within your outreach organization. What is the nature of your outreach organization? Centralized Decentralized Both Other (Specify) Is your outreach unit: within an academic college unit and under a Dean? under a Vice-President's Office? Other (Specify) What is the title of the head of your outreach organization? How many of your professional outreach staff are directly responsi- ble to the head? To whom is the head of your outreach unit responsible? (Name of position) To what extent do the following initiate new program development or future program changes? (Please check) Greatly On the Average Not at All Clients Professional Field Staff Professional Admini- strative Staff Built-in Mechanism, i.e., (evaluation, lack of participants, etc.) Other (Specify) Do you have Citizens' advisory council(s) or committee(s)? Yes NO Please Name Them: If YES, what are the primary functions Of the above committee(s) or council(s)? Is there a Statewide coordination of Higher Education in your state? Yes NO Have no idea Not yet, but there are moves toward coordination. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 164 Please indicate your actual or estimated outreach (extension) budget (in million dollars) for: 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Less than 4 Mil. Less than 4 Mil.) Less than 4 Mil. 4 - 7.9 Mil. 4 - 7.9 Mil . 4 - 7.9 Mil. ' 8 - 11.9 Mil 8 - 11.9 Mil 8 - 11.9 Mil Over 12 Mil. Over 12 Mil. Over 12 Mil. About what percentage Of your yearly outreach budget comes from: % Federal % State % Local, % University appropria- ted % Self—supported programs % Other (Specify) About what percentage of your yearly salary budget is expended on the total functions of: 60 Administrative Staff Academic Faculty Others (Specify) ield Staff araprofessionals % F % P o\° o\° About what percentage of your yearly outreach budget is expended on: % Salaries % Equipment, Supplies, and Services % Other(s) (Specify) About what percentage of your programs are: % Self-supporting (tuition 8 fees paid by program participants) % Funded by any other source To what degree does your outreach organization Operate on Special funds from outside sources? Less than 25% 26-50% 51-75% Over 75% Who seems to control the use Of your dollars? University Admini- stration; Academic Units Your Outreach Unit State and Federal Legislation; Other (Specify) To what extent are you under any pressure (political, bureaucratic, legislative, etc.) outside the University on how your funds are expended? Very strong Strong Occasional NO pressure To what extent are you under any pressure (political, bureaucratic, etc.) inside the university on how your funds are expended? Very Strong Strong Occasional No pressure 165 SECTION B: Please respond to this section ONLY if your University has separate outreach organizations (e.g., Coop. Ext. and General Ext. as separate and autonomous units). If your outreach organizations are merged, please move on to Section C. 1. How would you describe the separate outreach units in your university? Decentralized autonomous outreach units Some cooperation with Coop. Ext/Cont. Ed. Services Other (please specify) In your Opinion what major factors, if any, did top university admini- strative decision-makers consider as critical reasons for keeping the Cooperative Extension and the Continuing Education (name may differ for your university) Services of your University separate? In your Opinion, what are the advantages (value) 0f separate outreach systems for your state? 1. 2. 3{ 4. S. In your Opinion, what are the disadvantages, if any, Of separate out- reach organizations for your state? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Have there been moves to coordinate the two outreach services in your university? Some Several Hardly any Not at all From your experience, do you feel the coordination of the outreach services of your university is possible? Yes NO WHY? TO what extent does your outreach unit exchange ideas with other out- reach units (Coop. Ext./Cont. Educ., etc.) in your univerSIty? Always Sometimes Hardly ever Never 166 SECTION B, Continued 8. 