Ch 5, Adaptable Years, 1965-1988

Ch 5, Adaptable Years, 1965-1988
Chapter 5
KSU Cooperative Extension V
The Adaptable Years—1965-1988
Contents
Changing Role in Changing Times ......................................................... 168
Office of the Director .................................................................................. 168
State Staff Adjustments—1970's-80's................................................... 169
Department Staff Changes ............................................................... 169
Staffing Patterns ................................................................................... 169
State Staffing Changes—1970's-80's ............................................ 169
Degree Upgrading—1962-89 .......................................................... 170
Kellogg Foundation ............................................................................. 171
Staff Time Distribution—1970's-80's............................................. 172
Split Staff Appointments—1980's ................................................. 172
Extension Program Assistants—1980's ........................................ 173
Staff Composition—1986.................................................................. 174
Establish Area Extension Offices—1970's ........................................... 174
SW Area Extension Office—1969 ................................................... 174
Establish Five Administrative Areas—1971 ................................ 175
Role of Area Extension Directors—1971-88 ............................... 176
NW Area Extension Office—1971 .................................................. 176
SC Area Extension Office—1972 .................................................... 177
NE Area Extension Office—1972 .................................................... 178
SE Area Extension Office—1972 ..................................................... 179
Research-Extension Centers—1986-87 ................................................ 180
Northwest Research-Extension Center—1986 .......................... 180
Southwest Research-Extension Center—1987.......................... 180
Responsibilities of Center Administrators ................................... 180
County Staff Adjustments—1970's-80's .............................................. 180
County Agent Role............................................................................... 180
Agent Training ....................................................................................... 181
Clientele Short Circuits Agents ....................................................... 181
Women Administrators—1970's-80's ........................................... 181
Staff Downsizing Projection—1988 .............................................. 181
Federal Influence on Programs—1970's-80's..................................... 182
Federal Guideline Publications—1970's-80's............................. 182
Scope & Responsibility Report—1958 ......................................... 182
A People & a Spirit—1968 ................................................................. 182
Food & Agriculture Act—1977 ........................................................ 182
Cooperative Extension in Transition—1979 ............................... 183
Extension in the 80's—1983............................................................. 183
Catalyst for Change—1983 .............................................................. 184
Extension in Transition—1988 ........................................................ 184
Kansas Extension's Changing Mission—1970's-80's ....................... 185
Shifting Focus—1950's-70's ............................................................. 185
Factors for Change—1970's-80's .................................................... 185
Thrusts for the 70's .............................................................................. 185
Recent Mission Statement—1986 ................................................. 185
Finance/Budget Trends—1970's-80's ................................................... 186
Sources of Funds—1965-88 ............................................................. 186
Staff Time Spent—1970-88 .............................................................. 186
Earmarked Funding ............................................................................. 186
Budget Trends—1970's-80's............................................................. 187
Evaluation & Accountability—1970's-80's .......................................... 187
Accountability ....................................................................................... 187
EMIS Reporting System—Late 1960's........................................... 188
Congressional Evaluation Mandate—1977 ................................ 188
Report Format—1980's ...................................................................... 188
Equal Employment Opportunities ................................................. 189
Program Coordinating Teams—1987 ........................................... 189
County Extension Law Changes—1972-87 ........................................ 190
County Extension Law Revision—1972 ....................................... 189
Revise County Extension Council Law—1987 ........................... 189
Extension Advisory Councils—1970's .......................................... 191
Special Program Emphasis—1970's ...................................................... 191
Wildlife Damage Control Handbook—1970 .............................. 191
Emergency Preparedness—1970 ................................................... 191
USDA Committees for Rural Development ................................. 191
Economic Outlook on TV—1971 .................................................... 192
Great Plains Conservation Emphasis—1971 .............................. 192
Full Load Schools—1971 ................................................................... 192
Hazardous Occupations Training—1971 ..................................... 192
Agricultural Banking School—1971 .............................................. 192
Grass Resource Opportunities—1972 .......................................... 193
Insect Reporting via Telenet—1972 .............................................. 193
Cowboy College—1972 ..................................................................... 194
K-MAR-105 Electronic Record System—1972 ............................ 194
Kansas Tax Institutes—1972............................................................. 194
EFNEP "Rocket" Mail—1972 ............................................................. 195
Drug Education Program—1972 .................................................... 195
Community Forestry Program—1972 .......................................... 195
Volunteer Leader Contributions—1977 ...................................... 196
4-H Camping Program—1977 ......................................................... 196
Main Street Renovation—1978....................................................... 196
Reduced Tillage—1978 ...................................................................... 197
Forum on Families—1978 ................................................................. 197
Feedlot Development—1978 .......................................................... 197
Farm Estate Planning—1978 ........................................................... 198
Movement to Urban 4-H—1973-78 .............................................. 198
Soil Survey Program—1979 ............................................................. 198
Soil Conservation Awards—1979................................................... 199
Integrated Pest Management—1979 ........................................... 199
Home Horticulture Programs—1979 ............................................ 199
Big Lakes Council—1979 ................................................................... 199
Special Program Emphasis—1980's ...................................................... 200
Beef Cattle Programs—1980 ............................................................ 200
PRIDE Community Development—1980 .................................... 200
Training for Hort. Professionals—1981 ........................................ 201
Programmable Calculator Programs—1981 .............................. 201
Tree Planting Program—1981 ......................................................... 201
Aerial Application Training—1981................................................. 202
Health Programs—1981 .................................................................... 202
Financing Government in Kansas—1982 .................................... 202
Agricultural Safety and Health—1982.......................................... 202
Pasture Burning Program—1982 ................................................... 203
Pesticide Applicator Training—1982 ............................................ 203
Life Cycle Management—1982 ....................................................... 203
Irrigation Water Management—1983 .......................................... 203
Pesticide Applicator Training—1985 ............................................ 204
Wildlife Damage Control—1985 .................................................... 204
Rural Fire Protection—1985 ............................................................. 204
Soybean Production in Kansas—1985 ......................................... 204
Farm Business Organization—1985 .............................................. 204
Clothing Management—1986 ........................................................ 205
4-H Ambassador Program—1986 .................................................. 205
Leader Learning Labs—1986 ........................................................... 206
167
Water Policy Program—1986........................................................... 206
Farm Mgnt. Assn. Program—1986 ................................................. 206
Wheat Variety Selection—1986 ...................................................... 207
Estate Planning—1987 ...................................................................... 207
Conservation Tillage—1987 ............................................................. 207
Safety Belt Project—1987 ................................................................. 207
Housing Policy Decisions—1987.................................................... 208
Family Relations Programs—1987 ................................................. 208
Nutrition & Chronic Health Problems—1987 ............................ 209
Master Clothing Leaders—1987 ..................................................... 209
Small Business Assistance—1987 .................................................. 209
Balanced Farming & Family Living—1988 .................................. 209
DIRECT—1988 ....................................................................................... 210
Job Search Program—1988.............................................................. 210
Special Comm./Task Forces—1970's-80's ............................................ 211
Marketing Strategies Committee—1985-86 .............................. 211
75th Anniversary Committee—1988-89 ..................................... 213
Program Initiatives—1988 ........................................................................ 215
National Initiatives—1986 ................................................................ 215
Kansas Initiatives—1988-89 ............................................................. 215
Kansas Extension beyond 1988 .............................................................. 215
Changing Role in Changing Times
In the past two decades (1970-89), the Kansas Cooperative Extension Service has been buffeted by a
variety of pressures that caused changes in its mission,
its motivation, and its methods.
to the people," or "helping people help themselves."
Numerous national and regional societal trends,
shifting financial sources, changing state administrative structures, and expanding clientele demands and
expectations have complicated the role and mission of
Cooperative Extension.
That's a tall order for an agency that advocates
change, but moves with deliberate speed, and likes to
work with a selected clientele rather than trying "to be
all things to all people."
Today's educational information consumers expect
more customized help, more personalized attention,
and more immediate response to their needs.
No longer can the good that Extension does be cover
by the time-honored umbrellas of "taking the University
Office of the Director
Historically, the Extension's top administrative office
first carried the dual title of "Dean and Director" from
1912 to 1956.
test their own particular administrative styles.
Probably the time has passed when any Extension
Director can match the 28-year tenure of Harry J. C.
Umberger (1919-47), who left an indelible mark on the
Extension structure and stature in Kansas by his leadership and longevity.
This implied a somewhat autonomous sphere of influence that covered all off-campus educational contacts
with clientele through informal rather than classroom
presentations.
His successors, and their tenures, have been:
Louis C. Williams (1947-55).
In 1956, with the appointment of Harold Jones,
this title became Director of Extension. At the same
time, Extension became an administrative division in
the College of Agriculture, responsible to the Dean of
Agriculture.
Harold E. Jones (1956-68).
Robert A. Bohannon (1968-76).
John O. Dunbar (1976-80).
Fred D. Sobering (1981-86).
This arrangement continued until 1986, when another administrative adjustment was put into place. At
this time, the Dean of Agriculture assumed the Director
of Extension title and direct responsibilities for administration of the Extension Division.
Walter R. Woods (1987 to the present).
In the mid 1960's, the Kansas Board of Regents took
actions which altered the boundaries for Cooperative
Extension operations.
A parallel Division of Academic Extension was established with specific responsibilities for all off-campus
credit programs, conferences, and short courses.
Another historical reality that has emerged in recent
times is the fact that Extension Directors are serving
shorter terms of office. Thus, they have had less time to
168
Administrative direction for Academic Extension
was placed by the Regents at the University of Kansas,
with representative units on the campuses at each
Regents' institutions.
Cooperative Extension.
The Regents also created a Director of Industrial
Extension and established this as an independent Extension unit at K-State. However, when the Extension Energy
Service was established in 1982 , it was incorporated as
a unit within Cooperative Extension, and, furthermore,
absorbed the former functions of the KIE.
K-State's Division of Continuing Education— which
had formerly been a department within Cooperative
Extension—thus became an independently functioning unit with no further direct ties or coordination with
State Staff Adjustments—1970's-80's
Personnel Policy Changes—1970's-80's
The evolving roles, responsibilities, and qualifications
of Extension Administrators, County Extension Agents,
State and Area Specialists, and Administrators during
this period were influenced by an increasing variety of
things, including:
man development and family studies.
Staffing Patterns
Until the late 1960's, State Specialists were recruited
generally from the ranks of County Extension Agents
who had, or were willing to secure, M.S. degrees in their
specialty areas.
1) Changing philosophies of Extension's mission.
Administrators encouraged this upward mobility with
rewards of stepped-up positions and salary increases.
2) Equal Employment Opportunity legislation.
But in the 1970's three new pressures contributed
to a change in Specialist hiring practices:
3) Closing of the Kellogg Center for Extension
Education at the University of Wisconsin.
1) Equal Employment Opportunity legislation
called for considering all qualified applicants on
the basis of their present qualifications.
4) More sophisticated demands of agriculture
producers and agri-business clientele.
2) Change in philosophy of Extension administrators toward emphasis on hiring Specialists who
were already qualified.
Departmental Staff Changes
In 1963, a structural shift within subject matter departments on the K-State campus was initiated that had
far-reaching, decentralization implications for Extension
faculty members.
3) University emphasis on faculty with terminal
(generally doctorate) degrees. Securing
"doctorates on-the-job" became much more difficult.
College of Agriculture Department Heads were given
responsibility for administration and housing of Extension specialists in the same locations as the teaching and
research faculty, in their respective disciplines.
An unexpected result of this policy shift was a growing
state staff of Administrators and Specialists with strong
research and information dissemination (knowledge
transfer) orientation.
As this evolutionary change progressed through
the years, it did have the positive effect of bringing
the Extension and research faculty into closer contact.
However, it had also contributed to greater fragmentation, from an Extension coordination and esprit de
corps point of view.
Often, there was a corresponding decrease in emphasis for skills on teaching or knowledge application
(research results), and the problem solving (decisionmaking) process to clientele groups and individuals.
Those changing patterns in State Specialist skills also
reduced support in the problem-solving (decision-making) process for County Extension Agents.
For Cooperative Extension Specialists, this decentralization resulted in new academic homes in four of the
University's colleges—agriculture, veterinary medicine,
engineering, and home economics (human ecology).
State Staffing Changes—1970's-80's
The trend toward more specific programs led to
focused selection of Specialists to fit the needs.
However, it was not until the early 1980's that Specialists in Home Economics were assigned to the College
of Home Economics—in the departments of foods and
nutrition, clothing, textiles, and interior design, and hu-
169
This is shown quite graphically in the state staff
positions listings on the next two pages. The trend is
evident in every department.
advanced degrees is reflected a comparison of numbers
of staff members in each degree category at various
check point dates.
Degree Upgrading—1962-89
The effect of seeking Extension professionals with
The comparisons in the following chart start in 1962,
a midway point in Director Harold Jones' emphasis on
Extension State Staffing Changes—1965-88
Subject Area
1965 70 75 80 85 88
Administration
Subject Area
4
1
1
-
3
1
1
-
2
1
2
-
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
3
-
1
4
2
2
5
5
2
6
3
3
5
8
1
6
5
3
6
5
1
5
5
2
6
3
1
5
5
2
5
2
1
4
4
2
5
2
1
3
5
29
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
5
5
5
5
25 24
1
1
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
5
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
Soil Fertility & Mgt.
-
2
1
1
-
1
Soil & Water Conservation
Weed Science
Soil Testing
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
-
Pesticidal Safety
-
1
1
1
1
1
Range Pasture Mgnt.
-
1
-
1
1
1
Area Crop Protection
-
-
1
3
2
2
Area Agronomist
2
4
5
5
5
5
Area Agronomist (NE)
1
2
1
1
1
1
Adm. Asst. (Finance)
Personnel Tgn.
Evaluation/Prog. Dev.
Personnel Services
Information
News
Publications
Visuals
Instructional Media
Radio
Television
Animal Science
Beef
Live Animal Evaluation
Swine
Sheep
Horses
Meats
Area Animal Science
Wildlife Damage Controil
Ag Prod. & Mgnt.
Ag Economics
1
Farm Mgnt.
1
Dist/Area Farm Mgnt. Econ.
5
Farm Mgnt. Assn.
15 21 23
Public Policy
Business Management
Economic Development
Bal. Farming/Family Liv.
Ag Marketing & Util.
1
Dairy Marketing
1
Poultry & Egg Marketing
1
Livestock Marketing
1
Retail Marketing
1
Marketing Information
1
Grain Marketing
1
Consumer Marketing
1
Area Consumer Ed.
-
Crops & Soils
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
-
2
1
1
1
1
5
-
2
1
1
1
1
5
-
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
-
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
-
Dairy Science
2
2
2
2
2
2
Poultry Science
1
1
1
1
1
1
Entomology
Field Crop/Stored
Grain Entomology
1
1
1
1
1
1
Livestock Entomology
Entom. Diagnostician
Hort. & Urban Entom.
Pesticide Coordinator
Area Entomologist
Pesticidal Safety
Wildlife Damage Control
Wildlife Management
1
.
1
1
.
1
11
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Area Wildlife Mgnt. (SW)
-
-
-
1
1
-
Ext. Entomology Asst.
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
.
-
2
.
-
1
-
1
.
1
.
1
.
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Horticulture
Area Horticulture
Horticultural Marketing
Hort./Fruit & Nuts
Hort. Crop Protection
Hort. Ornamental/
Turfgrass/Floriculture
Hort. Vegetable Crops
Landscape Arch/ Hort
Grain Science & Ind.
Formula Feeds Mkg.
Formula Feeds Mfg.
Feeds Quality Control
1965 70 75 80 85 88
Youth & Therapy
-
-
-
1
-
-
State & Ext. Forestry
1
1
1
1
1
-
4
3
1
2
-
4
1
2
1
3
-
3
1
3
1
3
1
-
5
1
2
3
-
2
1
1
3
1
1
Watershed Forestry
Marketing Forestry
Fire Control Forestry
Tree Improvement
Nut Crop Forestry
Environmental Forestry
Forest Pest Management
Forest Resource Planning
Rural Forestry
170
professional staff development:
Kellogg Foundation
Phasing out of the Kellogg Foundation funded Center
for Training Extension Administrators at the University
of Wisconsin in the late 1960's had a direct effect on
Kansas Extension.
1962 1969 1979 1988*
B.S. degrees
259
273
215
150
M.S. degrees
107
135
182
155
Ph.D. degrees
16
33
57
87
Since many persons in administrative positions during Director Jones' era had training from this Center, there
was a shared perception of Extension philosophy and
*Year of downsizing, thus smaller staff
Subject Area
1965 70 75 80 85 88
Environmental Programs
District/Area Forestry
Area Survey Forestry
7 10
5
3
7 10
-
1
7
-
1
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
4
2
3
1
-
3
1
-
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
-
-
-
-
4
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
5
1
2
-
4
1
1
2
1
1
-
3
1
1
1
1
1
-
3
1
2
1
1
1
-
2
2
2
2
1
1
HE Programs
Foods & Nutrition
Clothing & Textiles
Health & Safety
Highway Safety
Human Resource Dev.
Household Equip & Safety
Home Management
Home Furnishings
Cultural Resource Dev.
Family Economics
Housing
Fam Resources/Public Pol.
3
3
1
3
1
-
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
-
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
-
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Environmental Programs
Family Life/Human Dev.
Area Fam. Life/Human Dev.
Dist. Home Management
EFNEP
2
2
-
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
5
-
2
5
1
-
2
5
5
-
2
4
5
1
-
2
3
5
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
Plant Pathology
Pathology Diagnostician
Area Plant Pathologist
Ext. Vet. Medicine
1
Engineering
Ag Engineering
Ext. Architect
Farm & Comm. Safety
Irrigation Engineering
Area Irrigation Engr.
Area Ag Engineering
Natural Resources
Pesticide Application
Rural Civil Defense
Home Economics
4-H Youth
4-H Club Work
Dist. 4-H Club Work
Volunteer Staff Dev.
Statewide Events & Prog.
Club/Group Meetings
Subject Area
Child & Youth Ed
Outdoor Education
Commmunity Develop.
-
-
Public Affairs
Organ. & Ldrship. Dev.
Rural Area Dev.
Area Rural Area Dev.
Area Comm. Res. Dev.
Ag Development
Comm. Economic Dev.
1
1
2
2
1
-
1
-
1
5
-
1
5
-
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
Resource Dev. Info
Resource Development
-
1
5
2
2
-
-
Wildlife & Outdoor Rec.
-
-
-
-
1
1
DIRECT Assistants
-
-
-
-
-
2
Direct Assts.
-
-
-
-
-
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
5
5
-
4
1
5
1
5
5
-
5
5
-
5
5
-
5
5
-
Computer Systems Off.
-
-
-
-
1
2
Computer Training
Computer Information
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
Computer Assistant
-
-
-
-
-
1
County Operations
Dist. Ag Agent
Area Director
Dist. Home Ec. Agent
Area Home Economist
Coord. Sched. & Reports
Energy
-
-
-
-
1
1
Residential Energy
Small Business Energy
Energy Information
-
-
-
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
Continuing Education
1
-
-
-
-
-
Community Services
Conferences
Evening Classes
Home Study
7
4
3
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
FACTS
Family Needs
Farm Finance
Attorney
Family Therapist
Rural Family Support
171
1965 70 75 80 85 88
1
1
1
1
procedure that pervaded the Kansas System.
The working relationships between the Experiment
Station Head, the Area Extension Director, and the Area
Extension Specialists were still evolving in Colby and
Garden City in 1988.
With the demise of this important training center, and
the evolution of personnel in key administrative slots,
the continuity and cohesiveness of Kansas Extension
began to change.
Another area of concern was the after effect of relocating the Area 4-H Specialists into the State Office
in 1988. This leaves the County Agents without Area
support for their second most time consuming program
area, and the program area which agents may be least
prepared to handle, by education, as future changes in
emphasis occur.
