In Murphysboro, Ag Adviser Bob Frank answers telephone questions ranging from how to recognize a brown recluse spider to how to use forages for a cash crop, then examines a "new bug" eating a Jackson County fanner's young soybean plants.

In Chicago, Urban Gardening Community Worker Edna Eiland and Chicago 4-H Leader Shirley Washington work with a group of youngsters in the heat and humidity of a June day, planting flats of marigolds and petunias at the Ida B. Wells public housing development. (That story was featured in the spring 1991 issue of Urban Update, the newsletter from the University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service in Cook County.)

In Chatham, Home Economics Adviser Barb Cooper explains the advantages of meatless meals to the local Homemakers Extension Association, then joins the members in putting the final stitches in several quilts they will donate to area hospitals for babies born with serious illnesses.

These activities are guided by the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, which is anchored at the University of Illinois. Defined by its name, the service "extends" research knowledge gathered at the College of Agriculture at the University of Illinois through a "cooperative" network of professionals, paraprofessionals and volunteers for use, free of charge, by the people of Illinois.

The service, like much of government these days, has money troubles and is undergoing reorganization. Donald Uchtmann is director of Cooperative Extension Service at the University of Illinois, and he sees the financial crunch as an opportunity to make the organization more serviceable. Change in the extension service excites some and scares others. Uchtmann is trying to steer the network of services and programs through its reorganization, tapping the enthusiasm of some while allaying the fears of those unconvinced of the need to reorganize a system that many at ground level see as working well as it is.

When the Cooperative Extension Service was created by Congress in 1914 to act as an information bridge between land-grant colleges and farmers, the American population was predominately rural and homogeneous. Today improved transportation and communication have brought people closer together, and those who live on farms (fewer than 3 percent in Illinois) are not rural in the traditional sense. "The homegeneity of rural America has diminished greatly. Farm and rural folks represent a much smaller percentage of the citizenry.... [Cooperative Extension Service] is dedicated to serve the rural community, but with today's demographics it must go beyond its historical service," Uchtmann explains.

The combination of reduced funding and changing demographics has created an identity crisis for the extension service. Is it a farm and rural-based information system with a three-prong focus on agriculture, homemakers and youth (4-H) as it has been for 77 years? Or is it a network of information services ready to take on the problems of the new millenium? Is it a bureaucracy that has outlived its usefulness and looking for a way to survive? Or is it an established network of professionals and volunteers who know how to promulgate and disseminate the latest research learned at our best universities for the betterment of our citizenry?

To meet evolving needs and establish its identity in a technology-driven and rapidly changing society, the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service is changing its structure at the local or field level and its traditional farm emphasis. Uchtmann believes there will always be programs focusing on agriculture and natural resources but that they will no longer be the sole focus of the new Cooperative Extension Service. For example, an economic development program aimed at helping youth and families is not limited to rural families; delivery or those services is driven by where the families who need the services live, whether it be city or farm.

Until its recent reorganization, the Cooperative Extension Service maintained a field office in nearly all of Illinois' 102 counties. Under the new plan, its local presence is two-tiered, consisting of a unit office, either single-county or multicounty, and 21 centers of "Priority Issues and Program Support" located across the state, including three in Chicago. To maintain a local unit office, a county must provide office space and at least $45,000; the local money is matched by state funds. A bare-bones local unit office is staffed by a professional educator, an assistant and a secretary. A larger staff and fleshed-out program require more local money.

Funding for Illinois Cooperative Extension Service comes from federal, state and local sources. Between 1980 and 1990, it lost ground to inflation. In 1980 total resources were $21.4 million; in 1990 they were $32.7 million. Adjusting 1980 dollars to 1990 dollars, however, shows total resources fell 16.4 percent, from $39.1 million to $32.7 million; federal sources alone dropped a full 37 percent, from $16.1 million to $10.1 million. In fiscal year 1991 federal sources amounted to $10.6

February 1992/Illinois Issues/15

million, state government contributions were $18.9 million and local funding totaled $5.5 million for a 1991 total of $35.0 million.

Not included in those totals are funds from grants and contracts of approximately $2.5 million annually spent at the local level, according to Uchtmann. They support specific, time-limited projects and programs. For example, the state of Illinois provides grant funding for carrying out a consumer and homemaker education program that is targeted to low-income households. The goal is to educate those household managers to use their household funds in a more effective way. "As long as we have that funding, we carry out that program, and if we don't have that funding, that program disappears," Uchtmann says. A grant from the Kellogg Corporation supports a Cooperative Extension Service program in Chicago called "Family Ties" that unites school, community and families in a common effort to try to make a difference in the lives of children who are at risk of becoming dropouts from school and society. The purpose of Family Ties is to help parents in four inner-city communities become more involved in their local schools and to increase the availability of high quality child care and after school youth programs.

