The Role Function of the County Program Director the ofextension.missouri.edu/staff/cpd_revitalization/CPD... · · 2011-08-03The Role and Function of the County Program Director

The Role and Function of the County Program Director Within the University of Missouri Extension Organization

Report prepared by

Kimberly J.M. Keller, Ph.D Research Associate

Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis University of Missouri Extension

Fall 2010

ContentsI. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

II. Respondent Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 1

III. County Program Directors’ Duties .................................................................................................... 2

A. Leadership Outside the County ........................................................................................................ 3

B. Resource Management ..................................................................................................................... 4

C. Extension Council Relations .............................................................................................................. 6

D. Engaging Community Partners .......................................................................................................... 7

E. County Program Leadership (POW) ...................................................................................................... 9

F. Personnel Relations ........................................................................................................................ 10

G. Additional Duties Not Addressed in the Survey .............................................................................. 11

IV. County Program Director Characteristics ....................................................................................... 11

A. Analysis of Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................................ 11

B. Category Area ................................................................................................................................. 12

C. Compensation ................................................................................................................................. 13

D. Performance Evaluations ................................................................................................................ 14

V. County Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 15

A. Region ............................................................................................................................................. 15

B. County Composition ....................................................................................................................... 16

C. Type of County Program Director ................................................................................................... 17

D. Budget ............................................................................................................................................. 17

E. Number of Employees in the County Office ................................................................................... 17

VI. Additional Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 18

A. Time Management .......................................................................................................................... 18

B. Administration and Relationship with MU Campus ........................................................................ 20

C. Responsibility and Authority ........................................................................................................... 21

VII. Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 21

1

I. Introduction This survey is part of a process to examine the role and functioning of the County Program Director (CPD) within the University of Missouri Extension organization. The CPD is responsible for many duties, and often these are in addition to other roles s/he fulfills as a Regional Extension Specialist. In planning for this survey, an advisory group convened, consisting of members from MU Extension Administration, Human Resources, and several CPDs. They guided the development of the survey in order to assure that the breadth of the CPD role was adequately and accurately assessed, and that questions were included that would yield meaningful data to assess the state of the CPD role within the organization. Ultimately, the goals of this process are to examine the following issues:

1. Are the functions of the CPD role being described properly? 2. Are CPDs being properly compensated? 3. Are CPDs receiving proper training for the functions they are fulfilling within the

organization? 4. Is the level of responsibility given to CPDs appropriate?

Email invitations to complete the resulting electronic survey was sent to 112 CPDs in September,

2010. This report presents the results of this survey.

II. RespondentCharacteristics

Of the 112 CPDs invited to participate in the survey, data was obtained from 78 of them (69.6%). The majority of respondents were male (n=46; 58.9%). The average age of respondents was 51.5 years (SD=10.29; range 26.8‐69.5). Respondents represented all five Program Category Areas (see Figure 1), although the majority of them represented Agriculture (43.5%) and Human Environmental Sciences (25.6%).

7

34

6

10

20

Number of Respondents by Category Area

4H

Agriculture

Business Development

Community Development

Human Environmental Sciences

Figure 1

2

All eight geographical regions were

represented in this survey, with the

greatest number of participants

responding from the Southwest and

South Central regions (n=12; see

Figure 2).

The CPDs who responded to the survey

also ranged in experience as a CPD, as

displayed in Figure 3. The majority of

respondents had between one and

fifteen years of experience, although

eleven respondents had more than

twenty years of experience as a CPD.

III. CountyProgramDirectors’Duties

The survey included 38 questions regarding the CPD role. Through factor analysis, these were divided into 6 categories that are used as scales in later analyses:

Resource Management (α=.75)

Extension Council Relations (α=.72)

Engaging Community Partners (α=.62)

County Program Leadership (POW) (α=.81)

Leadership Outside the County (α=.55)

Personnel Relations (α=.60)

117

9

912

7

12

11

Number of Respondents by Region

Central

East Central

Northeast

Northwest

South Central

Southeast

Southwest

West Central

0

5

10

15

20

< 1 year 1 ‐ 5 years

6 ‐ 10 years

11 ‐ 15 years

16 ‐ 20 years

> 20 years

3

1917 18

811

Years of Experience as CPD

Figure 2

Figure 3

3

With the exception of the Leadership Outside the County scale, each of these scales exhibited an acceptable level of reliability. This means that individuals’ responses to one question in the scale were consistent with the way they answered the other questions in the scale.