10. 11. Please list the cooperative activities (Meetings, planning, etc.) if any that take place between your outreach organization and other out- reach units of your university. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Does your organization team up with other community groups in community problem-solving? Yes No If YES, name a few groups: (a) ’ (b) (C) (d) Briefly predict the future organizational structure of the extension services of your university. Kindly attach, if available, one chart of your outreach organization and one of your total University organization. SECTION C Please respond to this section ONLY if your University's outreach organi- zations are coordinated (e.g., merged). DO NOT RESPOND TO SECTION B. 1. What types Of coordinated outreach organizational structure to you presently have? Separate top administration with unified field services Consolidated: unified top administration with separate field functions Merger: restructuring all extension units into a single focus Other. (Please specify) In what year were your extension services formally coordinated? In your Opinion, what major factors, if any, did top administrative decision-makers consider as critical reasons to coordinate your university's extension services? MwaI-i no... Briefly outline how you achieved coordination. 167 SECTION C, Continued 5. 10. 11. As a result of a merged extension service: a) what efficiencies are accomplished? Great Some No difference Less b) what percent savings are involved? . Great Some No difference Less C) have services to the clients been improved? Great Some No difference Less Any evidence? In your merger situation, how is such an organization funded? If your outreach services are not totally coordinated, what areas are coordinated? In your Opinion, what are the advantages (or values), if any, of a coordination Of your university's outreach services? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) In your Opinion, what are the disadvantages, if any, of coordination of your university's outreach services? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Briefly predict the future organizational structure of the outreach services for your university. Kindly attach, if available, one chart Of your outreach organization and one of your total University organization. 168 DEFINITION OF TERMS USED Bureaucratic: Governmental or any administrative inflexible routine Of management Cooperation: The association Of the manpower resources Of two ' or more organizations, working together for a common purpose but maintaining organizational identity Consolidation of extension systems: Coordination of extension units affected by organizational changes at the state administrative level Consolidation of higher education: Coordination Of the admini- stration of all higher educational institutions in a state Cooperative activities: Such activities as joint meetings, - joint staff appointments, joint conferences, etc. Coordination: The adjustment of the functions of two or more organizations within a unified administrative system. The form of its organizational structure could be that of a merger, consolidation or amalgamated systems. Merger: The restructuring of all of a university's exten- sion units into a Single focus, with the intent of coordinating efforts at all organizational levels Outreach: (University outreach) - Those educational activi- ties carried on outside the traditional walls Of an institution. It implies all Off-campus educational efforts of an institution. The term is used interchangeably with "Extension." Outreach organizations: Refers to such extension units as the Cooperative Extension, University ExtenSIOn, General Extension, Continuing Education Serv1ces, etc. 10. Para-professionals: Semi or non-professional persons employed to work alongside professional personnel due to the shortage or availability of, or the lack of funds to hire professional staff. APPENDIX B RECEIVED AND USABLE ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS OF THE GENERAL UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION, COOPERATIVE EXTENSION,CONTINUING EDUCATION AND UNIFIED EXTENSION SERVICES OF THE LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES STUDIED (COMPILED ALPHABETICALLY BY STATE) 169 2:16p n-_<:< .23w 4 ”20.3.5? .O—Uufio 9.2.8: r ...... 