The Extension Service does no original research, but it is very competitive in grants for program delivery and educational materials, according to Jim Shonkwiler, Uchtmann's assistant director for fiscal affairs. The relatively large sum secured via grants and contracts is "indicative of the quality of [Cooperative Extension Service's] delivery system of this kind of educational program," says Shonkwiler.

Those funding sources are critical today as state and local governments are forced to assume more responsibility for financing the Cooperative Extension Service. Throughout the 1980s, federal funding of formula-based programs like the Extension Service were disadvantaged in the face of inflation, defense spending and the deficit. Historically, Illinois' Cooperative Extension Service has relied more heavily on federal dollars than neighboring states. Until the last decade, the federal formula consistently favored Illinois, putting it among the top three recipients of federal funds. When federal funding declined, Illinois was hit hard as state and local resources were not prepared to make up the difference. In surrounding states having a Big Ten university — Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin — state and local (county) taxpayer support for extension services was significantly higher than in Illinois, according to a 1989 survey conducted by the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service. State and local dollars per person, per household, per youth or per acre in neighboring states averaged twice the state and local contribution in Illinois.

At the state level, Illinois' Cooperative Extension Service is funded through the budget of the University of Illinois. It receives a specific share of the personnel and expense budget of the university (42 percent of the College of Agriculture budget). It also has earmarked for its use several individual budget lines tied to the Agricultural Premium Fund.

Local funding is handled at the county level. Counties can appropriate dollars from their general fund to support extension services in the county, but funding levels are limited and tied to county population. For example, a county with a population between 50,000 and 100,000 may appropriate up to $54,000 from its general corporate fund. Alternatively, statutes provide that local citizens by referendum may authorize the county to impose a property tax of up to 5 cents per $100 of equalized assessed valuation as an add-on tax earmarked for county extension services.

The latest round of county referenda for property tax funding for extension services was November 5. Those unwilling to give up the close ties to their local extension offices — ties they feel will be lost in the new organization — worked hard to win voter approval. Voters in 17 counties approved the referenda in November; voters in 10 others did not, but several lost only by narrow margins. With the November approvals, a total of 62 counties have decided to increase local taxpayer support of extension services. "This is a part of the public response to the financial crisis being experienced by the Cooperative Extension Service," Director Uchtmann says, "and in my judgment is evidence — the strongest evidence you can get — that our programs are of value to the citizens of the state."

'They want someone they know on the other end of the telephone. Otherwise they might as well call Chicago as call a center in Springfield'

Some local units have merged for mutual benefit. For example, Madison and St. Clair counties have a multicounty unit office even though each has the resources to maintain its own unit. They believe that together they can offer a wider range of programs and services. Other multicounty units were formed for financial reasons, as was the case with Sangamon and Menard counties. A multicounty unit can have an office in each county, but local taxpayers may have to vote to increase their taxes by a maximum of 5 cents per $100 equalized assessed valuation to support extra offices. Even then such offices may have limited hours and staff, but at least the county has a contact point for volunteers and a place closer to constituents for its programs.

Serving all residents under the reorganization will be the 21 centers throughout the state. Each will have a minimum of six extension professionals — to as many as 14 with additional state funding — from among 16 specialties. Uchtmann believes that finding solutions to today's problems may only be possible by a teamwork approach among professionals with different specialities and abilities at each center. For example, the youth program for each center will typically have three extension professionals: one for youth development, one for prevention (trying to prevent cycles that lead to abuse) and one for volunteerism. But, Uchtmann says, other center professionals, such as the family life educator, would have a good deal to contribute to the youth program.

Bringing school, community and family together to solve

16/February 1992/Illinois Issues

common problems is a guiding vision of the new organization, according to Uchtmann. He envisions the new centers as essential in order to accommodate the need for specialization in this age of an expanding information base. The complex, interwoven problems facing today's world require a team of professionals who can draw on a wide array of knowledge to integrate the specific information needed to solve specific problems. "Depth through specialization, breadth through teamwork" is a new motto for the "new" Cooperative Extension Service.