Similarly, the Extension Programs, Training and
Studies section in Kansas began to adjust to changing
emphasis and shifting assignments for the staff members in this area.
The end result was a further decrease of focus and
support for in-service professional growth at all levels
in program development, and Extension philosophy
and procedures.
Staff Time Distribution—1970's-80's
The relative proportion of Extension resources, as
measured by staff time, expended for each of the four
major Extension program areas fluctuated little during
this two decade period.
In the latter part of this two-decade period, the staff
had been reduced to one person responsible primarily for
staff recruitment and orientation training, and another
responsible for reports and accountability.
1970 1975 1980 1985
Thus, during this period in Extension's history:
1) Specialists were not hired with county Extension program development experience.
2) Extension administrators often did not receive graduate training from Extensionoriented Centers such as the one in Wisconsin.
Agriculture
37
41
42
45
Home Economics
33
25
24
23
4-H Youth
26
27
27
25
4
7
7
7
Community Dev.
Split Staff Appointments—1980's
As Extension staff members began to associate
closer with their research and teaching counterparts,
more Extension and resident faculty began to have joint
appointments.
3) County Extension Agents were not provided
consistent continuing in-service training in
program development, delivery, and evaluation
Decentralization/Centralization
Two different avenues for decentralization and programs were developed between 1970 and 1988.
Split appointments for Heads of Department in which
Specialists were housed accounted for many split appointments.
First, five Area Offices evolved from a multiplicity of
small, off-campus Extension offices.
The Department Head was given a part-time Extension
appointment in recognition of his additional Extension responsibilities.
Each of the five—at Garden City, Colby, Manhattan,
Hutchinson, and Chanute—included an Area Director
(for County Operations) and a cadre of subject matter
Specialists, relevant to the area, in agriculture, home
economics, 4-H, and community development.
Frequently, Extension program leaders within a department
were given part-time resident teaching or research appointments, partially to:
1) Offset Extension funds used for Department
Head salaries.
Second, the fragmenting effect of relocating State
agriculture Specialists within their respective subject
matter departments became more apparent in terms of
Extension identity, cohesiveness, and esprit de corps.
2) To help integrate Extension functions within
the department.
3) To bring specialized expertise to bear on specific Extension program issues.
Arguments remained, however, that the plus in the
action was bringing research and extension personnel
closer together.
In December, 1988, these split appointments were
listed in the Extension personnel roster.
That closeness even expanded to off-campus sites
as personnel in the Northwest and Southwest areas of
the state moved administratively together in ResearchExtension Centers.
Walter R. Woods, Dean of Agriculture, Director
of Agricultural Experiment Station and Director of
Extension—(.3)
Hyde S. Jacobs, Assistant to the Dean of
Agriculture—(.5)
172
Marc A. Johnson, Head, Department of Agricultural Economics—(.4)
Frank D. Morrison, Extension State Leader,
Horticulture Program—(.9)
Barry L. Flinchbaugh, Extension State Leader,
Agricultural Economics—(.8)
Charles W. Marr, Extension Horticulturist,
Vegetable Crops—(.9)
Larry N. Langemeier, Extension Agricultural
Economist, Farm Management Studies—(.5)
Fred W. Schwenke, Head, Department of Plant
Pathology—(.1)
James R. Mintert, Extension Agricultural
Economist, Marketing—(.9)
Douglas J. Jardine, Extension Specialist, Plant
Pathology—(.8)
Dee W. James, Extension Agricultural Economist, Agricultural Law—(.2)
Ned A. Tisserat, Extension Specialist, Plant
Pathology—(.8)
Stanley J. Clark, Head, Department of Agricultural Engineering (Acting)—(.2)
Homer K. Caley, Extension State Leader, Veterinary Medicine—(.8)
George E. Ham, Head, Department of
Agronomy—(.3)
Mary Don Peterson, Head, Clothing, Textiles
and Interior Design—(.2)
David A. Whitney, Extension State Leader,
Agronomy Program—(.8)
John P. Murray, Head, Human Development
and Family Studies—(.2)
Ray E. Lamond, Extension Specialist, Soil Fertility and Management—(.9)
Jane R. Bowers, Head, Food and Nutrition—(.2)
David L. Regehr, Extension Specialist, Weed
Science—(.9)
Extension Program Assistants—1980's
Extension program units, primarily in agriculture and
community development, began to use more Program
Assistants during the 1980's.
Paul D. Ohlenbusch, Extension Specialist, Range
and Pasture Management—(.9)
Program Assistants provided flexibility in providing
highly specialized staff competencies to focus on specific problems, or added staff resources for emergency
needs and temporary programs
Jack G. Riley, Head, Department of Animal Sciences and Industry—(2)
Larry R. Corah, Extension State Leader, Animal
Sciences and Industry—(.8)
Assistants could be secured to fill specific needs
without a permanent commitment of resources to a
program area for future years.
Clifford W. Spaeth, Ext. Specialist, Sheep—(.5)
Gerry L. Kuhl, Extension Specialist, Beef Cattle
Nutrition and Management—(.8)
Program Assistant positions listed on the Extension
Service personnel roster in December, 1988 were:
Pete G. Gibbs, Extension Specialist, Horses—(.8)
Jim L. Nelssen, Extension Specialist, Swine—(.6)
Mary H. Bonczkowski, Extension Accountant—(.5)
Albert W. Adams, Extension Specialist, Poultry
Sciences—(.5)
Mary C. Knapp, Extension Assistant, Computer
Systems Office—(1.0)
Keith O. Zoellner, Extension Specialist, Beef—(.6)
Robert K. Tyrell, Extension Assistant, Computer
Programmer—(1.0)
Harold A. Roberts, Extension Specialist, Dairy
Technology—(.2)
John A. Kramer, Extension Assistant, Agricultural Safety—(.5)
Theodore L. Hopkins, Head, Department of
Entomology (Acting)—(.2)
Willard G. Olson, Extension Assistant, Live
Animal Evaluation—(1.0)
Randall A. Higgins, Extension Specialist, Entomology—(.6)
Kevin A. Shufran, Extension Entomology
Diagnostician—(.5)
James J. Nighswonger, Extension Specialist,
Environmental Forestry—(.9)
Ryan D. Hobson, Extension Assistant, Commmunity Development—(1.0)
Keith D. Lynch, Extension Forester, Rural Forestry—(.4)
Charles Johnson, Extension Assistant,
Charles W. Deyoe, Head, Department of Grain
Science and Industry—(.1)
DIRECT—(1.0)
Pamela Maier, Extension Assistant, DIRECT—(1.0)
James L. Balding, Extension Specialist, Formula
Feeds Manufacturing—(.9)
Paul H. Jennings, Head, Department of
Horticulture—(.2)
173
Staff Composition—1986
Agriculture agents
In a 1986 report, Director Fred Sobering identified
the extent of the Extension Professional and volunteer
staffs:
4-H agents
23.2
Home Economics
21.6
4-H
13.0
CD
9.0
Info
Energy
9.0
EFNEP agents
6.0
37,600 volunteer teachers & leaders
4-H
29,300
Home Ec
5,000
CRD
1,800
Agriculture
1,500
8,035 elected citizen leaders
20.0
7.0
286 County Staff
Home Ec agents
Horticulture agents
291 Secretaries & other classified
114.9
Forestry
37.0
21 County staff in EFNEP (paraprofessionals)
208.7 State and Area Subject Matter Specialists
Ag
113.0
Co Ext. Councils
2,835
Co 4-H Councils
3,400
County Homemaker Councils
1,800
123.0
Establish Area Extension Offices—1970's
SW Area Extension Office—1969
The first pilot Area Extension Office with an Area
Extension Director and Extension Specialists was established in Garden City in September, 1969.
In September, 1969, for the first time, the personnel
roster listed the Southwest Area Extension Office staff
with the County Extension Agents in that area.
The 22 counties included in the Southwest Area
were:
The Southwest Area Office was located at 1107 Kansas
Plaza until August, 1972. From that time to the end of
this report (1988), the office was located at 1501 Fulton
Terrace, Garden City.
Ray Mann, then District II Extension Supervisor
(Northwest), was appointed to establish "a fully independent area office. " His title was changed to Area
Extension Director.
Mann's responsibilities included programs, budgets,
personnel guidance, and office management for the
eight member area staff, and supervision of County
Extension personnel and activities in the 22 counties.
Clark
Hamilton
Morton
Comanche
Haskell
Pawnee
Edwards
Hodgeman Scott
Finney
Kearny
Seward
Ford
Kiowa
Stanton
Gray
Lane
Stevens
Grant
Meade
Wichita
Greeley
The Area office staff consisted of:
It was felt that evaluation of the Southwest Area
Office at Garden City would give Extension a chance to
analyze the area approach from both an administrative
and program standpoint.
Until that time, other Districts continued as they had
been, listing a District Extension Supervisor, a District
Extension Home Economist, and County Agents in
each area.
Preliminary plans were made to expand the Area
concept in other portions of the state as opportunities
for smooth transitions from Districts to Areas became
available.
174
Specialist
Position
Ray Mann
Area Extension Director
Dorothy Neufeld
Area Extension Home Econo
mist
Dale Edelbute
Area Ext. Spec., Crops & Soils
Eugene Francis
Area Ext. Spec., Animal Sc. &
Ind.
Loren Whipps
District Extension Economist, Farm Mgnt.
Ralph Germann
Ext. Economist, Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 3
Jon Herod
Ext. Economist, Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 3
Danny Trayer
Ext. Economist, Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 3
By 1975, there were 12 Extension Specialists stationed
in the Southwest Area Extension Office in Garden City.
The positions were:
James W. Sturdevant
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SW
Robert G. Lisec
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SW (Greensburg)
Establish Five Administrative Areas—1971
Five area Extension offices were officially established
in 1971 by Director Bob Bohannon.
Area Extension Director
Area Extension Home Economist
In his report to all Kansas Cooperative Extension
Service staff at the Annual Extension Conference that
year he announced:
Area Extension Specialist, Crops and Soils
Area Extension Specialist, Animal Science and
Industry
1) Kansas would be divided into five administrative areas, each administered by
an Area Director responsible to the Director of Extension or his designated representative for all aspects of the Area Extension operation.
Area Extension Forester
Area Extension Specialist, 4-H and Youth
Area Extension Specialist, Economics
Area Extension Specialist, Community Resource
Development
2) Names, numbers of counties and Area
Center locations for these administrative
areas were:
Area Extension Irrigation Engineer
Area Extension Specialist, Crop Protection
Three Area Extension Economists, Farm Mgnt.
Assn. 3
In December, 1988, current staff positions in the
Southwest Area Office included:
Position
Head
Ray H. Mann
Area Extension Director, SW
Carol H. Young
Ext. Home Economist, SW
Dwight G. Mosier
Ext. Spec., Crops & Soils, SW
(vacant)
Ext. Spec., Animal Science,
SW
(vacant)
Ext. Spec., Community Development, SW
Phillip E. Sloderbeck
Ext. Spec., Entomology, SW
(vacant)
Ext. Spec., Wildlife Damage
Control, SW
Kevin C. Dhuyvetter
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
SW
Ralph N. Germann
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn, SW
Jon G. Herod
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SW
Northwest (21)
Colby
Southeast (21)
Chanute
Northeast (22)
Manhattan
3) An Area Director, located at the Area Center,
would have full responsibility for:
In 1987, the Southwest Area Extension Office became
a part of the Southwest Research-Extension Center. On
August 1, 1988, James Schaffer became Head, Southwest
Research-Extension Center.
James A. Schaffer
Garden City
South Central (19) Hutchinson
An additional Area Extension Economist, Farm
Management, Assn. 3 was stationed in Greensburg,
Kansas.
Specialist
Southwest (22)
a)
Recruitment and selection of
county staff.
b)
Training programs for county
staff.
c)
Operating budgets, including travel
and equipment, for the area.
d)
Management of the Area Center.
4) The Area Director would have joint responsibility with subject matter Department Heads
for:
a)
Recruitment and selection of Area
Specialists.
b) Initial salary recommendations and
evaluation of Area Specialists.
5) The Area Director would have joint responsibility with the appropriate Assistant Director
or State Leader for:
a) Area program development and implementation.
b)
Area Specialist training programs.
c)
Publications.
6) As soon as convenient and practicable, all
Area Specialists would be located at the Area
Centers.
175
Role of Area Extension Directors—1971-88
The Area Extension Director served as the official representative for Kansas State University in the respective
administrative area, and reported directly to the Director
of Extension at Kansas State University.
Mary M. Schroeder
Area Ext. Home Economist
Frank L. Overley
Area Extension Economist.
Gersilda Guthrie
Area Ext. Specialist, Home
Management
Regarding County Extension Operations in the area,
the Area Extension Director represented the Director of
Extension for personnel placement and management
for all County Extension Agent positions and for county
program motivation.
DeLynn R. Hay
Area Ext. Irrigation Engineer
Kenneth E. Urban
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.
Assn. 5
Donald L. Faidley
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.
Assn. 5
He represented the Director in budget negotiations,
in cooperation with County Extension Executive Boards
of the County Extension Councils in the counties.
Ervin C. Reimer
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.
Assn. 5
Fred D. Atchison
Area Ext. Forester (Hays)
In that first listing, the address for Norby and Schroeder was listed as Manhattan, which indicated that the
transition to an "on site" staff at the 170 W. Fourth, Colby,
had not been completed
At the Area Office the Area Extension Director was
the representative of the Director of Extension in matters
of Area Specialist placement, area program motivation,
and budget negotiations. He was to work cooperatively
with Department administrators and subject matter
Specialists at Kansas State University.
The 21 counties included in the Northwest Area
were:
NW Area Extension Office—1971
In the Annual Extension Report, FY 1970 it stated:
The comprehensive planning in Northwest Kansas
the last several years by leaders and citizen groups
assisted by Extension staff has resulted in large increases in irrigated acreages, the expanded planting
of sugar beets, the installation of a sugar plant, the
organization of a regional comprehensive planning
commission and establishment of other county rural
development projects.
The anticipated increase of staff made it necessary to
arrange for moving to a much larger office space.
The first official announcement of the Northwest
Extension Center was in the December 1971 Personnel
booklet. The nine members of that office were listed
this way:
Oscar W. Norby
Area Extension Director
Russell
Norton
Sheridan
Decatur
Osborne
Sherman
Ellis
Phillips
Smith
Gove
Rawlins
Thomas
Logan
Rush
Wallace
Staff members located in the Northwest Area Extension Office, Colby, at that time Finley joined the staff
included:
These Specialists will be an Area Extension Irrigation
Engineer, and Area Extension Specialist, Rural Development.
Position
Ness
Cheyenne
Philip Finley was appointed Northwest Area Extension Director September 1, 1973. He held that position
until his retirement September 30, 1987.
These rapid changes created the need for two new
Area Specialists in the Northwest District. Plans were
completed for placing of two new Specialists during
the next fiscal year.
Specialist
Barton
176
Specialist
Position
Philip B. Finley
Area Extension Director, NW
Mary M. Schroeder
Area Ext. Home Economist
Frank L. Overley
Area Ext. Economist
Leslie R. Reinhardt
Area Ext. Spec., Crop Science
Harvey E. Goertz
Area Ext. Spec., 4-H & Youth
(Vacant)
Area Ext. Spec., Home Mgnt.
(Vacant)
Area Ext. Spec., Community
Development
DeLynn R. Hay
Area Ext. Irrigation Engineer
Kenneth E. Urban
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 5
Donald L. Faidley
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 5
Ervin C. Reimer
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 5
Fred D. Atchison
Area Ext. Forester (Hays)
The Northwest Area Extension Office became a part of
the newly-created Research-Extension Center in 1986.
Specialist
Position
Lawrence Cox
Area Extension Director
At that time, a new position of Head, Northwest Research-Extension Center was created. Richard S. White
was appointed to that position July 1, 1987.
Helen Blackwood
Area Extension Home Economist
Kenneth McReynolds
Area Extension Economist
Reba White was appointed Northwest Area Extension
Director on January 18, 1988.
Robert Nuttelman
Area Ext. Spec., Crops and
Soils
In December, 1988, staff members in the Northwest
Area included:
(Vacant)
Area Ext. Spec., Home Mgnt.
Steven Lindsey
Area Extension Forester
Linda Coen
Area Ext. Spec., 4-H Nutrition Prog. (LWOP)
HoBart Frederick
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 2
Bill Collins
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 2
Henry Deutsch
Area Ext. Spec., Resource
Conservation and Development (LWOP)
Specialist
Position
Richard S. White
Head, NW Research-Extension Center
Reba S. White
Area Extension Director, NW
Pauline W. Ferrell
Ext. Home Economist, NW
Mark E. Nelson
Ext. Agricultural Econ., NW
Patricia L. Houghton
Ext. Spec., Livestock Prod.,
NW
Merrel E. Mikesell
Ext. Spec., Crops & Soils, NW
(Vacant)
Ext. Spec., Community Development
Richard H. Wahl
Ext. Ag Econ., Farm Mgnt.
Assn., NW
Mark A. Wood
Ext. Ag Econ., Farm Mgnt.
Assn., NW
By July, 1975, five additional positions had been
added to the South Central Area Extension Office. They
were:
James H. Strine Dist. Forester, NW (at Hays)
SC Area Extension Office—1972
On July 1, 1972, the South Central Area Extension
Office was officially established. All Specialists and
Fieldmen were moved to a new location at 21 East Des
Moines Avenue, South Hutchinson.
Reno
Butler
Lincoln
Rice
Cowley
Marion
Saline
Dickinson
McPherson
Sedgwick
Ellsworth
Ottawa
Stafford
Harvey
Pratt
Sumner
Thomas Orwig
Area Ext. Spec., Livestock
Prod.
Marsha Goetting
Area Ext. Spec., Consumer
Education
Thomas Whitson
Area Ext. Spec., 4-H and
Youth
Stanley Bratcher
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 2
The South Central Area Extension Office moved
again on October 1, 1986, to 1600 North Lorraine,
Hutchinson, where it stayed through the time of this
report.
The 19 counties included in the South Central Area
were:
Kingman
Position
Earl Van Meter became the second South Central
Area Extension Director August 1, 1985, following the
retirement of Lawrence Cox.
At that time Dr. Lawrence Cox moved from the State
Office at Kansas State University to become its first
resident Area Extension Director.
Barber
Specialist
In December, 1988, staff members in the South
Central Area include:
Harvey
At this location the staff at the Area Office was expanded by several positions.
In 1972 there were 10 Specialist positions in the South
Central Area Extension Office:
177
Specialist
Position
Earl L. Van Meter
Area Extension Director, SC
Margaret E. Phillips
Ext. Home Economist, SC
Kenneth McReynolds
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
SC
Dale L. Fjell
Ext. Spec., Crops & Soils, SC
Robert J. Ritter, III
Ext. Spec., Livestock Production, SC
Kenneth B. Albright
Ext. Spec., Community Development, SC
Robert J. Bauernfeind
Ext. Spec., Entomology, SC
Gerald McMaster
Timothy A. Stucky
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SC
Asst. County Ext. Agent,
Hiawatha
James Geisler
Area Ext. Forester, Hiawatha
Eric B. Allen
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SC
Duane Olsen (SL)
Area Ext. Spec., Resource
Development
Mark Schwartzentraub
Ext. Agricultural Economist, FM Assn., SC
Raymond Hackler
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 4, Hiawatha
Bryan L. Manny
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn, SC
William Dickson
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 4, Hiawatha
NE Area Extension Office-—1972
The Northeast Area Extension Office was located
in the Grain Marketing Research Center, 1515 College
Avenue, Manhattan, Kansas from March, 1972 to the
end of this report.