518.20.... 2 3. 1 10312.: .9. 53.3.: 5; _ rose 29.25;; 53.3.... 8; _ L _ 3U.) "an tum 3.; 2:2 8‘ d U.S(IUIK Slaugd g IszuU. _ finest-..“ _ 11,. .fl 3~<08 C $22.22.! 3.2... :33; _ 3.3:. 0 £055 303.5: 3.23 .3- L no.2... ago-havlg _.I.II U—O- 5:3“ o252_.20u - ..- . $30.3! Us a ZOJZEC “v.5 ZimI rniw Fm» nu _2 ml... QIaII—n O— ~Z<_m.mw< 3:23. 3.: ago 18450- 813 .243 I "III IIII III... «35:59- §>uduu g—g —I épdgu wipdcgv * 323.4. asp—5.: gun“ 5|: H “nu-:98 =23 6—( 5 _Zstgu 5 3.350 g — 96:20.: 3.325. g I 15.3 2.36.! 5.2.0.98 :18 d EGOU O HHS _ It!“ 53.x: :A—wugI m u: (3(1.2(8: % 1§5V~0< _ P (91331 no. nHZmewaa mu; gong ”2:02.86. a..l_ _._ 58.8.: 65 Q H _ guru? ,._c ”.01”... Hi”— _\I 3:53.. 28:: j.l. auto no”). a 219.4 Una: .8333 I 22.2 112.2: .2... 3% II.‘ II.II| h d _ n6: : ”LOU ‘1 Q d 815.1. 9330: P2! IQ a g a; — F gs H§(I— I-I :hfieh :Uw =0: d age. .- «iv d 5.3.3! fl 0. .Z<5.nm( .IOIO..,IL _ 3.3-5.2.19 L. plug—E at» O nus «I33 963.; - .0. 5.93! Us wzwofiwua — mm; _ 2: lo 928 ~ 5.1.3322: 2¢3m3<2 V 5.5.5 ._gom commcouxm m>wuagwaoouxm . .mcowuuagwu sugmoga van «manna _Pogo>o cc «came poogum uwsou~u< saw: mpuuog_u mugc: acouwmagm uuw>xm .m:_:mwpa~uuo mo mmouoga :~\M .ogaua: xgmcwpqwumwuwupae a we mowpv>wuum oum>gom uwpnaa uca sawmcouxo Low mung m>_umgummcvsua mm w>gum ppwz «we: .mcmgm__n~umo we mmmUOLa :Hxfl Emgmogm _ uco9aopm>mou pccowmmomogm mzoacwucou I 2 . 1221:11121111 1 . w _ _ _. 0222222000 Aamqov mgouoc_cgoou. .goumcwngooum mwum>gmm _u mov>gmm cowuauzcw cugmmmmm ucm . cowumuavu _ cowumuavm . upm_m H cowmcmuxm mc_:cwu:ou muw>gmm uwpnza \M gouocpugoou H mcwac_ucou mc_=cwucoo _ mo muw+2o U mcwgomcmmcm \cowmcmuxm 2o mUmeo cowuooaum m:_:cwu=ou u, _ _. . _ H H _ «cwumumz xgmcwgmum> zumEmea cowucoaum fl mcwgomc_mcm mmocwmsm mmucmwum ecu mug< mug< mcwu vcm mgauumumcug< mowsocouw mac: ouaupau_sm< . 2 _ _ F _ .— p-a—v..._. .- II‘II I‘ll \ . . . . 4 . . . . \ I . I . II _.I I I I . l I \. \ I II \ . I. I II I | ..\ .II I \ I u I 1 .I / 2‘ . I. I I II n, I I I. I. 3‘ . I . I . . n I I . V l . I . . \ I q I I. I I I II . I I I . _I t . I I I I I a. \ I . _ . I . _ a . Agouuwg_ov " muuonoga " \FALouumeov " Agouuogmov _ mow2mo mucmgmmcou w _ Pm_umam " cowmcmuxm ngwcww _ mow>gwm :owmcauxm u>wuagmqoou_ m cowpmuzum oc_==_p=ouu _ _ 2o mow2mo ” _ m . m _ _ - H. _ _ u M _.. . _I _ I . _\m ”Agomw>ugmm u__n:m uca co_m:muxm r..-..h _wuczou sewmcouxm .——__—-_ f Low ucmuwwmga «02> I F ucmvwmoga _ flzdmflflfi .NBHmmm>HZD ZMDmbd » . 171 S 5km ~ ~§3$3=5$ «Q EN §M~yx~m§ V .E\ LN»? .3 \JV $9.33 w: a mums? girdmw A .Wknw. 1' .33me mix» QNVk Qumwhw‘ '-—__-—_-_ 3; ' \. § fl fl an; fiiilln ; III; . . . n _ . r3353}. _ n . ‘ . d i _ . _ . _ _ WII- :3-.- 23:4. . .J _ . “C a» .934 .r - - . J # I a. u I It KCNQVhf ” ri. ....- Ii!!— 4 U1» ~3~N§§ WV _ TM “""“—‘1 r «£5.33 T! C O IIIIII' 'll’“0..| flew. VLhQVo - i -ilL . . _ . _ . . ~ " ~ ng ‘38wa at a 0 ! «CARM*. W q M LPVQNANQ _ I l'!llll%: fill! ii I. 4» Ehfiu‘ux» .3: L-' m—d Your. ~33 * 172 hhuo "<53: was. xmwm~0o¢OH~ou omwm 29mequ m>C _ _ .8925 aofimzm 3528:. 03> £8881 3:028:— 85 fl moo_>..om 6:028:— 85 _ _ _ _ . _ «83.5 “SE85 ZO~B.om mmosmam 823$ >E=xs< Maugham _mtommcmz ZOHEANODDM UZHDZHBZOU mom MWBZMU ZANHOMOMO man“. 755:»:— mmo~>zmm A<~¢mw35 «c0233:— tflm «£2 H «axiom E5323: «outcom uEaSwSEE S5: £82 9; SE 33:3 93333 new 5:355 «:32 c2823... 8:... 28:8qu ._<.ofi.co _ _ actoofiucm .3on £380 wctoofimcm commflEmcfi... T wctoofimcm 53530 g meteofimcm scumbag... 33.822 3332»... 82920 can t< 952... :o_m_>o_o._. 833.30 235m _ cot—aches.— cczfim «5825 cam 3:268; 88?... 38am «cacao—goo new ages—amen. actuate“. :o_m_>o_o._. 