Meanwhile, at the county level, the level of service and staff for a unit office depends on voters' willingness to fund it. Christian County voters approved a referendum in November raising property taxes to support local extension services. Ken Gordon, a farmer who worked for the referendum approval, believes voters voiced their opinion about the value of having a fully staffed local extension office. "They want someone they know on the other end of the telephone. Otherwise, they might as well call Chicago as call a center in Springfield," Gordon says. He believes in the importance of the local field agent who acts as a liaison with the research at the University of Illinois: "County advisers have a two-way function. They often have the answer to immediate problems, but they also act as a conduit for information that farmers want funneled to the researchers at the university." Gordon points out that this direct connection between farmer and researcher is envied by farmers in other nations. He relates a meeting with a farmer from Kenya who expressed amazement at how well the system works and how much he wished he had something similar in his country.

In Montgomery County, the November referendum for extension service funding failed. Jack Rundquist of Butler, chairman of the Friends of Montgomery County Extension, says the increase in the tax rate in Montgomery County would have been just $12 for a house worth $90,000. He believes a 911 emergency system referendum diverted attention from the extension service referendum. Rundquist isn't sure where the failure leaves his county: "We are in a particularly difficult situation because all of the counties surrounding us have either passed a referendum keeping their local unit funded, or they have already committed to a multicounty unit."

Uchtmann remains optimistic for the future of extension services, yet he has the difficult task of trying to reach a wider, less homogeneous audience with fewer resources. Uchtmann would like to see all state universities and the community college system become more involved as research resources for extension services. Historically, the Cooperative Extension Service has drawn primarily on University of Illinois faculty from the College of Agriculture, but Uchtmann points out that the College of Education and the School of Social Work have the backgrounds needed to help solve the problems of youth. What few federal funds are available, while they're available, he says, could be used to reach out to the wider university community and invite faculty to make proposals for the particular resource that could be valuable to citizens if made available through extension services.

The Cooperative Extension Service in Cook County, for example, with support from the College of Education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, operates the Urban Leadership Center. The state-funded facility provides training, guidance and support to Local School Councils that operate from 87th Street south to the city limits. A recent program developed by extension staff at the center matches retired senior citizens with students at three local schools. The volunteers will help students at the elementary level improve their math and reading skills. At the one high school involved in the program, volunteers will help freshmen and sophomores prepare for college entrance exams.

And, yes, Cook County has 4-H. Doris Harris, a volunteer 4-H leader there, trains other volunteers to take programs back to their communities. She believes the new revitalization (a description she prefers to reorganization) is working well. "I see Cooperative Extension really helping because it brings to the people at the grass-roots level an educational system that helps them in their daily lives."

Statewide, over one million people are served annually by Cooperative Extension Service programs, and nearly 200,000 of them are young people served through 4-H programs. While 4-H remains a priority for extension services, Uchtmann envisions a need to rely even more on volunteers. Marge Stout, a volunteer leader for 28 years in the small farming community of Illiopolis in the center of the state, worries that the new organization will put additional demands on an already strained volunteer system. "Many of us who have been leaders for a number of years have seen support from our local extension office shrink due to the extra demands placed on them. We now have to do a lot of paperwork that used to be done for us. We are asked as volunteers to do more and more with less and less, but it is worth it when you see successes." Elizabeth Keith, another long-time 4-H volunteer leader who has an urban club in Decatur, agrees, "One of the volunteers who helped me has branched out and started a club in a scattered site housing unit. She is doing wonderful work with young people who may not otherwise have had the opportunity to know what 4-H can offer."

The bottom line, according to Uchtmann, is that Cooperative Extension Service in Illinois is challenging its citizens to invest more, at least as much as the citizens of other states do. The Illinois goal is to increase state funding by $8 million and local funding by $2 million. While efforts continue to pass referenda at the county level, chances for increasing state funding appear nil. Rep. Duane Noland (R-102, Blue Mound), a grain farmer, sees the value of the Cooperative Extension Service but sees little hope for more state money. "Ninety percent of the people in my district know the value of Cooperative Extension and most of them know their local agent personally. They are afraid they are going to lose a service that's been very good to them." Noland says that representatives from urban areas, however, wonder why they should vote for it. "I'm afraid people are not going to be able to look to the state for additional funding right now," says Noland. "It's going to have to come from local sources, which means the property tax." If the November referenda are any indication of local support for Cooperative Extension, this well-established network should be able to survive, keeping a hold on its traditional focus while adapting its services to growing needs.

Beverley Scobell joined Illinois Issues' regular editorial staff in October.

February 1992/ Illinois Issues/17