HomeMy WebLinkAbout952196.tiffCol
4:1?
University
CTI -6 al 9: 18
CLERIC
TCl THEELL
October 3, 1995
TO: Boards of County Commissioners
FROM: rvin L. Knox
Associate Provost for Agriculture
and Public Service
SUBJECT: Cooperative Extension 2000 Implementation
Cooperative Extension
Colorado State University
Office of the Director
1 Administration Building
Fort Collins. Colorado 80523-0002
(303) 491-6281
FAX (303) 491-6208
Milan A. Rewerts
Interim Director
Cooperative Extension
Enclosed for your information are two documents: "Cooperative Extension 2000: Charting a
Course for Change" and "Cooperative Extension 2000: Implementation Plan/Process." The first
document was sent to you earlier and is the basic conceptual document about proposed changes
for Cooperative Extension in Colorado. The second document describes and initiates the process
of implementing the recommendations contained in the CE2000 basic document. We shared this
implementation plan with Cooperative Extension staff at our state Extension forum last week.
We are sending a copy to you for your information and encourage you to discuss it with your
county Extension director. Milan will discuss the implementation plan with CCI's Ag and Rural
Affairs Committee on Friday, October 6.
Please note that the "implementation" document is in "draft" form. We want and need your input.
Furthermore, you will note that it is proposed to have county commissioners directly involved in
the implementation phase. Again, we anticipate your active participation in the process of
change.
We would be pleased to hear from you regarding your thoughts, concerns, and ideas regarding
implementation of the concepts contained herein. We look forward to hearing from you, and
maintaining and enhancing our partnership.
Enclosures
cc: County/Area Extension Directors
I
mi
i J E'y 952196
Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating.
Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination.
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 2000
Charting the Course for Change
by
Kirvin L. Knox
Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service
Colorado State University
June 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Page 1
DEFINING OUTREACH --A CONTEXT FOR CHANGE Page 1
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES Page 2
FUNDAMENTAL IMPERATIVES Page 3
AUDIENCES AND CONSTITUENTS Page 4
PRIORITY PROGRAM AREAS Page 5
SPECIAL CAMPUS PARTNERSHIPS Page 5
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE/CULTURE Page 6
PROGRAM DELIVERY MODELS Page 7
FUNCTIONS OF AGENTS, SPECIALISTS, AND ADMINISTRATORS Page 8
PROGRAM DELIVERY IMPERATIVES Page 9
4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: A SPECIAL CASE Page 11
TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Page 11
IMPACT OF SERVICE AREAS ON PROGRAM DELIVERY Page 12
FISCAL IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE Page 13
CONCLUSION Page 13
PARTIAL LIST OF RESOURCES USED IN PREPARING THIS DOCUMENT Page 14
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 2000
Charting the Course for Change
by
Kirvin L. Knox
Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service
June 1995
INTRODUCTION
Significant demographic, cultural, social, economic, and global changes that have occurred
primarily during the past three decades have had dramatic impact across Colorado and the
country, and, to a lesser degree, our nation's academic institutions.
New realities that result from the dynamic, changing environment in which all elements of
society must function cannot be ignored. As with other organizations, Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension must ensure that our organizational culture is capable of dealing with a
rapidly changing world. In the words of the sage philosopher Wayne Gretsky, "To succeed, you
must skate to where the puck is going to be."
For Cooperative Extension to skate to the puck --that is, remain relevant to those it serves --it must
continue to evolve. It must assess its relationships with those it serves in order to help society
move successfully into the next century. And it must examine, renew, and fortify its relationship
with the University if it is to continue to respond successfully to the needs of today's complex
society --a society that is bombarded with conflicting and often unscientific information.
The plan that follows will serve as the road map to get us "to where the puck is going to be."
DEFINING OUTREACH --A CONTEXT FOR CHANGE
Outreach is defined as University -sponsored education and technology -transfer activities that
occur off campus, outside the formal degree -granting process. Employing a variety of delivery
methods and settings, outreach is an integral part of the broader University mission that catalyzes
the flow of research -based knowledge to individuals, businesses, and communities.
For purposes of this document, outreach does not include service on University, local
community, or professional committees.