The first set of analyses examined the items comprising each of these scales. Paired t‐tests test whether the frequency the CPD engaged in the duty differed from his/her ranking of the importance of the duty. Only significant t‐values are reported.

Within each table, the questions are presented in descending order as ranked by the mean

importance the CPDs ascribed to each duty. For the most part, the frequencies followed the same ranking pattern; in other words, the CPDs tended to perform duties they felt were more important with greater frequency.

A. LeadershipOutsidetheCountyThis is the smallest scale, consisting of only two items. Although these two items could be

considered for inclusion in another scale (e.g., program leadership), results of the factor analysis

indicated that these items were conceptually unique from the other groupings of items comprising the

other scales. Unfortunately, the reliability estimate associated with this scale is lower than what is

typically considered to be acceptable in the social sciences, which limits the accuracy of analyses using

this scale.

Importance Frequency Difference

Item Pairs analyzed Mean SD Mean SD Imp‐Freq t value

17 Provide input for statewide program development. 77 3.26 0.94 2.43 0.80 0.83 6.82***

16 Provide input for regional program development. 78 3.23 0.74 2.78 0.82 0.45 4.59***

Note: Scale for Importance: 1=Not important; 2=Slightly important; 3=Somewhat important; 4=Very important; 5=Critically important Scale for Frequency: 1‐Never; 2= Rarely; 3=Occasionally; 4=Often; 5=Very often

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Providing input for program development at the regional level as well as statewide were generally considered to be somewhat important duties, yet CPDs reported rarely performing these duties. In their responses to the open‐ended questions, no CPDs listed Leadership Outside the County as

being a satisfying component of the CPD role, nor were these identified as challenging aspects of the

CPD position.

4

B. ResourceManagementThis scale consists of six items that pertain to fiscal items. These include budgeting, fee

structures, grant/contract management, and program funding.



27

Represent the University of Missouri to county extension councils, county governments, and other agencies in determining fiscal needs and developing an annual budget. 77 4.52 0.64 4.31 0.77 0.21 2.70**

28

Represent the University of Missouri with community leaders and officials in securing and managing resources to carry out county extension programs. 78 4.33 0.71 4.04 0.83 0.29 4.16***

25

Pursue and develop partnerships and alliances that will sustain high-priority program funding. 78 4.03 0.77 3.47 0.88 0.55 6.82***

31

Assist with identifying and developing new funding resources including gifts and endowments, grants, contracts, fees, or cost-sharing with other organizations. 78 3.69 0.86 3.31 1.00 0.38 3.71***

32

Be knowledgeable about the development and management of grants and contracts. 77 3.40 0.83 3.00 0.95 0.40 3.83***

33

Provide leadership to the development and management of fee structures and systems within the county. 77 3.35 0.70 3.13 0.86 0.22 2.57*


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

As demonstrated in the table above, each of these items were rated as “Somewhat important”

to nearly “Critically Important,” and were conducted “Occasionally” to “Often.” The CPDs who responded consistently rated the Resource Management duties as being more important than the frequency in which they engaged in them. For each of these items, the difference between importance and frequency was statistically significant. Several CPDs (n=7) noted items pertaining to Resource Management as being satisfying

components to the CPD role. These included the ability to grow a budget; “Maintaining and increasing

county funding, not only from commissioners but through fees and donations;” and “The fact that the

county still has an Extension Center.”

5

Resource Management issues were also identified by 22 CPDs as being challenging aspects of

the position. These challenges are represented by the following quotes:

“Funding—making sure we work within the limits of the budget”

“I think the extreme financial pressure of both county and state budgets makes CPD work challenging. Also think it may have an impact on how this survey has been answered too”

“Reestablishing a budget after the county had serious financial problems. Getting the budget back up to where it needs to be is important and takes a lot of work. Without the county funding guidelines it would not have been possible to reestablish the budget.”

“[Using] local media is becoming more difficult as newspapers reduce free coverage of Extension programming. Paid advertisement to get programming into the newspaper is becoming more important and builds in extra expense into budgets.”

6

C. ExtensionCouncilRelationsThe items on this scale pertain to aspects of the relationship CPDs maintain with members of

their Extension Councils. Several of these items could also be considered in other scales (e.g., assisting

with completion of an annual audit); however, these items had the strongest statistical relationship with

the other items in this scale.



