COUNTY COMMISSION FOCUS GROUP REPORT

County Commissioner’s perceptions of University of Missouri Extension 2004

Prepared by Cassy Venters, Ed.D.
Program Evaluation Coordinator
Business Development Programs
University of Missouri Extension

December, 2004

COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOCUS GROUP, 2004

Overview and Purpose

In November 2004, the University of Missouri Extension County Council Coordinator and Coordinator of Constituent Relations organized a focus group for county commissioners with the purpose of assessing key commissioners’ perceptions of how well extension was meeting the needs of citizens in their counties as well as county commissioners’ needs. They planned to use the information to inform decision making about marketing extension, improving communications with commissioners and identifying programmatic actions that could be undertaken to improve commissioners’ perceptions of extension. It was hoped that, ultimately, the information gathered would provide insight into how to increase county extension appropriations.

The main benefits sought by using the focus group to collect data were the ability to gather data on the commissioners’ attitudes, feelings and beliefs about extension and to hear responses in the commissioners’ everyday language. The interaction that occurred among commissioners in the focus group enabled them to ask questions of each other as they re-evaluated and reconsidered their own understandings of extension. The focus group also provided the opportunity to demonstrate to commissioners that they are valued as experts and to empower them as participants. It was also thought that the focus group could serve as a preliminary step in creating a forum for information exchange with county commissioners. The data from this study can serve to develop future projects and studies with commissioners. In fact, additional studies are recommended due to the limitations of focus groups – lack of the ability to generalize to larger populations and the potential for bias in group that is not a representative sample.

Key Findings and Recommended Actions

Key Findings

Overall, responses from county commissioners reflect a desire to have an ongoing relationship with extension faculty and staff – one that involves regular communication to engender an understanding of issues, needs and resources.

Responses to the focus group questions revealed that the commissioners wanted proactive, regular communication conducted through multiple modes of conversation, print and audio materials, and the initiative in forging relationships and communications They used words like “become our extended staff” and “become our advocate” to describe roles for extension personnel.

The need for communications to be succinct was iterated repeatedly with examples of how commissioners want to get information: bullet points, 1 ˝ paragraphs, one sheet with 10 points, a 15 minute training session. Commissioners also said they want information customized to respond to their needs and issues They expected extension faculty and staff to take the initiative in identifying needs and issues from information available to the public on the Web, in newspapers and in commission meeting minutes.

While county commissioners indicated they did not have a full understanding of extension’s capabilities, they could, and did, articulate needed services that they felt extension could provide. After reviewing a list of named programs, they identified areas where named programs could be adapted to meet county government needs.

Some negative comments regarding extension’s value to the community surfaced. These related to changes in extension programs, lack of clarity about the type of work extension staff might do and lack of information about extension programs. A potential negative fact emerged as the commissioners in the focus group indicated county citizens do not talk to them about the value of extension in the county. Commissioners indicated t hey did not use extension services. Perception exists among some commissioners that the Internet can substitute for extension.

Recommended Actions

Regional directors and program directors should have planning sessions with regional and state faculty to create action plans that respond to these findings, designating the highest priority responses, identifying a project leader, and developing action plans and follow-up. Topics to explore for follow-up might include:

Mechanisms to ensure that follow-up on recommendations occurs are needed from the Vice Provost and Director of Field Operations levels.

Review of the focus group results was conducted with the Program Leadership Council at the Dec. 14, 204 meeting. A debriefing process used with the group identified actions PLC members planned to take:

Regional Directors

Program Directors

- Establish a local government team with members from each region to review ideas from this presentation and wrestle with ideas. Connect campus resources, such as the Truman School of Public Affairs at MU and other campuses’ public policy resources, to the work of regional local government teams and extension regional faculty.
- Provide tools/templates/brochures to regional faculty and administrators to inform county commissioners about the costs and benefits/impacts of regional faculty’s work.
- Provide tools/templates for regional faculty to engage commissioners more directly with youth.
- Change how we communicate about our program from “what we are doing” to “here are the issues/problems, here’s a potential solution; here is the impact.”
Administrators, State Specialists and Others
- Provide information to county commissioners and regional faulty that explains
- how campus continuing education programs can meet county government needs.
- Begin to see county commissioners as an audience, not just a funding source.
- Involve county commissioners in resource development and diversity efforts so they understand the goals of these efforts.
- Assign participants at new faculty orientation “homework” to meet their county commissioners.
- Make the county data available through OSEDA more dynamic and easier to use with better linkages to summary reports.
- Prepare mini policy briefs for counties.
- Provide in-service training for CPDs and community development specialists so they can become the “extended staff” of county commissioners.
- Send out post card announcements to commissioners on major evaluation project results.
- Teach county council members and others how to advocate for extension.
- Set up mechanisms to systematically re-engage with county commissioners.