Leonard Parker
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 4, Wamego
Laurenz Greene
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 1, Concordia
Ross Olson
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 1, Concordia
Satellite offices were maintained for Farm Management Association fieldmen in Wamego, Hiawatha,
Concordia, Lawrence, Baldwin City and Abilene.
Kenneth Stielow
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 1, Concordia
Vera Ellithorpe
Area Ext. Spec., Home Mgnt.,
Topeka
Paul Kasper (Temp)
Area Ext. Spec., 4-H & Youth,
Lawrence
The 22 counties included in the Northeast Area
were:
Atchison
Jefferson
Pottawatomie
Brown
Jewell
Republic
Clay
Johnson
Riley
Cloud
Leavenworth
Shawnee
Doniphan
Marshall
Wabaunsee
Douglas
Mitchell
Washington
Geary
Nemaha
Wyandotte
In December, 1988, current staff members in the
Northeast Area Office include:
Specialist
Position
Bob W. Newsome
Area Extension Director, NE
Emily R. Mark
Extension Home Economist,
NE
D. Leo Figurski
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
NE
The First Area Extension Director in the Northeast
Area was Richard King, who retired September 21,
1979. He was replaced by Bob Newsome on May 18,
1979. Newsome moved to that position from County
Extension Director in Riley County.
Daniel L. Devlin
Ext. Spec., Crops & Soils, NE
Ralph E. Utermoehlen
Ext. Spec., Community
Development, NE
Larry C. Bonczkowski
Ext. Spec., Crop Protection,
NE
Personnel in the Northeast Area Extension Center
when it opened were:
Barry D. New
Ext. Forester, NE
Jerry D. Freeze
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NE
Jackson
Specialist
Position
Richard King
Area Extension Director
William M. Dickson
Rosemary Crist
Area Extension Home Economist
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NE
Eugene H. Harter
Area Ext. Spec., Crops and
Soils
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NE
Allen W. Janke
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NE
David R. Smith
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NE
Everett K. Everson
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NC
David H. Rempe
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NC
David P. Crawford
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
Farm Mgnt. Assn., NC
Dean Dicken
Larry Biles
Area Ext. Forester, Watersheds
Other Area Extension Specialists in the Northeast Area
in March, 1972, and their office locations were:
Leo Figurski
Area Ext. Economist, Hiawatha
178
SE Area Extension Office—1972
The Southeast Area Office became fully operative
July 1, 1972 at Chanute, Kansas located at 20 South
Highland.
Specialist
Positions
Herman W. Westmeyer
Area Extension Director
Mariellen J. Appleby
Area Ext. Home Economist
Gary L. Kilgore
Ext. Spec., Crops & Soils
The first Southeast Area Extension Director was
Ray Hoss on November 1, 1971. He retired February
29, 1976 and was replaced by Herman Westmeyer on
March 12, 1976.
Jay L. Treat
Area Ext. Economist
Frank K. Brazle
Area Ext. Spec., Livestock
Production.
Susan S. Spalding
Area Ext. Spec., Human Dev.
& Family Relations
Jack J. Rowland
Area Ext. Forester
Gerald F. Bratton
Area Ext. Forester
Melvin J. Baughman
Area Ext. Forester
Benny S. Robbins
Area Ext. Spec., 4-H & Youth
Following Westmeyer's retirement June 30, 1978,
Benny Robbins was appointed Southeast Area Extension Director on April 1, 1978. He continues to served
in that position through 1988. The Extension Specialist
staff, which was to be stationed at the Chanute Area
Office when it opened, included:
Specialist
Position
Steven G. Bittel
Verlin Peterson
Area Ext. Spec., Crops and
Soils
Area Ext. Spec., Community
Resource Development
Robert E. Dawson
Jay Treat
Dist. Ext. Economist, Farm
Mgnt.
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 6
Thomas E. Appleby
(Vacant)
Area Ext. Spec., Home Mgnt.
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 6
Jack Rowland
Area Ext. Forester, Watershed
Project
W. Gale Mullins
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 6
Gerald Bratton
District Extension Forester
Duane J. Strickler
Area Ext. Econ., Farm Mgnt.,
Assn. 6
Mariellen Appleby
District Ext. Home Economist
William Guy
Ext. Economist, Farm Mgnt.
Assn. 6
In December, 1988, staff members in the Southeast
Area Office include:
The 21 counties in the Southeast Area were:
Allen
Crawford
Miami
Anderson
Elk
Montgomery
Bourbon
Franklin
Morris
Chase
Greenwood
Neosho
Chautauqua Labette
Osage
Cherokee
Linn
Wilson
Coffee
Lyon
Woodson
By 1976, the County Extension staff in the 21 counties
in the Southeast Area included:
21 County Extension Agricultural Agents.
21 County Extension Home Economists.
Specialist
Position
Benny S. Robbins
Extension Area Director, SE
Mariellen J. Appleby
Ext. Home Economist, SE
Gary L. Kilgore
Ext. Spec., Crops & Soils, SE
Marvin R. Fausett
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
SE
Frank K. Brazle
Ext. Spec., Livestock Prod.,
SE
Jack J. Rowland
Ext. Forester, SE
David N. Bruckerhoff
Ext. Forester, SE
Steven G. Bittel
Ext. Spec., Community
Development, SE
George E. Lippert
Ext. Spec., Crop Protection,
SE
Gerald F. Bratton
Ext. Forester, SE (On Assignment to Great Plains Forester)
Robert E. Dawson
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SE
Charles P. Wilken
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SE
Frederick D. DeLano
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SE (Ottawa)
7 County Extension 4-H Agents.
1 County Extension Nutrition Agent.
1 Extension Educational Assistant (EFNEP).
7 Extension Educational Aides (EFNEP).
The Area Office staff had expanded to 15 positions
by 1976, and included:
179
James A. Huschka Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SE (Eureka)
Kent B. Miller
Ext. Agricultural Economist,
FM Assn., SE (Winfield)
Research-Extension Centers—1986-87
The Branch Experiment Stations and Area Extension Offices in the Northwest and Southwest areas
were combined into single administrative units, called
Research-Extension Centers, in 1986 and 1987, during
the administration of Agriculture Dean and Extension
Director Walter Woods.
ment, evaluation and training programs for county staff
were also part of his responsibility.
Reba White became the Northwest Area Extension
Director on January 18, 1988, following Phil Finley's
retirement on September 30, 1987.
SW Research-Extension Center—1987
The Southwest Kansas Research-Extension Center
was established along the same lines in September,
1987.
James A. Schaffer was appointed Head of the Southwest Research-Extension Center on August 1, 1988.
The decision was made to have a Head and Associate
Head for each Center.
NW Research-Extension Center—1986
The Colby Branch Experiment Station and Area
Extension Office in the Northwest were combined into
one administrative units in June, 1986.
Ray Mann continued in the position as Area Extension
Director and Associate Head in that area.
Office quarters were remodeled at the Branch Experiment Station for the Area Extension Office and moved
into in June, 1987.
Responsibilities of Center Administrators
Head:
Richard S. White was employed as head of that
Research-Extension Center on July 1, 1987. As Head of
the Center, he was responsible to Dean of Agriculture,
Walter Woods, just as were the Heads of Academic Departments on the Kansas State University campus.
l) Provide leadership for planning and conducting research and Extension activities by
the Research-Extension Center faculty.
2) Responsible for professional improvement,
recruitment, development and evaluation of
the Center faculty.
In addition, he reported on Extension programs to
Associate Dean and Director of Extension, Fred Sobering,
and for research programs to Associate Dean and Associate Director of the Experiment Station, Kurt Feltner.
3) Maintain public relations with clientele and
support groups.
4) Responsible for facilities, budgets and support staff.
Phil Finley, who had been serving as Area Extension
Director in the Northwest Area became Associate Head
and Northwest Area Extension Director.
Area Extension Director and Associate Head:
1) Responsible for Extension programs and personnel in the counties in the area.
He was the designated representative for county
Extension programs, personnel and budgets. Recruit-
2) The Extension Director's designated representative to County Extension Councils and
County Commissioners.
County Staff Adjustments—1970's-80's
County Agent Role
Several factors are bringing into focus questions as
to the County Extension Agent's role:
decision-making (problem-solving) process.
3) Reduction in number of County Extension
Agents.
1) Increased demands on County Agent efforts.
Agents are under pressure to become both generalists and specialists. Agents are expected to be facilitators
with access to a variety of sources of information.
2) Orientation of Specialists and administrators
to knowledge transfer, in contrast to helping
with the application of knowledge to the
180
Yet they are expected to follow through on problem-solving demands. This involves helping clientele
identify cause of problems, providing local information
on varied solutions, developing skill at assessing outcomes of varied solutions, and evaluating the program
consequences.
Connie Bretz
Lane County
Elizabeth Curry
Cheyenne County
Karen Murphy
Osborne County
Ann Domsch
Rawlins County
Margaret Hund
Jackson County
How well Agents can handle these expectations is
the unanswered agenda in the years ahead.
Janet Stephens
Greenwood County
Donna Martinson
Elk County
Agent Training
Specialist efforts and delivery expectations are stemming from Agent needs to provide service for new and
expanding audiences.
Lois Carlson
Neosho County
Staff Downsizing Projection—1988
In early 1988, an administrative plan for downsizing the number of Extension positions created a stir of
concern among the state and county staff.
Yet, there was little provision for specialized training
to help Agents adjust to these new educational program
demands.
This contingency plan had been developed because
of projected shortfalls between increasing operating
costs and decreasing Federal and State appropriations.
Increasingly, new programs were added and new
demands coming from new audiences without cutting
or reducing existing program efforts.
The most dramatic change suggested was the downsizing of 33 County Extension Agent positions, with the
end result of leaving 34 one-agent counties, and creating
11 county positions to be shared between counties.
But there was little specialized training for Agents,
and the new programs were added without cutting or
reducing existing demands.
Combine that with the decreased amount of available programming (problem-solving, decision-making)
training, and the pressure on County Extension Agents
have increased many-fold.
Additionally, vacant or vacated Specialist positions
on the State or Area staffs which were frozen in 1987
would continue in that mode.
By the end of 1988, the staff losses were not as dire
as had been feared as portions of the downsizing plan
were being slowly implemented.
Clientele Short Circuits Agents
As solutions to clientele problems become more
complex, there is a tendency for clientele to deal direct
with Extension specialists without going through a
local Agent.
Hardest hit State offices by December, 1988 were
the 4-H and Youth Department which had lost five Area
positions when they were moved to the State Office, and
the Program Development and Evaluation Section that
lost two positions.
The more progressive and aggressive commercial
farmers have begun turning to consultants and thus
bypassing Extension altogether.
Losses in faculty positions at that time were:
This sometimes results in criticism of Agents by clientele for not having the information their clients need.
Women Administrators—1970's-80's
The advent of the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities policies in Extension began to change the
distribution of staff personnel.
The first change in the traditionally male orientation
of the Agricultural Agent position came when Bobbie
Wilbur became Lane County's Ag Agent in 1979.
In 1975 the County Director positions were also
totally male. By 1979, there were 10 women County
Directors:
Janet Guthrie
Hamilton County
Ocie Neuschwander
Greeley County
Agricultural Economics
-2.0
4-H and Youth
-2.0
Staff & Program Development
-2.0
Grain Science & Industry
-1.0
Southwest Area Office
-2.5*
Northwest Area Office
-1.0*
South Central Area Office
-1.0*
Northeast Area Office
-1.0*
Southeast Area Office
-1.0*
County Agents in SW Area
-7.0
County Agents in SE Area
-1.0
* Transferred to State staff
181
Federal Influence on State Programs—1970's-80's
As State Extension budgets grew larger in recent decades, the proportion of financial support provided by
the funding partners—Federal, State, and local—began
to shift from the traditional one-third contribution from
each source to a larger percentage portion provided by
State and local sources.
able. Strong emphasis was placed on determining the
impact of its programs and services.
Even though Federal financial support shrank, percentage wise, the Extension Service-USDA continue to
exert considerable influence on direction and scope of
many state programs.
It also recognized that education is a lifelong learning process and Extension has a unique and effective
mechanism for taking knowledge to individuals regardless of race or economic status.
This was done, in part, through its frequent guideline
and directive documents, self-study reports, detailed
directives relating to use of "earmarked" funds for specific purposes, and its stronger insistence on specific
evaluation and accountability reports on how funds
were spent.
It characterized Extension as a change agent, and a
catalyst for bringing about a better quality of life.
A People & a Spirit—1968
A People and a Spirit (1968) emphasized that Extension generated educational programs for action, and
promoted organizational and educational leadership.
The report additionally suggested:
— Quality of living programs in urban as well
as rural areas.
— Sharply expanded programs to help the disadvantaged and alienated.
Federal Guideline Publications—1970's-80's
Some of the Federally-initiated documents were
instrumental in clarifying the trends that were evolving nationally. Frequently they reflected what was
also happening, or would soon be happening, on the
Kansas scene.
— Emphasis on social and behavioral science
disciplines in staffing.
— Cooperation with organizations that can
assist in meeting emerging broader human
development commitments.
— Considering greater use of contracted services and support of consultants.
Brief citings from some of these Extension reports will
illustrate what was happening or being advocated.
— Knowledge should be taken to individuals
regardless of race or economic status.
Scope & Responsibility Report—1958
The 1987 Extension in Transition document summarized the every-ten-year Cooperative Extension Service
self-study report, starting in 1958, as follows:
— Extension should conduct educational programs for action and promote educational
and educational leadership.
The Scope & Responsibility Report (1958) recognized
Extension as the educational arm of the USDA, and the
outreach arm of the land-grant university.
— Concentrate on directing interdisciplinary
efforts toward solving existing problems in
the complex interrelationship of modern society.
It suggested that Extension was an informal educational organization designed to disseminate results of
research in agriculture and home economics. The end
result was to improve the welfare of those individuals
at the grassroot level.
— Strengthening the local Extension office as
the public's first point of contact with the
land-grant university is extremely important for coping with the many local problems.
Clientele were identified as farm families. However,
a broader audience included urban, non-farm rural
residents, related farm organizations, and those who
supply services and products to farm people.
— Continued attention to keeping Agents and
Specialists at the cutting edge of knowledge
and technology.
Food & Agriculture Act of 1977
While the Food & Agricultural Act of 1977 was not
an Extension bill, it did include some specific references
that had an impact on future Extension programming.
Extension needs to be in tune with local needs of its
clientele and maximize its efforts with resources avail-
182
For example, it mandated an evaluation of economic
and social consequences of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
CES does not have a national program as such. Rather,
it is a continuing process and system of information
education in the community, family, home, business,
and farm. It's a process of:
It also identified two important concepts as being vital in meeting the needs of people at the local
level—networking and referral.
1) Helping people apply research, information, and resources to improve their lives.
2) Leadership development, life enrichment, and individual fulfillment.
In addition, reference was made that there was a need
to review Extension's traditional tendencies to:
3) For people to define and learn skills to meet
their most urgent, present and future needs.
1) Staff county office with traditional agents
with degrees only in agriculture or home econom-
This is a time for the USDA to provide leadership
to expand the system to include education in human
health, business and industry, energy, environmental
quality, and Extension education to developing countries of the world.
ics.
2) Proved too much emphasis on middle class
programs.
3) Use local advisory committees in too narrow a
spectrum of input.
Ten specific goals for CES should be:
1) Reduced unemployment and underemployment in rural America.
4) Exhibit reactive planning with too little risktaking.
2) Improved income and living conditions for small/lower income farm
families.
Cooperative Extension In Transition—1979
Among observations in the 1979 National ECOP
report, The Cooperative Extension in Transition, about
the changing scene for Cooperative Extension were
these thoughts:
3) Improved housing in rural America.
4) Improved environment, community
facilities, and services for rural America.
5) Improved quality of life for disadvantaged, elderly, minorities.
— Agriculture has grown from the nearly selfsufficient farmer to a complex of interrelated occupations that provide one-fourth
of all jobs in city and county.
6) Improved health care for rural citizens.
7) Improved energy conservation/management for homes, farms, and
agribusiness.
— The Cooperative Extension Service
changed from an educational service primarily for farms and rural homes to one
that serves both rural and urban people.
8) Agricultural efficiency and safe use of
chemicals.
— The world food supply and a basic source of
foreign trade are threatened by major losses
of prime farmland, growing shortages of
water, scarcity of fuels needed for efficient
production, and rapidly-growing world
populations to feed.
9) Improved family stability and nutrition.
10) Increased access of people to government programs and increased efficiency in delivery of services.
Extension in the 80's—1983
The Extension in the 80's document reaffirmed
Extension's mission as education for individuals, families, and communities, but also emphasized the need
for development human capital through leadership
techniques.
— The programs of the CES have changed in
focus from home and agricultural skills
training to self-development, citizenship/
leadership development, orientation toward problem-solving, and community
participations.
— CES programs now go far beyond the
traditional homemaking skills to include
education in a broad range of family, community, and world concerns.
The major area of program emphasis were also redefined into the categories of agriculture, natural and
environmental resources, community and small business
development, home economics/family living, 4-H youth
education/development, and international concerns.
— Rural communities are being served in
their developmental planning, sound
community growth, environmental quality improvements, and public affairs education.
183
Other observations included:
2) Social and Economic Development—
Helping people improve their community
organizations, services, and environment;
conserve and effective use their natural
resources; and develop as informal leaders
for identifying and solving problems in a
democratic society. Possible areas of emphasis include public affairs, environment,
pollution, land and resource use.
— While maintaining the unique partnership between Federal, State, and local levels is essential
for a strong Extension system, three other partners have future importance—the private sector,
research agencies, and inter-agency partnerships.
— Continued use of volunteers to strengthen programming efforts will remain necessary for
reaching multi-faceted audiences.
3) Quality of Living—Helping youth and
adults reach their best development as
individuals and as members of the family
and community, raise their level of
living and achieve their goals through
wise resource management.
— Stronger emphasis placed on the need for setting
priorities and delineating audiences.
— Because of changes in informational availability
and new and innovative information delivery
techniques, the importance of accountability
and evaluation has increased.
4) International Extension—Assisting with
the agricultural development of other
countries.
— Need for sound and quality programming
through priority setting and program delivery
was essential for continued support by decision
makers.
Extension's role as the "educational support arm"
needs a broadened support base—from different
departments within the Federal Government, from all
colleges within the university system, city as well as
county governments, and other people-oriented state
and local agencies and organizations.
Catalyst for Change—1983
The 1983 ECOP document, A Catalyst for Change—
the Extension Service, reaffirmed Extension's basic
mission as:
A system to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities
through dissemination and application of researchgenerated knowledge and leadership techniques.
From a staffing point of view, there is a need to
further emphasize the social and behavioral science
disciplines, increase specialists with joint appointments,
experiment with multi-county staffing and specialist
teams, and increase in formal and informal staff training
and development.
The four identified program areas are: improve
American agriculture, conserve national resources,
strengthen family and community life, and develop
leadership capabilities in youth and adults.
The report also notes the evolutionary role of the
County Extension Agent—that indispensable person
on the cutting edge of program delivery:
There are three eras in the role of the County Extension Agent—community control, mass society, and the
information age.
Extension in Transition—1987
Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between
Vision and Reality, a 1987 report of the Futures Committee of ECOP, restated that the Cooperative Extension
Service , after 75 years, remains a unique achievement
in American Education.
In the community control era, the Agent was a participant in community affairs and broker of information
originating outside the community.
Extension retains its place of relevance as a unique
educational and developmental institution for solving
tomorrow's problems.
During the mass society era, the Agent remained
a teacher, but became an interpreter of information
from various sources.
There has, however, been broadening of major programs areas to adjust to changing times:
Now in the information age, the Agent most likely
helps clientele access databases and learns along with
them.
1) Agriculture and Related Industries—Helping support farm, forest, or range enterprises, and increase the effectiveness of
the farm business management, marketing and distribution system.
