Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Wadsworth, Henry A.

English

Research Papers in Economics

EXTENSION ACCOUNTABILITY--AN  1862 PERSPECTIVE
H.A.  Wadsworth
Purdue University
Legislative  Background
When the 1996 farm bill was being discussed, most
of the attention was on commodity programs.  Because
of the extensiveness  of that discussion, Representative
Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the House Committee
on Agriculture,  argued for a delay in the consideration
of the content of the research  title of the farm bill for
two years.  He believed  a more thorough  airing of the
concerns  that  surrounded research  and extension  was
required  and thus the delay.
In  the  fall  of  1996,  Representative  Roberts  was
elected to the Senate.  In that move, the leadership  in
the House Committee on Agriculture was transferred to
Representative  Bob Smith  (R-OR).  Smith had been
promised the chairmanship  of the committee if he would
run again.  Smith's agenda was quite different than that
of Roberts.  Consequently,  the leadership  for the writ-
ing of the  research and extension title switched  from
the House  side to the  Senate  side.  It  would now  be
written under the  direction of Senator  Richard Lugar
(R-IN), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agricul-
ture, Nutrition  and Forestry.
Lugar sought to get an accounting  of all the con-
cerns and considerations  surrounding  agricultural  re-
search  and extension.  The Senate  sent  out  a set  of
survey  questions  to  the research  and  extension  com-
munity.  In the spring of 1997, the Senate began work
to develop various aspects of the legislation.  The ulti-
mate result was  Senate Bill  1150.  The bill first came
out in draft form in July 1997.  It was not passed during
that session of Congress, but eventually became law in
June  1998.
The Debate in the Land Grant Community
The  1862 community'  had a number of concerns
during the legislation's  development.  Clearly, the Na-
tional  Research  Council  reports  (National  Research
Council  1995, National Research Council  1996) were
a concern to the 1862 community.  It was believed that
many of the recommendations  were simply value judge-
ments of the participants  and there was  no supporting
evidence to suggest why they were relevant.
There  also seemed to be  a near complete  discon-
nect between  what was  going  on in Washington  con-
cerning the research and extension title and the rest of
the country.  As a simple illustration, a series of lobby-
ists in Washington, D.C. were arguing that Smith Lever
funds  should  be used for agricultural extension  work
only.  This was not the sentiment of the state presidents
of the farm organizations, nor was it the opinion of the
national presidents.  This disconnect between the views
of the  people who  made up the  organization  and  the
views of their profession  staff was disconcerting.
Competitive Grants.  The prevailing  viewpoint
that  competitive  grants  was  the  way to  award  funds
became a major consideration in the new research title.
First, if you administer a competitive grants program,
you award money only  to projects in specified  areas.
The  1862  community  refers  to  the land  grant  colleges  and
universities  which  were  created  or  endowed  by  the  1862  Morill
Act.
USecondly,  an accountability factor is already built into
the  competitive  grants  project  because  a final  report
summarizing  the  results  is required.  There  is  also an
assumption  of quality because  the  review  procedure
presumably  selects  only work  of the  highest quality.
This  is clearly the Office  of Management  and Budget
perspective.
Through  all of this,  the Extension  Committee on
Organization  and Policy (ECOP)  and the ECOP legis-
lative  committee had  to decide  what  was  acceptable.
Nearly every measure in that bill which applied to ex-
tension could have been killed, but the war would have
been lost in the process.  You simply could not take on
all  the issues  and  argue against  them  effectively  and
still have something left.  An attempt was made to evalu-
ate the trade-offs for the system as a whole.
Smith Lever Funds.  The deliberation process did
not  endorse  the  proposal  that  Smith Lever  funds  be
limited  to agricultural  work  only.  Another  proposal
would have opened up Smith Lever funds to non-land
grant  institutions.  The  ECOP position was that funds
under the Smith Lever Act must be retained for use by
land grant institutions  and  that it would accept  some
other provisions  in the legislation if this principle  was
accepted.
Plans of Work.  One of the other provisions in the
legislation is a required plan of work.  The plan of work
must  demonstrate  stakeholder  input.  What  is  suffi-
cient  stakeholder  input?  Are  the stakeholders  for ex-
tension  and  research  the  same?  A  plan  of work  is
foreign to most of our research colleagues.  They have
worked everything on a project basis.  A plan of work is
much  more familiar  to  the  extension  community.  I
have no qualms about our ability to satisfactorily  meet
this  requirement.
Multi-state  Efforts.  One  of the things  which  is
required  for funding is to demonstrate that 25  percent
of our  Smith Lever  3b,c  funds  are  applied  to  multi-
state efforts.  There is no definition of what constitutes
a multi-state  effort, although  some things are obvious.
The  Pacific  Northwest  region  of Oregon,  Idaho  and
Washington has  a program  which is  funded in such a
way that  it  is very clear  that it is  a multi-state  effort.
Frequently,  in most cases,  an  educational program  is
developed by specialists from a number of states.  This
example is obviously a multi-state effort.  However, are
the county extension staff who carry out the programs
conducting  a multi-state  program or not?  Definitions
are going to be crucial.
Integrated Efforts.  States  must  also certify that
25 percent of the Smith Lever funds are integrated ex-
tension-research efforts.  Multi-state and integrated re-
search  and  extension are  not mutually  exclusive  cat-
egories.  In other words, this does not earmark 50 per-
cent of the funds since some may fit both categories.
Accountability.  Accountability  and  evaluation
are not the same.  From my point of view, accountabil-
ity is "did we do what we said we would do in the plan
of work?"  Evaluation is what kind of behavioral  change
or difference came as a result of that work.  My sense is
that we will have to be more accountable for what we
put in a plan of work.  I do not think that we will have
to evaluate  everything,  but we  will probably  need  to
target a few specific programs.
Conclusion
My personal  view of the plan  of work process is
that the most  important element  in establishing  cred-
ibility  will  be  interaction  with  stakeholders.  Once  a
plan  is in  place  that  relates  to those  stakeholders,  I
think we will clearly be held accountable  for it.  Thebottom line-evaluation of behavioral changes-will
only  be carried  out on  selected  programs.  Whether
those will be state-based, regional or national is yet to
be determined.
References
National  Research  Council.  Colleges of Agriculture at the Land
Grant Universities: A  Profile.  Washington  DC:  National
Academy  Press,  1995.
National  Research  Council.  Colleges of Agriculture at the Land
Grant Universities: Public Service and Public Policy.
Washington  DC:  National  Academy  Press,  1996.
Ull

EXTENSION ACCOUNTABILITY--AN 1862 PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics