1 / 21

University of Georgia C ooperative Extension 2010 Review of County Delivery

University of Georgia C ooperative Extension 2010 Review of County Delivery Input from County Officials Delivered to Steering Committee for Review of County Operations August 16, 2010. BACKGROUND

rowena
Download Presentation

University of Georgia C ooperative Extension 2010 Review of County Delivery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension 2010 Review of County Delivery Input from County Officials Delivered to Steering Committee for Review of County Operations August 16, 2010

  2. BACKGROUND • County official input solicited via e-mailed invitation from ACCG Executive Director Ross King • Invitation sent to 1000 county officials (commissioners, clerks, managers/administrators) • 244 completed surveys (response rate > 24%) • Respondents represented 125 unique counties (ranged from 1response per county [N=58]to 12 responses per county [N=1]) • 9 respondents did not identify their county

  3. Demographics of Responding Officials • Official Type • 59.5% (138) Elected Officials • 40.5% (94) Appointed Officials • 12 respondents did not identify themselves • County Population • 15.0% (35) “small” [ < 10,000] • 59.2% (138) “medium” [10,000 – 50,000] • 25.7% (60) “large” [> 50,000] • 11 respondents did not identify themselves

  4. SURVEY QUESTIONS (41) • Value of Extension program/service types (18) • Value of Extension program/service delivery methods (12) • Return on Investment made in Extension (1) • Extension staffing models (3) • Potential collaboration with other counties (2) • Extension funding strategies (1) • Other (1) • Demographics (3)

  5. Value of Extension program/service types:4-H Youth

  6. Value of Extension program/service types:FACS

  7. Value of Extension program/service types:A&NR

  8. Return on Investment (by county size)

  9. Importance of Full-time CEC (by county size)

  10. Paraprofessionals in lieu of Agents (by county size)

  11. Willingness to collaborate in support of CEA’s (by county size)

  12. Willingness to collaborate in support of CEC’s (by county size)

  13. If Extension office were to be closed, which funding strategies would you consider? (by county size)

  14. [ OPEN-ENDED: POSITIVE] “The service ____ County receives for the dollars spent on our Extension Service is amazing. They manage to do so much with so little. It is an incredibly popular agency in our community and the thought that their head is always on the "chopping block" when UGA officials look for cost savings makes no sense to me. This is the one agency in almost every county in Georgia that represents a presence of UGA locally. I certainly hope there is a way to save the Extension Service. It is the one local agency that is all positive government in the eyes of the public.”

  15. [ OPEN-ENDED: SUGGESTIVE ] “In my opinion the extension service can be much more viable entity if the county residents were educated on the advantages and the services offered.”

  16. [ OPEN-ENDED: NEGATIVE ] “I have constituents telling me all the time, ‘the Extension Service is no longer needed with the internet. 4-H should be funded by the school system, not county government.’ ”

  17. QUESTIONS ? SUGGESTIONS ?

  18. THANK YOU!

More Related