The purpose of the study was to identify professional development needs for Extension professionals at 1862, 1890, and 1994 Land-grant universities in the US and US territories. The Extension Foundation issued a request for applications for a Fellowship to complete this needs assessment. Dr. Karen Vines, Assistant Professor, Continuing Professional Education Specialist, Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education at Virginia Tech was selected as the Fellow and researcher for this project. A committee composed of the researcher and selected members of the Extension Foundation leadership team served as a panel of experts carrying out a two-stage approach including key informant interviews followed by a national survey of Extension professionals. The survey provided insight into the top challenges Extension professionals feel can be alleviated by professional development training or other resources, training needs across Extension, and training that Extension professionals find to be impactful, or that adds value to their personal or professional lives. Respondents selected from pre-identified categories followed by subcategories to provide further insight into their original selections. In addition, respondents were encouraged to select “other” throughout the survey to provide open-ended comments. This work was supported through funding from USDA-NIFA, New Technologies for Ag Extension, grant number 2020-41595-30123 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Extension Foundation 2023 Professional Development Needs Assessment Report
October 2023
By: Karen A. Vines, PhD
ATTRIBUTION
Extension Foundation 2023 Professional Development Needs Assessment Report
Copyright ©Vines, K. 2023, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Published by Extension Foundation.
Publish Date: 12/15/2023
Citations for this publication may be made using the following:
Vines, K. (2023). Extension Foundation 2023 Professional Development Needs Assessment Report ). Kansas City: Extension Foundation.
Committee Chair: Aaron Weibe
Technical Implementer/Editing: Rose Hayden-Smith
This work was supported through funding from USDA-NIFA, New Technologies for Ag Extension , grant number 2020-41595-30123 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
For more information please contact:
Extension Foundation c/o Bryan Cave LLP One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105-2122 extension.org
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attribution............................................................................................................................................. 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 3 Author – Karen Vines, PhD................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology......................................................................................................................................... 6 Respondent Demographics................................................................................................................ 8 Land-Grant Universities Represented ............................................................................................................... 8 Respondent Roles ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Respondent Program Areas ............................................................................................................................ 10 Respondent Years of Service and Career Stages .......................................................................................... 11 Top Challenges Facing Extension Organizations ......................................................................... 14 Funding and Other Resources ........................................................................................................................ 15 Professional Development ............................................................................................................................... 17 Institutional Support ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Human Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Strengthening the National Extension Organization ....................................................................................... 22 Training Needs ................................................................................................................................... 23 Community Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 24 Telling Our Story .............................................................................................................................................. 26 Career Progression.......................................................................................................................................... 27 Funding and Other Resources ........................................................................................................................ 28 Supervisory Skills ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Human Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Professional Development ............................................................................................................................... 32 Training Provided .............................................................................................................................. 34 Home Institution Impactful Training ................................................................................................................. 34 Sources of Training.......................................................................................................................................... 63 Regional or National Professional Development Training Opportunities ........................................................ 64 Other Comments................................................................................................................................ 68 Recommendations............................................................................................................................. 74 Top Challenges ................................................................................................................................................ 74 Gaps in Training Being Provided ..................................................................................................................... 76 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendices......................................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix A – Interview Protocol...................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix B – Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 79 References.......................................................................................................................................... 91
3
AUTHOR – KAREN VINES, PHD
Karen Vines is an Assistant Professor and Continuing Education Specialist in the Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education at Virginia Tech. She has previously held positions at Penn State University, Purdue University, and University of Kentucky. Dr. Vines holds a B.S. from the University of Kentucky in Animal Sciences, an M.S. in Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences from Virginia Tech, and a PhD in Agricultural and Extension Education from the Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Vines is widely recognized for her work in the land- grant system and Cooperative Extension, particularly her expertise in experiential learning and engagement scholarship. She is the author of numerous publications, including Engaged Program Planning for Extension Foundation Impact Collaborative Teams.
You can connect with Dr. Vines on LinkedIn.
