1. Lessons learned through restructuring
of Ohio State University Extension

2. Three areas to cover
The budget situation – the catalyst for restructuring
The process moving forward - strategies for obtaining input and support
Where we ended up

3. The budget situation Background
The college and Extension were gearing up to work on strategic planning
Extension funded a stakeholder survey to obtain information on the value of Extension for our stakeholders
The Fisher College of Business provided Extension a blueprint for reorganization to better serve the state and its various constituencies – economy, health and education, and urban focus
These studies were presented in the fall of 2007, and were being used to guide our strategic planning discussions which began in earnest in 2008

4. The budget situation History of cuts 2001 - level funding
2008 – 4.75% across the board cut in October - $1.25 million
2009 – 5.75% cut in January - $1.5 million – total $2.7 million
For the 2010 budget, a 10.9% cut was proposed, level funding
The Governor’s 2011 budget proposed another cut of 14.5%
1.5-3% salary increases annually

5. The budget situation The response
Focus turned from strategic planning to restructuring
Restructuring was fast-tracked
Task force (program leaders, faculty, department chairs, educators) formed to review different staffing models (for example regions versus counties, and to review program areas
Discussions started in March and were implemented in July
Talking points included acknowledgement that people would lose their jobs but we didn’t know who or how many

6. The process moving forward
Immediate steps needed to be taken to reduce spending
Executive Committee, Budget Committee, and Administrative Cabinet began conversations on options
Transparency and openness had to be balanced against the need to avoid panic in the organization
Budget information was shared at the annual conference
Steps taken to reduce spending – no international and out-of-state travel, current searches put on hold, open positions would not be filled, lowered the cap on educators (260 to 220, 180 minimum)
soft freeze was implemented on all positions
soft freeze – if money was available and position was critical, it could be filled

7. The process moving forward
Communication with our stakeholders was a priority
Briefings and updates were provided to:
- County Commissioners Association of Ohio – Agriculture Subcommittee and Executive Director
- Ohio Farm Bureau and Executive Director
- State Treasurer
- Chancellor, Ohio Board of Regents
- Budget and Agriculture subcommittees in the House and Senate
Held listening sessions at county visits which included County Commissioners and key county stakeholders

8. The process moving forward
Fiscal decisions to address the budget cuts:
Commitment to maintain staffing at 80%
Continued to provide innovation grant funds and OSU CARES funds to maintain motivation and incentives
Promoted growth in the “other funds” categories of cost recovery, grants, fees, contracts and gifts
Maintain the current balance of funding to the departments and the counties (% cuts were equal)
Maintain county funding ratio of 60 % state and 40% county
CARES - Community Access to Resources and Educational Services

9. The process moving forward
Other steps taken:
- Requested cash funds from the university (got $1m)
- Requested interest from county funds on deposit ($250k annually)
- Finalized the restructuring plan
- Picked up the strategic planning effort again after restructuring (restructuring was a part of the strategic plan)

10. Where we ended up The implementation
University and Extension HR staff conducted training for carrying out a Reduction in Force – 23 Educators, 22 staff
Decisions based on how program focus and specialization related to strategic plan, impact on age, race and gender, funding availability, and performance over a period of years
Impact area leaders would manage research, educational programming and grant writing in support of impact area work (positions not filled due to budget constraints)

11. Where we ended up The implementation
Maintained a presence in every county with a minimum of 1 Educator and 1 support staff FTE
Extension teams and Signature Program Teams would be supported to provide creative responses to critical issues and maximize outreach and impact.
Nine 9-12 county Extension Education and Research Areas were created to facilitate multi-county programming, supported by County Commissioners
All four program areas would be available in the EERAs
EERAs created program teams to ensure program access
RIF – decisions based on strategic needs based on strategic plan, specialization of individual and relationship to strategic plan, impact on affirmative action, funding availability, and performance over a period of several years

12. RIF – decisions based on strategic needs based on strategic plan, specialization of individual and relationship to strategic plan, impact on affirmative action, funding availability, and performance over a period of several years

13. Final thoughts
A tough situation and time that affected everyone throughout the organization
Communication was a major factor in helping to reduce anxiety
Soliciting input at various stages throughout the process proved to be extremely helpful
Keeping political leaders up to date and stressing our positive impacts on stakeholders proved to be invaluable
As evidence of this latter point, the Governor’s proposed 14.5% Extension cut in the 2011 budget was reversed by the legislature.
Legislature has not cut the budget since 1992.

14. PRESENTATIONS