Cooperative Extension functions within the confines and context of institutional outreach, which
is one of three primary responsibilities of the land-grant university. Cooperative Extension is
one of several organizations within the University that delivers outreach educational programs.
1
Unlike any other outreach unit within the land-grant university, however, Cooperative Extension
is established through statute and funded through a unique partnership involving federal, state,
and county -appropriated resources.
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
The primary goal of Extension education is to create a sustainable system that empowers people
--through the use of research -based information, education, training, and technology transfer --to
find solutions to critical personal, community, institutional, public, and private issues and
problems. Underlying this goal is a commonly held set of values and principles, which includes:
• priority programs based on demonstrated consumer needs and scientific
investigation;
complete and easy access to University resources irrespective of consumers'
economic or social status or cultural, ethnic, or geographic factors;
• quality programs that uphold the highest ethical and academic standards;
• interdisciplinary perspectives in programs and delivery;
• partnerships with public and private entities to design, develop, and implement
programs;
• outreach as a two-way exchange of knowledge, ideas, and vision between the
University and society;
• respect for diversity in ideas, cultures, and experiences of consumers and those
who deliver programs;
• education as a tool to empower people to understand, assuage, and/or solve
problems;
• academic freedom within the framework of responsibility to society;
• outreach as the responsibility of every faculty member and an integral part of the
University commitment to society;
• incorporating appropriate technologies in program design, development, and
delivery to increase access and program quality;
programs with definable and measurable outcomes that can be completed within
specific time frames and/or transferred to other public and private institutions and
agencies, as appropriate;
where possible, program cost -sharing and/or programs that generate income to
offset costs and establish consumer value; and
valuing volunteers because they enrich and enhance program delivery and
multiply professional efforts to increase and extend program impact.
2
FUNDAMENTAL IMPERATIVES
Cooperative Extension was created in 1914 to meet a set of clearly articulated needs and
objectives. The record of accomplishment through much of the twentieth century is impressive.
Cooperative Extension is an essential and valued component of the University precisely because
it can deliver consumer -responsive informal education; is a significant conduit for research,
technology, and information transfer to targeted constituents; and remains an impressively
effective youth- and family -development organization.
The primary objective of the changes outlined in this document is to reclaim Cooperative
Extension's primary role of taking the University to the people of Colorado to help them solve
priority problems.
If Cooperative Extension is to reclaim its primary role in outreach at Colorado State University,
several actions must be taken.
1. The University must:
• commit intellectual and financial resources to externally identified issues of
economic and social importance;
reaffirm and assert its franchise to conduct outreach programs for the citizens of
Colorado;
• integrate outreach with teaching and research as basic and coequal
responsibilities;
• recognize that outreach, through Cooperative Extension and other University
units, is a fundamental responsibility of every faculty member and every
academic and related support unit;
support, in substantive ways, interdisciplinary and cross -unit efforts and the
development of partnerships with public and private organizations;
establish outreach accountability and performance criteria for the University
community; and
develop a reporting mechanism to ensure that public and elected officials support
outreach in its various forms.
2. Cooperative Extension must:
• develop active partnerships with academic units, the Division of Continuing
Education, the Office of Instructional Services, the Agricultural Experiment
Station, appropriate institutes, centers, and other University service units;
• establish interdisciplinary -team mechanisms to deliver informal education, as well
as information and technology -transfer programs;
• foster program spinoffs to private and public sectors;
3
• develop and empower personnel to function not only as professional educators but
also information brokers;
• focus on constituent groups with high -priority needs that can be impacted by
University outreach programs;
• develop consumer -driven programs on discrete time lines;
• adopt a "service -area" approach rather than an "individual -centered" approach to
program development and delivery;
• concentrate program efforts on clear, focused, and limited issues;
• develop outcomes -based evaluations for all program efforts;
• enhance and increase involvement of volunteers; and
• serve as a communications link between the University and the people to ensure
that emerging issues are identified early.
AUDIENCES AND CONSTITUENTS
Programs and resources will follow priority needs within the context of the University's mission
and human resources. Within the context of broad University parameters, Cooperative Extension
will sharply focus programs and resources. Human and fiscal resources preclude an agenda that
addresses all or even a majority of the possible issues.