Image Credit: Karen Vines with her husband Neal Vines and Mack.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the study was to identify professional development needs for Extension professionals at 1862, 1890, and 1994 Land-grant universities in the US and US territories. A committee comprised of the researcher and selected members of the Extension Foundation leadership team served as a panel of experts carrying out a two-stage approach including key informant interviews followed by a national survey of Extension professionals. The survey provided insight into the top challenges Extension professionals feel can be alleviated by professional development training or other resources, training needs across Extension, and training that Extension professionals find to be impactful, or that adds value to their personal or professional lives. Respondents selected from pre-identified categories followed by subcategories to provide further insight into their original selections. In addit ion, respondents were encouraged to select “other” throughout the survey to provide open-ended comments. A total of 1168 responses were received, with 737 complete responses. Responses represented all 1862, 95% of 1890 and 37.5% of 1994 Land-grants. Extension professionals in numerous roles participated in the survey with community-based faculty and staff being the largest at 40%, followed by campus-based faculty, staff, and Land-grant coordinator at 18.93%, and administrative faculty including directors, deans, associate leadership, and program leaders coming in 3 rd at 16.01%. Years of service for the respondents ranged from 0.4 to 53 years. The maximum years of service for the 1862 and 1890 Land-grants was 53 and 50 years, respectively, but only 29 years at the 1994s. Respondents were also identified in a stratified break down of years of service as well as by self-identified career stages. The largest career stage represented in the survey was the colleague stage at 36.83%. The top three challenges selected across 1862, and 1890 Land-grants were 1) Funding and Other Resources, 2) Professional Development, and 3) Institutional Support. The top three challenges selected by the 1994 Land- grants were 1) Institutional Support, 2) Funding and Other Resources, and 3) Strengthening the National Extension Organization. Sub-categories within each of the challenges helped to add meaning to the category. Limited staff capacity and resources associated with small staff was the top contributor as identified by 20.55% of those selecting the funding and other resources category across all institutions. Employee retention and burnout were the top contributors to professional development with 12.90 and 12.85% by those across all institutions selecting these sub-categories. The limited staff capacity and funding and other resources were the primary selections of those selecting the institutional support category at 28.88 and 25.17% across all organizations. However, organizational trust and linkages across the missions of the Land-grant were selected by 16.11 to 13.06% of the respondents. Over 50% of those selecting the Strengthening the National Extension Organization Category across all organizations indicated need for developing connections to positions across Extension organizations (50.98%) with linkages across Land-grant types also highly selected (45.10%). The top three training needs selected by 1862 Land-grants were community engagement, telling our story, and career progression at 10.99%, 10.86%, and 9.90%, respectively. The top three training needs for the 1890 Land-grants were telling our story, supervisory skills, and community engagement at 12.01%, 10.39% and 10.06% respectively. The top training need for the 1994 Land-grants was professional development (12.04%) with telling our story and funding and other resources tied for second, both at 11.11%, and community engagement ranking third at 10.19%. Finally, respondents were asked to reflect on meaningful training in which they have participated. First, the focus was on impactful training provided by their home institution. The top three categories of impactful training reported as being provided by 1862 Land-grants were Core Values, Reporting, and Program Development at 14.05%, 12.89%, and 12.24%, respectively. There was a three-way tie for the top impactful training provided in the 1890 Land-grants with Core Values, Reporting and Community Engagement all being selected by 10.37% of the respondents. The top two impactful trainings selected for 1994 Land-grants were Program Specific Topics and Community Engagement at 23.53% and 14.71%, respectively. The 1994s reported a two-way tie for third with Core Values and Career Progression both being selected by 11.76% of the 1994 respondents. Respondents were also asked to identify training that added value to their personal or professional lives that was provided at the regional or national level in Extension or by an external organization to Extension.
5
This report concludes with recommendations to use the data provided by this study to develop collaborative efforts to strengthen Extension professional development training that encourages effective resource management. The Extension Foundation is recommended as an organization to facilitate national discussions leading to the development of framework for courses and curriculum that can be tailored to multiple audiences. This will facilitate sharing of resources, providing not only strengthened professional development training across all Land-grants at the national level, but also can support the development of an Extension certificate program that may be attractive to current and prospective Extension professionals. Recommendations for further study related to survey findings and use of this instrument for future needs assessment are also provided.
INTRODUCTION
The Extension Foundation invited Extension to participate in a survey to identify professional development needs for Extension professionals at 1862, 1890, and 1994 Land-grant universities in the US and US territories. Every few years, the Extension Foundation conducts a system-wide needs assessment to understand daily needs, career support, technology, and professional development needs of Extension professionals with the results provided to the Extension Foundation and other organizations across Extension. Prior to this 2023 Needs Assessment, the prior survey was conducted in 2019 and led by Dr. Courtney Owens from Kentucky State University. Since 2019, there have been many events, including adapting to virtual programming as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, that may have changed or evolved the needs of Extension professionals. The Extension Foundation selected Dr. Karen Vines, Assistant Professor and VCE Continuing Professional Education Specialist, to serve as the Needs Assessment Fellow from March 2023 through project completion. Dr. Vines worked with support from Extension Foundation staff members, Aaron Weibe (lead), Ashley Griffin (Interim COO), Molly Immendorf, and Karl Bradley as well as a Virginia Tech graduate student, Lisa McCormick. This project team provided input into the assessment along with utilizing Extension Foundation tools and resources for development and dissemination.