Mechanisms to ensure that follow-up occurs on recommendations are needed from the Vice-Provost and Director of Field Operations levels.

Further review of the focus group results was conducted with the Program Leadership Council at the Dec. 14, 2004 meeting. A debriefing process used with the group identified actions they planned to take:

Regional Directors

- Meet with county commissioners in their region.
- Share the results of this study at CPD training and ask the CPD training committee to find resources to implement recommendations.
- Ask regional faculty to:
- Visit county commissioners.
- Provide the commissioners new information on a continual basis.
- Work with the council members so that county extension council members have
regular, ongoing communication with commissioners.
- Invite county commissioners to visit programs or view work and projects of
extension faculty.
- Consider how extension faculty can work to bring county courthouse staff together and how CPDs, regional faculty and new staff can be trained.
- Consider public issue forums as a way to connect extension faculty with local leadership.
- Work with the extension County Council Coordinator to direct visits with county commissioners, ensuring that one or two extension faculty join in county commission visits.

Program Directors

- Establish a local government team with members from each region to review ideas and wrestle with ideas. Connect campus resources, such as the Truman School of Public Affairs at MU and other campuses’ public policy centers, to the work of regional local government teams and extension regional faculty.
- Provide tools/templates/brochures to regional faculty and administrators to inform county commissioners about the costs and benefits/impacts of regional faculty’s work.
- Provide tools/templates for regional faculty to engage commissioners more directly with youth.
- Change how we communicate about our program from “what we are doing” to “here are the issues/problems, here’s a potential solution; here is the impact.”
Administrators, State Specialists and Others
- Provide information to county commissioners and regional faculty that explains How campus continuing education programs can meet county government needs.
- Begin to see county commissioners as an audience, not just a funding source.
- Involve county commissioners in the resource development and diversity efforts so they understand the goals of these efforts. 5
- Assign new faculty orientation participants “homework” to meet their county commissioners.
- Make county data available through OSEDA more dynamic and easier to use with better linkages to summary reports.
- Prepare mini policy briefs for counties.
- Provide in-service training for CPDs and community development specialists so they can become the “extended staff” of county commissioners.
- Send out post card announcements to commissioners on major evaluation project results
- Teach county council members and others how to advocate for extension
- Set up mechanisms to systematically re-engage with county commissioners.

Results

In response to the request to think back over the past month and identify issues that the county commission has discussed either in formal meetings or informal discussions, commissioners identified problems with increasing county expenses and decreasing county revenue most often, but they identified additional issues as well.

County Commission Issues Percentage of Citations
Problems with increasing county expenses and decreasing county revenues 64%
County administration or management: human resources, space record storage 12%
County officeholders’ communication 12%
Other: election results, new county extension program director, annexation 8%
Communicating with the public about budget priorities and county needs 3.3%

As commissioners thought about how they used extension programs to deal with these issues, the group concluded that they did not use extension services for issues that represented their major needs . However, they cited times when extension services were used: correcting problems with storm water runoff in the city lake that provides drinking water, facilitating a meeting for commissioners, providing a leadership education program for juvenile offenders, developing a curriculum for poll workers, and helping citizens understand the options to meet new laws related to onsite waste water ordinances.

When asked what words people in the community use to describe extension, the group said the only extension program they hear referred to is 4-H. However, group discussions provided further detail about their experiences.

As the group focused discussion on how extension could meet county government and county commissioner needs, commissioners identified how extension could increase its value to the commission. Commissioners expressed that they would like extension to respond to the commission’s priority needs: How many times have we heard extension say, “What can we do for you rather than what can you do for us?” The focus group participants made specific suggestions for how extension could be of service to them:

Commissioners expressed some statements reflecting difficulty in understand extension:

As discussions progressed, commissioners were asked how they preferred to have communication with county extension staff and learn about extension programs. They responded:

And in response to a question about how extension could learn about county commission problems, commissioners said:

These themes were also reflected in responses to a final question. “How can extension move up the budget priority of the county?”

As commissioners reviewed the list of named programs, they offered these ideas for services they could use:

Methods

University of Missouri Extension’s County Council Coordinator contacted 10 county commissioners from across Missouri by letter and telephone to invite their participation in the focus group. These commissioners represented rural areas where agricultural activity was declining, rural areas that were maintaining their economic base, counties experiencing growth in population and economic base, and urban counties. Three female and seven male commissioners were invited. The invitation letter is included in Appendix A. The focus group and lunch were held from 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. preceding the opening session of the annual Missouri Association of Counties meeting November 21, 2004. Seven commissioners, two women and five men, attended the session with one commissioner leaving the focus group early to attend another meeting.