388M vcm _occoflom “83$ £5380 “mew 8323 cozmgcaEEoU we c0330 ZOHHRUDQM UZHDZHBZOU Mom mMBsz Zucom< H 83m _ out. fl >038 “co—9:982; mEEmoi _mcozazmcfbufi F 323$ c~tact3~> _ _ a 3323 39:30:85.3 j 82th 232 w l 14 r cocmcztoou _Eucuo g _ «3599.82; >ucomboEm w Illa III! IiIIiL _ >wo_3:o3l0. J 13,—}. IL Eoan_o>oo >zc3EEoU _ H 'L me. 355 “3 fl ._ U _ u< _ 322$ «:32 _ 2552A. 32:88.5 23.0.25 _ mumsocouw IJ . mcomufihummWON— 080: 3:23:00 l: V -IL ! lIiuJ «333m .3823 I.— wEEEh HI 23:25:02.0 In! II 4 5:35.80 can mic—3E oucohficou wllllu 3525 ~ [ ___J «83:2: _UCN muucobomr—OU Erica , 325.2950 4 3320 cho>m :35 ccacexm ESwoi % 332,75 1H- -- ,--.I-_.-}ia! ‘. H L 9:332."— Sac mogtom 38?... 33% new 6.39m >253 new cozaagu 58on _ H _ 3223 c3333.: ZOHB:a.=mm:m81< mosmmua 2: 2 HZ:.:2_=cU 1. cats—11:59 1:: 1.3.2.3961 of 3.. 53012 2: _c {xx—7:327?— 1:= 5:21 o... «9:25 ECHO”:— _2 mF<_OOmm< a--. noowfiow .9131. fiOBNfl—Q 9: 3 HZ:.<=m—.~OOD I ”_CHUM—mfiu £21392? 33:51.3 ogomom b.3180.) Staten-BU 19m com-«0.50% 0132 30509232 1281313— 30593va a 9.1.5: 9.31538: Eugenia-.82 0:5: .135 5.5» 1:: :30 2+ cocaioudou a Emu-oh Egan-.2 a £59..— 3c.oEB:H 3:12;. a 9.1130 Aw£o£am =5..— a .323— =o=u=1c£ 15mm>ém15< moo..o_ow 12.1% >.Ec:.:m< cocaine—5 _Ea._:om..w< nausea—”mam ~22::8..M< momancum— _E===otw< WHZH—fiflsmmfl :.~m=m>_ZD mum—44:09; ZO—mzmhxm mflafi: HZm—¢& .c 5.829 .2. .u E..— ».i. - if: 855‘ 5:833 2.3.2.8 - a . . an 0 O c 5520 .s .1 23¢ .w .0 . . 68.0.0 3 0 59:0... 23.-E. 33:2... 5.1.835 9.58.3.2 «eggsgon 32.20250 3330 39.3% sou-£3500 flEocoow Doc-5:: 3.... 333.2...» .0 .3330 .o €2.35 ES—gcaEEooo-oh 3.92.0 5525 532.0 3.00-.0 .3025 3.:0 .3530 sumac—.5 55:0 ... .2 39:23.50 .0 :2330 .5535 uc< CO.~H-ufl—C.E_u< 32.335 9.35300 .3925 3233‘ .332 .0 .c cot-03.3 9:35:00 (wu -l--lll u - .iuill 3m .3...E£Eu< 5.50 “x .u clinical;— 32330 I a I I .855 :o.==m.c_.c.t< cozeuatw ~E_=c..coU 5.95.0 MBHmmm>HZD MDQMDm 22252253 22:32: azSzzzS 1.79 .— >5 8 DJ 1381‘. 0321- .E. Up ‘8 plgagufl g ups->3! 88g. «(8‘ in) C 41825:! 8. 33.88 83¢». val—IS 8. 3.: .03 0.508030 0.! .2. <8. £83183. I. Mugs 50350.8( .i kuficgbfiicg figs 0 >888 8.5318 .03. >850, 0 >868 >85! 09.28 432.30. 33...... 3.880.... 33.8 41):. 01.3 093.8 >039! 5.5.. .1. .1 >239: mu. .4... _... <8 gang 6 0828 giualgw >840!» (0 >3 Una-3.3 5.1:...- >0¢3§<~ ml Huang-g g BFII§< 41.15308. 08.5.2.0... 43.15.38 8:30:80 3 a 533.50.. :05... 383152.. 45¢ 5301. ughdau=§ .8485.— 20. ”to. 0923.0... 01.5.2.0... 3.523 29.02. g g muffin". :2... 31.0.: 223...! 3.5.0208 03.5.1.0... .3928...— »oOJolxu: 00:. 35.9.9 5:: 8330 >388 503.... 0 >833»... .5) 08.2.0.5 a 34:5» :2... . .25.... .56 >883 :30 :3 a >03..§o.z. 8.0:; 3.55:7...» 3.00..- 48.50.00. >821»: .3) page; 3033...: .808- !uafl.‘ 00!... . .253. 3...... :6 83);.- 0 2.3.3....1... no: sum c.1225 In a. 2.1.} 08.0.00! gtflsu 3.30.50. ~19. :2... .552. 2...... .u .92....3. .5232 >.. 5.3. ...u 8. lug. a? 2.38:: 0 3.0.6305..- .»2. 80:25.. a 82 08.... 02.02 . 1.6.580.- >1020¢c< >238 a... 0...: In. 80.3.8 10.5.6 .5.’ 2.3.1053: 5!: 3:52.55. 08:32:01. .33. 52.51 g a 5.5.: .13.. 005 8:303 32.... £30.15 2) 2.0.8630 04:0 08.5.2.0... .«E...5u.¢0¢ 30:350. .35. .595... >005... .53. 8:13.: 4535.58. 01.00.13). «(Snug ..I( 03: 2:33:02. uu18¢n( ago .15» 5032 :30 818.31 auto; 13 ggu >58£au 08.40; p 84:: rnuo g d3 :3! la. '38. c 0.30 .300 a; 11...: 5.3.. :30 45904032! ‘8 g d d‘ ‘8 9.060! gouu Q2531 93 in»? 8 we; 8: 8 nomad... 9933.06 8 83.50 25.56.33 8 83.50 mwozUum 8 83.80 ggu 8 8380 n u m m .023. a .c 5.0! :03... to. $2.28 3.5 to m m w 33.5.23 4 2253 290...... m UIW‘ “Ub‘hm 0UP; 2a.».m2uhkw 01.¢w uZ—gd H..... 8 8.582.. g .5..:u.uow.rdwuw>ouuw ,.:ouhoo 00!; .925. 33...... 02¢ m 02?. 53%”! ZUSQUIUK a<_¢pm302. ¢Ou Cu» NU — a m 29.5.83. .35.: gncsuus 135931323!ch h .0589. 9.181 n 3...: «on. U.S....mz. 28236 5552:. m 8:... 2.2.3.3... . u u .. c.8560- :Bcuzl. g _ _ 3.0!... _ . 3:0.- «$.53 3.3.... :51: :3an 0:34:93. . 33...: 0133:30u .232: 835.0 02.15.; guacc... .753; 1.302.! astral. 80.. 0.88 53; ..(u.¢>.t 8.538.003; _ 3.19.... .0 3.1.5:... 8533-33! 350.528.... 88:33.... re... 3624;: .7 3:: >143... :33 a x. .4! 