Given the current and projected human and fiscal resource base, Cooperative Extension will have
primary University outreach responsibility for rural Colorado and the agricultural industries, and
a highly targeted responsibility for urban populations.
The reason for such a differentiation resides in the fact that rural communities, in contrast to
urban areas, are generally underserved. Rural residents and communities are least able to address
priority economic and educational issues. Population densities preclude economical access to
critical goods and services that would enable rural Coloradans to address fundamental economic
development and other basic needs.
Agriculture is one of Colorado's top three economically important entities. Yet it is not an
industry dominated by one or two producers; rather, it is comprised of tens of thousands of
relatively small entrepreneurial and family -owned operations. Capital requirements are large,
and return on investment is low; thus, private capital available for research and development is
severely limited. A safe, varied, abundant, and affordable food supply is a public priority, as is a
production system that is environmentally sound. Yet the research, development, and outreach
required to ensure a safe, abundant, affordable food supply cannot be assured without public
funding. We, as a country, have determined that to leave the research, development, and
outreach base of the food supply solely to the private sector is neither wise nor warranted. It is
critical that the public good, rather than solely private gain, be the motivating force behind
research, development, and outreach directed at food production, processing, and distribution.
4
Furthermore, agriculture is important as it utilizes a large share of the state's land and other
natural resources. Colorado State University, as the state's land-grant institution, is uniquely
qualified and able to help production agriculture entities and rural communities address priority
needs.
PRIORITY PROGRAM AREAS
Cooperative Extension, as the major University outreach organization, will define its program
areas with precision and focus only on those areas of greatest priority and identified need. Those
areas have been identified as:
• Sustainable and profitable agriculture (including the green industry);
• Value-added agricultural enterprises;
• 4-H youth development;
• Family, health, and consumer education; and
• Environmental and natural resource management.
SPECIAL CAMPUS PARTNERSHIPS
As the major University outreach unit, Cooperative Extension is a conduit for research/science-
based information. In this capacity, it must rely on special associations with and access to
academic and research units, as well as strong reliance on service units to provide expertise,
advice, and counsel on program delivery, evaluation, and content. The following are included in
those special relationships:
1. The Division of Continuing Education has an important role to play in the future
of Cooperative Extension. Many program activities and issues can and should be
addressed using off -campus learning approaches and technologies. Cooperative
Extension already delivers many high -quality, noncredit education and training
programs to target audiences. Access to current and future programs will increase
and/or enhance an active partnership with DCE. Furthermore, DCE has
experience, skills, and knowledge that can be accessed to better market, organize,
and evaluate content and delivery of off -campus, noncredit programs.
2. The Office of Instructional Services has a long history of using innovative
communication technologies to deliver educational programs off campus. It has
been aggressive and successful in adopting new technologies and presentation
formats. Cooperative Extension will develop a special partnership with OIS to
serve as technical adviser and co -implementor of electronic communications with
off -campus Extension offices and for off -campus distance learning through
telecommunications.
5
3. The Agricultural Experiment Station has had a long and successful history of
focusing research on Colorado issues, and an association with Cooperative
Extension in the delivery of programs impacting Colorado agricultural and related
industries. Within the priorities identified and where common geographical
interests exist, those relationships will be strengthened.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE/CULTURE
The principles and assumptions underlying this new organizational culture include:
1. Establishing a single advisory council. The director will have a single advisory
council representing internal and external constituents from major program areas
and volunteer -based programs. The advisory council will have a charter that
defines its role, responsibilities, and term limits of members. Terms of service
will not exceed six years or three consecutive two-year terms. The council will
provide policy and program -priority advice rather than management oversight.
Each regional service area will have a similarly constituted representative
advisory council to provide program -priority advice and counsel.
2. Merging.public relations/communications and technology functions. Outreach
Relations, Computer Applications, and Marketing will be merged into an
Outreach Communications unit. Coordination and collaborative links between
Outreach Communications and University Public Relations, the Office of
Instructional Services, and the Division of Continuing Education will be firmly
established, supported, and strengthened by specific agreements.
Merging staff will streamline production processes, information flow and
distribution, and program and organizational marketing functions. Such a merger
also will consolidate administrative functions in those units, resulting in cost
savings.