METHODOLOGY
An initial meeting was held on March 14 with Dr. Vines and team members. At this time, we reviewed the objectives for the project and developed a research approach intended to involve others within the Extension organization to develop a survey with content that would yield meaningful results. In addition, we wanted to have an adequate number of responses with representation in our responses that crossed all Land-grant university types of the Extension system. In order to achieve this, we developed an interview protocol (Appendix A) that was used to interview selected individuals from 1890, 1994, and 1862 regions to identify challenges being faced by Extension organizations, training being provided by their organizations, and training needed by their organizations. We also asked for their support in promoting the survey to their organizations. Interviews were conducted March 29 to April 25, 2023. Organizations were randomly selected from the different institutional types and the project team identified individuals at those organizations as potential contacts. A total of sixteen interviews were conducted. Titles of individuals participating in the interviews represented included Assistant Agent; Assistant Director, Extension Family and Community Wellness; Assistant Specialist, School of Nutritional Sciences and Wellness, Associate Dean, Extension and Agricultural Programs; Associate Dean for Extension; Associate Director for Program Management and Federal Relations; Associate Director, Programs; Associate Professor, Leadership; Department Head and Assistant Director, Extension; Director/Associate Administrator; Extension Administrator; Extension/Community Education Coordinator; Extension Professor; Extension Program and Staff Development Specialist; Family and Consumer Science State Staff; and Learning and Talent Development Specialist.
6
Data from the interviews was coded using emergent coding and used to develop a draft survey. The project team reviewed the draft survey and made revisions. The draft survey was then released to the interviewees to receive their feedback. Revisions were made based on their recommendations to provide the final survey. The survey was released by the Extension Foundation, regional Extension directors, and to interview participants on May 15. A soft deadline of May 22 was promoted, with the survey closing on June 1. Data was handled as indicated in the individual sections. The data was comprised of four parts which are presented in this document. They include respondent demographics, top challenges facing the Extension organization, training needs, and sources of training. Data is presented for across all Land-grants as well as by each institutional type for the first three parts of the survey. Sources of training are provided both for individual Land-grants as well as other sources as reported by survey respondents. All responses were maintained. All questions required multiple selections by each respondent, so the number of responses provided to each question is given throughout the report. Open ended responses were coded using the identified categories and sub-categories, where appropriate, backed up with emergent coding.
This project was deemed not human subjects research so did not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval by Virginia Tech IRB.
7
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Land-Grant Universities Represented A total of 1168 responses were received with 737 complete responses. While a majority of the respondents represented 1862 Land-grant universities, there were respondents from the 1890 and 1994 Land-grant universities as well (Table 1). In addition, there were several “Other” respondents. These included National 4 -H Council employees and volunteers or stakeholders.
Table 1. Representation of different Land-grant types among survey responses.
Land-Grant Type
Number of Respondents
Percent of Survey Respondents
1862 1890 1994
1011
86.56% 7.62% 2.91% 2.91%
89 34 34
No Response to Question
Total Responses
1168
Top 1862 University Respondents At least one response was received from each 1862 university (n=1005). The ten universities with at least 30 responses are listed in Table 2. The College of Marshall Fields was originally not included in the list of the 1862 universities but was added after this oversight was identified through four respo nses in the “other” category. Two individuals who selected 1862 as their university type indicated that they preferred not to name their university, while a third indicated they were a part of a regional entity.
Table 2 Top ten 1862 universities in terms of number of survey responses and percent representation of 1862s.
University
Number of Responses (% of 1862’s)
University of Kentucky Oklahoma State University North Carolina State University
74 (7.36%) 61 (6.07%) 59 (5.87%) 44 (4.38%) 43 (4.28%) 42 (4.18%) 39 (3.88%) 34 (3.38%) 32 (3.18%) 30 (2.99%)
Colorado State University University of Illinois University of California
Cornell University
University of Missouri Kansas State University Oregon State University
Top 1890 University Respondents Responses were received from 18 of the 19 1890 Land-grant Universities. Three universities contributed at least 10% of the 1890’s responses. These universities were North Carolina A&T university with 12 responses, followed by Tuskegee University with 10 responses, and Delaware State University and Florida A&M University each with nine responses.