The danger for today's Extension workers, who by
design, inattention, or indifference, limit themselves to
a traditional focus, is that the scope and influence of
their programming may be sharply reduced.
184
Kansas Extension's Changing Mission—1970's-80's
Shifting Focus—1950's-70's
Historically speaking, Extension was primarily rural
oriented until after WWII. Since that time both the
mission and clientele have gradually broadened to the
point they are difficult to delineate.
Accordingly, we have initiated efforts in such areas as
community resource development, public affairs education,
consumer competence, family living, and youth enrichment
activities.
Other current problems, which vie for our attention,
include proper use of natural resources, outdoor recreation,
pollution control, community facilities, and effective local
government.
Rural, rural transplanted to urban, and urban audiences were all able to benefit from Extension technology
transfer in agriculture, food, youth, and family. In a era
of rapid growth—the 50's to the 70's— this concept of
helping everyone worked well.
At the same time we must continue to give priority support to food and fiber production through education and
research.
However, economic contractions in the 1970's
brought widespread stress to the Extension system.
Cuts across the board did not take priorities into consideration. Extension began to question its attempt to
"be all things to all people."
Bohannon then proposed future grouping of major
Extension efforts into two parallel, and often interacting,
program emphasis areas: Natural Resources and Human
Resources. Focus in the Natural Resource area are on:
1) Animal Production & Utilization.
Many traditionalists began to agitate for a return
to the original mission—of serving only rural-oriented
agriculture, home economics, and youth audiences.
2) Food & Forage Production.
3) Service to Agri-Business.
4) Management on Commercial Farms.
Factors for Change—1970's-80's
Several factors have contributed to the evolvement of
the mission for the Kansas Cooperative Extension Service
during the past two decades. Some of the influences
were reflected in philosophy and program goals:
5) Resource Use & Conservation.
Emphasis areas in Human Resources are:
1) Focus on the Modern Life.
2) Accent on Youth.
1) National reports, studies, and guideline
statements reflecting the forward-looking
ideas of Extension leaders.
3) Rural Revitalization
4) Serving Urban Audiences.
5) Expanding Limited Resources.
2) National Affirmative Action legislation and
directives that changed employment perceptions.
Although this master plan was never totally implemented, it did provide many guidelines that were
incorporated into shaping new directions for programs
in the decade ahead.
3) Broader language in the Kansas Extension
Council Law making programs available to
all citizens.
Recent Mission Statement—1986
Extension's continuing mission was expressed in a
1986 report by Director Fred Sobering this way:
4) Changes in election representation for County
Extension Councils.
5) Increased earmarked Federal funds to assure
attention to selected program areas.
Cooperative Extension provides practical and useful information to the people of Kansas—to help them
meet their needs, problems, and opportunities.
Thrusts for the 70's
Following up on the National charge for change,
Director Robert Bohannon, at the 1969 Annual Extension unveiled his Thrusts for the 70's proposal for future
programming. His opening remarks indicated:
It delivers informal, out-of-school, non-credit educational programs to citizens in every county in Kansas.
It takes scientific knowledge, applied principles,
and recommended practices to the people for their
use in their daily lives.
Extension has recognized its need to consider several
of the social, economic, and human adjustments related to
problem solving.
It provides Kansans with research results and information they can use to produce and market high
quality food profitably, to use natural resources wisely,
185
This is a mission statement to which any Ex-tension
worker can prescribe. But does it cover all the bases in
the shifting sands of today's society?
to achieve a satisfactory quality of life through sound
resource management, and to grow personally as individuals and members of families and communities.
Finance/Budget Trends—1970's-80's
Sources of Funds—1965-88
Kansas Extension's financial support has changed
over the years both in size of budget and in source of
educational funds.
1966 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988
County
The size of the budget has steadily increased over
the years, reflecting the expanding scope of educational
programs included under the Cooperative Extension
umbrella. A rough comparison in millions of dollars
during the past two decades are as follows:
State
23.5 28.2 26.2 29.9 29.5 33.2
Federal
22.2 25.0 24.5 21.3 22.6 22.0
Fees
11.9
5.3 13.6 12.3 11.6
9.6
Staff Time Spent—1970-88
The percentage of staff time spent in handling the
major program areas has remained fairly constant
through the years even though the size and scope of
the Extension effort has continued to expand.
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988
5.7
40.7 41.5 35.7 36.5 36.3 35.2
8.1 12.3 18.1 25.8 27.9
In regard to source, the following chart show the percentage shift in support from the four major sources:
Earmarked Funding
In recent years, an increasing number of Extension
programs are identified and funded by "earmarked"
Kansas Extension Budget Summary—1965-75
Funding Source
1965
1970
1975
$1,267,842
$1,497,586
$2.272,956
---------
314,828
---------
Smith-Lever Funds:
Regular 3(b) & 3(c) ........................................................................................
Special 3(d))
Nutrition ...................................................................................................
Exp. Food & Nutrition: Professional .................................................
---------
---------
99,113
Exp. Food & Nutrition: Paraprofessional ........................................
---------
---------
478,976
Farm Safety ..............................................................................................
---------
---------
4,125
Agricultural Marketing Act (Marketing) .......................................................
50,891
47,186
47,282
Resource Conservation & Development .....................................................
---------
---------
13,382
Rural Civil Defense ...............................................................................................
31,813
28,899
16,073
Tirtle V Rural Development ..............................................................................
---------
---------
26,375
Rural Development ......................................................................................
---------
---------
17,733
Pest Management ........................................................................................
---------
--------
50,301
Pesticide-Chemical.......................................................................................
25,686
---------
---------
Special Project Extension Service Fund ................................................
---------
---------
10,755
State Funds .....................................................................................................
1,410,540
2,200,608
3,089,660
County Funds .................................................................................................
2,306,513
2,988,301
4,546,106
Other Program Funds:
Non-Tax Funds (fees/grants) .....................................................................
558,020
1,059,333
1,235,765
Total All Programs.........................................................................................
$5,651,305
$8,136,741
$11,909,102
186
funding. This means that the funding source specifies
how funds will be used.
Council for home economics.
Non-tax funds, in the form of grants, have come from
various places, such as the Arthur Capper Foundation for
economics, the Baughman Foundation for agronomy,
and the Dane Hansen Foundation for 4-H.
Congressional "earmarked" funding has been made
available through ES-USDA sources for expanded
programs in urban 4-H, community development, and
nutrition education for the disadvantaged reinforced
the calls for broader programs stated in Extension
position papers.
All of these "earmarked" funds do support worthwhile
Extension program emphases, but they tend to limit
flexibility in funding.
In addition, continued strong State and National
base funding, with added Federal "earmarked" funding
for crop protection and insecticide training, ensured
continued support for food and fiber production.
Budget Trends—1970's-80's
Budgets for the Kansas Cooperative Extension Service
programs expanded greatly during the period.
The tables below show the expansion and the shifts
in funds from Federal, State and local sources during
this era.
Other State funding has been available from sources
such as the Kansas Department of Transportation for
seat belt safety, the Kansas Corn Commission and Kansas Soybean Commission for agronomy, the Rural Arts
Evaluation & Accountability—1970's-80's
Accountability
Accountability effort took three major directions in
the period.
1) A revised staff time reporting system that
relied more heavily on statistical data than
narrative reporting.
Kansas Extension Budget Summary—1980-88
Funding Source
1980
1985
$2,889,364
$4,832,247
1988
Smith-Lever Funds:
Regular 3(b) & 3(c) ........................................................................................
$4,168,819
Expanded 4-H: Urban ..................................................................................
97,648
96,400
96,400
Expanded 4-H: Rural Development........................................................
48,778
48,200
48,200
Expanded Part-Time Farmer .....................................................................
58,629
19,543
19,543
Rural Development ......................................................................................
---------
---------
48,503
Exp. Food & Nutrition: Professional ........................................................
76,468
199,773
267,077
Exp. Food & Nutrition: Paraprofessional ...............................................
402,895
572,222
834,272
Exp. Food & Nutrition: 4-H Professional ................................................
66,520
---------
---------
Ext. Food & Nutrition: 4-H Paraprofessional ........................................
53,396
---------
---------
Farm Safety .....................................................................................................
20,420
41,500
48,377
Rural Development ......................................................................................
31,033
---------
---------
Integrated Pest Management ..................................................................
207,000
224,959
189,644
Pesticide Impact Assessment ...................................................................
95,362
47,910
48,221
State Funds .....................................................................................................
5,331,594
7,554,485
9,347,449
County Funds .................................................................................................
6,498,602
9,296,402
9,889,266
Non-Tax Funds (fees/grants) .....................................................................
2,197,730
2,964,064
2,710,274
Other Program Funds:
187
report of private funding support, reports of program
accomplishments in each of the four program areas,
and case histories representing the cross section of 4-H
delivery methods.
2) An emphasis on Equal Employment Opportunities accompanied by an Affirmative Action process relating to hiring practices.
3) An activity reporting system designed to
provide a more accurate look at results and
impact.
The completion of this National Report to Congress
led to increased emphasis by Extension on more intensive research design evaluation reports which were
implemented with state Plans of Work due in 1983.
EMIS Reporting System—Late 1960's
A more numerically-oriented report of staff time
started in the late 1960's when the Extension Management Information System (EMIS) was introduced
nationwide and in Kansas.
At that time, each program area was to have developed specific plans for at least one Impact Study in
their program area.
The system attempted to qualify, on a uniform basis, Extension efforts, in terms of staff time in specific
program areas, clientele contacts, publications, media
contacts. This differed from the anecdotal type narrative
report used previously.
Report Format—1980's
Because of the new expectations from annual reports,
the format changed from the simple narrative style to
a more descriptive form which included:
Frequent revisions of the EMIS forms and information during subsequent years indicate that it still hasn't
been perfected to everyone's satisfaction. An interesting
trend is the reappearance of abbreviated references to
narrative summaries.
A Kansas Extension Specialist with evaluation and
research techniques was added to the staff to provide
program evaluation leadership.
■
Program description and goals.
■
Resources involved.
■
Accomplishments.
■
Perceived social consequences.
■
Ways to measure and evaluate.
■
Future implications.
Although there remained considerable variation
in report contents developed under this new outline,
there was a continuing improvement in "in-depth"
reporting over a period of time.
The Kansas Extension Management Information
System (EMIS) was made operative for daily activity
reporting and progress.
The first Impact Study in Kansas was a five-year study
initiated in 1983 to assess the extent to which there was
a measurable difference between youth participating in
4-H programs generally, youth participating in selected
4-H programs, and youth not in any 4-H program.
The "full-blown" operation with Plans of Work, Plans
of Work Project, Daily Activity reporting, and annual Progress Reports was started July 1, 1969 for FY1969-70.
The use of an IBM 1230 Optical Reader wired to an
automatic keypunch continued to give excellent result
for reading coded and marked Daily Activity Reports.
The study focused on nutrition knowledge and these
elements of leadership and citizenship—self-concept,
decision making, interpersonal relations, and understanding the general and agricultural community.
This Progress Report was the first full fiscal year made
under this system.
Among the findings were:
Congressional Evaluation Mandate—1977
In 1977, Congress mandated the use of a stronger
evaluation. This occurred because Extension programs
seemed to be aimed at traditional (middle class) clientele rather than to newly identified groups in need of
services.
1) Trends favored 4-H youth over non-4-H youth
on a wide variety of outcome measures and
trends.
2) Trends favored 4-H youth participating in
selected programs—clubs using recommended club planning, officer training materials, and project leader trainers.
Extension had evolved into reactive planning with
very little risk taking with a narrow spectrum of clientele.
3) 4-H'ers in the Ambassadors program had significantly better public speaking skills than
youth not involved.
The Kansas response to the mandated evaluation
in Extension took several forms. The most immediate
was a comprehensive report of staffing patterns, a
4) Children in inner-city school classrooms
188
cycles, that relate to Extension's priority initiatives.
whose teachers used teaching packets on a
variety of agriculture and home economics
topics had significantly higher knowledge
and understanding of the agricultural community.
Identified areas include:
5) 4-H'ers involved with using the Economics
Decision Making program, "Trade-Offs," had
significantly more knowledge of economics
and career decision making than youth who
did not.
■
Agricultural Profitability.
■
Animal Agriculture— Beef, Swine, Dairy.
Field Crops—Soybeans, Alfalfa, Wheat, Corn,
Sorghum.
■
■
Grazing lands.
Horticulture—Horticultural Food Crops, Ornamentals and Turf.
Aside from the meaningfulness of the findings
themselves, a positive result of the studies was setting
bench mark data on 4-H'ers and non-4-H'ers on a wide
variety of instruments adopted, adapted, and created
with testing for validity and reliability.
■
Natural Resources and Environmental Quality—Soil and Water Conservation, Water
Quality, Ag Chemicals and Environment.
■
Equal Employment Opportunities
Kansas Cooperative Extension Service programs
have few of the problems encountered by many of their
counterpart programs in other states emanating from
Equal Employment Opportunity legislation.
However, the Kansas Cooperative Extension service
has been involved in only one Civil Rights action.
The complaint was filed with the Kansas Commission
on Civil Rights in October, 1972, placed on the docket
in January, 1973, hearings occurred in 1973, and the
results were given in early 1974.
■
Human Health and Well-Being.
■
Developing Human Resources.
■
Economic Revitalization.
■
Community Economic Development.
■
Income and Career Program.
■
Business Management Program.
■
Consumer and Lifestyle Program.
In the forward to the planning statements document, Hyde Jacobs, Asst. Ext. Director for Agricultural
Programs, said:
The basis for the action was the apparent inconsistencies in the salaries of County Agents. As a result of this
action, starting salaries for all County Extension Agents
were equalized.
As a first step, each coordinating team prepared a
short overview, projected their perception of critical
management and technology needs, and suggested
possible high-priority education responses for Agents
and Specialists.
Within a year after that action, the first female agricultural agent was hired. In 1975, there were no women
County Directors. In 1979, there were 10.
The Program Coordinating Team statements will
provide background and program ideas, which will be
modified and supplemented by Agents and Specialists
to meet local, area, and statewide clientele needs.
Program Coordinating Teams—1987
Program Coordinating Teams have been organized in
Extension to assist Agents, Specialists and Program Development Committees in planning, implementing and
evaluating major programs, during four-year planning
The objective is to provide sound educational
programs which will strengthen farms and families
and provide producers with a competitive or economic
advantage.
Extension professionals are expected to be aggressive in organizing timely, well directed programs to meet
the educational needs of agricultural clientele.
County Extension Law Changes—1972-87
County Extension Law Revision—1972
The County Agricultural Extension Council Law
received several major revisions in 1972. The bill that
was passed repealed and/or amended sections applying to operation, powers, and responsibilities of County
Extension Councils.
Two reasons for revising the County Agricultural
Extension Council Law in 1972, as given in the Annual
Report that year were:
1) The election of County Extension Council
representatives on the basis of township residence was becoming unrealistic due to popu-
189
lation shifts and governmental unit consolidation.
citizens. Hopefully, the broad-ening of representation
on the County Extension Councils will make it possible
to obtain the legitimization and financial support to
continue this trend.
2) A growing urban population was getting a
decreasing amount of representation on the
Council.
Revise County Extension Council Law—1987
Three additional major changes were made in the
County Extension Council Law in 1987, relating to:
Specifically, some of the major changes in this revision of the 1951 law were:
Name Change. In the revised law, the name of the
Council was changed from County Agricultural Extension Council to County Extension Council.
1) The program areas to be represented on the
County Extension Council.
Purpose Broadened. The purpose of the Council was
changed from: "the giving of instruction in agriculture,
home economics, and 4-H club work" to "the giving of
instruction in agriculture, marketing, home economics, 4H youth, and community and resource development."
3) The process of county Extension budget approval.
2) The number of members on the council.
Council Composition. Under the law, as revised in
1987, the County Extension Council would consist of
24 members; four each in agriculture, home economics
work, 4-H club and youth work and economic development initiatives.
Election Procedures. The method of electing Council
members and the number of Council members were
completely changed. Under the revised law, members
were elected on the basis of County Commissioner
district rather than townships, or cities not part of a
township.
The term of office would be for two years. Each
year, a Council member would be elected from each
Commissioner district to represent each of the four
program areas.
Budget Approval Procedure. The budget approval
procedure for county Extension budgets that had been
followed since about 1957, and later made law in the
revised county Extension law in 1972, was changed.
There were to be nine representatives from each
Commissioner district, three elected each year after the
starting year. Elections could be at meetings or by mail
ballot. If election meetings were held, they could be by
commissioner district or county wide.
As a result of the 1987 revisions there was no longer
a budget committee consisting of the Board of County
Commissioners (3), the Area Extension Director and the
Chairman of the County Extension Executive Board.
Term of Office. The term of office was for three
years rather than two as had been the case since 1951.
Therefore, one third of the Council was elected each
year. Members could serve no more than two consecutive terms.
From 1951 to 1987, such a budget committee in each
county had authority to pass on the proposed county
Extension budget.
Executive Board Representation. A nine-member Executive Board was to be elected by the Council members
from within its membership, as had been done under
the 1951 Council Law.
Instead, as a result of the 1987 revisions, the county
Extension executive board would now submit a proposed budget to the county commissioners for their
consideration.
Under the 1972 law, the Executive Board had to have
at least one member from each commissioner district
and one from each of the three represented program
areas—agriculture, home economics, and 4-H club and
youth work.
The budget was to be prepared by the county Extension executive board in cooperation with the director of
Extension. (This was assumed to be accomplished with
his representative, the Area Extension Director).
Under the new law the County Commissioners became the budget committee and had the authority to
approve or reject the budget.
The 1972 Annual Report further stated:
With this law change it is anticipated that Extension
will be able to better reflect the concerns of the local
clientele and develop educational programs that meet
their specific needs.
If the County Commissioners did not approve the
proposed budget it was to be returned to the county
For quite some time Extension has been broadening
its activities to include areas which are of value to all
190
Extension executive board within ten days.
The State Extension Advisory Council will serve as
a consultative group to the Director of Extension on
concerns relating to Extension.
The Board was to consider amendments or modifications. Consultation with the commissioners was
possible.
Under the present structure, the State Extension
Advisory Council is the middle layer for input from lay
persons.
The board could then re-submit the budget to the
Commissioners for their reconsideration. The County
Commissioners then had full authority to approve,
amend or modify the proposed budget.
In each Area there is an Area Extension Advisory
Council, composed of the current chairman of the
County Executive Boards in each of the five Extension
Areas, namely Southwest, Northwest, South Central,
Northeast, and Southeast.
Extension Advisory Councils—1970's
The last minutes under the old format of the State
Extension Advisory Council were recorded in 1967.
By tradition, the Extension Director meets annually
with each Area Extension Advisory Council to share
update information about Extension concerns, and to
seek input from these local lay leaders.
After an absence of five years, it was reformed in
1973, with representation of four members from each
of the five Extension administrative areas. The chairman
of the Council can also appoint four additional at-large
members as needed.
Five members of the State Extension Advisory Committee—one from each Extension Area—also serve on
the Kansas State University Agricultural Council. This
Council serves as a sounding board for the Dean of
Agriculture at its annual meetings.
The stated purpose of the Advisory Council is:
Special Program Emphasis—1970's
An increasing variety of Extension educational programs were offered by Specialists to meet specific needs
of various audiences.
Sixty-eight counties reported activities during this
week including meetings, talks, radio, television and
news stories.
Here are a few representative samples of some
programs offered during this decade to reach a variety
of audiences.
While the emphasis was on natural disasters, the
County Agents and Civil Defense Directors had a free
choice of bulletins. Over 80,000 bulletins were ordered
and distributed from the State office, 28 percent on
nuclear disaster survival.
Wildlife Damage Control Handbook—1970
As a means of providing county Extension offices with
a handy reference to wildlife damage control problems, a
two-volume handbook was prepared and distributed.