3. Establishing Regional Outreach Extension/Research Service Areas. Regional
Outreach Extension and Research Service Areas will coordinate and house, where
appropriate, Cooperative Extension, Agricultural Experiment Station, Colorado
State Forest Service, and Division of Continuing Education personnel. This will
move the organization to an issues -based model that crosses/transcends county
lines.
A five-year implementation time line is proposed because numerous logistical and
philosophical realities must be addressed prior to full implementation.
6
4. Locating central Extension administration in a single facility. Centrally locating
Extension administration in a single facility will lead to greater sharing of staff
and increase communications across administrative and functional lines.
5. Flattening and reducing the administrative structure. Flattening the administrative
structure will reduce the number of line administrators between agents and
administration and encourage field staff to coordinate with department chairs.
In effect, this would remove at least one layer of administration and empower
agents to innovate, initiate, and assume full responsibility for program
implementation, thus increasing efficiency and improving timeliness of decision -
making and program delivery.
A reduction in administrators and support staff will be achieved, resulting in the
reallocation of resources for program implementation.
PROGRAM DELIVERY MODELS
Problem solving often requires many specifically trained individuals from several disciplines to
effectively address contemporary issues. This calls for a new paradigm in program delivery.
The interdisciplinary team approach to Extension programming has been tested by Colorado
State faculty and Extension agents. The first model was the Integrated Resource Management
Team, which was developed to address systemic issues in the Colorado cattle industry. That
model has been replicated to address other issues and adopted elsewhere as an extremely
effective approach to problem solving. This approach requires broad ownership and
commitment across several disciplines, often across several colleges. The fundamental
requirement is an outreach commitment that transcends colleges, departments, and disciplines.
Often these disciplines have had scant official connection with Cooperative Extension per se and
no direct support by CE resources.
The interdisciplinary -team paradigm will become the basic functional program -delivery model of
Cooperative Extension. Key to the implementation of such a model are:
• identification of issues/problems that are amenable to such an approach;
consumer need, as identified by a partnership of professionals and users, with
clear distinction between "needs" and "wants";
• evidence that users recognize the priority need and are ready to collaborate with a
team to address well-defined goals/objectives;
well-defined and clearly identifiable outcomes;
• well -trained, organized, and goal -oriented teams with supportive/facilitative
leadership;
time lines for program transition and closure; and
exploration of new funding structures, including fee -for -service models.
7
FUNCTIONS OF AGENTS, SPECIALISTS. AND ADMINISTRATORS
Field agents function as information/education brokers and facilitators. In this capacity, they:
• are a conduit for specific information and education delivery;
• initiate, facilitate, and broker outreach to citizens;
• are empowered to be the "eyes and ears" and sometimes the spokespeople for
outreach programs;
• function as ambassadors for Colorado State University outreach, including
Cooperative Extension;
through organized and scientific processes, identify priority issues to be addressed
on a local or regional basis;
function as team/group leaders or participants in resulting program
implementation; and
function as subject -matter experts in defined areas or programs.
Extension specialists will continue to provide subject -matter training to agents based on priority
program needs driven at the service -area level.
Specialists also will serve on interdisciplinary teams as appropriate, and will provide on -site
support for educational programs that support priority needs.
In addition, specialists will work with department chairs to identify appropriate resident
instruction faculty to serve on interdisciplinary teams in the event that the specialist does not
possess the necessary subject -matter expertise.
In effect, every faculty member is a specialist who can bring expertise to bear on program
development and delivery. In areas where long-standing needs exist, departments will be
charged with delivery of human resources to address Extension outreach needs. The University's
commitment to institutional outreach will allow Extension to tap appropriate human resources or
contract with them for program delivery.
Administrators provide organizational and support services to implement, monitor, and report on
programs and their delivery. Agents and others will be empowered to innovate, initiate, and
conduct priority programs.
The primary function of administration will be to serve and facilitate agents and specialists to
help them deliver high -quality, timely and relevant educational programs based on locally driven,
high -priority needs.
8
PROGRAM DELIVERY IMPERATIVES
Cooperative Extension will experience fundamental changes in the way it conducts business.