8 Provide leadership to engage extension councils. 78 4.37 0.61 4.33 0.64 0.04

34

Assist county extension councils in conducting elections by providing leadership to achieve membership representation of the county population. 78 4.06 0.60 4.00 0.74 0.05

38

Understand, articulate, and advise the extension council on the legal resources and fiscal responsibilities of the council. 77 4.06 0.71 3.79 0.77 0.27 3.17**

30

Assist county extension councils in equipping and maintaining efficient extension centers. 78 3.94 0.61 4.06 0.74 ‐0.13

36

Assist in the development and implementation of training of the county extension council so that it carries out its legal, fiscal, and programming responsibilities. 78 3.94 0.71 3.78 0.73 0.15

35

Utilize extension resources to develop leadership skills in the county councils in order for councils to be advocates for extension programs. 77 3.88 0.83 3.62 0.76 0.26 2.79**

29

Assist county extension councils with the completion of an annual audit. 78 3.71 0.76 3.63 1.05 0.08

11

Provide leadership to train county extension councils using methods other than the modules. 77 3.47 0.95 3.15 0.94 0.29 3.76***

10

Provide leadership to train county extension councils using council modules. 78 3.41 0.78 3.28 0.88 0.13


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Three of the items pertaining to County Extension Councils yielded statistically significant differences between CPDs’ rankings of the importance and frequency in engaging in these duties. For the most part, these items (11, 35, 38) pertained to providing training or guidance to the Extension Councils; the relative importance ascribed to each of these duties was greater than the frequency with which they were done.

7

In their open‐ended responses, Extension Council Relations were the most frequently cited sources of satisfaction in the CPD role (n=22). These often centered on building relationships with the Council members, helping them to develop leadership skills, and helping them to become more familiar with Extension programming.

“Seeing [Extension Council members] take ownership in the county Extension program is a grand thing and also very helpful to me personally in carrying out the responsibilities of the job.”

“The relationships with both the Extension Council and the staff. Playing a role in seeing that Extension is relevant and seen positively in the county. The leadership development that happens in the Extension Council members is very rewarding.”

Extension Council Relations also provided challenges, as identified by 12 CPDs. The following quotes are representative of the difficulties CPDs described:

“Constant turnover of the Extension Council”

“When there is strife on the Council or a difficult Council member. By difficult I mean someone who does not support Extension.

“Councils have a tendency to push the CPD out front and blame them. Then commissioners want to work only with you so they can blame you and not the voters. I would eliminate the CPD position and force councils to do all the asking to commissioners.”

“Maintaining a diverse council in a county with less than 6000 population and less than 1% minority”

“Getting the Council involved. They are volunteers so you cannot make them do anything—they have to want to participate.”

D. EngagingCommunityPartnersThe three items in this scale reflect outreach to partners and other community leaders.



24

Provide leadership in maintaining relationships with community agencies, organizations, key leaders, stakeholders and funding sources. 78 4.31 0.57 4.18 0.62 0.13 2.08*

21

Inform county extension councils and other key community leaders about extension program benefits to learners. 78 4.26 0.65 4.01 0.67 0.24 3.05**

9

Provide leadership to engage advisory committees, community agencies, organizations, and other activities to engage the public. 78 3.87 0.84 3.83 0.80 0.04


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Engaging community partners was generally considered to be a very important duty.

Furthermore, the CPDs reported engaging in these duties often.

8

Eleven CPDs discussed deriving job satisfaction through relationships with community partners. The following quotes represent comments CPDs provided regarding the satisfaction they experienced through building relationships with community partners:

“To see improvement in standing of Extension with local officials.”

“Helping to promote the work of MU Extension in our community and helping community leaders and others understand what MU Extension is accomplishing locally.”

“I have interaction with people that I might not have encountered if I weren't the CPD. I enjoy knowing my commissioners and other decision‐making people in the community.”

“Having the chance to keep MU Extension at the table with various agencies, organizations, etc.”

Only two CPDs found relationships with community partners to be some of the most challenging aspects of the CPD position. For one of them, this challenge was in the context of program funding; both CPDs described difficulties in engaging community members.

9

E.CountyProgramLeadership(POW)



20

Showcase University of Missouri Extension programs value to the community. 78 4.28 0.70 3.67 0.89 0.61 6.85***

12

Be knowledgeable about all extension programs in the county. 78 4.24 0.56 4.30 0.63 ‐0.06

19

Provide leadership for the development and implementation of the county extension marketing and public information plan. 76 3.74 0.79 3.37 0.80 0.37 4.94***

3 Provide leadership regarding extension program planning. 78 3.73 0.78 3.74 0.78 ‐0.01

2

Provide leadership regarding county extension program needs assessments. 78 3.65 0.88 3.47 0.95 0.18 2.02*

1

Provide leadership regarding development of a county plan of work. 78 3.55 0.98 3.42 0.95 0.13 1.56