A Disaster Handbook for Extension Agents was developed covering natural and nuclear disaster procedures
which Extension agents should accomplish to develop
effective disaster information programs.
The handbooks included information on each kind
of wild mammal in Kansas, plus helpful information on
several species of pest birds.
USDA Committees for Rural Develop.—1970
A state committed for rural development was organized and named the "Kansas USDA Committee for
Rural Development."
The handbook will save time in getting up-to-date
control procedures to individuals requesting information
and will serve as a reference of background information
for County Agents.
The membership included:
Robert A. Bohannon, Cooperative Extension,
Chairman.
Emergency Preparedness—1970
To provide information and incentive that will interest the public in learning about survival in a nuclear or
natural disaster, the third annual Kansas Emergency
Preparedness Week was conducted in April.
Paul W. Griffith, Cooperative Extension, Secretary.
Morrie A. Bolline, Soil Conservation Service.
E. Morgan Williams, Farmers Home Administration
191
Full Load Schools—1971
High level management is necessary in farming as
the result of continued increases in production costs
without corresponding increases in process of major
agricultural commodities.
Ervin C. Vogel, Rural Electrification Administration.
Walter Fillmore, State & Private Forestry, Denver.
Harold G. Gallaher, State Extension Forester.
Frank A. Mosier, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
An integrated educational program on principles
and practices of production of a crop has been used
for several years to help farmers maximize returns in
production of a crop.
A set of objectives and an outline of operational
procedures were developed as guidelines for the State
Committee and County Committees.
The "Full Load" program presented by a team of
specialists has been requested most frequently for
sorghum, corn, and soybeans.
County committees were organized in each of the
105 Kansas counties, under the name of County USDA
Committee for Rural Development.
This integrated program includes information on
selection of a hybrid and/or variety, growth and development (crop physiology so that farmers can know when
and why to apply appropriate management practices),
cultural practices, soil fertility and weed control.
Official membership of these county committees
included: County Extension Director, County Extension
Agricultural Agent, County Extension Home Economist,
County Soil Conservationist, County FmHA Supervisor,
County ASCS Executive Director.
Other topics sometimes includes insect control,
disease control, and/or irrigation. The continued heavy
demand for this type of program indicates the effectiveness of this method of education.
Economic Outlook on TV—1971
For the third year, a television broadcast was used
to present agricultural outlook to a statewide Kansas
audience.
Hazardous Occupations Training—1971
Special emphasis has been placed on developing
effecting teaching materials to help prepare rural use
for handling power equipment.
The hour-long program, entitled "Outlook 70-71,"
featured four KSU Extension Economists presenting current and predicated information on general situations
as related to farm management, livestock marketing,
and grain marketing.
The Hazardous Occupations training program now
has new teaching materials prepared by the Farm Machinery Specialists. These included two new slide sets, a
Farm Machinery Safety Manual, and a packet of pictures
for developing teaching transparencies.
The program originated and videotaped in Wichita
for broadcast over the Wichita TV stations, an in Topeka,
Pittsburg, and Kearney, NE.
The program was well promoted through county
personnel and received an exceptional response. This
approach has set the pattern for future presentations
of outlook material.
About 3,000 Kansas youth were certified to work
under this program during 1970-71. In the three previous years, 8,410 youth were certified.
During this time, none of the youth have been involved in a fatal accident, and only three have incurred
temporary disabling injuries.
Great Plains Conservation Emphasis—1971
A Great Plains Conservation Tillage Task Force, with
Frank Bieberly as chairman, was established by the Great
Plains Agricultural Council.
Agricultural Banking School—1971
Fifty-three Kansas bankers from 43 Kansas counties
completed the first "Kansas School of Agricultural Banking" course in June.
The Task Force's charge was to develop an educational
program on conservation tillage in the Great Plains,
including a Conservation Tillage Handbook for use by
Extension Specialists and County Agents.
The school was designed to provide Kansas bankers with information to help them better serve Kansas
agricultural producers.
The handbook contained information on the history and philosophy of conservation tillage, terminology, erosion conditions, conservation needs, research
information, equipment, cultural practices, economics
of conservation tillage, new developments, resumes of
conferences, and teaching aids and techniques.
The program , planned by the Kansas Association of
Bank Agricultural Representatives (KABAR) and Extension economists at K-State, consisted of three parts:
192
— 2,4-D effects on stimulated grass growth.
1) Basic Farm Business Management, presented
by Wilton Thomas and four Farm Management Association fieldmen.
— Broomsedge control with fertilizer.
— Numerous N-P-K studies on established tame
pasture and native range.
2) Farm Financial Planning and Financial Management, staffed by John Schlender and Leo
Figurski, Area Farm Management Specialist.
Pasture renovation, better fertility, weed and brush
control, and new pasture establishment are all increasing rapidly as a result of the GRO program.
3) Topics unique to the banking industry, staffed by experienced agricultural bankers in
Kansas and Orlo Sorenson.
Improved range management is primarily in the
area of proper stocking, season of use, improved grazing distribution, weed and brush control, and proper
range burning.
The success of the school led to scheduling an advanced workshop the following year, plus a new beginning school for another set of bank representatives.
A GRO newsletter, featuring at least one county result
demonstration in each issue, has been developed.
Grass Resource Opportunities—1972
Grass Resource Opportunities (GRO) was developed
to help livestock producers in eastern Kansas increase
their tame pasture acreage and improve management.
Insect Reporting Via Telenet—1972
A weekly insect report has been provided as a service
to County Agents, insecticide dealers and manufacturers, and producers during the growing season since
the early 1950's.
Eastern Kansas has 1,450 000 acres of tame pasture
and could increase this amount by another one million
acres. But proper pasture management and balanced
livestock forage programs need additional emphasis.
An attempt to deliver this information in a more
timely fashion led to the use of a telenet conference in
1972, each Friday from 8 to 9 a.m.
GRO was designed to:
1) Increase interest in proper tame pasture
management.
The survey entomologist of the Sate Board of Agriculture in Topeka had the major responsibility of assembling
and reporting the data. But there were many other
participants at various locations across the state.
2) Demonstrate pasture renovation and establishment.
3) Obtain costs and return information based
on weigh-in, weigh-out results from different management treatments.
Included were Board of Ag district survey entomologists at Great Bend, El Dorado, and Manhattan, an Area
Extension agronomist at Garden City, and a KSU research
entomologist, Extension entomologists, and Extension
plant pathologists at Manhattan.
4) Suggested pasture improvement practices,
including the proper grass species selection,
weed, brush, and tree control, proper pasture
fertility, proper grazing management, and
sound livestock programs.
During the hour conversation, the survey information
from all areas was presented and there was an opportunity for further discussion of the severity of problems
and potential problems.
County Agent farm visits, demonstrations, tours,
and mass media are the primary methods utilized in
the GRO program.
Sound, well-planned demonstrations carried out by
County Agricultural Agents and Area Agronomists have
been the backbone of GRO. Several demonstrations
have been established in nearly all of the 26 eastern
Kansas GRO counties.
Written summaries of the discussions are also prepared for the newsletter, duplicated, and mailed the
same day. That way cooperators across the state have
the report information to help them make individual
decisions at the first of the next week.
Kinds of demonstration established include:
Timely utilization of control measures have increased
a great deal as a result of the telenet and newsletter
program.
— Rate of gain studies on tall fescue, smooth
brome, and bermuda grass.
— Weed, brush, and undesirable tree control on
established pastures.
— Pre-emergence weed control on newly
sprigged bermuda grass.
193
Cowboy College—1972
The actual working cowboy, who is associated with
feedlots and cattle ranches, has little opportunity to
attend educational meetings that pertain to his specific
job. He gets most of his information from advertisements
or salesmen.
preciation analysis, net worth, financial factors, livestock
production, crop production, farm typing, detailed cost
analysis, income and expense analysis, management
analysis, and enterprise analysis.
Newly developed programs, such as a tax management estimate, income statement, and purchase-resale
table, allows the farmer to more uniquely develop the
type of records he requires for management of his farm
operation.
Cowboy Colleges were implemented to provide factual research-supported information to these working
cowboys. The major objectives was to increase the cowboys' knowledge of animal disease and medication.
Since the start of the K-MAR-105 project in 1968,
continuous educational programs have been held with
private firms on the advantages of computerized management systems in agriculture, and on the methodology
of handling such systems.
These Colleges were held at three locations in the
state where research reports and practical information
was presented by Extension veterinarians, practicing
local veterinarians, and KSU Animal scientists.
The Director of the Veterinary Diagnostic Lab explained the lab's function. Extension veterinarians
reported on extensive field trials and application of
results.
The computer programs of the K-MAR-105 system
have been released for use by qualified Kansas firms
with their clientele.
Kansas Tax Institutes—1972
Income tax practitioners are faced with numerous
changes in tax reporting each year. Sizable numbers of
new people enter the income tax preparation field each
year, either as employees of a tax firm or as individual
tax consultants.
In 1972, over 100 cowboys, representing feedlots
with an annual head capacity of over 1.5 million head,
attended this concentrated eight-hour session. This
represented about half of the total feedlot industry in
the state.
K-MAR-105 Electronic Record System—1972
A total of 155 Farm Management Association members enrolled in a completely computerized management system in order to obtain in-depth management
information on a timely basis.
Since income tax preparation requires increased
training and skills each year, Extension Tax Institutes have
been offered for many years to inform practitioners of
new regulations and reporting methods, and to improve
their skills in other phases of income tax reporting.
The participants could tailor the farm record systems
to fit their operations in regard to financial analysis,
cash flow reports, management analysis, and enterprise
records.
The two-day Tax Institutes were conducted on a
workshop basis in nine Kansas locations. The schools
were conducted by the KSU Extension Economists with
the cooperation with personnel of the Internal Revenue
Service, Kansas Department of Revenue, and Social
Security Administration.
The K-MAR-105 System, handled through the Kansas
Farm Management Associations, provided four basic
programs to the farmer:
A set of eight problems, designed to bring out new
changes and other problem areas of tax reporting,
was prepared and sent out to participants prior to the
Institutes.
1) Periodic Report.
2) Depreciation Schedule.
3) Year-End Business Analysis.
Total registration in 1972 was 2,284. The registrants
were responsible for preparing returns for approximately
300,000 taxpayers.
4) Monthly Cash Flow Report.
The Periodic Report provides the farmer with management information that he needs on a monthly basis.
This contains: transaction journal, cash flow, loan and
accounts receivable summary, net worth analysis, payroll
summary, total business summary, non-farm accounts,
and enterprise analysis.
Many of the professional people attending the Tax
Institutes do not traditionally participate in Extension
educational programs. These include accountants, attorneys, bankers, real estate and insurance brokers, clerks,
secretaries, and Federal and State agency personnel.
The Year-End Business analysis provided for in-depth
analysis through its income and expense summary, de-
194
EFNEP "Rocket" Mail—1972
Helping the hard-to-reach family, especially children,
often is expensive in time and resources.
Timeliness of the topic to a local scene, involvement
of local committees to promote attendance, and a panel
of people knowledgeable and credible about the local
drug situation were the ingredients needed to make
educational impact.
Since everyone likes to get good news in the mail,
this method of carrying educational messages to large
numbers of low-income youth was tried in 1972.
Initially, the county Extension staff, alert to the local
situation, asked the community 4-H Council members
to sponsor the program for parents. Promotion through
schools, newspapers, radio, personal contact, and direct
mail was accomplished by the local committee.
The main objective of this direct mail piece, featuring
the Kansas-originated "super hero Rip Rocket" was to
help youth learn and practice improved food habits.
Six single-sheet lessons, in comic strip format, were
prepared.
Follow-up conferences in two communities indicated
that a drug education curriculum was needed for school
and church programs.
Thirty-six counties responded to the invitation to
develop mailing lists for target audiences, and ordered
supplies for 12,000 correspondents.
Local need dictated flexibility in arranging the future
program information, promotional techniques, resource
panels, and follow-up conferences.
Response to county offices included many letters
addressed to "Rip Rocket," asking to put new people on
the mailing list, for autographed pictures, for recipes,
and to express love for Rip.
Community Forestry Program—1972
Kansas has three forests—the native woodlands in
the east, the planted windbreaks and shelter belts in the
central and west, and the urban forests in every town
and city in the state.
Evaluation of the project with five-to-ten year old
low-income youth showed that this group delighted in
having their own mail, parents honored this right, and it is
possible to learn from a mailed source of information.
This third forest—the urban forest—is the largest of
the three, totaling nearly three million acres. Until recent
years, this forest had been largely taken for granted.
However, with the increase of Dutch elm disease and
other problems, attention is being focused on the urban
forest as never before.
This project pointed the way for further use of the
direct contact with low-income audiences. The methods appeared successful, and subject matter almost
limitless.
The problem areas appeared to be keeping an upto-date mailing list for the highly mobile low-income
audience, and coping with the time-consuming nature
of handling large mailings on a regular schedule.
This attention resulted in a greatly increased number
of requests to State forestry personnel in recent years.
Many requests related to Dutch elm disease, but others
were for help in developing vegetation management
plans for city reservoirs, parks, and other municipallyowned woodlands.
Drug Education Program—1972
Parents want to be informed about drugs. This was
proven when over 1,000 Kansas parents attended drug
education meetings in six counties this spring.
Kansas State and Extension Forestry was not funded
nor staffed to give more than token service to these requests until the recent funding of a "Rural Town Forestry
Assistance" project by the U.S. Forestry Service.
A multi-media program was aimed at informing
parents about drugs, why youth turn to drugs, and the
specific drugs they were abusing. The package was
developed by Ralf Graham and Wilber Ringler, members
of the Drug Task Force.
In its initial year, the project has shown remarkable
acceptance. Comprehensive community forestry programs have been developed and are being implemented
in 10 pilot towns, and information gained or tested in
these towns is being applied in 65 other towns.
Three slide projects, a movie projector, and a tape
recorded were synchronized to provide a fast-moving
presentation. At each meeting, a panel of local people
representing law, health, and school officials described
the local drug situation and answered questions from
the audience.
The program involves, as a first step, the creation
of a City Tree Board to be responsible for development
and administration.
195
The development of a program then requires an
analysis of the present situation—a physical inventory
of public trees, and review of the governmental and
sociological situation of the town.
Statewide Private Support
485,525
(Contributions made to 4-H
other than through county)
Total
$12, 985,595
The next step is to determine future needs, set longrange goals, and assign priorities. Annual work plans
are then developed, including where relevant, specific
project such as small parks, central business districts, city
squares, and highway entrances, and other areas.
One of the most interesting findings when the
three-state study was analyzed was the close similarity
of average dollar value of contributions, per person, of
adult volunteer leaders in the three states—$1,013 in
Kansas, $1,056 in Illinois, and $1,307 in Michigan.
This is followed by a written community forestry
program that contains plans, prescriptions, and relevant
reference materials. These programs and projects are
prepared by State and Extension Forestry personnel,
and are intended to guide in the development of annual
plans of work by the local tree boards.
4-H Camping Program—1977
Camping experiences were offered to several Kansas
youth in a little different way by 4-H in 1977.
A group of 131 youth form low income urban areas
were exposed to the personal development aspects
of a wilderness camping experience at Lake Perry 4-H
Outdoor Center in 1977.
An analysis of the program at the end of the first
year indicated:
Through this experience the youth learned to participate in group support activities and problem solving,
learned to understand and appreciate nature more, and
gained greater self-confidence and responsibility.
1) The necessity of a local legal body to develop
and administer the program in year-to-year
continuity.
An additional 700 4-H youth participated in the
Pioneer, Discovery, and Threshold camping experiences
at Lake Perry.
2) Need for training city tree crews and private
arborists.
3) Tremendous opportunity to provide a vital
environmental service.
Here emphasis was placed upon personal growth and
development, group interaction skills, environmental
awareness, and outdoor skills and activities.
Perhaps in no other area of forestry today is there such
an eager acceptance of sound, technical information.
County-based 4-H Day Camping was also used to
reach 7- to 10-year-old youth. In the two year period,
1976-77, over 2,000 youth were involved in 27 county
day camps. Programs, ranging from one to five days,
provided educational experiences in food and nutrition,
environmental awareness, arts and crafts, career exploration, camping skills, and recreational activities.
KSU forestry needs to follow-up and continue contact, and expand its landscape design and recreation
planning capability.
Volunteer Leader Contributions—1977
Kansas became interested in a Michigan Extension
study, "Private Support of Michigan 4-H Programs,"
reported at an April, 1977 North Central Regional
meeting.
Main Street Renovation—1978
As a follow up to a series of Extension-sponsored
Community Development seminars in Decatur County,
the Decatur County Chamber of Commerce and the
merchants in Oberlin identified their concern about the
deterioration of their main street.
Kansas and Illinois replicated the study in their respective states. The Kansas study was made in August, 1977
with results that showed surprising reinforcement and
justification of the original findings in Michigan.
A summary of those findings showed:
Private Support To Counties
$
Local residents and youth were habitually traveling
to adjacent trade centers for more and more of their
business and services.
420,179
(Leader banquets, awards, trips,
Citizenship Short Course, fair
facilities, county foundations, etc.)
Value of Volunteer Contributions
Working with Extension representatives in the area
and the Department of Regional and Community Planning at Kansas State University, they renovated the main
street in Oberlin.
12,079,891
(hours of labor @ $3.50 per hour,
telephone calls @ 10c each,
refreshment served, supplies,
miles driven @ 12c per mile, other)
196
This, coupled with improved store displays and
merchandise selection caused a noticed improvement
in the local situation.
These well-received efforts were followed and
complemented by several related activities:
1) A Governor's Proclamation of 1978 as the
Year of the Family in Kansas.
Perceived economic consequences were:
2) Community and County Forums on Fami
lies, planned and implemented.
1) People from the farms, ranches, and nearby
towns in the Oberlin-Hoxie trade area are
now purchasing many more of their goods
and services locally.
-
3) Planning and development of many support
materials including slide sets, Source Book on
Families, concern identification, needs assessment strategies.
2) A recent retail trade survey verifies an increase in customer participation is up 37
percent in the area since Extension professionals implemented the program.
4) Four area-wide training sessions relating
to aging.
3) Retail sales are up an average of seven percent
per year from 1972 to 1977.
5) Development of an audio-visual resource
packet on aging.
4) The rotating inventory value of goods and
customer services has increased 14 percent
according to local records.
6) Co-hosting the Governor's Conference on
Aging.
7) Additional program thrusts focused on value
development, aged shut-ins and reassurance.
Reduced Tillage—1978
Demonstrations of crop production with reduced
tillage were conducted in 1978 in six sites in six counties
in northeast Kansas.
There has been an increase in not only the number
of requests for family life programs and materials, but a
higher degree of specificity in those requests.
The County Plans of Work show an average about
nine percent of time projected toward Family Life programming, an increase over the previous year.
The demonstrations are being used to gain firsthand
practical experience in reduced tillage cropping under
farm conditions. A reduced tillage workshop between
research and Extension faculty was held in October,
1978.
Feedlot Development—1978
Many of the sparsely populated, lower valuation
counties in Kansas have been seeking ways to provide
job opportunities and bring about growth and development in their areas.
Conservation tillage saves time in planting a crop
and reducing soil erosion. Less sure are questions about
savings in expenses, energy and other inputs, weed,
disease and insect control.
Reduced tillage together with residue management
should increase the water availability to crops which
should increase yields.
Title V, Rural Development Act (1972) funds helped
provide the necessary impetus to organize and build
feed yards in two of the Northwest Kansas counties
involved in the program.
Reduced tillage can cut in half the number of trips
over the field required to establish, care for, and harvest
a crop.
The Area Extension Community Resource Development Specialist provided much expertise in activating
the projects.