Questions were formulated to elicit discussion among the participants related to the focus group’s objectives. The group was told how and why they were selected, and ground rules for focus group participation were reviewed before the session began. Notes were

kept on flip charts and by a note-taker on the computer. The note-taker and one observer did not speak during the meeting.  The facilitator, note-taker and observer were all employees of University of Missouri Extension.

Handouts about extension were on hand in case they were needed to give commissioners a description of extension programs. These handouts were: 2004 Named Programs By Category, University of Missouri Extension Improving People’s Lives impact sheet and Contacts for Local Government Officials. When commissioners indicated they didn’t use extension programs and weren’t familiar with citizens’ experiences with extension, the handouts were disseminated.

Focus group notes were recorded and analyzed with Hyper research to develop themes that arose through the participants’ conversations.

Several potential limitations are noted in this study. Since not all invitees ere able to attend the session, the group was not as representative of the state as was desirable. While representatives of growth counties were present, representatives of urban core counties were not. And although two rural counties were represented, these did not represent economically hard-hit areas of the state. In addition, the session was not tape recorded, which allows the possibility of bias in not taking. The potential for bias also was possible because the group was conducted by a University of Missouri Extension Employee, and other extension employees sat in on the focus group. The use of an internal moderator is common among social scientists doing qualitative research. It is commonly thought that moderators from outside of the organization have the advantage of being neutral, but they also have the disadvantage of being unfamiliar with the organizational culture. While internal moderators are more likely to be familiar with the organization, they have the challenge of engendering the confidence and trust of participants. It is unknown if the presence of extension employees inhibited responses, but it should be noted that one employee is a former county commissioner and therefore may have added to the comfort level of the group. It is notable that the commissioners’ feedback identifies specific actions extension should take and included negative as well as positive comments. Finally, the results of this focus group are subject to the same limitation as all focus groups in that the results cannot be extrapolated to all counties. Future research and additional resources could mitigate some limitations of this study.

 

Attachments
 
Appendix A: Invitation Letter
Appendix B: Focus group questions

For further information, contact:
Cassy Venters, Ed.D.
Program Evaluation Coordinator
Business Development Programs
University of Missouri Extension
811 Clark Hall – MU
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-8855
ventersc@missouri.edu

 

APPENDIX A

November 1, 2004

Dear (Name of Invitee),

I would like to invite you to participate in a focused discussion group with some commissioner colleagues to gain feedback about your perceptions of University of Missouri Extension.

As you know, Extension provided research-based educational programs to people in your communities to help them improve their lives. As part of the University of Missouri’s unique land-grant mission, Extension is a three-pronged partnership with the federal government through USDA; state government through the University; and county government through appropriations from county commissions to the county extension council.

In January of this year, extension operations were consolidated on the Columbia campus, and MU was named the managing partner in cooperation with other campuses. At this point, Extension administration would like you to help us take stock of how Extension is doing in meeting the needs of your county’s residents.

We thought an opportune time for this discussion might be in conjunction with the upcoming Missouri Association of Counties meeting at Tan-Tar-A. I would be pleased if you could join in a discussion and box lunch from 11 a.m. – 1 p.m., Sunday, November 21, in Drawing Room Terrace, in Bldg. B past bowling alley and Black Bear Lodge Restaurant.

Please call 417-337-0605 or send e-mail to delongt@umssystem.edu to let me know of your availability. If you cannot attend, let me know of someone you think might be good for this discussion. On behalf of University of Missouri Extension, I look forward to gaining your insights and hearing your suggestions.

Enclosed are some of the questions for you to think about, I hope this helps us get started quickly so as not to waste your valuable time.

Thanks so much.

Your friend,

Tony DeLong
County Council Coordinator

APPENDIX B
 
Focus Group Questions
 
Question 1: Think back to the last month or so. What kinds of issues presented themselves to you and the other county commissioners?

Question 2: How does the county use extension programs to address some of the issues you identified?

Question 3: What words do people in your community use to describe extension?

Question 4: What University of Missouri resources would you like extension to bring to your community?

Question 5: How could extension assist you in your role as county commissioner?

Question 6: What would it take to move extension up in the budget priority list?

Introduction | Table of Contents | Citizen Advocacy | Dealing with Legislators | Communication | Decision Makers | Marketing Tips | Educating Decision Makers | Political Environment | Support Base | Advisory Boards | Perceptions | Ideas | Resource Links | Challenge | Credits

Prepared by the Joint Council of Extension Professionals