26

Provide leadership to design strategies to reach new and underserved audiences in the county. 77 3.48 0.80 3.13 0.86 0.35 4.27***

13

Provide coordination and facilitation of programs outside of your assigned specialty area. 78 3.46 0.89 3.41 0.83 0.05

14

Serve as contact person for programs which have not been assigned to other employees. 78 3.27 0.89 3.31 0.90 ‐0.58

4

Provide leadership regarding evaluation of the county plan of work. 78 3.22 0.85 2.94 0.93 0.28 3.16**

18

Monitor programs for implementation of the county plan of work. 78 3.00 0.87 2.72 0.77 0.28 3.30**

15

Arrange liaison for programs sponsored by any of the five campuses operating in the county. 75 2.81 0.90 2.21 0.77 0.57 6.27***


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Providing programmatic leadership to the county was generally considered “somewhat important” to “very important.” For the most part, CPDs reported engaging in programmatic leadership activities “occasionally. There were, however, three items reported with “Rare” frequency:

Provide leadership regarding evaluation of the county plan of work.

Monitor programs for implementation of the county plan of work.

Arrange liaison for programs sponsored by any of the five campuses operating in the county. [note: also reported as “slightly important”]

10

Topics pertaining to County Program Leadership were listed as providing satisfaction by fourteen CPDs. The following comments are representative of the ways in which CPDs obtained satisfaction through engaging in County Program Leadership.

“Gaining a thorough understanding of how the Extension system works at the county level.”

“Offering practical solutions to the public in all areas of Extension education. Observing all staff members enabling the public with practical solutions to their problems.”

“The opportunity to work with Council members in identifying and bringing programs into the county to address the needs of county residents.”

“Coordinating programs from other specialists not represented in our county, or [programs] from the state like the safe room display.”

County Program Leadership was not explicitly named as one of the greatest challenges the CPD

role entails; however, the responsibility and authority structure associated with the CPD role was named as a challenge by many of them. This is presented in further detail later in this report.

F. PersonnelRelationsThis scale consists of six items, reflecting various dimensions of CPDs’ engagement in personnel‐

related activities. These items reflect supervisory duties as well as leadership among personnel.



23

Promote an atmosphere of shared responsibility and decision-making in the county extension office. 78 4.28 0.62 4.35 0.66 ‐0.06

22

Function as a team leader in the relationship with faculty and staff assigned to the county. 78 3.84 0.78 3.84 0.92 0.00

37

Implement county extension council delegated responsibility for personnel management of support staff including day-to-day supervision of council paid employees. 77 3.84 0.96 4.04 1.06 ‐0.19 ‐2.30*

5

Provide leadership to engage extension faculty in the same county office as you. 73 3.71 0.98 3.67 1.14 ‐0.03

6

Provide leadership to engage paraprofessionals/staff (i.e.YPA's and NPA's) in the same county office as you. 75 3.45 1.08 3.26 1.17 0.16 2.10*

7 Provide leadership to faculty in other counties. 76 3.13 0.93 2.96 0.87 0.12


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Duties pertaining to relations among personnel were rated as Somewhat Important to Very Important. The CPDs reported performing these duties at least Occasionally, if not Often. Providing leadership to faculty in other counties was the least frequently‐performed duty in this section.

11

Seven CPDs listed Personnel Relations as being some of the most satisfying aspects of the CPD position, as illustrated by the following quotes:

“Being able to bring together the Extension/office staff, council and community members to create a user‐friendly, reliable resource for practical information to answer people's questions. It is extremely satisfying to work with such a great team!”

“Working with very talented and capable faculty and staff.” Personnel Relations were also identified by 13 CPDs as being some of the most challenging aspects of being a CPD. These challenges included the following:

“Managing the office manager.”

“Dealing with personnel problems, whether University or Council employees.”

“Working with multiple staff and their varying personalities.”

Many CPDs identified being outside of an authority structure as particularly challenging, and this is discussed more in depth later in this report.

G. AdditionalDutiesNotAddressedintheSurveyThe CPDs identified several items that were not addressed by the survey questions, but that CPDs

often performed. These tasks included the following:

Annual report (4 people) “Making sure everyone writes something to be included in the County annual Report and then putting the Annual Report together.” “This involves a huge block of time in December and January.”

Office space management (1 person)

Technology: “Coordination and maintenance of technology provided by campus (servers). Coordination and maintenance of technology provided locally (printers, communication services, etc.” (1 person)

County fair (1 person)

IV. CountyProgramDirectorCharacteristics

In this section, the characteristics of the CPDs will be analyzed in conjunction with their roles.

