City council members' perception of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service

The problem addressed in this study was: How do city council members serving cities in Virginia with populations of 50,000 or more perceive Virginia Cooperative Extension Service programs and clientele as they relate to urban concerns? The study determined (1) council members' perception of priorities that should be given to specific agency programs and clientele, (2) whether there was agreement between their perception of current agency priorities and what its priorities should be, (3) their perception of the agency's contribution and how it could be increased, and (4) the influence the variables of size of city and the agency's method of entry had on council members' perception.

An ex post facto survey research design was utilized. The study population consisted of the total population of 78 council members serving the ten cities studied. Data were collected through individual structured interviews. The instrument solicited responses on Likert-type scales. One open-ended item solicited suggestions for increasing the agency's contribution. Primary analysis utilized descriptive statistics, Spearman rho rank order correlations, and chi-square tests of independence.

Council members were highly unfamiliar with Virginia Cooperative Extension Service programs and clientele. They were most unfamiliar with Technical Resources and Community Resource Development programs. Council members felt the agency was placing proper rank order priority on program content areas and clientele, with the following exceptions: (1) lower priority should be placed on farmers as a client group and on the 4-H content area of providing educational resources for other city youth organizations and (2) higher priority should be placed on the 4-H content area of developing skills through real life experiences with projects in various areas.

Members of council indicated that highest clientele priorities should be centered around youth, including problem youngsters, and other individual or social groups, including minorities, low income, homemakers, and senior citizens. High priority programs should center around conservation and concerns of families or family members. Relatively lower priority should be placed on business, industry, and government-related types of programs and clientele. The agency was perceived as making a contribution to urban citizens, but it was felt that the agency could increase its contribution by increasing publicity and public relations.

Size of city and method of entry appeared to influence council members' perception of certain clientele and content areas. Size of city most often influenced perception of agricultural clientele and programs. Method of entry appeared to have particular influence on the perceived scope of the agency.

Several conclusions were drawn that related to council members' perception of programs, clientele, and contribution. Council members have limited knowledge of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. However, they believe the agency and its programs are relevant to meeting the needs of urban residents. The agency seems to be closely identified with its initial method of entry into cities and that identity tends to persist. Council members believed that the agency's highest priorities should be given to assisting city residents with individual and social needs associated with urban living.