8
Top 1994 University Respondents Responses identifying tribal Land-grants were received from only 37.5% of the 1994 Land-grant Institutions included on the original list in the survey. However, three additional tribal institutions were identified by respondents in the “other” category. These include First Americans Land-grant Consortium, Oglala Lakota College, and Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College. Two tribal colleges contributed at least 10% of the 29 responses identifying specific tribal institutions. These include Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute with six responses and Little Priest Tribal College with five responses. Respondent Roles Survey respondents were asked to select the role that best defined their work at their institution. Table 3 reflects the percentage of individuals selecting each role by institution. The role of volunteer/stakeholder was added based on responses to “other roles”. The remaining “other roles” were not identified. The greatest percentage of respondents for 1862 Land-grants selected the community-based faculty/staff role (43.89%), while 21.25% of 1890 respondents and no 1994 respondents selected this role. The highest percentage of respondents in 1890 and 1994 institutions were in administrative roles (1890- 28.75%; 1994 – 48.28%). This compared to 14% respondents in administrative roles in 1862 Land-grants. A higher percentage of 1890 respondents (22.50%) were campus-based faculty, staff, or Land-grant coordinators as compared to 18.84% for 1862 and 13.79% for 1994 institutions. Of additional interest is that 31.03% of the 1994 respondents were directors or staff at the area, district, or regional level, as compared to 9.26% of the 1862 and 8.75% of the 1994 respondents. Additionally, while all roles at the single institution level were represented for the 1862 and 1890 Land-grants, only four roles were represented for the 1994 institutions.
Table 3 Roles of respondents identified by percentage of respondents for each institutional type.
Land-Grant Types
Role
All
1862
1890
1994
Other
Administrative/Director/Dean/Associate Leadership/Program Leaders Area/District/Regional Directors/Staff Campus-based Faculty/Staff/Land-grant Coordinator
16.01%
14.00%
28.75%
48.28%
0.00% 0.00%
9.79%
9.26%
8.75%
31.03%
18.93%
18.84%
22.50%
13.79%
0.00% 0.00%
Community-based Faculty/Staff
40.87%
43.89%
21.25%
0.00%
Professional & Staff Development
3.95%
3.79%
6.25%
0.00%
33.33%
Regional, National, or Association Executive Director
0.75%
0.63%
0.00%
0.00%
66.67%
Research Center Faculty/Staff
2.73% 6.12% 0.56%
2.53% 6.11% 0.63%
6.25% 6.25% 0.00%
0.00% 6.90% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Support Unit Faculty/Staff
Volunteer/Stakeholder
Other roles
0.28%
0.32%
0.00%
0.00%
Number of Question Responses
1062
950
80
29
3
9
Respondent Program Areas Respondents were asked to identify all the primary program areas in which they worked. The percentage of program areas are presented for each institution type (Table 4). The mean number of program areas selected by individuals was 1.58 with a minimum of 0 and maximum of 11 (SD=1.45). Initial responses to other resulted in the addition of eight areas which were not included as options in the original survey. These are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Energy and Climate Issues; Entomology; Food Science and Systems; Program Funding (Grants, Contracts, Securing, Managing, etc.); Support staff; Urban programs; and Generalist. A small number of other responses in other suggest that some of our traditionally labeled program areas need to be subdivided. These include Agriculture and Natural Resources, which should be broken to Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Forestry and Health and Nutrition which could be divided into separate Health and Nutrition program areas. Other listed in this table was a volunteer in the role of Deputy City Clerk.
Table 4 Program areas of respondents organized by type of institution. Program areas followed by * were added after data collection because of a number of similar responses to the "other" category. They are not included in the "other" count.