The demonstrations begun this year should start a
dramatic movement in tillage practices for a growing
number of producers.
Extension agents and specialists developed a feasibility study for each yard, helped develop the articles
of incorporation, helped select the sites, and work with
the board of directors on sources of credit.
Forum on Families—1978
"The Kansas Forum on Families," a major statewide
program development process, was initiated in 197778.
Perceived economic consequences of this effort
include:
1) A county wide economic development organization was established in each county.
The in-service training workshops were held in September and December, 1977 for Extension and College
of Home Economics faculty.
2) Their search for new industry led to the
development of a large commercial feed yard
in each county.
These were followed by 12 Area Forums on Families
across the state, attended by over 1,000 leaders, to develop interest and leadership for subsequent community
and county Forums on Families.
3) The one time capacity of the two yards is in
excess of 40,000 head.
197
for 10,000 grade school youth distributed to
the public schools, and used by EFNEP program aides.
4) The yards provide employment for 60 persons, and generate employment for
related industries, such as trucking and feed
processing.
2) School Enrichment Programs. Nearly
20,000 public school youth are participating
in a wide variety of 4-H learn-by-doing
projects, such as growing irradiated seeds,
growing and exhibiting home garden products, completing exercises related to nutrition, studying "Youth and the Law," and
observing the stages of chick embryology.
5) Total cattle and commodity purchases locally in excess of $40 million annually are a
direct marketing benefit to Northwest Kansas
cattle, grain, and forage producers.
Farm Estate Planning—1978
Teams of Area Extension Economist, Farm Management Fieldmen, and State Specialists conducted 15
Estate Planning Workshops during the 1977-78 program
year.
3) Bicycle safety programs, conducted with local law enforcement officials, attracted 524
youth.
These two-day workshops included 295 individuals
representing 165 farm families. In addition, 70 individuals, representing 30 families, had consultations at the
University with State Specialists.
4) Hunter Safety education programs, conducted cooperatively with the Kansas Fish
and Game Commission, National Rifle
Association, and local gun clubs, attracted
443 youth.
The 1291 families, with an estimated savings of
$35,000 each, combine for a potential savings of
$6,685,000.
5) Fishing, fur harvesting, Acres for Wildlife,
and conservation camp programs, in coop
eration with the Kansas Fish and Game Commission and the Kansas Wildlife Association,
involved 1,557 youth.
Movement to Urban 4-H—1973-78
With a total urban youth enrollment of less than
6,000 in 1973, it was obvious that Kansas
4-H had an untapped audience upon which to focus.
And focus it did!
6) Urban gardens involved 749 youth.
1) 4-H urban membership had risen 237 percent.
7) Day Camps. More than 1,800 youth in 25
counties were involved in day camp program
activities of educational demonstrations,
games, project talks, learn-by-doing active
ties, food and nutrition, cultural heritage,
sports, fitness, and hobbies.
2) 4-H racial minority membership had increased nearly 500 percent.
8) Apart from the EFNEP program, 4,157 youth
were involved in nutrition education efforts.
Five years later it could boast that:
3) Extension staff attitudes toward urban 4-H
expansion and outreach programs were more
positive and enthusiastic.
Soil Survey Program—1979
Newly published soil surveys have been introduced
in 53 Kansas counties. During the 1978-79 program
year, planning for educational meetings has been accomplished in Allen, Gove, Stafford, Johnson, Smith,
Pawnee, Sedgwick, Sumner and Jackson counties.
This redirection toward the urban audiences was
enhanced by at least two factors:
1) Addition of new staff members.
2) Introduction of EFNEP 4-H youth programs.
County wide educational meetings are held in each
county. Attendance at the meetings range from 100 to
500 citizens.
The core objectives for the urban 4-H thrusts were
three-fold—foster good mental and physical health, encourage positive relationships with others, and develop
a concern for the community.
Agriculturally, the introduction of a county soil survey
reports enables all farmers to more precisely manage
their crop and range production enterprises. Additionally, it leads toward management of every acre according
to its best usage thus lessening the adverse effects of
soil and water erosion.
The subject matter areas most popular in implementing such programs included nutrition, environmental
studies (conservation, biology, nature), animals, and
urban gardening.
Soil survey educational programs will be held in from
five to 12 counties per year for the next five years. The
goal is to have detailed soil surveys completed for all
Kansas counties by 1985.
Some specific program examples include:
1) Sunflower Express. A bi-weekly single sheet
flyer of nutrition information and exercises
198
Soil Conservation Awards—1979
This award program is jointly sponsored by the Kansas Bankers Association, the Soil Conservation Service,
the County Soil Conservation Districts, and the County
Extension Councils
Some sample programs efforts include:
Horticulture Hints
A series of two to three minute radio tapes on timely
topics relating to home horticulture plants and
problems, aired over KSAC and other radio Kansas
stations.
Each year a county committee reviews candidates
for award recognition. A maximum of five award are
presented each year—usually at the County Soil Conservation District Annual Meeting.
Problems on Horticultural Plants
A weekly newsletter to nurserymen, garden store
operators, other horticulture businesses and Extension Agents—with a 2,200 copy distribution. It
is prepared throughout the growing season, March
through October.
The awardees exemplify the best soil conservation
work in the county. Their explanations about the soil
and water conservation work they have done provides a
motivating influence on other operators to renew their
effort to be better conservation farmers.
Landscape, Lawns, and Gardens.
A weekly column featured in the KSU Extension
news packet distributed to Kansas newspapers. It
has a variety of authors and is carried throughout
the year.
Each year a maximum of 525 individuals are eligible
for conservation recognition. Since the program started,
17,850 Kansas farm operators have been recognized for
outstanding soil and water conservation work.
Television Programs
Two programs a month are made by horticulture
staff during the growing season, and aired over two
Wichita TV stations. These emphasize utilizing
plant materials or other appropriate aids.
Integrated Pest Management—1979
Crop production levels and quality can be increased
by integrated pest management. Proper management
of farm stored products and proper application of
chemicals to avoid waste, ineffectiveness or damage
are important concepts.
Spring Horticulture Series
Five consecutive programs for airing in March and
April over Wichita TV stations.
A major goal of increasing the effectiveness of agricultural chemicals by informing users of proper application
techniques was approached by interdepartmental work
with Specialists to provide information through public
meetings, bulletins and demonstrations.
New Gardening Series
Ten spring horticultural programs aired as part of
"In Your Own Back Yard" program over WIBW-TV.
Topeka.
Demonstrations having significant impact included
sprayer operation workshops, insect control demonstrations on both corn and grain sorghum, and herbicide
application plots for wheat-fallow rotations.
Spring Gardening Packet
Packet of approximately 25 gardening news features
prepared by horticulture and Information specialists for distribution to Kansas newspapers in late
winter. Usage is extensive.
Work within this area will continue in future years,
concentrating on proper fertilizer application, sprayer
operation, insecticide application and herbicide application.
Spring Garden Shows
Spring Lawn and Garden Shows have been held for
several years in Kansas City and Wichita, and more
recently in Topeka and Hutchinson. Horticulture
Specialists and County Agents were in demand to
present seminars to audiences of 25 to 200 persons.
Numerous demonstrations are planned in these areas
to supplement county meetings.
Home Horticulture Programs—1979
The full Horticulture staff supports programs to
assist Kansans in their home horticulture inter-ests,
including flower, fruit and vegetable gardens, lawns,
house plants, landscaping, home orchards, and woody
ornamentals.
The Green Scene
A special eight-week summer TV series of 30-minute
programs aired over Wichita stations. This featured
summer problems using live specimens.
Big Lakes Council—1979
The Big Lakes Regional Council is the only regional
association in Kansas with a formal agreement coordinating the technical services and information program
of the Cooperative Extension Service with the programs
and services of an association of local governments.
199
Program areas receiving emphasis now include:
The Big Lakes Regional Council of Regional Governments is a voluntary association of governmental
jurisdictions in a five-county area including Clay, Geary,
Marshall, Riley and Pottawatomie counties.
1) Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization.
Utilizes weatherization grant funds in conjunction with housing rehabilitation and housing improvement assistance to homeowners in
approximately 30 communities.
Basic funding is provided by the perspective county
commissions and each city or town in the region is a
member of the association.
2) Medical Communications. Provides radio
communication capability between all hospitals
and ambulances in the region.
A function of the Council is to serve as a clearinghouse for the review of applications for Federal funding
assistance.
3) Management assistance. Assist smaller cities in
budget preparation, personnel policies, accounting procedures, and general management
procedures.
Special Program Emphasis—1980's
A continuing array of innovative programs evolved
during this decade to meet changing clientele needs.
These are some representative examples:
Supervision of the Kansas Bull Test Station is also an
integral part of the Extension beef cattle program. In
1980, 760 bulls, representing 153 herds were tested.
Beef Cattle Programs—1980
Fluctuating cattle prices and feed costs continue to
create both opportunities and challenges for the beef
cattle industry in Kansas—consisting of 1.8 million head
of beef cows, two million stockers, and three million
head of fat cattle.
In addition, Steer Futurities has become an effective
way of evaluating the genetic potential of commercial
cattle. Seven tests involving 666 steers in l96 herds were
completed this year.
PRIDE Community Development—1980
PRIDE is the community self-help program initiated
by Extension but supported by several private and public
agencies in Kansas.
Extension's program brings the latest information
on cattle management to more than 100 beef cattle
schools, meetings and tours conducted in various areas
of Kansas.
Over 300 of the 625 incorporated cities in Kansas
have enrolled in the program during the first 10 years.
In 1980, 105 were enrolled.
Sale barns have become an effective meeting location, with attendance often in excess of 100 people at
these location. Special conferences, such as the O-K
Cattle Conference in Hutchinson, attract over 200.
Communities participate by identifying their problems and opportunities, setting goals and striving
to make their communities better places to live and
work.
Newsletters, such as "Beef Tips" and "Focus on Feedlots," now reach in excess of 2,000 cattle producers on
a monthly basis. Beef cattle demonstrations continue
to be an effective method of bring new information to
producers on such topics as:
Participants may earn state-wide recognition in two
ways—blue ribbon recognition or competitive cash
awards.
In the cash awards program, communities in five
size categories compete for cash award of $100 to $500
on the basis of their total over-all accomplishments in
community improvements.
1) New methods of controlling flies with grazing cattle.
2) Studies on how methods of storage influence
hay quality.
In the blue ribbon programs, communities work
on improvements in eight categories—community
planning, economic development, community services, utilities, transportation, housing, education, and
enrichment. There are 22 sub-categories of emphasis
identified under these broader areas.
3) New methodology on making more effective
use of growth promotants.
4) Methods of feeding additives and antibiotics
to grazing cattle.
5) Using starch analysis as an indication of
ration utilization.
When they achieve their goals a blue ribbon for the
200
appropriate achievements attached to the PRIDE sign
at the entrance to the community. Outside evaluators
do the judging.
mental shrub and tree information was presented at
meetings with nurserymen and garden store operators.
When a community has completed all of its blue ribbons, it earns the designation as a Pacemaker City.
The distribution of the 200 attendees provided a
potential to reach well over one-half of the home
horticulturists in Kansas.
Cash award winners in 1980 were Alden, 0-300 population; Grinnell, 301-800; Ashland, 801-2,000; Marion,
2,001-6,000; Arkansas City, 6,000-Up. In all, 40 cash
awards were presented by the Governor at the Annual
PRIDE Awards Banquet in Salina.
Programmable Calculator Programs—1981
Advancing technology in hand-held programmable
calculators makes computer assistance available to all
Kansas livestock producers.
In 1980, 52 Kansas communities participated in the
community improvement evaluation, with evaluations
in 347 areas.
The KSU Computer Task Force was assigned the responsibility for developing agricultural programs using
a portable programmable calculator.
Four Kansas communities—Halstead, Alden, Arkansas City, and Newton— attained State Pacemaker
status this year.
Among the grain science programs developed
were :
Feedlot Cattle Rations.
Training for Hort. Professionals—1981
Professional and paraprofessional horticulturists
have one-to-one contact with home horticulturists, and
some professionals maintain horticultural areas such as
parks, school grounds, and cemeteries.
Beef Feed Calculation.
Adjust Cow Wean Weight
Dairy Cow Lactation Rations
Dry Dairy Cow Rations.
Calculate Payments and Interest
During this year, the following Extension horticulture
programs emphasized training for professional and
paraprofessional horticulturists:
Calculate Feed Prices and Analyses
Lamb Grower Finisher Rations
Swine Grower Finisher Rations
Turf Fertilization.
Over 75 percent of the Kansas nurserymen, plus
many other horticulturists who answer questions
about turf care, heard research information discussed at the Turf research field days and conferences.
Stored Grain Inventory
Eight different "Horticulture Fact Sheets" about lawn
management were written or revised to supply turf
resource information throughout the state.
Liquid Blend Fertilizer
Bulk Feed Inventory
Moisture-Correction Grain Weights
Bulk-Blend 1-Fertilizer
These programs were sent to over 270 owners of
programmable calculators to aid them in meeting nutritional requirements, enterprise planning, and better
utilization of time, feed and other assets.
Groundskeeper Schools.
Establishment and maintenance on public grounds
was discussed in 12 different locations. Approxi mately 350 individuals with groundskeeping responsibilities attended the training session and receive information packets for their reference in turf,
shrub, and tree care.
Tree Planting Program—1981
Last year, the 25th year of the Kansas Tree Planting
Program, the number of tree and shrub seedlings distributed was down due to the drought which extended
into the early part of the planting season.
Landscape Design Training.
Thirty-five Kansas nurserymen attended a landscape design school developed to present information on site development, plant material selection
and landscaping consultation.
Although the number of plants was less, the number
of orders increased seven percent over the previous year
and was the largest number processed in the history of
the program.
Nurserymen Update.
A total of l,332,000 trees and shrubs were distributed
to 7,835 Kansans. The production of container grown
seedlings was increased 37 percent for a total of 283,000
seedlings.
Chemicals for pest control on horticultural plants,
selection of adapted fruit and vegetable varieties
and research update on adaptability of new orna-
201
Since 1957, 90,539 orders and 25,110,000 seedlings
have been distributed through this program.
to care for those illnesses at home, and when to seek
help from a professional. Materials included 10 Selfcare video tapes.
Aerial Application Training—1981
Large amounts of agricultural chemicals are applied
using aerial application methods. Kansas aerial applicators spray an average of 15,000-20,000 acres per
aircraft per year.
Colon and Rectal Cancer.
This completed a two-year education effort to make
Kansans aware of colon and rectal cancer. Over
14,000 people attended the meetings. Over half of
these have returned hemoccult slides for analysis.
An Aerial Application Handbook for pilots has been
completed and distributed to Kansas pilots. The handbook was prepared under a USDA-SEA grant and will
be available nationwide in the near future.
Total audiences for Extension-sponsored health lectures, lessons, and workshops in 1981 was 35,653.
Financing Government in Kansas—1982
The tax mix to finance state and local government
in Kansas is a perennial issue before the leadership of
the state.
During 1981, five fly-in clinics were held in locations in Kansas and Oklahoma, where 127 aircraft from
four states were tested. In addition, many other pilots
observed the fly-in activities and benefited from the
educational effort.
The goal of Extension's public policy education
program—ongoing since 1971—is to increase the understanding of the issues, the alternative options and
their probable consequences.
The cost/benefit ratio of this program has been estimated at 3.82, or a return of $3.82 for every dollar of cost
in direct economic benefits. Other invalidated benefits
include reduced environmental damage, increased
pesticide effectiveness, and increased safety.
This year, the program took on particular significance
since a new tax on minerals was proposed and the Legislature considered an amendment to the Constitution
to classify property for tax purposes. This was designed
to prevent a massive shift when the state's out-of-date
appraisal system was updated.
Based on the effectiveness of this educational effort,
the National Agricultural Aviation Association has incorporated the educational fly-in clinic concept as a basic
requirement in its new "Operation Safe" program.
A resource bulletin containing a wealth of data
pertinent to developing changes in the tax mix was updated and distributed to 4,500 local leaders, legislators
and interested citizens. Over 50,000 copies have been
distributed since the program started.
Health Programs—1981
In 1981, a number of programs and health activities
provided Kansans with opportunities to understand how
they can influence their own health now and for 10, 15,
and 20 years to come.
Seminars were held in 25 of the state's 105 counties.
In the past decade, seminars have been held in every
county, with many repeats.
Aerobic Exercise Classes
Numerous press releases were written and distributed to Kansas dailies and weeklies.
County Home Economists organized aerobic exercise classes with emphasis on dancing, walking and
running. Others organized fun runs during county
fairs, or weight-reduction exercise programs. Total
attendance to such programs was 26,500.
In addition, Barry Flinchbaugh, Extension Public
Policy Economist, appeared on numerous radio and TV
interviews and talk shows.
Feeling Great—Exercise for All
Expert testimony was requested by the Legislature
and material and knowledge gained from this program
was frequently mentioned by the decision makers during debate and discussion.
This bulletin was given to 28,900 persons. A leader's
guide for teaching exercise lesson was used by
2,181 county Home Economics unit leaders and
teachers.
Agricultural Safety and Health—1982
The agricultural industry has the highest fatal accident rate of all industries in Kansas. The Extension
program in safety and health was designed to fill a
need for training and educational materials relating to
this problem.
Self Care Classes.
There was an on-going effort to organize and
promote 10-week, five-week, and one-day Self Care
classes. These classes provided emphasis on recognizing common illnesses of family members, ways
202
A series of three-hour agricultural accident and rescue
procedure programs were presented across the state
to employers, employees, farm wives and emergency
medical personnel. Over 330 people attended these programs, and more than 2,000 others attended speeches
and conference presentations across the state.
County Agents conduct training meetings on a needs
basis for private applicators, followed by examination
for certification.
Twenty-two publications and 11 slide sets were developed and distributed to more than 5,000 persons.
Statewide training for commercial applicators is
conducted by Extension. Three day training meeting
of all 10 categories and seven sub-categories are held
as needed.
Private applicators currently certificated 16,064—490
certified in 1982—who represent about one-third of
the Kansas farm.
A special hazardous occupations program for youth
workers in agriculture was developed as training for
youth wishing to become employed as tractor or machinery operators.
Recertification training—required every five years—
consisted of six hours of training.
Although tractor and machinery safety was the
major thrust of the program, there was also emphasis
placed on the safety aspects of chemicals, fertilizers
and farm storage.
Life Cycle Management—1982
The Financial and Resource Management programs
emphasize the extended management skills appropriate to individuals and families at various stages of the
life cycle in order to assure economic stability and
security.
Pasture Burning Program—1982
Fire has been a major tool in managing eastern Kansas rangeland for over a century. In the past five years,
the use of prescribed burning has spread into central
Kansas, due in part to its low cost.
Skills emphasized include planning, family communication, budgeting, savings and investments, and
estate planning.
Educational efforts make combined use of other
agencies, educational departments and institutions,
the private sector and Extension Homemaker Unit
women.
As the use of this practice has increased, the need for
educational programs, demonstrations and printed materials for rangeland owners/operators has increased.
This program helps acquaint the prescribed burning
user with a basic understanding of fire control, burning
techniques and safety regulations.
As a result, program skills were learned, decision
making skills expanded, leadership skills increased and
attitudes change.
A four to five hour program of classroom instruction
is combined with demonstrations of burning techniques
on tours.
Programs addressed financial management skills,
such as net worth, budget, spending plan, tax law
changes, investment, and estate planning.
To date, prescribed burning has moved west over 100
miles. The program has resulted in prescribed burning
being more readily accepted by both the users and the
general public. Rancher relations with volunteer fire
department is also much better.
The participating audience includes 1,228 young
families, 360 youth, 3,231 general audience, 613 elderly,
and 922 Extension Homemakers.
Irrigation Water Management—1983
There are nearly 3.5 million acres of irrigated land
in Kansas, and over 90 percent of the water is pumped
from wells.