35:80.2 — .33.... 3.1... 120.325.... 3.3..» .20.... 50.83958»: Sol- 448034030u 4.0703(2331. cab—=2... wwxwuuxzsnx ¢up¢Op<¢0¢<. adU..—w:(_= 8:.le 2...in g5 yahw>¢ ‘h2”..me mus 8.. >283! NUS 8.. .586wa mu.) 8.. >28.me we.) 8L g... no.) E! kc: D >tm¢m>g 8 haw: a WFZUOMK k0 0&400 H..-«Fm _ hm._._mmw>_23 uhdkm <30. 180 mo\H\m\mm2 2.2500 565.5. M.Sm 5.983.”... 35.00 a «on... 9.8 09.5 5.9.3.6. 8.3. mo 05.8.8.0 US. $2.50 coficouxm 529.3% wcflomcfiam ml. .co.mc3xm 95.200000 .méHo ........ mHamqqnmwfidumdiii 8.9.8.1.“. >595.) ED anon 3.833an 02> .52 ”$5 Ho cMoZoU ,T mama IIII Sumn— 9.3120QO mam wolmwwzoo mlll 3.59 .5on _ 003055 A . 808 GM .0: .wo owoaoo 5.0m am no .0950 All 3me .309 9330.5 _ . 8.9.35. . 0.6m .0 $2.00 ,mII 3%.. 58 uw< mo owozou mama Ill SEQ 8.85m nouwmmmm 288934 -. .amEmmpm gamut/HZ: HBmmm umzmbmo quzHmmm . .m. modzcuzg A/RZOHmWMLOME AH>HU ZgaWMHm .mhzm 33 33%” Hmozm -zommmmzou oo :mchzm .r i 38:3- ”W085: a Hzcgm~mm< ~7<9mHmm< garxafic m~Ho .3330 .2ch .32: z«:= mousu umcH a u$vAm, .>bc ~,a:uc. ‘ n .u. .... 9.2m . .. , _ .. a. . . an no «we . coco . oocau &cou .moug+.uau< “coeuqsuuaww . omouam ayau Mam uzmzoog . . .. wc«ccaam mucsouu< .uouroo ucMursouu. Harcouuoc . :uuafiwu:..tuua mn< _ F .\\ (0‘ \.‘ . l I , 11‘ . \.«\ \.\ \ . JV: a 1.1 I 38: .25 .EGE \\. .x. \ .. . 4. _. I I uoaaouccso aoaacosano . .\.\ . 1 .. . us“ ca .uun< csu ou .uau< necuuoua.. \x\. I 1.x: . anon uwHHouuasoo _ ~ ovmzouauw \\- ‘1 II..nuoum maumuu>n . uoaaooccsu uoHHouzcso wufl> accuwfimm< r ..uodaoo=usu oua> ucaumamm» _. wwua “ HMO—.500 DES ‘ ...uoHchccgo ou«>‘.1|~1..a - .c«sn< . 1— ou«> acaumqmm< _ ucHchcczo , u 183 9.... .. 59......“ «.3 3...... 3...... 2.28... .82....2. 2...; 9...... 3.9.... .2353... 5:8 5...... 5.0 2:358 a... .232... «:22 2836 2:5: gnaw mo. Ema—mums no; .5335... :25 . .38 £522... 23. 2.58.2.3 .552 5.3.8.2 .252 5.2.8.. 2.. 2.... 2333... 82.8 23.... 9.3.2 2:... u 5.2.3.6.. 5.2.2.2.. .5. 5.23.... .3... . 0.3-Du. 30"...“ . coon-.11 nos ‘00.?- .:8 3:0 .53.. 3552...... . :2... 5.3.3. 5.: 3 3...... ac»...— auc...3 2. seem 5:83.. 5:5..55... 9... 205.333.. 5.33.. 0.55:ng :umfimux me Ema—mu»: mu; 2.3528 1.8... 5.: 5...: .68... 55:38 .3... «3.5» £5.55... 3.813.539 5.93.5 .22.... .83... 3...... .a- £93.... «292.9. 53523 «9— bzuemumm no; 5.52383. 3...? >353... €3.59 .83 55...... .58 3.23 :8. >wzao:< P233223 ‘ 3......25 .. b.....5< _..: 3......” .238 .. . 82.5.. ”So... 9... .m...o......mm. .5... 5...... 33.. .3555 .83.. 2.332. :3 .35.... u... 5.53.88. 33...... .33.... .9 2058.3... :32 _..; 356.32.. .5538... 2:382 _..: .82.... :33... 5.... 2.2... 2.9.3 c850 $2.3m .25. 325‘... oz< mmuzfiam mo. 53.3mm mo; 2.9.9... .28....“ .2333. a... 23.3.22 .85.... a... «8......» .2 2.8.8... 3.> 5.; 8.2... .93.... 2.322 32.. :22 5.5 .3358 .3352 £5332 52....— ..833. 3:32.35 3.5m 8.53.. .>: .22.... .22635... ..cue..o.o>uc 5.2.32: 2.....2... 2.. .83... _.. 23...... 2.5. 9... 2&5... ecu 528:3 9.35.50 98:8 :23: 3.2.8 2 c850 2688< Eco. » mo >o m a. 8.5.2.. a... «5. 33.8 :35 E253... 3.35.. 323.35.... co....___... 3.3 3.5.. 9:52. 2.. 355...... 3.5.... 3...... .8535 22...: 8.29.... o... .2529. 3.3.88 .83 B. 222%.... as... 5... 5...... ‘ 33...... a... 3.32 .85.... .58 23:5 3:23.552 .35. nan—mu”: mu; u>..—:0uXu 52.5 .3325 .932 $5332.. .63. .223... 5.3. 2...... 32...... 5.2.2.3.... pZuoSEE .cs..:< .28.... 2.5.2.. .3 25.3.39 2.2.23. 2.2... .6. 25...... 5.23.. .6. 25...... 8:35....53 .0. East: .25 .5 :30. «am... MBHmmmEK—HZD MBANBM EOHEUHE mmmfimfimnommmm dad mfioflodsh umommmo HmDBODmBm H>HB€MHmHZHEQ¢ WBHWMHNVHZD 184 vmmofiwgn pm oummrmfl p 2.0.0.3 0568 .3232. .0 was. .250 82.8. a. .280 >230 «9 .250 82.3. on ==< .m 800: 202329.000 003.05. .m 0000.26.— 0000200 .m 0220 Eofix< .n. 0.2.00 .2}. .. h. 0.980. 000.300 m.< m7: ".0 mmO#2mt00 0.9559. >....23.2.200 >h.mmm>.23 mic... 02.0232 m02¢<2.¢mhw> mthwo >...mu.555... $0205.28 .Emmmzz: 05.0.5255. 5.2.3.5.. 25:5 m—mn.mmm €03.25. 00.2.2 ONNWmmn — F L wUNJJOU >h_wmw>.23 .8330. .5030 Bu 080,000 .03.... 532.0 . > :3. m. 5200 J 08080.08 00:08.08 «83 .s. $20.0... .5000 m0.