Land-Grant Types
Program Areas
All
1862
1890
1994
4-H Youth Development
12.01%
12.35%
12.68%
1.45%
Administration
9.52%
8.97%
11.97%
18.84%
Agriculture & Natural Resources
16.82% 10.60%
16.46% 10.32%
18.31% 11.97%
20.29% 14.49%
Community Development
Evaluation & Extension Research
3.35%
3.32%
2.11%
7.25% 4.35%
Family and Consumer Sciences
12.11%
12.35%
14.08%
Financial Management Programming
2.49%
2.52%
2.11%
1.45%
Health and Nutrition
10.98%
11.36%
8.45% 2.11% 6.34% 1.41%
8.70% 5.80% 1.45% 5.80%
Horticulture
6.87%
7.37%
Leadership Development
4.22% 3.03%
4.12% 3.07%
Marketing and Communications
Professional and Staff Development
4.11%
4.05%
4.93%
1.45%
Technology
1.62% 0.38% 0.59% 0.16%
1.47% 0.37% 0.55% 0.18%
1.41% 0.70% 0.70% 0.00%
5.80% 0.00% 1.45% 0.00%
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion*
Energy/Climate Issues*
Entomology*
Food Science and Systems*
0.38%
0.43%
0.00%
0.00%
Program Funding*
0.22% 0.16% 0.22% 0.11%
0.12% 0.18% 0.25% 0.12%
0.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Support Staff *
Urban*
Generalist*
Other
0.05%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
Number of Question Responses
1849
1628
142
69
Across all institutional types, the Agriculture and Natural Resources program area is most highly represented by survey responses. The broad area of Family and Consumer Sciences is second highest across all institutions and in 1890 institutions but is tied with 4-H Youth Development for 1862 institutions. The earlier report of a high percentage of respondents from the 1994 institutions in the administrative role is supported in this response, as administrative program areas are second most represented. The high number of Health and Nutrition program
10
area respondents for the 1862 institutions is also of interest. Community development, as a program area, also appears to be well represented across the institutions.
Respondent Years of Service and Career Stages
Years of Service For this report responses of 0 years or non-respondents to the question were removed. A summary of the years of service reported by Land-grant type is provided in Table 5. Immediate observations include the much lower mean and maximum years of service accompanied by a lower standard deviation for the 1994 Land-grants. Another observation is the large difference between the mean and maximum years of service.
Table 5 Years of service by institution type, excluding question non-respondents and responses of "0".
Land-Grant Types
Parameter
All
1862
1890
1994
Range (Years)
0.4 - 53
0.4-53
1-50
0.5-29
Number of Question Responses
1020
917
72
24
Average
13
13.1
13.46
2.11
SD
10.5
10.5
10.68
9.15
To look at this in a different way, data was categorized for respondents with three or fewer years, four to seven years, eight to fifteen years, sixteen to thirty years, and greater than thirty years of service as reflected in Table 6. Again, the lower length of service in the 1994 Land-grants is evident as there were no respondents with more than 30 years of service in contrast to 7.52% in 1862 and 6.94% in 1890 Land-grants. Also, of interest is that nearly half (45.83%) of the 1994 respondents had three or fewer years of service, compared to 20.83% for 1862 and 19.44% for 1890 Land-grants. If the sample of 1994 respondents in this survey is representative of the 1994 Land-grant institutions, this would most likely impact demand for onboarding, mentoring, and other professional development associated with preparing employees to be successful in their careers. Couple this with the earlier data that indicates that many of these individuals are in administrative positions, suggesting need for leadership and mentoring training coupled with professional development traditionally presented in early career stages.
Table 6 Break down of percent respondents in years of service categories compared across institutional types.
Land-Grant Types
Category
All
1862
1890
1994
< = 3 Years
21.18%
20.83%
19.44%
45.83%
4-7 Years
18.73%
18.76%
15.28%
20.83%
8-15 Years
25.49%
25.74%
27.78%
12.50%
16-30 Years
27.25%
27.15%
30.56%
20.83%
>30 Years
7.35%
7.52%
6.94%
0.00%
Career Stages Extension career stage work was first proposed by (Rennekamp & Nall, 1994) as a way to consider the professional development needs of individuals at various stages of their careers. These included the early or entry level career stage, the colleague career stage, the counselor career stage, and the advisor career stage. These have been amended in recent years, adding a pre-entry stage for developing coursework and internships for individuals preparing for a career in Extension (Benge, Harder, & Carter, 2011). Additional work continues related to career stage which may be more effective in identifying organizational professional development
11
needs rather than considering years of service. This considers that individuals will move through different stages at different rates and provides guidance into how people later in their careers may be supported to contribute most productively to the long-term success of the Extension organization. In addition, a career stage approach may more effectively account for prior experience when people transition to other positions within or from outside the Extension organization. A summary of respondents identifying with specific career stages, as well as the definition provided in the survey is included in Table 7.
Table 7 Breakdown of respondents from different Land-grant institutions by career stage.
Land-Grant Types
Career Stage
Definition
All
1862
1890
1994
Employee is entering the profession, attaining foundational skills, and learning about the organization. Employee is accepted as a member of a professional community and able to independently contribute expertise to problem-solving and program development. Employee actively serves in leadership roles within Extension and professional associations. Employee plays a key role in shaping the future of the organization through innovative ideas and original concepts, or sponsoring promising people, has a distinct competence in several areas of expertise and regional and/or national reputation, catalyst for positive change.