Areas that will be discussed include the CPD’s category area, compensation, and performance review

ratings.

A. AnalysisofDemographicCharacteristicsAn initial set of analyses was conducted in order to examine whether CPDs’ responses differed

according to gender or age. An independent‐samples t‐test indicated there were no significant

differences in scale score responses between males and females. Similarly, there were no significant

correlations between the scale scores and the age of CPD respondents, nor between the scale scores

and CPDs’ years of experience.

12

B. CategoryAreaCPDs’ responses on each scale were grouped according to the category area in which the CPD

was employed (e.g., 4‐H, Agriculture, etc.). Each of the scale scores were analyzed using a one‐way ANOVA, between‐groups design. This test first examines whether there are differences in the means between different groups, and if so, runs a statistical test to determine which group(s) is/are different. These analyses yielded the statistically significant results, discussed below.

The first significant difference was on the importance the CPDs ascribed to Resource

Management. Unfortunately, although the overall test indicated difference(s) between the regions on

this item [F (4, 70) = 3.01; p < .05], the analyses were unable to pinpoint any of the category areas

whose CPDs scored significantly differently from the others. It is likely to require a larger sample size to

reveal what these differences might be. Similarly, the overall test for the frequency that CPDs reported

performing Resource Management was also statistically significant, [F (4, 70) = 2.63; p < .05], but further

analyses failed to pinpoint which groups differed.

This analysis of Engaging Community Partners revealed a significant effect for how frequently

CPDs from the different category areas reported performing these duties, F (4, 72) = 2.54; p < .05. The

scale means for each group are displayed in Figure 4. Tukey’s HSD test showed that CPDs from Human

Environmental

Sciences (n=20)

reported more

frequently

Engaging

Community

Partners than

those CPDs

from Agriculture

(n=34). No

significant

differences

were found

between any

other pairings of

category areas.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

4‐H Agriculture* Business Dev.

Community Dev.

Human Env. Sciences*

3.95 3.814.00

4.20 4.25

Engaging Community Partners, Frequency by Category Area

Figure 4

13

The analysis of

Engaging Personnel

Relations revealed a

significant effect for

how frequently CPDs

from the different

category areas

reported performing

these duties, F (4, 67)

= 2.58; p < .05. The

scale means for each

group are displayed in

Figure 5. Tukey’s HSD

test showed that CPDs

from Human

Environmental

Sciences (n=20) reported more frequently engaging in Personnel Relations than those CPDs from

Business Development (n=5). No significant differences were found between any other pairings of

category areas.

C. CompensationThe CPDs receive a monetary stipend as compensation for performing the CPD role (see Figure

6). Data was collected

from the CPDs, and

obtained from Human

Resources. The stipend

ranges from $1,000‐$2,000

per year. Eleven CPDs did

not know the amount of

the stipend they received.

Correlations examined the relationship between the scales and compensation the CPD received.

Three types of compensation were examined: base salary, CPD stipend, and the CPD’s total salary (i.e.,

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

4‐H Agriculture Business Dev. *

Community Dev.

Human Env. Sciences*

3.81 3.65

3.07

3.653.85

Personnel Relations, Frequency by Category Area

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$1,000 $1,500 $2,000 Do not know

34

27

17

33

22

10 11

CPD Stipend Amount

HR data

Self‐reported

Figure 5

Figure 6

14

base salary + CPD stipend). Only one scale had a statistically significant result; the CPD stipend amount

was positively correlated with Importance of Extension Council Relations (r=.37; p < .01). This means that

those CPDs who ranked items assessing importance on the Extension Council Relations scale tended to

be those who earned larger CPD stipends.

The CPDs

were also asked

about the

appropriate amount

of the CPD stipend.

Responses ranged

from $0 to $15,000,

with an average of

$4402.

Recommended

stipend ranges, and

the frequency with

which they were

recommended, are

reported in Figure

7.

Some CPDs expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of the CPD stipend. One indicated that

being a CPD entailed “lots of headaches for little extra pay.” Another CPD estimated that the CPD

stipend amounted in “$2 per hour” compensation for the CPD duties.

D. PerformanceEvaluations In order to examine the possible relationship between a CPD’s performance appraisal and his/her ratings of the CPD duties, each of the 15 Performance Review items were converted to a scale ranging from 1 (Unsatisfactory) to 4 (Outstanding); these scores were summed to produce an overall performance evaluation for each CPD. These scores ranged from 37‐60, with a mean of 50.08.