>mmm mmmav :2 .0203085. .30 0205.... 63:00 Ngnfimn 02.022 30:00 023323 00 22 263... :0... 525.2 $232582 02.0.00... 0.5.5.0050 300.35. 2.3... 85.0025... 900.003. ... 00:22 mph—(mm 03.00ch .h .0 $302.20.. 00...: .250 wwwrhu 502.3002 0020.0... .5552 Rum.mmm....m 23.. 8...... ownu mm .0830 .0 8.30m.” 3.0.002” $2550 .25.: (N03 :2 .mcmmmCmA Saw .000:00 memo? .5. £0.00”. 000.0 .8000 80:0! >009. 02.0.0.3). 2523... 88.2...” .250 2.3. on 23> 2522.0 .2 .2... 8.220 mo. .850 8:23.... a . n - . fig?“ 2;? an... 5.233.253 .3 ......o.%a§.a . 00.50 .4 00.000 II. nomwv .205... 60000.. a u 0 - . - h—NWmmn _ 0 0:. a... game :2 6...: 30:8008 .530 00:... Naomv .5. 00:51 00.000 .0300 30:00. em 0 m.m0.0:0~w .< “$0.“. "unfimmn 525.020 .4 822.0 330.9 00.50 3030.2 .0 2.53 «00.20 a :0 .000 20....(0300 Pmdehsom me .SIPDOW . W _ u E a Owfigma .3033...“ 00:0in mmObowma 02< mmeZmo 4420.03. 95.0mm «:2 29.20.202.200 $me...” .280 82.3. m... =8.an .5325 .0 2.20 mmmmémn .3000 000:0! mp =0aQE~0 «0.0905. 0.0200... 00.5086 .250 82.3. 88.30 000.05. . 3......0 00.0.0 $00.30 «8063 .0260 .0 >255 zamaoouas. 0.02“. L .350 82.8. R 0 <0 :58... <05. Eoom 05.2.0... :8 _ . 2...: . 0 0:00 0.55 o: .08 85000 032.000 >_._>>I>mmmw fl — — — — 20....422002. — , ll. thwEhmsfio an 5......” .580 2.2.3. 3. 0.5.0052 .0000... 000E.< ‘ 08....an wwo.>mmm 20..p<0...ow 02.322200 .0200 30:3. nu mewJAOU E... “.0 mZ23 _.L ~ . $.5ka — 4<0_k>..omm 024 I0mP_mmw>.23 mb324“. 6 1-? (my; >b2300 Oh owzmzwwd mhzmu< wbzuo< >hzaouu 2.432 _owor fill «mo oz_>3 SSE oz_>3 55$ 02;: SEE :50» :-v :50» :.v :50» xé .03 w .moq .o.m a .54 .muao 3m: .mmao 3m: $3 3m; :4“: E8523 :3: Eoeéwaam :3: E8523 a .3 23.122 .._ 2425.: a. .3 ‘Hb ~ ~ 8 . T _ 1* mmoww ,mmod _ H .35 . . 3 .p . 0233 , ISO» . . xs. 1 9245.34 5532 5.52% I; .. .8”; we, :3 W F H _ ._<_uwam < ._ _ - , mzozqmumo " «mmmwmmmmo . scum ./ «05:5 .7 ad: I- _ . w 9.3 _.guzzommwt _.mifl T922538 2450541-} a w 4. H _ _ _ 1// m l / v F 205236 no $8354 [.55 H Mama 7 .moq no momjou .. zmmm zo_mzmhxm m>rr=u “309.5 .3325 .mmmoohn .2qu 58M:— oo_>..ow 5:6: 111 oqu 835w £333: J ”5325an 085w 33.2w .330an is an: .95 1 .0 own—30 J Jun.— 85.3052”.— uoflionam 5|an aims: 92¢:on 162.00 I “cu—5.5 . Ho 83::— FEED HHS—b {manna—2 .8335 f xi. 1 29.82:..— mZpéEEES :02: no “38:: “95:5 :95: mammzopsnmfl 2:505 («1:056 .3335 :89 aoED 1 3:32.”.— 1.. 33.5299 .o 03:00 £335,800 unbfiuom .33th .5325 .399th .33 832:2 I 3.53: can [I 83:2: nouaooom I £8.33: .8. 33 J oqum 335$ u:o_wm_c€< 39:63: 53>» .55 Ho sauna Jun.— .980 _..EU .3335 .5335 .3335 .3335 Goff—0m 2.: .EH 1; mote—5 < b.3940 T ouguow HOS—um ta: bisovw 3295.5..35 952.200 aoEcafim amen—ma .nxu .uu< c...Eo.$ 8.333.. .5385 once L “30.9.20 «62‘ he I Smog—Em 2:... 1 .8200 50.2535 1 I 63 ca: dam I .53 3:355 SEQ aegis-Eh 02.20» .308 .o awe—~00 . 8260.5 auto.“— auZ barf—9% u3=u=iooo muons—ow :33 :62..— wo 11 23:23— I. 3 833mm: 18.92; van .3395..— =aoQ 3:57. 5.3.2:: 163395 ac _oogow My03.350 .5752: use: 5.53 530 ”:33qu an: nozzfiuézp 23?.— 1 39.0m I moonflow 1c: m~u< I ou332um< uni—35:50 no «Pizzas Baa—flaw he 03:00 .3 03:00 3:93.350 933 .5335 .1300 1:: 9:5 “aoEmoun—noo; «uoEmeEuuo; 13.293 25:. 253:3: 235 v 8:55 8.5120 9:32 D338 2.- lZfimE “co—.35 van “cacao—v.59 «E: .3563: o_Eo_.Su< vu3_=u_hu< _ _ F «gov—no.5 05 3 gain—um" ~>==uoxw I H1 29394.5 _ m 333...“. go _...uom _ _ 187 .33.... a 32.3.1 T 5...... lllI H . — 052333: .33... 2... .2... . _... .. . .2... . 3.5.2.3.... .. . ... . Z r z... E... 4 w . _.. . .. . . E .IIII.I)\IIIIIIIJS.I_IIIIII \I_IIIII. _ I I _ . . _...a. 5...... 5...; u . I I _ . .I I I I |_ :3: a... w n .3: a... _I I I I I. _ - L 3...... 3.5.... .8... .1... 5.... 3......— .....u..._ 3......— fi _..-3.... r _ . I r .2... 5.... 4| 0 $9.43.: 3.5.... — ., . - F I... =3 #1 32:33 ao.¢\o~3w no.<\32m _ ao.<\33m 22......» 32.2.... 32......» . 23......» T35... 228.3% _ u . . w 5.... 2... 3...... 3... .8... .5. 5.... E...» _... 5.2.3:... 5.... 3.2.2... 2...... 2.5.2.... r .223... J a 5:33. A _ . _ . ~ A .32.... 2.2:... a .22.... 23...... :3. _.....m 52...... .533... 5...... 