Early or Entry
11.88%
11.71%
6.94%
33.33%
Colleague
36.83%
37.09%
34.72%
33.33%
Counselor
28.82%
29.10%
33.33%
4.17%
Advisor
18.72%
18.38%
22.22%
20.83%
Other
3.76%
3.72%
2.78%
8.33%
Number of Question Responses
1012
914
72
24
Respondents selecting “other” rather than identifying with a specific career stage indicated they served in
Academic position outside of Extension
Community educator (general, Family and Consumers Sciences Educator in individuals, families, and communities, Nutrition)
Departmental oversight or supervisor
Late in career or pre-retirement, phasing out and encouraging others to step up and assume leadership roles
New to Extension with previous career experience elsewhere
Part time (Program assistant, retired)
Pesticide safety education program
Pursuing education for a new position
Support roles (administrative assistant, clerical support, program development and assistant, support staff, paraprofessional)
12
In response to “other”, one individual responded that they were “Ready for retirement but would like to continue in an Advisor role if there were such a position.” Another individual commented that “expertise, leadership and problem-solving opportunities a re not available beyond administration” in their experience. The data along with the open-ended comments suggest need for greater consideration of how we prepare Extension employees to become more active in leadership positions and contributing to the future and success of the Extension organization in the latter career stages. This is particularly evident when we consider the small number of individuals assuming leadership roles within the 1994 Land-grant institutions. Comparison Across Years of Service and Career Stages Differences associated with years of service, the range of service in terms of minimum and maximum years of service by Land-grant institution type are evident as well (Table 8). Although the number of respondents is smaller for the 1994 institutions, again, the years of service at each career stage remain much lower than for the other institution types.
Table 8 Mean years of service, minimum and maximum years of service and standard deviations for respondents based on career stage and Land-grant institution type.
1862 Mean Years
1890 Mean Years
1994 Mean Years
1862 Min- Max
1862 SD
1890 Min- Max
1890 SD
1994 Min- Max
1994 SD
Early or Entry
2.31
0.5-14
2.18
3.20
1-9
3.49
2.13
1-4
1.36
Colleague Counselor
10.01 15.56 20.97 18.74
0.4-42
8.51 9.74
10.52 13.67 19.69 23.50
1-30 1-37
8.08 9.36
12.63
1-29
10.56
1-53
0.50
.5
NA
Advisor
1-50 10.04 1-40 12.29
2-50
13.80
13.40
2-27
10.26
Other
19-28
6.36
2.50
2-3
0.71
Only one respondent in this category.
13
TOP CHALLENGES FACING EXTENSION ORGANIZATIONS
The survey request for this section was “Please select up to three challenges facing your Extension organization that may be alleviated by professional development programs or other sources of support” (Appendix B). Examples were provided as well as the “other” category where additional challenges could be identified. Respondents were then asked to identify sub-categories within each of the three top challenges to provide more detail related to that top challenge. Once again, respondents were able to select from a list of possibilities or add a specific item as “other.” The top challenges and further clarification are provided for all respondents and then by university type (Table 9). Descriptions provided in the prompt are included in the following sections and in the survey (Appendix B).
Table 9 Top Challenges categorized by institutional type. The minimum number of selections made by respondents was 0, with some respondents selecting nine responses. The mean number of selections was 2.3 and the median was 3. The standard deviation was 1.47.
Institutional Rank from Highest to Lowest % Responses All Institutions 1862 1890 1994
Top Challenges
Funding and Other Resources
1 – 16.74
1 – 16.72
1 – 15.23
2 – 18.57
Professional Development
2 – 14.32 3 – 13.66 4 – 12.70 5 – 11.31
2 – 14.43 3 – 13.32 4 – 13.07 5 – 11.19
2 – 14.72
5 – 10.00
Institutional Support
3 – 13.71
1 – 24.29
Community Engagement
6 – 9.14
5 – 10.00
Human Resources
3 – 13.71
4 – 11.43
Leadership Development
6 – 9.65
6 – 9.71
5 – 11.17
7 – 4.29
Program Development Processes
7 – 9.43 8 – 5.54
7 – 9.22 8 – 5.66
4 – 13.20
6 – 7.14 8 – 1.43
Core Values
7 – 5.08
Strengthening the National Extension Organization
9 – 5.03
9 – 4.92
8 – 3.55 9 – 0.51
3 – 12.86
Other
10 – 1.62
10 – 1.76
No Response
Number of Question Responses
2724
2440
197
70
Items are tied for third ranking within the specific Land-grant group. Items are tied for fifth ranking within the specific Land-grant group.
