Building extension’s public value: We can be more convincing

Those of us who work in the Cooperative Extension system tend to love it. Over the past weeks, I’ve been involved in an interview project with older people who have been involved in extension most of their lives, either as volunteers or as paid employees. Their devotion to extension’s mission shines through every interview. From the inside, the value of what we do seems self-evident.

Then we come up against the harsh reality: Extension is heavily dependent on public funding. Many other constituencies, and in particular elected officials and the general public, need to see the value of what we do. How can we convince those who hold the purse-strings that the work of extension has public value, worth spending government funds on?

I recently came across the work of Laura Kalambokidis, a faculty member in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. One of the pleasures of writing a blog is that you start reading other people’s, and Laura’s brings a fascinating perspective to extension.

In an article in the Journal of Extension, Laura raises the issue of identifying the public value of extension. She lays out the problem facing us succinctly:

The current economic climate has placed significant pressure on the budgets of state and county governments. In turn, those governments have compelled state Cooperative Extension Services to defend their continued receipt of state and county funding. Even when policymakers are persuaded of the efficacy of an Extension program, they have questioned whether the program should be supported with scarce public dollars rather than through user charges.

To address this issue, Laura translates economic theory and research from public sector economics to practical issues of extension. What policymakers need to be convinced of is that extension work has public value – that is, why should the public pay for our services rather than being purchased on the private market? The challenge is to show that extension activities are a public good, one that benefits society as a whole (in addition to benefitting specific program participants). In her words: “Extension staff must also be able to explain why citizens and policymakers who are not direct program participants should value the program.”

In the extension programs I’ve created, I confess that I haven’t done this. When I justify my programs, I point to the good outcomes and satisfaction for program participants. But I don’t really look at the public good – how they have benefits  for the larger community, beyond my participants. For example, I’ve created extension programs to train nursing home staff. But someone could ask: “That’s well and good, but why shouldn’t those programs be paid for by nursing homes as a private good? What’s the public value for what you do?”

Laura’s work suggests that the most effective case can be made for public value when there is market failure – we provide something that isn’t effectively offered privately – and when there are issues of fairness and justice not addressed by private markets. Her article gives a detailed process for identifying public value.

To give one example, extension folks typically believe that they address market failure by providing information. But Laura suggests we consider this carefully, asking questions like:

  • Is there a demonstrable information gap?
  • Can you show that other entities are providing wrong or incomplete information to consumers?
  • Does your information direct consumers (and producers) toward activities that have external benefits?
  • Are you providing information to a population that does not have access to private information sources?

Laura has developed a workshop program where she helps extension associations determine public value of their programs and how to present them as such. More information is available on her web site, which includes a blog.

Agricultural Extension: The Model for Health Reform?

Atul Gawande is a rare mix: A practicing surgeon who is also a wonderful writer. In thinking about our health care crisis and reform, he started looking for models in American history that have worked to transform systems. In a recent article in the New Yorker entitled “Testing, Testing,” he found his model in a surprising place: Agricultural Extension. His treatment of early success of the extension system makes for fascinating reading (and for those of us working in the system, a nice pat on the back!).

Gawande notes that our health care system lags behind other countries but costs an astronomical amount. He asks: What have we gained by paying more than twice as much for medical care as we did a decade ago? Not much, because the system is fragmented and disorganized. To control costs, the new health reform bill proposes to address many problems through pilot programs: basically, a number of small-scale experiments.

Lest this approach seem absurdly inadequate, Gawande shows that it has worked before – in agriculture. He takes us back to the beginning of the 20th century, when agriculture looked a lot like the current health care system. About 40% of a family’s income was spent on food. Farming tied up half the U. S. workforce. To become an industrial power, policymakers realized that food costs had to be reduced so consumer spending could move to other economic sectors. And more of the workforce needed to move to other industries to build economic growth.

As Gawande sums it up,

The inefficiency of farms meant low crop yields, high prices, limited choice, and uneven quality. The agricultural system was fragmented and disorganized, and ignored evidence showing how things could be done better. Shallow plowing, no crop rotation, inadequate seedbeds, and other habits sustained by lore and tradition resulted in poor production and soil exhaustion. And lack of coordination led to local shortages of many crops and overproduction of others.

Unlike other countries, the U. S. didn’t pursue a top-down, national solution. But government didn’t stay uninvolved either. Gawande tells the intriguing story of Seaman Knapp, the original agricultural extension pioneer. Sent by USDA to Texas as an “agricultural explorer,” he persuaded farmers one-by-one to try scientific methods, using a set of simple innovations (e.g., deeper plowing, application of fertilizer). As other farmers saw the successes (and in particular, that the farmers using extension principles made more money), they bought into the new practices.

Extension agents began to set up demonstration farms in other states, and the program was off and running. In 1914, Congress passed the Smith-Lever Act, which established the Cooperative Extension Service. By 1930 there were more than 750,000 demonstration farms.

The rest is, as they say, history. Agricultural experiment stations were set up in every state that piloted new methods and disseminated them. Data were provided to farmers so they could make better informed planning decisions.

And it worked. Gawande sums up:

What seemed like a hodgepodge eventually cohered into a whole. The government never took over agriculture, but the government didn’t leave it alone, either. It shaped a feedback loop of experiment and learning and encouragement for farmers across the country. The results were beyond what anyone could have imagined.

Gawande profiles Athens, Ohio agricultural extension educator Rory Lewandowski, showing that the system performs the same vital functions it did a hundred years ago. Gawande suggests that the health care system can’t be fixed by one piece of legislation. It will take efforts at the local level that involve “sidestepping the ideological battles, encouraging local change, and following the results.” Impossible, people say? Not really, since it’s been done before – in agricultural extension.

A changing society: Economic and social trends over the past decade

We all know it’s been a wild decade. But what really happened in areas like immigration, employment, and poverty? An extremely useful report has been issued by the Population Reference Bureau called  U.S. Economic and Social Trends Since 2000. It’s written in easily understandable “layperson’s” language, and succinctly summarizes the last 10 years of economic and social trends in the United States.

The 10 key findings about the last 10 years from the report can be summarized as: 1) There are wide-ranging effects of the recession; 2) some short-term trends are adaptations of recession; 3) fertility rates expected to decline; 4) education levels increase, especially among women; 5) if current gaps in school enrollment and completion rates among blacks and Hispanics persist, the United States may not have the workforce it needs to succeed; 6) job losses and housing market declines have disproportionately affected blacks and Latinos; 7) there is a growing poverty gap between children and the elderly, but children without health insurance dropped sharply; 8) more people are delaying marriage; 9) fewer people are moving; 10) the largest concentration of out-migration occurs in rural communities. (Thanks to ASA Footnotes for this summary.)

The report is a quick read, and contains fascinating boxed inserts on topics like “”Industrial Restructuring,” “Health Insurance Coverage,” and “Food Stamp Participation.” It is very helpful background for extension and outreach folks, as well as anyone else interested in what’s been going on in our country during the past decade.

Health care reform: Here’s a source of up-to-date, objective information

Some readers of Evidence-Based Living may be in professional situations where you are asked about the health care legislation passed by the House yesterday. And all of us, of course, are personally interested in the topic.

The Kaiser Family Foundation website is  the best place I’ve seen for clear, objective information. You can already find an excellent summary of the just-passed legislation, as well as a comparison of House and Senate bills (and a wealth of other information on the main page).

Skip to toolbar