Organizational
Structure
COUNTY PRESENCE
Submitted by: Tony Tyson
The "Synopsis of Models for Improving Extension Program Delivery"
document states:
"All modeling groups called for a "county" presence
for CES. The most common definition included identifiable physical
space and at least two staff in that space, with flexibility
in combinations of that staff (agent, program assistant, secretary,
or other) to match local programs, needs and funding. Most models
called for a full time presence, even if that was done by several
part-time positions."
The concept of maintaining a county presence for Cooperative Extension
was identified at every step of the review of Extension delivery
as a priority and one of the unique assets that we should make every
effort to maintain and strengthen. The steering committee even identified
it as one of the "guiding principles."
Because of state budget cuts which occurred from 2002 until 2004 our
staffing at the county level was reduced significantly. However,
we still maintain offices with some level of staffing in 157 of Georgia's
159 counties. The only counties without a county office are Chattahoochee
County and Taliaferro County. By late 2004, we had several counties
across the state which did not have any county agents and were staffed
by a secretary and/or a program assistant, usually with an agent
from an adjoining county serving as the County Coordinator.
One of our goals is to be able to deliver programs in all three program
areas (A&NR, FACS and 4-H) in each county. Depending on local
needs and resources this could be accomplished by a combination of
agents, educational program specialists or program assistants. Some
agents may be housed in the county and only have responsibility for
programming in that county and others may have multi-county responsibilities.
It is generally agreed that to have a viable 4-H program there should
be at a minimum one 4-H program assistant in each county (preferably
a 4-H agent).
In early 2005 we were able to start the process of refilling some
of the positions that had been left vacant by the budget cuts. This
is being accomplished with $1.6 million in new state funds that resulted
from a change in the way retiree benefits are handled and also from
existing funds from recently vacated positions in the districts.
Each of the districts has solicited input from CEC’s to help
prioritize the positions that are identified to be filled. We have
also increased the required amount of matching dollars from the counties
in order to be able to fill as many positions as possible. The counties
are now required to pay between 25% and 50% of the cost of filling
an agent position in their county. It is estimated that with the retiree
benefits dollars we will be able to add 25 to 30 new agent positions
across the state. This falls far short of meeting all our needs, but
it is definitely a step in the right direction.
One concept that came out of the review of extension delivery was
that the needs and resources vary from one county to another and
that we should not employ a "cookie cutter approach." We
have asked the District Heads and County Coordinators to be creative
in staffing county offices. For instance, we have more positions that
are jointly funded between two counties. This concept won’t
work in every situation, but there are cases where it is a good fit
for the counties, and the counties are able to pool their funds in
order to pay the minimum county contribution on the county salary.
We are also exploring other options for coming up with the local
matching dollars. Examples include boards of education, city governments,
private industry and private foundations.
Return
to Progress Reports