The top challenges vary by institutional type. There is agreement for rankings across all groups and 1862 Land- grants, most likely due to the larger number of respondents from the 1862 Land-grants. Funding and Other Resources was selected as the top challenge for all, 1862 and 1890 Land-grants while Institutional Support was the top challenge for the 1994 Land-grants. Top challenges included in the survey are reviewed in this document with the top three challenges for all institutions summarized here.
Other top challenges written in by respondents from 1862 Land-grants that did not relate to predefined challenges are as follows:
Continuing to ask us to do more with less. By less, I mean they take part of our funding that we make to do more programming and pay for professional development to just keep the lights on. When I first started, we got $900 per year to help with professional development. Now we get nothing and they take 5% off the top of everything we make. On top of that they are going to start tapping into our revolving accounts to staff people. They want to know how we are going to create a revenue stream. We educate--we are not for profit!
Development of international training and development programs, presented around the world.
Digital infrastructure development (with a focus on communications) and data management to better organize fact sheet information and other science-based resources
14
Finding volunteers
Institutional relevance in an urbanizing landscape.
Managing formal Extension collaborations across state lines - we need to operate regionally but funds are apportioned by state
Regaining momentum in 4-H enrollment post-pandemic
Strategies for successfully programming in challenging issues (climate change, DEI) given the negative impressions of these held by many non-urban taxpayers and local elected officials critical to support of Extension at the local level
Funding and Other Resources Funding and other resources were defined in the survey to include facilities, funding, having innovation capacity, institutional support, limited staff capacity/resources (small staff), meeting increased societal need, operating space, and telling our story subcategories. Funding and Other Resources was the top ranked challenge across all, 1862, and 1890 Land-grant universities and the second ranked challenge for 1994 Land-grants. Respondents selecting this option were then asked to select subcategories from the included list with the opportunity to add other contributors to this area of challenge in response to other. Findings by subcategory are presented in Table 10.
Table 10 Challenges ranked from greatest to least based on percent responses associated with funding and other resources provided by Land-grant institution type.
Institutional Rank from Highest to Lowest % Responses All Institutions 1862 1890 1994
Funding and Other Resources Subcategories Limited Staff Capacity/Resources (Small Staff)
1-20.55 2-19.22 3-12.08 4-11.14
1-20.48 2-19.20 3-12.07 4-10.79 5-10.12 6-10.05
1-19.61 2-17.65 4-11.76
1-24.49
Funding
2-20.41
Meeting Increased Societal Need
3-20.41
Facilities
3-13.73
2- 20.41
Having Innovation Capacity
5-9.97 6-9.86
4-11.76
6-4.08
Telling Our Story
6-7.84
4-8.16
Institutional Support
7-9.03
7-9.08
5-8.82 5-8.82
6-4.08
Operating Space
8-7.20 9-0.94
8-7.19 9-1.04
5-6.12
Other
No Response
No Response
Number of Question Responses
1805
1641
102
49
Items are tied for second ranking within this group. Items are tied for fourth ranking within this group. Items are tied for fifth ranking within this group. Items are tied for sixth ranking within this group.
Limited staff capacity and resources, also referred to as small staff numbers was consistently identified as the top challenge associated with funding and resources by respondents across all Land-grant types. Funding followed in second but was tied with facilities for the 1994 Land-grants. Innovation capacity was ranked more highly for 1890 institutions than for 1862 and 1994s. Operating space and institutional support were more highly ranked as challenges by respondents at 1890 and 1994 Land-grants.
15
Other responses were provided only by 1862 respondents. Using emergent codes, these were identified and ranked by most frequently used code as follows. In many cases, wording is left as provided to avoid misunderstanding. Prioritization across many roles – difficulty setting priorities, faculty having too many responsibilities (i.e., teaching, etc.), need for greater attention to wood products and community and economic development
Community connection – growing community leadership, cross state/cross Land-grant programming, trust
Volunteers – finding volunteers, and continued recognition of the value and appreciation for the work of volunteers
Funding challenges –
• High in directs, difficulty of field staff to be PIs [principal investigators] on grant and/or administer them remotely under our institutional requirements
• Some areas of our work cannot be connected to a “pay to play” mentality
Evaluation methods – collective impact evaluation
Strategic plan, implementation
Historically strained relationship with legislators
Poor choices in recruiting and hiring for positions
Responses related to funding identified as other top challenges by 1862 Land-grant respondents in the initial question included:
Historical perspective, the effect of policy formation, the Land-grant university mission and type of institution and how the conversation is shaped because of these legislative decisions
Low salaries/wages - Retaining quality people with appropriate pay (i.e., we're losing good people who find better compensation elsewhere, exacerbating recruitment and training challenges)
Office and storage space
16
Professional Development In the survey, professional development was listed as including the subcategories of distributed leadership; diversity, equity, and inclusion; employee burnout and retention; finding and maintaining professional development programs (DEI); globalization impacts in communities; leadership development; onboarding; professional development across career stages; remote work environments; succession planning; and volunteer development and management. Professional development was listed as the second greatest challenge for 1862 and 1890 and as fifth for 1994 Land-grants. Table 11 indicates how the various subcategories of professional development were ranked within this category by institution.