This overall performance evaluation score was correlated with each of the CPD Duty items. Only three of these correlations achieved statistical significance. CPDs with higher performance evaluations self‐reported more frequent:

Provision of leadership to the development and management of fee structures and systems within the county. r = 0.26 (p < .05)

Provision of leadership in maintaining relationships with community agencies, organizations, key leaders, stakeholders and funding sources. r = 0.28 (p < .05)

0

5

10

15

20

25

No. CPDs responding

"How much do you think the appropriate yearly stipend for a CPD should be?"

Figure 7

15

Service as contact person for programs which have not been assigned to other employees. r = 0.23 (p < .05)

A more focused analyses was conducted, focusing on the four performance review items specific to

the CPD role. Those CPDs who had higher performance evaluations on these four items also reported that they more frequently:

Provide leadership to train county extension councils using council modules. r = 0.24 (p < .05)

Pursue and develop partnerships and alliances that will sustain high‐priority program funding. r = 0.27 (p < .05)

Because performance evaluation criteria are often task‐ or behavior‐based, it should not be a

surprise that the significant results entailed frequencies of performing the CPD duties, rather than the importance ascribed to them. Caution must be used, however, when interpreting these results. Because several supervisors were conducting performance evaluations, it could be that the different supervisors were not completely consistent when applying the performance criteria.

V. CountyCharacteristicsAn analysis of county characteristics and their relationship to the CPD role is provided in this

section. This section will address the function of the CPD role according to geographic differences. Region, CPD type, county composition, and the number of employees.

A. RegionCPDs’ responses on each scale were grouped according to the geographic region in which the

CPD was employed (e.g., West Central, Northeast, etc.). Each of the scale scores were analyzed using a one‐way ANOVA, between‐groups design. This test first examines whether there are differences in the means between different groups, and if so, runs a statistical test to determine which group(s) is/are different. These analyses yielded two statistically significant results, discussed below.

The first

significant difference

was on the frequency

the CPDs reported

performing County

Program Leadership

(POW). This analysis

revealed a significant

effect for the region, F

(7, 67) = 2.36; p < .05.

The scale means for

each group are

displayed in Figure 8.

Tukey’s HSD test

1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

County Program Leadership, Frequency by Region

Figure 8

16

showed that CPDs from the Southeast Region (n=6) reported more frequently engaging in County

Program Leadership (POW) than those CPDs from the West Central Region (n=11). No significant

differences were found between any other pairings of regions.

The second significant difference was regarding the frequency the CPDs reporting performing the

Engagement of Community Partners. Unfortunately, although the overall test indicated difference(s)

between the regions on this item [F (7, 70) = 2.20; p < .05], the analyses were unable to pinpoint any of

the regions whose CPDs scored significantly differently from the others. It is likely to require a larger

sample size to reveal what these differences might be.

B. CountyComposition Counties were grouped according to three classifications (i.e., rural, urban, and basic). Each of

the scale scores were analyzed using a one‐way ANOVA, between‐groups design. This test first

examines whether there are differences in the means between different groups, and if so, runs a

statistical test to determine which group(s) is/are different.

Only one scale, Extension Council Relations revealed a significant difference between county types. This

analysis revealed a significant effect for the type of county on the importance the CPDs ascribed to

Extension Council Relations, F (2, 71)

= 4.06; p < .05. The scale means for

each group are displayed in Figure 9.

Tukey’s HSD test showed that CPDs

from Basic counties (n=14) rated the

importance of Extension Council

Relations significantly higher than

those CPDs from Rural counties

(n=58). No significant differences

were found between either group

and responses from CPDs in Urban

counties (n=2).

It is important to note that

although there was a significant difference found between groups for the importance of Extension

Council Relations, no significant differences were found between county types regarding the frequency

of these activities.

One CPD from a smaller county noted that “several of the questions [in the survey] seem to be

aimed at larger counties because when you do not have lots of resources to branch out to, you would

not do some of the tasks very often.”

1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

Basic* Rural* Urban

4.133.80 3.94

Extension Council Relations, Importance by County Type

Figure 9

17

C. TypeofCountyProgramDirectorA series of independent‐samples t‐tests were used to examine scale scores according to the

structure of the CPD position operating within a county. The first series of tests examined whether respondents who held CPD duties outside their

headquartered county responded differently from those who were within their headquartered county. No significant differences were found.

The second analysis examined scale scores by whether the CPD was a co‐CPD, or a sole CPD.

