Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extension Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSU Extension reports smaller overall numbers in FY24 after reduced U.S. Forest Service collaboration
Summary
MSU Extension told Wayne County commissioners its overall impact numbers fell by about 4,300 from FY23 to FY24, largely because expected programming in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service did not produce countable direct contacts; 4‑H participation rose while Master Gardener active rosters were cleaned.
Richard Wooten, director of MSU Extension, presented a comparison of fiscal‑year 2023 and 2024 activity reports and described staffing and partnership changes that explain the net decline.
Wooten said the extension’s total direct‑contact numbers were down by roughly 4,300 year‑over‑year. He told the committee this drop reflected reduced programming with a U.S. Forest Service partner: activities the forest service ran in 2024 were largely indirect (festivals, junior ranger programs) and did not involve extension staff, so those contacts could not be counted as MSU Extension direct contacts. Wooten said 4‑H participation increased even as total youth numbers fell and that the Master Gardener roster declined because the program removed volunteers who were no longer recording volunteer hours.
Wooten described program changes: more online course components for gardening education after staffing reductions, but plans to offer “watch parties” and some in‑person sessions to restore the social contact that had been lost. Commissioners asked for specifics about the change in the forest‑service relationship; Wooten said MSU Extension routinely offers the forest service flexibility and that the individual expected to be co‑located in the Detroit office did not work there for most of 2024, so the events the forest service ran were not recorded as MSU Extension direct contacts.
Wooten asked commissioners who did not receive the revised electronic annual report to contact his office; he said the office corrected district ZIP‑code errors and reissued the report.
No separate vote was taken on the presentation; the committee later moved to receive and file items 1–3 together and approved that motion.