Table 11 Challenges ranked from greatest to least based on percent responses associated with professional development provided by Land-grant institution type.
Institutional Rank from Highest to Lowest
Professional Development Subcategories
All Institutions
1862
1890
1994
Employee Retention
1 - 12.90
1 - 12.92
1 - 13.24
2 - 13.51
2 - 11.76
Employee Burnout
2 - 12.85
2 - 12.82
1 - 16.22
Professional Development Across Career Stages
2 - 11.76
5 - 5.41
3 - 9.71
3 - 9.64
Onboarding
4 - 8.89
4 - 8.94
5 - 8.09
3 - 10.81
4 - 8.11
Leadership Development
5 - 7.89
6 - 7.70
3 - 11.03
5 - 5.41
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
6 - 7.47
5 - 7.75
9 - 3.68
4 - 8.11
Succession Planning
7 - 7.29
7 - 7.10
4 - 8.82
7 - 5.88
5 - 5.41
Volunteer Development
8 - 6.11
8 - 6.16
10 - 2.94
5 - 5.41
Volunteer Management Maintaining Professional Development Programs
9 - 5.42
9 - 5.56
4 - 8.11
10 - 5.10
10 - 5.07
8 - 5.15
6 - 2.70
Remote Work Environments
11 - 4.83
11 - 4.77
6 - 6.62
7 - 5.88
6 - 2.70
Distributed Leadership
12 - 4.56
12 - 4.52
Finding Professional Development Programs
10 - 2.94
5 - 5.41
13 - 4.38
13 - 4.42
Globalization Impacts in Communities
6 - 2.70
14 - 2.28
14 - 2.29
11 - 2.21
Other Responses
15 - 0.32
15 - 0.35 No Responses No Responses
Number of Question Responses
2194
2013
136
37
Items are tied for second within this group. Items are tied for fourth within this group. Items are tied for fifth within this group. Items are tied for sixth within this group. Items are tied for seventh within this group. Items are tied for tenth within this group.
These responses indicate a high level of interest in using professional development to increase employee retention and decrease employee burnout. This appears to be connected with considering how we provide professional development for employees working across the career stage. Onboarding also appears as a critical need for the 1994s. Professional development related to leadership development and succession planning are expressed as needs for 1890 Land-grants. A small number of “other” comments were provided by respondents from the 1862 Land-grants. These indicated need for funding to support professional development. Concerns related to onboarding included not providing training and then blaming employees for failure to meet, sometimes elevated, expectations. A need for volunteer
17
onboarding was also expressed. Someone also wrote in a need for “training in curriculum”. In addition, a respondent indicated a “lack of strategic, democratic leadership, direction, plan, and process for 21 st century LG Extension manifesto (Shift from 20 th century “Ag” Extension paradigm)”. Someone else responded that “ University and Extension administration does not understand or value community and economic development enough to make a make a higher priority commitment to it by allocating base funding (tenure track) for 4-6 field positions across the state and we have some limited campus position support. ” Embedded in the responses to other top challenges in the parent questions were several responses that are classified as relating to professional development. In general, responses indicated need for funding for professional development as well as access to quality, graduate level, subject matter continuing education for Extension professionals. Other responses indicating needing to develop “training systems and ways for new employees to plug in and be effective quickly” in order to reduce attrition within t he first two years, and in general clearer understanding by agents of what is expected of them in their jobs through setting of clear goals and also providing easy to access and use resources. General program development tools were identified by a respondent commenting on the “l ack of structure for the basic order of operations in creating, communicating, and evaluating and reporting the impact of programs. Lack of checklists, templates. ” Need for “l earning about different cultures and practices in order to better serve the community and develop effective interventions ” was identified by another respondent. Training related to technology for communicating more effectively with communities and families to advertise programs was also identified. Finally, need for evaluation, specifically related to measuring impact was also mentioned.
18
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91Powered by FlippingBook