Again, no significant differences were found between CPDs who shared the role and those who did not. The third set of analyses in this category analyzed the responses by whether a respondent had

CPD responsibilities for more than one county; the responses between CPDs of multiple counties did not differ significantly from those whose CPD responsibilities were limited to one county.

There were too few interim CPDs to analyze whether interim CPDs scored differently than non‐

interim CPDs.

D. Budget The size of a county’s budget was positively correlated with only one of the scales. Specifically, there was a positive correlation between budget size and the importance of personnel relations (r=.24, p < .05); CPDs in counties with larger budgets attributed greater importance to maintaining personnel relations. No other statistically significant relationships were found in the analysis of the counties’ budgets.

E. NumberofEmployeesintheCountyOffice

A summary of the number of MU Extension Faculty, MU Extension Staff, and Extension Council employees is displayed in Figure 10.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No. CPDs Responding

No. Personnel

Number of Personnel in CPD Office, by Employee Type

MU Ext. Faculty MU Ext. Staff Council Employees

Figure 10

18

Bivariate correlations were conducted in order to analyze the association between the number of various types of personnel and the scale scores. These are summarized in the following table. Surprisingly, no correlations were significant for County Program Leadership (POW) or Personnel Relations. Only significant correlations are reported.

Number of Faculty Number of Staff

Total MU Extension Employees

Number of Council Staff

Total Employees (MU Extension and Council Employees)

Scale Imp Freq Imp Freq Imp Freq Imp Freq Imp Freq

Resource Management .27*

Extension Council Relations .23* .24* .32** .26* .28*

Engaging Community Parnters .30** .27*

County Program Leadership (POW)

Leadership Outside the County ‐.24*

Personnel Relations


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

The majority of these correlations were positive, meaning that those with greater numbers of employees in each category tended to more highly rate the importance and frequency of each scale. The exception to this was Leadership Outside the County, which was seen as less important when there were greater numbers of MU Extension Staff in the county office.

VI. AdditionalChallenges

In their responses to the open‐ended question asking about the most challenging aspect to the CPD position, the CPDs identified several issues that were not addressed in the survey questions. These included Time Management, Administration and Relationship to the MU Campus, and Responsibility and Authority.

A. TimeManagement The issue of Time was assessed in the survey by asking the CPDs about the percent of effort dedicated to the CPD role. These results are presented in Figure 11. Two CPDs addressed this question specifically when listing the challenges of the CPD role:

“[This question] is a bit misleading because it assumes you actually are able to take time away from your professional/Specialist duties to be CPD. This is simply not the case. CPD is time added to your professional duties. I entered 25% as perhaps a measure of time, but this does not mean that for every 4 phone calls, emails, program requests I receive, I turn down 1 because I'm CPD.”

19

“Measuring CPD time in [this question] is not an accurate way to get a real figure. We are routinely expected to work 70 hours per week in some Extension capacity in our assigned region, so a more accurate measure would be hours per year. At a $1500 CPD stipend, our 'valuable managerial experience' is worth less than $2 per hour.”

Time management issues were identified by 20 CPDs as providing challenges to fulfilling the CPD role. These CPDs experienced difficulty in covering their responsibilities as Regional Specialists while also fulfilling their duties as a CPD. In addition to the following quotes, survey responses indicated that for most CPDs, being a CPD did little or nothing to enhance their role as a Regional Specialist, and at least somewhat constrained their ability to be an effective Regional Specialist (see Figure 12).

“You just do the tasks that the CPD role involves and then with your other program assignment you carry it out also—even if it means adding hours to the week. Tasks just keep being added to the CPD role and nothing is deleted.”

“Being CPD and still having to meet all of the programming expectations in addition, can really be challenging at times.”

“Time. Getting it all done. Maintaining programming while having to be administrator, too.”

“I find the demands of the CPD role, especially in this time of increased local fundraising, have had a definite impact on the time I can spend on my assigned program. Though I enjoy the CPD role, I believe it has affected my overall program performance in a negative way.”

“As CPD the challenges are immense. Juggling a full work load and then adding on the almost full‐time expectation of handling office functioning... CPD could be a full‐time job when you think about marketing, financial management, fiduciary resource development and working with an effective and informed council. However, this all gets weaved into a full programming load that is also heavy.”

“Balancing my CPD responsibilities and do Regional Specialist programming.”