Pesticide Applicator Training—1982
Federal law requires that anyone using "restricteduse" pesticides must be certified applicators.
Increasing energy costs, relatively low crop prices,
concern about future water supplies for irrigation and
increasing pumping lives in many areas are causing irrigators to attempt to reduce water needs.
The certification training program for private and
commercial applicators is based on written autotutorial manuals prepared by the KSU Extension Service.
Training manuals and examinations are available on a
year around basis.
This program involves sharing information about
practices that can reduce water needs—irrigation scheduling, improving field efficiency, improving pumping
plant efficiency, changing cropping and using limited
irrigation.
203
Workshops, tours, farm visits, field trips, radio talks,
in-depth training schools, specialty crop meetings and
literature are all utilized to explain the program.
damage. About 54 percent of these problems were of
the nuisance type, 36 percent of minor economic loss
(less than $300), and 10 of major economic loss.
The individual contacts this year have exceed- ed
1,000 persons, primarily active irrigators.
Rural Fire Protection—1985
Currently Extension's rural fire protection program is
working with 500 rural fire districts that protect nearly
94 percent of the rural lands in Kansas.
Pesticide Applicator Training—1985
Fully 10 million acres of Kansas croplands are treated
with herbicides, and four million acres treated with
insecticides.
These rural fire districts are budgeted from local
funds of more than $10 million annually.
State and Federal laws require private and commercial pesticide applicators be certified to buy or apply
restricted use pesticides.
During 1985, program accomplishments included:
1) Expanded rural fire protection by 199,052
acres.
Kansas State University provides training manuals
and educational programs for private and commercial
pesticide applicators which incorporates the latest
technology in pesticide application, storage, safety, and
environmental protection.
2) Issued 8 excess vehicles, and 6 slip-in units.
3) Trained 752 fire fighters in basic firemanship,
and 575 in advanced firemanship.
4) Provided 400 teacher kits on fire prevention.
Future emphasis will be on to expand rural fire protection to the nearly 3 million acres not having any organized
fire protection, and encouraging further consolidation
and coordination of existing rural fire districts.
Since inception of the program in 1977, over 46,000
individuals have been certified to apply restricted use
pesticides. Individual training manuals have been
prepared so individuals can be certified in 20 different
categories.
Soybean Production in Kansas—1985
Soybeans are grown on 1.65 million acres, and
have a farm value of $183 million. Yet this crop offers
many advantages as an alternative to wheat and corn
production.
In 1985, 850 private and commercial applicators
received training for initial certification. Recertification
materials were prepared for 14,500 private and 678
commercial applicators.
The advantage of soybeans when grown in a regular
rotation or as an alternative crop are emphasized annually in a series of full load soybean schools, in-depth
weed and herbicide schools, and agronomy field days.
Wildlife Damage Control—1985
The Extension Wildlife Damage Control Program
was created and financed by the Kansas Legislature
in 1968.
Industry cooperates in sponsoring soybean yield
contests because their crushing capacity in the state
exceeds production.
Extension efforts focus on control of the offending
animal while emphasizing the value of predators not
involved in damage to livestock, crops, or poultry.
The Kansas Soybean Association and the Kansas
Soybean Commission cooperates with Extension in
organizing and hosting an annual series of Soybean
Profit Seminars.
Educational training provided self-help instruction
to farmers and ranchers in effective ways to control
measures.
The KSU program has been expanded to include
ways to resolve game and fur-bearing related conflicts
with coyotes, deer, beaver, and birds.
As a result of this procedure Kansas acreages and
yields have steadily increased. Yields increased from
20.5 bushels per acre in 1974-78 to 23.3 bushels per
acre in 1979-83.
Specialist Bob Henderson's self-help damage control
program annually save Kansans an estimated $250,000
in agriculturally related incidents, and another $210,00
in non-agriculturally related incidents.
These educational programs directly influence over
1,000 farmers each year, and increased yields have added
$70 million to the Kansas economy.
In addition, it is estimated that County Extension
Agents handle an estimated 5,000 cases involving wildlife
Farm Business Organization—1985
The stressful times for farmers in 1983—when farm
204
income reached a 13-year low and farm debt reached
a new high—prompted Extension economists to develop a program that would help regain profitability in
agriculture.
wardrobe planning, clothing acquisition, design elements, sewing special fabric, equipment, grooming
and fashion.
In 1986, County Extension Home Economist reported
having 16,000 contacts in meetings and workshops.
Starting in December, 1984, 56 "Managing Your Farm
Future" workshops were conducted for producers from
94 counties. Farm families, individually or in groups of
five to 15, were assisted in organizing their farm data
for computer entry.
Of the 7,000 enrolled in clothing construction
workshops, approximately $200,000 was extended to
the income of the participant families (at $25 saved by
each participant).
FINPAK, a farm financial management package,
developed in Minnesota but fitted with Kansas data
banks, was utilized.
Media contacts, although hard to estimate, are important in helping people make decisions about stretching
the family clothing dollar.
Subsequently, 900 farm families obtained long term,
total farm budgets via computer. In the process they
tested the profitability of nearly 6,750 different farm
production systems.
Through their columns and articles for the media,
Extension Home Economists communicated most frequently about sewing special fabrics, dressing to keep
warm, fashion, laundry, dry cleaning and stain removal
techniques, mending and construction techniques, buying ready-to-wear, sewing machines and equipment,
grooming, psychology of clothing, design elements,
textiles, fibers and finishes and wardrobe planning.
If the changes found using the computer were
initiated, cash flow would increase nearly $6,000 per
family.
Extension assistants were hired using ES-USDA grant
funds so more farm families could use the computer
analysis.
Over 40 video tapes in the Extension film library
offered suggestions about clothing acquisition. A computer-assisted program, "Fashion Options," was used by
27 counties to reach nearly 7,000 persons.
Grant funds were also being utilized to develop
grain and livestock software programs to analyze and
compare futures, options, contracts, and cash marketing programs. Benefits of the marketing programs
are estimated at three percent of the farm income per
participating family.
4-H Ambassador Program—1986
Now in its fifth year of operation, this program was
first implemented in 1982 with 18 counties, with 18
advisors and 67 Ambassadors.
Two-day schools were also held for FmHA, farm credit,
and commercial banks on interpreting farm plans and
computer output.
To date, the program has involved 376 counties, 50
advisers, and 298 Ambassadors, with six to eight new
counties entering the program each year.
The 1985 Legislature established a Farm Assistance
Counseling and Training System (FACTS) referral program
to assist financially distressed farmers. About 80 farmers call FACTS for assistance weekly. Nearly 70 percent
of those calling ask for financial/legal assistance and,
where appropriate, are referred to Extension.
Basically this is a public relations program designed
to identify individuals that know and understand the
4-H program, train them in communication skills, and
charge them to tell the 4-H story.
The Kansas 4-H Ambassador program has a two-fold
purpose:
Clothing Management—1986
The clothing budget is a challenge to manage effectively because of higher clothing prices and because
other household expenditures are often taken from
dollars planned for family clothing.
1) A program designed specifically for teens
which encourages complete ownership as
local youth tell the 4-H Story to key audiences
in the respective areas of the state.
2) A program vehicle based on the premise that
the true 4-H Story can best be told by 4-H's
best sales people—the 4-H members themselves.
The overall Extension clothing program in Kansas
has helped consumers manage and determine strategies in the area of clothing selection, buying, use care,
recycling, altering and construction.
Workshops, sewing fairs and mass media are popular methods for consumers to receive information on
205
Each county Ambassador team consists of one or two
advisers and four to eight youth. Each team completes
a "County Plan of Action," outlines plans for the year,
then carry them out.
tion with the club management training.
This training, entitled "Organizational Leader Training," will be offered across the state, utilizing 12 LLL
trainers who have been given additional instruction in
the management material and who have helped in the
design of the expanded training.
Program support from the State 4-H office includes:
1) A comprehensive guide for both Advisers and
Ambassadors.
Water Policy Program—1986
Because water resource issues involved agricultural,
industrial and municipal users, a major educational thrust
was implemented.
2) A program guide for Extension Agents.
3) Promotional brochures for counties.
Base books delineating water resource supply,
water quality, competing needs and policy issues was
developed.
4) Mail-outs each quarter for update and program ideas.
5) Area Retreats in six Cluster Groups.
About 9,000 copies of the basebook were distributed
on request or at meetings attended by almost 2,500
water resource leaders.
6) A state training workshop each year during
Discovery Days.
Leader Learning Labs—1986
It is important that Kansas youth are educated in
effective skills in identifying values, determining goals
based upon these values and making decisions based
upon those goals.
Information adapted to the water resource needs of
western Kansas (with emphasis on water management)
was presented in 1983, and in eastern Kansas (with
emphasis on surface runoff and storage management)
in 1984.
4-H clubs offer practice grounds for teaching these
skills in a situation that does not have life-threatening
consequences.
Extension meetings were directed toward policy
and water resource issues and their consequences,
coordinated with meetings conducted by the Kansas
Water Office, in an attempt to inform citizens about
actual provisions in the State Water Plan.
Leader have requested help in involving their members in the decision-making process in order to increase
member enthusiasm in club work.
The following year Extension again presented a
public policy series on water resources concerning the
changes in the draft document.
Consequently, the following strategies have been
implemented:
1) Leader Learning Laboratories have been designed to deal with decision-making and goal
setting, identifying and clarifying values, and
measuring and celebrating with groups.
The coordination approach was so successful in
informing citizens and leaders concerning water resource issues, adapting the plan to citizen needs and
providing a forum to achieve consensus that the State
Water Plan was adopted almost unanimously by he
Kansas Legislature.
2) Materials for club leaders have been designed
to involve club members.
3) Reporting forms were changed to reflect
group process needs.
In 1986, similar procedures were used in presenting
information, discussing issues and adapting plans for
the 12 basins.
4) Officer training materials and training structures were printed to facilitate new ways of
working with groups.
Farm Mgnt. Association Program—1986
Commercial farmers in Kansas have an increased
need for forward financial planning for profit.
5) An organizational leaders' club management
handbook was developed.
6) Leader trainees were trained to implement
organizational leader training.
The Farm Management Association Program can
help participants by:
By 1985, 98 volunteer leaders had completed all
four LLL workshops and were implementing activities
in their respective clubs.
1) Demonstrating efficient methods of keeping
farm records.
2) Demonstrating the effective use of records in
farm planning, decision making and farm
operation.
LLL trainers began teaching the labs in single counties in 1985.
In 1986-87, as a result of completing a club manage
handbook, LLL workshops can be offered in combina-
206
In the future, this Extension program will seek to
reach an extended audience, continue Agent updates,
and provide resource information for county and area
personnel.
3) Providing a data base from actual farm businesses for use by the Cooperative Extension
for program design and implementation.
4) Improving net returns on Kansas farms.
In 1986, there were 3,520 individual commercial farm
operators that demonstrated the results of effective
decision making and planning their farm operation.
Extension Economists have estimated the cost savings
and value of their records to the participants at $5.4
million.
Estate Planning—1987
This program was designed to help families and individuals have an increased awareness and understanding
of the objectives, problems and tools involved in estate
planning. Estate tax minimization is a very important
part of estate planning.
Detailed forward planning was completed on 1,191
of these farms by Association Fieldmen. Economists
estimated the total value of this activity at about $9.5
million.
During the four-year period of 1984-87, 60 four-hour
awareness sessions and 21 two-day in-depth farm estate
planning workshops were conducted across Kansas.
This planning was done on 470 farms with the FINPAK
computer series, on 27 farms with the K-FARM computer
program, and on 694 farms using more traditional planning forms.
Total attendance was 2,200 at the awareness sessions,
and 460 at the workshops. Approximately two-thirds
of the couples that attended had potentially "serious"
Federal estate tax problems.
Marketing plans and tax management planning are
significant parts of this program and many Extension
Agents, fieldmen, and commercial farmers regard these
two components of equal value to business records and
forward planning.
If workshop guidelines for estate tax minimization
were followed, around $22.2 million in Federal estate
taxes would have been saved.
Conservation Tillage—1987
Kansas has an estimated 10.5 million acres of highly
erodible cropland. Conservation tillage is a practice
that could help reduce soil losses to acceptable levels,
maintain eligibility for USDA farm programs, and lower
production costs.
Wheat Variety Selection—1986
Wheat is the major crop grown in Kansas, with approximately 11 of the 30 million crop acres in the state
devoted to its production.
Farmers can often increase profitability more rapidly
by adopting improved varieties than by any other single
crop production practice.
Extension educational methods in calling attention
to this practice include meetings and workshops, demonstrations, helping establish local conservation tillage
committees, individual farm visits, and tours.
For example, the yield difference in the top 10 varieties of wheat is currently more than 15 bushels, or
$33 per acre.
County conservation tillage committees have provided 3,700 hours of volunteer assistance in 22 counties.
They have assisted with 122 demonstration plots, 23 drill
demonstrations, 44 seminars/workshops, and education
to 5,750 people.
Consequently, Extension Specialists have established
wheat variety plots in 75 of the 105 counties, developed
wheat production handbooks, held winter crop schools,
and focused attention on the use of superior varieties
from the standpoint of yield, standability, and insect
and disease resistance.
This year, 2,800 farmers toured the wheat plots. These
educational program have paid dividends in farmer
adoption of improved varieties.
An estimated 30 percent of the cropland in Kansas uses conservation tillage. Assuming a 70 percent
reduction in erosion by using this practice, soil loss is
being reduced by 34 million tons a year in Kansas. These
erosion savings have an estimated dollar benefit of $34
million a year ($1/ton).
The five-year average wheat yield in Kansas has
increased from 31 bushels per acre in 1977-81 to 38
bushels per acre in 1983-86. Thus, the rolling average
wheat yield has increased 20 percent in five years, or 1.4
million bushels each year for five years.
Safety Belt Project—1987
Since 1982, the Kansas Department of Transportation
has provided over $1 million in grants to the Extension
Home Economics statewide safety belt education effort,
"Get It Together, Kansas."
207
Objectives of the program were:
1) Co-sponsored, with the Kansas Department
of Economic Development, community improvement programs in 12 communities
through the PRIDE program.
1) Increase seat belt use by both Extension clientele and the general public.
2) Reduce death and injuries from traffic accidents.
2) Assisted with a major statewide conference
on housing, underwritten by 54 co-sponsors,
including Home Builders, League of Kansas
Municipalities, and the Dept. of Aging.
3) Reduce health insurance costs.
4) Affect seat belt policies among businesses
and industries.
3) Trained 65 percent of county Agents in remodeling and home repair who in turn trained
2,000 local leaders, who held 102 local
workshops and small group meetings for
an additional 24,266 participants.
About 24,000 members of the 12,800 Extension
Homemaker Units learned about safety belts from lessons presented to their clubs during the first two years
of the grant.
4) Prepared manufactured housing materials
that reached 5,000 people through individual
contacts, workshops, and tours.
Approximately 30,000 youngsters, belonging to
Kansas 4-H clubs, have participated in safety belt education programs.
5) Developed special housing educational material including 3 slide-tape sets addressing
housing needs of families, five publications
with 25,000 distribution, and two video tapes
reaching 2,000 participants.
Safety belt material was distributed to elementary
and secondary schools across the state. Follow-up
reports indicate wide use.
The project staff also administers infant seat loaner
programs in nearly every county in Kansas.
6) Shared housing alternatives information
through newsletters, newspapers, radio, and
TV.
Field coordinators have reached more than 14,000
workers across the state with slide shows, films and
videos, printed materials, safety belt surveys, and incentive programs.
7) Assisted community decision makers study
their attitudes toward policy issues and need
for changes that could improve local housing
situations.
The first three years of effort by Extension saw driver
usage more than double and passenger usage nearly
triple. Some companies report increased use rates of
50-60 percent.
Family Relations Programs—1987
Successful management and resolving everyday
tensions that arise in families is of continuing concern
for families and the individuals within them.
The Kansas Department of Transportation estimates
a yearly reduction of four deaths and 43 serious injuries
per thousand accidents.
Some of the Extension programs relating to these
situations included:
Growing Together. These audiocassette programs
were distributed to County Extension offices. At least
760 parents learned to relax and deal more effectively
with stress of child rearing through their use.
Housing Policy Decisions—1987
The Extension Housing Program was designed to
create awareness of housing alternatives available to
house today's and assist community decision makers
to study attitudes toward policy issues and needed
changes that can improve housing.
Course on Helping. 16,000 copies of this course were
distributed. Returns on surveys indicated about 12,000
of those taking the course strengthened their ability to
help others respond to adversity.
The program was introduced to county Extension
through planned teaching programs and special materials in all counties designed to call attention to such
issues that affect housing.
Friends InDeed Seminars. Over 1,000 individuals
participated in 18 full-day leader seminars. The follow-up
survey showed that 95 percent of the participants had
strengthened their ability to provide emotional support
to someone in distress, and were reaching about 9,700
more people each week.
Included were such issues as land use, unavailable or
unsuitable available housing, possible need for changes
in housing ordinances, and new way to adapt or replace
existing housing.
Some of the specific activities relating to this program were:
208
A third of them had conducted their own "Friends"
meetings for approximately 3,500 additional individuals.
The dollar value of their time contribution is $214,518
over the last four years.
The County Home Economists and Clothing Leaders
made 73,915 contacts in meetings and workshops. An
estimated $1,295,451 has been extended to Kansas families by improving their clothing construction skills.
Heartache in the Heartland. A faltering rural economy, time constraints on family togetherness, and social
changes in roles and expectations of family members led
to a national satellite teleconference broadcast.
Small Business Assistance—1987
Extension's Small Business Assistance program is
designed to provide educational assistance to small
businesses and rural communities to retain and revitalize
existing businesses and attracting new ones.
More than half of the Kansas counties were organized sites for the broadcast. Surveys taken at these
sites following the broadcast reflected a 90 percent
approval rate.
Nutrition & Chronic Health Problems—1987
Extension programs focused on chronic health problems that are related to or affected by food and nutrition,
including cardiovascular disease and hypertension,
diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, and cancer.
During the past two years the following accomplishments occurred:
In three years, over 13,000 people attended meetings
and workshops on various chronic disease problems
which focused on fat and cholesterol, salt and sodium,
and calcium and other minerals.
2) Developed a computerized economic data
base.
1) An economic development newsletter was
sent quarterly to 1,200 persons.
3) Put several economic analysis programs on
microcomputer, and trained development
staff members on their use.
In the same time frame, 2,245 volunteer leaders
taught an additional 16,900 homemakers about these
problems, and distributed 61,150 publications.
4) Conducted 124 economic development programs in 62 counties.
Extension professionals conducted New Dimensions
weight control program. Approximately 500 participants
in classes of 10 each.
5) Offered 38 business management programs
in 32 counties.
Reports from 230 participants showed an average
loss of 8 1/2 pounds each over a 10-week period. Most
reported they changed at least 5 out of 15 behaviors as
a result of the program.
6) Established a single-point of contact telephone line for economic and business development assistance that handles about 200
calls a year.
This program was often followed up with the new
Keeping on Track program at 8 monthly meetings. This
emphasized additional information on dietary guidelines, relapse prevention, and exercise.
7) Added a job creation emphasis to the PRIDE
community improvement program with 20
communities.
8) Developed uniform survey instruments to
study consumer buying patterns, and
completed 21 community economic development surveys.
In addition, Specialists and County Extension Home
Economists conducted meetings and prepared media
releases and radio and TV programs concerning weight
control.
9) Developed a trainer's and participant's manual
for job search education, with training offered to 65 County Agents.
Master Clothing Leaders—1987
This program provides training for Master Clothing
Leaders who can assist families to effectively manage
their clothing resources through knowledge of clothing
construction and consumer buying skills.
10) An estimated 42 new or expanded enterprises
resulted from educational programs, with
140 new jobs created.