3...... ...............< .88.... ........< 3...... _.....m 5...... 22...... — r _ — _ I _ - .32.... a 2...... ........_........I_ H ...........< .. .528? fi ‘ “ ‘ ‘ ‘ — F n 3...... =- 25.3.... .8 2.2.2....» 22...... has...» .. E... _ 2.3 .>.== £5522: ES.” _..—.852: . _ 3.2.3.... .. _....L 355m =2»sz 5:55.33 :55 2255233 188 R... h L ulna—flat t» O» ’llung 2:531- :1..IP .418! 5.9 .>.>{‘l;u1 so IO>u~l=u :ILF gcoo! adio..uo in Canal... .z¢.w.8¢ -.4.'> .31).. IL Git av .53. IO.UuI.O as... 532 ..<.l— ”533: 3.0:; IO»U~¢.D 32:94? «a: . .« l u.).>(l.v_.l..l£‘ c0522: :3 him.— .:...> v.39... u.) Educ. fay—9.8.0 pIC—vJde :q «b at}... u. 33...... : .2 3.3.3.1. Ill >.. .4. «Cu ~7 .2 ..r.Ud¢—C ..-. F :2. 710...... :5 at. .551.) .d 9.3.1... 3.3!... .c .95... ICC—c5 . .QI-flh 20:58.0 Siuhtu >p58 H . .1: r uthUu‘Ru gay. n .—U.B~n.0 .-C.4P widzuo: 2:40) 9;; S t .5. .2: .89. IOU—=5 .31...mm< :1.» + wistzas wu.’Cl.O. .53.. :3. 2:91.... 2:... -C :5.9 _..... _Z€ .Jfifid a. _.....» 2052:! . I .>_.n: EEC. «est... 24061.2( ....rh 16.2... .I.)........ .a::. .....:...< M}... 1:... _..—A 25./é 52...... 2.... 35s .2, .. .2... 5......2. . . 11...!" E... .x .2 _..—.2- .0 ..u./IP (9.4.2 ,. .1. 3:4: ECG . 76:1... . u r}.— .c:3...........1 I’LL—z... a ..¢.vb gp=auxu -‘.dP 10.3.0230. III. .2 El... .> .5 80.“. .1... 3:30.. a :11F to. 3.5:: .3. I... H: :3. .C .u. . .c :C.u _..... [jg 7. 2:72:14. 1 5.5.12.2: .2 5.7.3:: .1...v.2.:l u. -.d./D 2.272.... are. _..-5:51....— r.......¢..: >..v:.).z.. C... 21.5.1.3... _U.) . nldlnl.‘ tutu... ;..£¢§u 80. mg. a: .6 Sun :13 M1 mutt-n 3 gain 551-83 8 8.0: is U.- otopuula .24an (c 3583‘ :35}: u..— E» g I». IIOI but. 3.18s )3 ‘ Op . >16 I K‘ .g-la '- 0» ~82. I... g! .20 gain. >1 05.5! i: 5% :1: gas In. D g Ogg 89-3.- CU.H1= .0 850g bug; I as: a: 5.3. a tonal-u U.- 8 I18 '3 38.23 31 3:4 5 3.4.8 .1. I 39.38.. g 32:39. 79.9... 831... .0 5...:ch u... I. hag—utggc 3:8. 0.3.2: will. to. (Org-.80 I: n. .3: .1: 215.38.33 Fl! 8: Iota-cl 0.3!: I: 8.. 5305 xi 3...!» .D..<¢§v .0 (0.33.0 n( 084 5:1; .125» H‘s-530‘ a... 8 005-35 «4 figs: 84‘ uég .0 g)... I: ‘0 I18 I.» >:ul.§ I.- 3 3.1.! V: I. i plug; «than! 0. «as 3.1.28 .53... 1.35 g 30.50... 5.8.. 3.38 r... .35... .13).. a... 2 .63 3:3...(08 .325». g 35.5.. 2.... 5.85 5.9.. 3504.] p.591. 92 «10.3.3.5 .52.)! cut... 9. 3.! at. .38 «I! «55.... .1135 to. €293! .u.) a... £9322: u... .0 :1. 3.8.5.3.! 02¢ .>:<........Io« 63:34.0 .2. lo... 32.55.33: 0.5.... no film-.8 {3.22.3 .8. .0 v4.14 vl§Uc 31 IO... 32.1.3333: :59: 0.5... .0 3208 080.11.92.84 a: 82:0: gun “pigs: .9.) V.» 3 Mg 31.54.... a «36.9... pair: . 23.-128. a]! o - 33. 3:12... 01¢ 50836.. 9.3.1.61. - . £9.55... o 19:59:59 «4.5.:- . Indian} 02‘ muld I uflD — 433‘...‘ O a 30.)... IO nuUua.°U 5...; pla’uw.>O( 2.”.010'. .3)...‘ 0.45 31‘ 8002.... luv-dun... [0:36:22 l >>...Udm ..u.._ 5‘ .2 >2.,.¢¢c8 .33— Vdaduc viz—<2 g anus“ d‘gbflgau s0 gala nod-uh .lugaa>8 J‘s.»( luau KO 60.0.18 uni—Ir was): 4110:2251. .O a»: 559.8... (p10 93¢ 31.2500 .0 lav—.150 .~a>4r firefiglct .0 1.97250 I :21 25.3.0... . I.Ibr 5.313.... >..v:.>.z: I .0 £333.... cal—Jb 2.34:5.5. :3... .3... .0.) .2d pirrut ..nr.:1amul 3C..I.Dp:vz: :1. h 3.3.1 _wd: 21¢ 9.11.... s.......s luck, >553. .0 305...... C-uxr 5:34 35...! .3.- ..93- .x. .0 305.50 I .uuh .59.... $123.... .0 .1 5:3 35.-5 Qty .13. 3.2.2... 8 85...... 1.»! 5.65.8 I numb 1.3.2: I .55.:- .3..— .321... 9... 9.2.5. no. 2.3.33. .9.) . GUI-.0, 35* Curl-U gu‘uldul 1| :6 ‘0»0-‘5 1:? 313...!!- .55.... $8.... at. , 9:99. 3.03.. T 3.5.:- (05...... .3“. gun 80. b.9I ~>-s .0 Instance .3: or; .23.... Sold In. no Cayuga _...nh at... plea-Pu to IO-Uula .IEP nag: 854‘: >unwtd>§ I .0 Cohort“ .35 P 3.4551 :33.» .0 2100 uni-U >3 3.5:. :5 .t‘rfiQ u: nub n5.>¢~u .l ug.m to. blu0“vl‘ UV.) . . .r'OVIICd. .5233... .51 .m .l $3.735: 4.91:: . y. 5.... plus; .3. .>¢C0..;D(. _..IDCU 5.»: <1 '91.; . u whzwowc .0 9.30m 'L... I .l’:.. _v :3... Ulises .5210 ._....wmw>_23 mhdhw 5.2.3.. .o .m 23:52... 2... 8:2... > 2.2.2.... _..... 