0

5

10

15

20

25

No. o

f CPDs

Percent of Effort Devoted to CPD Role

Figure 11

20

One CPD specifically identified decreasing resources as leading to the time management challenges s/he experienced:

“Balance program‐specific performance expectations with the myriad of CPD responsibilities (some assigned, some 'as otherwise not assigned to anyone else'). This is becoming more and more challenging given staff vacancies throughout the region. Demand for Extension programming continues, but dedicated staff resources are becoming less and less—thus the CPD is looked to 'fill the gap' and provide MU Extension representation more and more.”

B. AdministrationandRelationshipwithMUCampus Several CPDs expressed that some aspects of their relationship with the organization’s administrative structure were challenging.

“Lack of support from administration in dealing with personnel issues. Fee generation as it relates to sending monies out of our county.”

“Columbia administrative interference”

“Some things come from administration that need to be completed and submitted in a short time frame which can get in the way of Regional Specialists' duties.”

“Perceived lack of importance or value of the CPD role projected by administration.”

Five CPDs identified a need for training, or were challenged by having little prior administrative experience. Not all of them viewed the administrative duties of the CPD position as welcome opportunities.

“I did not major in psychology or finance.”

“Learning Quickbooks”

“I took my current position as a specialist, and had no interest, nor any training in administration… I never even received any official notification of becoming CPD, I guess it was simply just assumed… When you consider that I’m not interested in administration, but am forced to deal with it for basically no pay, it is a bit hard to make the CPD role effective and enjoyable.”

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Not at all A little Neither constrains

nor enhances

Quite a bit

A great deal

CPD Role's Effect on Regional Specialist Role

Enhances

Constrains

Figure 12

21

C. ResponsibilityandAuthority At least 10 CPDs expressed frustration about their responsibilities to maintain an effective county office that provides effective programming to its clientele, yet not being part of an authority structure to help ensure other Extension Faculty and Staff complied with these needs.

“I think that you underestimated the responsibility of the CPD as an effective office manager. That is not to say the CPD should be doing the secretary's work, but the office responsibilities are many for a CPD. Working with the secretary on finances, performance evaluations, inter‐office logistics, etc.”

“All of the responsibility and none of the power”

“Tremendous responsibility with no authority”

“Getting co‐workers who are not directly responsible to me to see the broader mission of Extension and work beyond their narrowly focused subject matter areas and get involved in the community as a whole.”

“Not having a voice in supervising positions (YPA) where CPD is in the county but their supervisor is not and doesn't know what's happening.”

“Being expected to 'manage' programs while being responsible for conducting programs and having no real authority over regional staff. The reality is staff respond to their program director, which is the way it should be.”

“As CPD, I have never been asked by the Regional Director to provide input on County Specialist's job performance.”

VII. SummaryandConclusion The desired outcome of this survey process was to provide information to guide decision‐making regarding four key questions. This was accomplished by engaging a committee representing Administration, Human Resources, and the CPDs themselves. These are discussed below.

1. Are the functions of the CPD role being described properly? Many CPDs discussed time management as being a challenging issue. It was difficult for many of them to adequately fulfill their duties as Regional Specialists while also performing the additional duties of a CPD. Only one CPD mentioned “inconsistent expectations [and] poorly defined roles/expectations.” For the most part, few additional duties beyond the 38 questions were listed by the CPDs. Of the four issues that were mentioned, only one (Annual Reporting) was mentioned by more than one person.

2. Are CPDs being properly compensated? There was a disconnect between the amount of compensation the CPDs received ($1,000‐$2,000) and the worth they attributed to the CPD role (average of $4402; ranging from $0‐$15,000). The CPDs identified longer hours and a greater time commitment associated with the CPD role, which led some of them to question whether their compensation was adequate.

3. Are CPDs receiving proper training for the function they are fulfilling within the organization? Although this was not directly assessed by the CPD Survey, having adequate training emerged as a distinct challenge for many of the CPDs. Specifically, additional training on how to perform administrative duties was mentioned as a need.

22

4. Is the level of responsibility given to CPDs appropriate? The responsibility and accountability structure associated with the CPD role emerged as the greatest (i.e., most frequently mentioned) challenge described by the CPDs. They were frustrated by having the responsibility to assure quality programming was provided to clients in the county, yet not being part of an authority structure to help ensure other Extension Faculty and Staff complied with these needs.

County Program Directors fulfill a vital role within the MU Extension organization. This report

provides some insight on the experiences and felt responsibilities of those engaged in this role. Guided

by the findings of this study, in conjunction with other efforts, the functions associated with the CPD

position can be better understood and supported.

Documents

The Role Function of the County Program Director the ofextension.missouri.edu/staff/cpd_revitalization/CPD... · · 2011-08-03The Role and Function of the County Program Director