This program is now in its ninth year with approximately 6,425 leaders reaching adult and youth audiences.
Balanced Farming & Family Living—1988
The Balanced Farming and Family Living Program
has enrolled 132 farm families from 12 counties. Each
family has:
1) Participated in a goal session workshop.
209
2) Completed a Farm Financial Analysis review
(FINPAK).
institutions, community colleges, and private enterprise.
The problem has been who to ask.
3) Developed a marketing plan for their farm or
ranch.
DIRECT fills this void by finding the information or
making a referral to a knowledgeable person. Teams of
experts have been identified to meet the demand for
some of the more complex problems.
With integrated support from agricultural economics,
family living, animal science, and agronomy Specialists
working together with County Agents, the farm families
are experiencing some very favorable outcomes.
Extension-sponsored educational workshops have
recently been conducted on such topics as home-based
business, food-based business, and bed & breakfast
business.
These families are now keeping better records, doing
feed analysis and soil testing, meeting some of their farm
and family goals, and better understanding the function
of the Extension Service.
The monthly newsletter which goes to these families
has been extremely helpful. These people are using the
up-to-date information from the newsletter.
Job Search Program—1988
The recently depressed farm economy and its impacts
on rural communities has led many rural families to seek
supplementary income or to seek new employment.
The type of support offered by Extension Specialists
include:
to:
The job search education program was implemented
1) Improve skills of rural people in assessing
personal skills.
1) Agronomy—soil testing, fertilizer recommendations, variety selection, herbicide and
pesticide suggestions, farm visits.
2) Completing employment applications.
3) Writing resumes.
2) Agricultural Economics—farm analysis, record
keeping, livestock and crop enterprise budgeting, farm visits.
4) Identifying potential jobs and careers.
5) Preparing for and participating in job interviews.
3) Animal Science BEEFpro series, cowherd
management, feed analysis, stock/grower
program, livestock facilities, swine and sheep
enterprises, farm visits.
During the first year, 65 Extension professionals and
volunteers from 50 counties were trained in job search
education.
4) Family Living—family budgeting, housing,
child care, nutrition, goal setting, marketing,
farm and family visits.
This training increased their knowledge of skills
needed to seek and gain employment, and to develop
and enhance their skills in working with people who are
seeking employment.
5) Ag and Home Ec. Agents—details pertaining
to meetings, farm and family visits.
Participants in the program:
This pilot program (a revival of an integrated Extension program idea originally used in the 1940's) is
expected to expand into additional counties as funding
becomes available.
1) Attended an intensive two-day workshop.
2) Received an in-depth facilitator's manual.
3) Viewed video taped interview scenarios.
DIRECT—1988
DIRECT (Development Information: Referral, Coordination, and Training) is an Extension economic
development tool established in May, 1987 for use by
all Kansans.
4) Received a newsletter to keep them informed
about new ideas for local implementation.
Though training was the major goal for the first year,
at least 900 local clients have been provided educational
assistance as a result of the program. About 20 percent
found employment immediately.
The program was established because many communities and individuals across Kansas were looking
for a single source of resource information, or ways to
develop a product or idea.
More than 100 resumes have been prepared through
the resume service.
There is a great deal of assistance available to them
through State and Federal agencies, Board of Regents
210
Special Committees/Task Forces—1970's-80's
When the problems that inter-disciplinary teams
were assigned had broad implications for Extension,
the group was usually called a "task force" type jobs,
even though they may have had a "committee" designation.
Chuck Marr, Horticulture Specialist.
Chuck Otte, Geary County Agricultural Agent.
Lois Redman, 4-H Specialist.
Sandy Shields, Ottawa County Home Economist.
The number of these programs involving two or more
departments were most evident in agriculture.
Cindy Siemens, Harvey County 4-H Agent.
Zoe Slinkman, Home Economics Specialist.
Agronomy, entomology, and plant pathology often
worked together on complex problems, such as chemical
use, and pest management. Economic implications often
caused an alliance of agricultural economics with animal
science or plant science groups on such projects as leastcost rations, integrated pest management, community
development, and farm enterprise management.
The Committee's charge was to begin developing a
marketing plan for the entire organization. This basically involved audience research and development of a
"corporate identity" which could help Kansans learn to
recognize and appreciate the availability of and relationships between Extension's programs.
Home economics joined forces with other Extension
departments in joint efforts on meat residues, drug
education, and housing.
The committee also was to train the organization
in how each worker, office, and subject matter could
develop in-depth plans, such as:
A couple mixed subject matter groups are cited
here as examples:
Marketing Strategies Committee—1985-86
As the state and Extension grew more diverse in the
80's, the audience-program "fit" became less exact and
less encompassing.
■
Access and segment target audiences.
■
Develop/adapt programs to meet target's
needs.
■
Find how to deliver program in ways that hit
targets.
■
Let clientele know about available services.
To build awareness within Extension about marketing and the Committee's potential, Ward started a busy
schedule of providing in-house talks and/or training.
Extension administration decided in the mid-80's to
take a closer look at the Kansas delivery system.
The first step was to send Hyde Jacobs, C. R. Salmon,
and Kathleen Ward to a marketing initiative session in
Washington, D.C. in 1985. Following that, under Ward's
leadership, the first in-depth marketing session was offered as part of that year's Annual Conference.
Soon after Annual Conference, however, proposed
Federal budget cuts threatened the nation's entire Extension Service. So, Ward also helped administration plan a
response that was widely copied in other states.
Choosing from the pool of Extension staff members
who attended that popular Conference session, Director
Fred Sobering appointed a Kansas Extension Marketing
Strategies Committee to begin work in December.
It included a press conference, mobilization of
influentials to call influentials, press releases, and an
ever-broadening letter writing campaign that sent
more mail to Washington D.C. than all other pending
legislation combined.
Members of that group, representing a cross-section
of personnel, were:
In early 1986, the entire committee conducted
one-on-one interviews with 100 Kansas leaders about
Extension's present and future. The "market intelligence"
gathering consisted of in-depth, confidential talks with
such leaders as the Governor, state agency and farm
organization heads, University administrators, County
Commissioners, business persons, and Extension volunteers.
Kathleen Ward, chairman, Communications
Specialist.
Bill Cox, Sedgwick County Director.
Barry Flinchbaugh, Ag Economics Public Policy
Specialist.
Ralf Graham, Instructional Media Coordinator.
This activity gave clear indications of the strong, yet
highly individualized "ownership" many Kansans have
for Extension.
211
Administration hired a sociologist/dem-ograpaher
to collect data about Kansas that could help Extension
market its products more effectively. This data was
summarized and distributed through several colorful,
widely requested publications.
Future program areas identified were:
1) Farm/financial management.
2) Farm marketing.
3) Natural resources conservation, especially soil
and water.
The committee also developed an in-house survey to
measure Extension's readiness for the change inherent
in more scientific marketing, and to provide a subtle
review of the marketing process.
4) Economic alternatives/value-added processing.
5) 4-H expansion.
The respondents' strongest opinions included:
6) Nutrition education.
1) Working across subject and Extension levels
to address complex modern program needs.
7) Family development programs.
To get a statewide, more scientific survey, patterned
on the national assessment of Extension, the Committee enlisted the aid of Jim Lindquist, a Ph.D. candidate
at that time.
2) Need for organizational, motivational, and
communications skills for dealing with clientele.
3) Need for on-going training in many areas.
He, using trained telephone callers, completed a
random sampling of Kansans in August, 1986. When
the data was reviewed in general it showed:
4) Support for all staff members having access
to counseling help.
5) Worry about Extension workers' success too
dependent on evaluators definition of success.
People being aware of programs rarely made them more
supportive of those programs, or of Extension as a whole. But,
the greater their perceived need for programs, the more likely
respondents were to support those programs and Extension,
and the greater was the likelihood that they were aware of
the programs.
6) Need for more program identification at all
levels.
7) Favorable reaction to current county staffing
patterns.
The Committee requested, and were granted two
days for required training on marketing during the 1986
Annual Conference.
8) Need for better statewide identify for Extension.
Chuck Marr led the Committee's efforts in designing/selecting overall identity tools: logo, official name,
slogan. With extensive staff input, a bold new logo was
designed; the official name became the Kansas State
University (or KSU) Cooperative Extension Service; and
the slogan "Extending the university to the people"
was adopted.
Each committee member researched and oversaw
development of a session. The committee wanted to
cover all of marketing, but mainly limited their scope to
awareness-building and beginning skills transmission.
Program sessions/topics includes:
Barry Flinchbaugh and Bill Cox headed the committee's effort to hold three summertime focus group
meetings (Hays, Wichita, Topeka) for Kansas influentials
invited by the Director.
■
The Committee's activities.
■
Need for marketing
■
Kansas demographics.
■
Overview of the marketing process.
■
Analytical data gathering.
Among the most frequently mentioned opinions
were:
■
Identifying influentials and power structures.
■
1) Extension needs better PR and/or advertising.
Program life cycles.
■
Extension's image and identity.
■
Personal image.
■
Program promotion.
2) Need more work in urban areas.
3) Status quo on funding desirable, but further
budget cuts likely.
Evaluations showed the training as a whole to be the
best received in recent history.
4) Look to user fees, especially for videotape use
and/or special programs.
To allow the Committee to wind up its "corporate
identity" charge and provide more specific "how to"
training, the program was given a half day during the
1987 Spring Planning Conferences.
5) Carefully determine local people's educational
needs.
212
The Committee delivered a preliminary stylebook
on identity, a stack of clip art possibilities using the new
logo, a mini-text on marketing, more research results,
and handouts on subjects from Kansas agriculture to
national power structures.
The Committee members led sessions on personal/
office applications of the marketing process, on using
Lindquist's data, the importance of personal attitude,
use of the new identity tools, and "rules of thumb" for
working with officials/influentials.
The committee had several clear ideas on how to use
identity tools, but 1987 budget restraints made it impossible to carrying these ideas into action programs..
1) Highlight the 75-year accomplish
ments and spirit of Extension.
2) Regenerate pride, enthusiasm, and esprit de corps of the whole staff.
3) Involve cooperators, volunteers, and
supporters in every county.
4) Reach out to others in telling Extension's story.
The Committee assigned to head up this year-long
celebration included:
Dale Apel, 4-H Specialist, Chairman.
Christine Buchanan, Communications Specialist.
Even a relatively inexpensive campaign to help
Kansans recognize Extension's organization name and
organizational relationships to its many office and program areas was a victim of budget limitations.
Sheila Gains, Wyandotte County 4-H Agent.
75th Anniversary Committee—1988-89
With the approaching 75th anniversary date for the
signing of the Smith-Lever Act—May 8, 1914—Kansas
joined with ES-USDA and the other States in a special
celebration of the event.
Joyce Jones, Home Economics Specialist.
Clarene Goodheart, Rooks County Home
Economist.
Ralf Graham, Communications Specialist.
Milton Krainbill, Lincoln County Agricultural
Agent.
Dale Ladd, McPherson County Agricultural
Agent.
The Kansas approach, as orchestrated by a Special
Celebration Committee, involved several months of
special activities.
Bob Newsome, Northeast Area Director.
Chairman Dale Apel in an early issue of Celebrate,
a special monthly tabloid, explained the plans this
way:
Bill Willis, Plant Pathology Specialist.
It was on May 8, 1914, that the Smith-Lever Act was
signed into law, creating the Cooperative Extension
Service—the largest adult education program in the
world—one that's been given lots of credit for improving the decision-making capabilities and quality of life
for those involved in its programs—and specifically for
helping American farmers become the most efficient
of the world's food and fiber producers.
Ralph Utermoehlen, NE Area Community
Development Specialist.
Doris Welch, Kearny County Home Economist.
Highlight of the activities, by months, are as follows:
■
October, 1988
The Kansas Extension was welcomed to
Extension's 75th year at the Awards Luncheon concluding Annual Conference on
Oct 21.
Balloons, 75th place mats, the first of 12
monthly newsletters, and a clown created a
festive mood for the year-long observance.
This 75th Anniversary year for Extension provides
an opportunity to look at ourselves, take stock of
accomplishments and the spirit of Extension, enthusiastically support colleagues, involve and recognize
publics, plan for the future, and have some fun.
■
November, 1988
Counties and departments received an order
form for specially designed anniversary supplies, including place mats, styrofoam cups,
commemorative pins, banners and napkins,
along with clip art sheets of the Kansas 75th
logo.
Kansas Extension Anniversary Committee members have identified—and administrators have
pledged their support for—four major goals for the
year's activities:
■
December, 1988
County agents on the Anniversary Committee produced a calendar of events to spark
ideas for celebrating the 75th.
The first news releases in a series of 18 histori-
213
Margaret Hund presented the Governor a
commemorative paperweight and a copy of
the book, Taking the University to the People:
Seventy-five Years of Cooperative Extension.
cal stories and columns of Historical Notes by
the Extension news staff appeared in the
Communicator and Celebrate.
■
January, 1989
The 75th was the focus of a Legislative Breakfast hosted by the Kansas Extension Agents,
with 62 legislators and 34 Extension representatives attending.
■
May, 1989
Because the signing of the Smith-Lever Act
establishing Extension was signed May 8,
1914, many counties:
A slide/tape set, Great Days of Opportunity,
was developed by instructional media Specialists for use at the breakfast, and later put
in video format for use by counties.
—Held open houses.
Bob Johnson and Ralf Graham started updating the history of Kansas Cooperative Extension, building on a history compiled by
Earl Teagarden
25 years earlier.
—Solicited proclamations.
—Recognized county commissioners and
other supporters.
—Held banquets and dinners.
—Planted trees.
—Produced special issues.
Department and county newsletters began
using the 75th logo and historical stories.
■
—Wrote columns.
—Sent balloon bouquets.
February, 1989
—Appeared on radio and television.
A statewide banquet brought 350 staff, legislators, University administrators, volunteers,
and spouses to a brightly decorated Houston
Street Ballroom.
—Entered floats in parades.
—Contacted past agents.
—Made displays.
The program featured an anniversary medley by the Lindquist Brothers, representatives from the Extension program areas, and
Herbert Grover, Wisconsin state superintendent of public instruction.
—Featured longtime participants.
—Gave away balloons.
—Promoted Extension at county and area
events.
Gold and white 75th lapel pins were distributed at the conclusion of the event.
■
■
March, 1989
Counties continued to share their plans,
and the Kansas press, radio, television stations continued to use special historical features about Extension.
■
July, 1989
Fairs and many other county and area events
continued to provide opportunities for promoting Extension.
Preprinted covers in purple and black with
the 75th logo and the "celebrate" theme were
designed for Extension Homemaker Unit district meetings and teas, beginning in April
and running through May.
■
June, 1989
Made available 25,000 preprinted 75th covers in purple and black on white.
■
August, 1989
Northwest Area Research-Extension Center
had a full day of events, bringing in special
speakers on the 26th.
April, 1988.
Several counties planned Fair promotions.
Area Spring Planning Conferences provided
an anniversary celebration on opening night.
Doyle D. Rahjes, president, Kansas Farm Bureau, brought greetings, symbolizing the
historic Extension/Farm Bureau connection.
■
September, 1989.
The 75th theme showed up at the Kansas
State Fair.
■
Rosemary Crist wrote a skit especially for the
five area events. Cutting the birthday cake
was part of the festivities.
October, 1989
At AES-CES Annual Conference, Oct. 16-20,
the Epsilon Sigma Phi Banquet had a birthday party theme.
Gov. Mike Hayden signed a proclamation
praising Extension and denoting May 8, 1989
as CES Anniversary Day.
A special historical video, Kansas Extension: A
Chronicle of Continuing Concern, was premiered at
the Wednesday night banquet, and copies were
later sent to each county.
Director Walter Woods, Associate Director
Stan Farlin, and Shawnee County Director
Two four-color matching promotional brochures
were displayed, and distributed to the counties.
214
Changing Lives through Changing Times explained
history and organization of Kansas Extension.
the
Responding to Issues—Extension's Team Approach
explained the seven Kansas priority programs.
A display of state and county memorabilia from
the past year was displayed on the second floor
concourse of the Student Union throughout the
conference
Program Initiatives—1988
Program Initiatives
In the late 1980's, programming by initiative became
a buzzword in Extension, nationally and in Kansas. This
involved efforts to measure the impact of Extension
programs on pre-determined priority issues.
Kansas Initiatives—1988-89
The Kansas response to the National Initiatives was
summarized in the publication, Responding to the Issues—Extension's Team Approach.
National Initiatives—1986
In January, 1988, ES-USDA advanced a new approach designed to spotlight National Initiatives Focus
on Issues
The future of Kansas depends, in part, on its people
being well prepared to face critical social, economic and
environmental issues.
That document states:
Cooperative Extension as implemented statewide
program planning that focuses on critical educational
needs. Extension's agenda for the coming decade
targets seven key initiatives.
This new focus on national initiatives were expected
to "trickle down" to State Extension Services for implementation in ways that best fitted their respective
clienteles.
1) Agricultural profitability and
competitiveness.
These national initiatives included:
■
Alternative Agricultural Opportunities.
■
Building Human Capital.
2) Economic revitalization.
3) Water quality.
4) Conservation of natural resources.
Competitiveness and Profitability of
American Agriculture.
■
5) Human health and well-being
6) Youth at risk.
Conservation and Management of Natural
Resources.
■
■
Family and Economic Well-Being
■
Improving Nutrition, Diet and Health.
■
Revitalizing Rural America.
■
Water Quality
■
Youth at Risk.
7) Developing human resources.
Nineteen multi-disciplinary program development
teams, comprised of professionals from all program
areas, are creating educational programs related to
these initiatives.
Using means as diverse as computer analyses,
workshops and satellite television broadcasts, Extension brings the resources of Kansas State University to
people throughout the state.
This document further emphasized that Ex- tension's
efficiency, accountability, clarity of public mission, and
resources must continue to be concentrated on issues
important to its publics economic, social, and environmental progress.
People—their needs and concerns—will remain
central to Extension's program planning process as we
move toward the 21st century.
Kansas Extension Beyond 1988
In these changing times for the Kansas Cooperative
Extension Service, there is a continuing need for selfexamination and making desirable adjustments in its
educational course.
Among other things, it suggests that in the future
Cooperative Extension must:
1) Focus on delivery rather than content of its
programs.
Perhaps one appropriate place to look for guidance
is in the Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between Vision & Reality, the 1987 report by the Futures
Task Force of ECOP.
2) Review the need for organizational and structural changes.
3) Review the Federal, State, and county part
nership where such action is undertaken.
215
solving, education of producers, education of
professionals.
4) Restate your mission.
5) Develop a vision for the future.
6) Formulate plans for the necessary transition
to achieve the desire changes.
The most pointed piece of advice to State Extension
Services, like Kansas, seems to be:
7) Improve your ability to "deliver" with better
trained and/or more highly specialized
staff, including some qualified 'futurists.'
Become more concerned with doing the right thing,
rather than doing things right. Decide to lead and then
do it with vision and boldness!
8) Strengthen and support staff development
components to achieve the necessary special
ization in staff training.
That's the challenge that faces the Kansas Extension Service professionals as they move ahead
into the 1990's and onward toward a century of
service to the people of Kansas.
9) Develop strong ties with other public agencies and private firms.
10) Review alternative funding sources, such as
grants, subcontracting with other agencies,
and users' fees.
Contributing Authors. The primary contributing authors
to this overview summary of the Kansas Cooperative Extension Service organization, administration, and program
emphasis for the 1970-88 era were J. Dale Apel, Extension
4-H Youth Specialist, and Ralf O. Graham, Instructional Media
Coordinator.
11) Access and utilize all appropriate expertise
related to relevant issues from all available
sources within the Land-Grant University.
12) Establish high tech research/Extension centers to accomplish three goals—problem
216
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement