Introduction

In the summer of 2005, the Extension Committee
on Organization and Policy (ECOP) appointed a task
force representing the land-grant university system to focus
on measuring excellence in Extension.

The group was charged with:
• Identifying criteria that define excellence in Extension
• Determining the measures of those criteria
• Delineating the necessary methods for collecting the criteria
• Determining how to gain acceptance of the criteria and measures
by the Extension system

The task force, in turn, appointed a work group to proceed.
This group:

• Brainstormed what constitutes excellence in Extension
• Developed a matrix of the criteria of excellence
• Obtained feedback on criteria from directors and administrators at the regional level
• Engaged directors and administrators in determining priorities (national meeting, February 2006)

The work group then focused on the prioritized criteria for which measures were identified.

The Importance of Defining Excellence

Cooperative Extension is required to be accountable for the resources invested in the organization, and the managers of those resources are striving to continually improve the effectiveness of the entire organization. Key questions include:

• What constitutes excellence in an Extension organization?
• What are the criteria of excellence?
• How are these criteria measured?
• How do these criteria make Extension unique?

Cooperative Extension has advanced from merely reporting inputs and outputs to documenting outcomes and impacts of its programs. However, most of these measures are tied to specific programs. They are not generally assessed or considered at the organizational level.
Identifying criteria of overall excellence in Cooperative Extension is a valuable exercise for the Extension system as well as for individual institutions. This may be the first time that an effort to identify criteria of what constitutes excellence has been attempted at a national level. These criteria will enable the system to describe its strengths and differentiate itself from other agencies and organizations.

Criteria Matrix

The matrix for organizing the criteria is based on two conceptual frameworks. One uses the traditional academic language of universities.
The four categories of this first conceptual framework are:

• Teaching and learning
• Discovery and scholarship
• Engagement
• Management

This conceptual approach values the language of research and teaching faculty and university administrators.
The second categorical approach uses language that is more familiar to Extension personnel and supporters. The five categories are:

• University commitment to Extension
• Relevance of Extension programs
• Quality of Extension programs
• Outcomes and impacts
• Funding and external support

These two conceptual frameworks acknowledge the variation among Extension’s many partners and stakeholders as to how they perceive the value of Extension.
The task force and work group identified 61 criteria using the two-dimensional matrix. Based on the priorities expressed by directors and administrators, the number of criteria was reduced to 19, and seven were identified as the most important. The original 61 were retained because some may be useful to individual institutions.

Criteria Measures

Based on the matrix, measures were identified for high-priority criteria. Some of these measures are readily available from existing sources, while others will require extensive and expensive data collection efforts. The focus is on measures that are reasonable to collect without placing an undue burden on institutions; however, in some instances there is a need to conduct more extensive studies.
A useful product of this effort will be a set of uniform definitions for criteria and measures. Currently, institutions are using unique definitions that are rooted in history and tradition. As a result, aggregate measures and comparisons across institutions have been problematic.

Rationale for Measuring Excellence

Many states are being asked to identify indicators that represent the Extension effort and to be accountable for their accomplishments. The process of identifying these measures through a national effort assists individual institutions in their choice of metrics, gives credibility to the measures themselves, and encourages uniformity in measurement throughout Extension.
The criteria will be useful on an institutional, multi- institutional, and national level:

1. The criteria and measures identified will assist institutions as they identify indicators.
2. Consistent criteria will provide a basis for standardized comparisons with other institutions.
3. It will be possible to aggregate measures reported by all institutions to represent the Cooperative Extension system.

Targeted Audiences

Because the structure of Extension decision-making varies from state to state and institution to institution, potential target audiences vary. Suggested audiences include:
• Elected officials and funding units
• University administrators
• Internal Extension decision-makers
For example, in some states, decision-making that impacts Cooperative Extension occurs almost exclusively within the university administration. In others, Extension is accountable directly to state government. It is important to recognize that different types of information are more relevant to some audiences than to others.

National Database

In 2007, ECOP appointed an Implementation Team to proceed with establishing a national database. The database has been patterned after one developed by Texas Cooperative Extension under the leadership of the Association of Southern Region Extension Directors.

The Implementation Team has identified 42 measures that are grouped into the four categories of fiscal, personnel, programatic, and demographic metrics.
This effort will not duplicate the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) USDA reporting system. Institutions will enter their own data through password-protected access. The database will require maintenance, and a mechanism will be needed to make decisions about changes in indicators, which can be expected to evolve over time.

Introduction
Criteria and Measures Defined
Metrics Defined
Chart of Criteria of Excellence in Cooperative Extension (PDF)
Powerpoint
Booklet (PDF)
Pocket Card (PDF)

The members of the task force were Clyde Chesney, Nikki Conklin, Larry Cote, Elbert Dickey, Douglas Lantagne, Karyn Malinowski, Jacquelyn McCray, Ed Smith, Paul Warner, and Glen Whipple. The members of the work group were Usman Adamu, Thomas Archer, Charles Clark, Nikki Conklin, Scott Cummings, Nancy Franz, Susan James, William Miller, and Paul Warner. Staff support was provided by Linda Kay Benning and James Wade. Members of the Implementation Team are Usman Adamu, Thomas Archer, John Burton, Scott Cummings, Susan James, William Miller, Nick Place, Paul Warner, and Linda Kay Benning.