23.9.26: uCQVLWO—Q Qum> homcwm >opuwmm>—z= w—v—P be Fmo>axa ‘ >wmw=w>m== «covmmmhm Oum> hams—Gm A L 28a “.335“... .55.... .532225... ... 3&5. .... 58...: H .u .o .6550 - 5.5.9.”. .m 6.1.9 moucufim .8605. 9.2.22.9 E... 3%.... 32.5 .8.qu .o .528... 85 593... 02> Baum . Emma 28 .255 . . . . e . .3.qu >292. 9.2.293 «Eu .6 50.5...— .cuEno.m>oo 3.94.3.5 2.50.5. :3 >35. .523... 35 .255 .n 2.5.50 3 u. tussow .8... . In IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .v. 1.1 2.... .o .33... .N >..._wmm>.z= E... ”E 5.23.... 22.8 .2 ”_..... .5333. do... 2.... _.. .523... .— 356”. 5...... 2523.583 €538... Emhmamh mo madam: 190 mvuooom _ gouacguoouv A mundumMmmaq Edumoum 3.00 mm _ afim 33m. .53H 3.33%. _ afim $228.5 Houduumda.g< $9.4 _ mwmmm .dogummofl .oCCOmuom .832 $333.38....” midfimuh. Houwcfluuoou uo.om.§Q .cm.m.mm< madnmounm “0.00.39 uddumfimmafl HouuoHKH can. Gama 0.300mm4 o. .cm.m.mm< o>3m3mEMEU< ugoofifl 3300mm»... can «.me mumHUOmmzw macsmoEDdGcGoUL _/F|lu Bevin. can cmwQ _ moot/umm .mGCOmuonH was mmvc.mdm H ‘L _ mvmusoU .uonm mam oocwvcommouuou wfiHmmmgHZD mafiam ¢H24>mezzmm HMED ZOHBunmw .umuc .uoun< .uuuw< . . .um use: .0 a: no in o no .950: .uaum .uaoa . away: .uaua ¢.~1.04 .uuom n>ua=m “can guano»; .uuom u m «a m . o = cogs“: .3 .9 .mwmmmo-.g .z oxuafiu caged“: yuan-cu .: .o mafia-s: .n .u anon .una< ccoc .umc< coon .uou< anon .uoa< anon .uuu< coaxu«o .: .4 «accomuwh uo .uua vaouea=u< .3 .3 Ada: .0 .o nosmum .a .3 {wcuim .< .n .vox .uo> uo .Hou .caoa .u«um< mo .Hou .ceoc cuu>uem .uxm .uw< .aquo .Uum .nxw .uu< .aaon _ _ H _ .335 .u .o V33 253: auuauu< .msm ho .uga mou*>uom Ho .uaa F caflnaau .5 .N ucovuooua ouu> .u-n< b :m1umuavzzg “yucca: ucavumcuh ou«> . r «:23 4. .m uC¢cumoum ousu~:u«um< .o oaauquacu mummzzzmh mo >e~mmm>~za mzh ”fish 533.095 .3535 .25 have"... c3325 50 .2230 03.2.3550 3.3mm.— gmaof. tome. xzroficn 0.2m oommmccoh .3 nozoioa _occonon commco§m 555...? boa bcaoU 192 cove“... co_mco.xm .8 060: .tm< .uomm .ooam Jacam .30 .0034. .Um oEoI .utm< ”havoc.— .Umm .miaam .35 «havoc.— .Uom .001m :2ch x9..— ovtofiu @0522 c9560 1. .2 :35“. no.5... coon .394 :30 £34. :80 .33 czmh .vhoou c0335 .1 .4 fixfixg ‘0 £5 3“ Em commcuuxw 3.2; .u .0 8&5 .o .3 - v.23 .22.: 382‘ .25 “.0 J5 nun..!.nu!...!..iu!...nn coco ...... 1 303.3 ‘0 £5 83.0w commcflxm 33233.0( 323354. .._0 232?; mmmmmZZm» LO \C_mmu>_ZD th ngm__ .9 ocean; Xu_~me .3 cu :4tca cag__z uHcUm .. CL. coduaa .u ;,_.< ....m .n ..:;4 LOJHC—ELCOU HquDUUW DEM .20. .unwuv..— mufldcu.ao< mco_u.u_ca;e°um~mk mJLoz u__n=¢ “cmemugobcw 3.4 murco.wqw_~ moncu CCTv,,:m “Lac—o: .m comA Loam.“ .u ocmmzw caum_cw_z .< F< cumsm .o xgcm: mucow -4 co_Luz :H_Em .o xucm: xu_—Lox .3 cg macaw .x c,>~« . OE. Dcu . co_uou:uw Lmzuemh —oLucou m_o_Louoz oguco mmo copuuwuog mg. mmww___.: H: c. Luuoroumor ucu Luau: pc_gum:uc_ pmco?uouo> xLom_>Lmq:m maougc~ez can P_o _ u A . . a .m Lozoa u_guum_m :orungudcou mzo_m_>~o oz_z~oum mucogzoa g0m_>gwa:m no qucmu c:_c_mgh gm u:_La Fo:o_mw¢ moxm» “mm: mmwwum mwuw>gmm EmLoOLa _o:o_uusxumc_ we mowu_P_umh xagwaoLm chcomgmm Poum_u mo»_Hw_umgmr.a mmamn wu_>mmm zo_w2uhxw wz~¢mmz_wzm mm >»_mmm>_z: zw< mm >h_mmm>_z: zw< mw >k_mmm>_23 Ed< m62. 3.52. €958.25, .250 5.2.9.8 20:3 .ouBo 22» 0.5:: .552 85. 5: 6.8:. a > c 2...”... . .. .9535... 3.; . outlaw . .239: .E:E=.o o . . .It...» E§5t< 2:9,. 3 . D vCthZW >5. 0:985 t — It SE: 8 U s D 8,322 23...... .co...nu:uw a r. $.35... {03 5.53: 82» :oiuavw 32:85.. 95.32 8...! 0...“..va £52.52. .8503... 39.5 95.8595 3.5.50 5.4 QEocoow «Scion .83 $0.9m t 350......) icon .223: 92:20.. .13.}... 5E}. 0238.0 _ 9:520 d 8239.5 1:- E< 33.35.93 , §—_..u_5< wUEaO mLanzmmKL 353w 2.3.20 95:5... co..8:vw 5.5.5.... Begum c0:«.§c.£u< _..: £03301 Jroiu. 2.5:...on .1255 5:31 .2: RENE“. 50.6... a .305... .396... J.;-«:3... 85 194 _ _ _ 33...... Scam .o. 5033.; I: o. 3255‘ . sunsccu «Ea 5:30 .o. 2.028... or: o. 3533‘ . «60:8.SEEOU so. .525... I... o. .cu:_:< . 202‘... I: o. _..-52.4 . 28...... 2. o. 2.33:4 9:5".on . V N . . . . PZwofiwmm :oEavanO .n 5:93 .35.... .N 2.5%.... 2.2234 2.3.32.6..4 .— ZO_._.(N_2._._m¢w>.23 adchmO NEH mmm>HZD Emmz ZO_._.