Some of these cultural shifts have already occurred; in other cases, function and process changes
are underway. Nevertheless, several alterations in the way functions are implemented merit
attention.
1. Program delivery through team efforts. Program delivery will be team oriented.
Team members and leaders will depend on the issue, need, and subject matter.
Leadership and subject -matter expertise will not be limited to current or historical
participation. Agents, administrators, faculty, volunteers, and individuals from
the private sector may participate if their experience, expertise, and motivation are
appropriate.
2. Departmental participation in Extension outreach. Departments will be actively
involved in implementing outreach programs. In major areas of need, e.g., the
colleges of Agricultural Sciences, Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences,
and Applied Human Sciences, Extension responsibilities will be handled by
departmental assignments of faculty and other resources to deliver programs
within the paradigms described herein. Cooperative Extension will negotiate and
provide appropriate resources to fund projects and/or programs that involve
resident faculty.
3. A more clearly defined role for field agents. Agents will become brokers,
catalysts, and facilitators, as well as experts who function as part of an
interdisciplinary team to deliver educational programs. Agents, in conjunction
with local residents, will have primary responsibility for determining, within
defined areas or programs, priority projects to be initiated; garner public and
private intellectual resources to formulate program content and delivery structure;
participate in and, in some cases, lead the process at all levels; evaluate programs;
and close out programs. Programs will be implemented on a service -area or
issues basis and will not necessarily be defined by county lines. This will require
strong communication and networks between traditional county authorities and
the University.
4. Greater constituent responsibility for program outcomes. Greater responsibility
for outcomes will be placed in the hands of consumers/constituents. Rather than
solving users' problems directly, Cooperative Extension will empower people and
communities through education, training, and motivation to solve problems for
themselves.
5. Consulting. Accessing faculty and other expertise across the University
undoubtedly will uncover consulting opportunities for faculty. As teams of
individuals engage in outreach projects that solve problems and envision specific
9
outcomes, it will be only natural for communities and individuals to seek
additional input beyond the scope of the program/project. Traditionally, these
additional commitments have been addressed through a consulting agreement
between individual faculty and private or public entities. Although consulting is a
legitimate faculty activity within University guidelines and when approved by the
University, such activities often cause confusion and can result in a conflict of
interest, or the appearance thereof, on the part of the faculty. Consistent with
University policy, outreach team members will be prohibited from engaging in
consulting arrangements with program users during the time of their active
participation and for a period following the completion of the project.
6. Funding structures. In the formulation of programs and projects, funding will be
part of project development. All permutations of existing and new funding
mechanisms will be considered. Some existing and new programs will
appropriately be fully underwritten by federal, state, local, or grant resources, or a
combination thereof. Conversely, some programs will be fully self-supporting or
conducted on a fee -for -service basis.
7. Partnerships and program participants. Although expertise and leadership will
originate at the University, ample opportunities exist for partnerships with other
educational institutions (community colleges and four-year institutions) and
publicly supported agencies, as well as private citizens and businesses. Public -
private partnerships will be encouraged, where appropriate. Furthermore,
program activities are appropriate vehicles to engage student participation and
intemships. These resources not only extend capacity but enculturate a new
generation to public service and outreach, and serve as a training ground for the
next generation of Extension professionals.
8. Outcomes -based Program Evaluation. In order for Cooperative Extension to be
effective in its efforts to demonstrate and articulate the success of its programs,
and, indeed, the organization, it is imperative that all programs be evaluated based
on specific, measurable educational objectives identified during the
developmental stages of program planning. Evaluations will ensure that the
organization effectively and consistently meets or exceeds educational objectives
established for individual Extension programs. In addition, evaluations will be
shared with internal and external stakeholders as part of the data base used for
determining program effectiveness and success. Evaluations also will be used by
Outreach Communications to strategically disseminate information about program
successes to specific target audiences, including decision makers who determine
funding levels for Cooperative Extension.
10
4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: A SPECIAL CASE
In the fall of 1993, the Colorado 4-H Youth Development Program was reviewed by an external
team. The resulting report made important recommendations that deserve serious attention.
Furthermore, within the context of this plan, 4-H youth programs will be addressed within the
framework of the "Family Issues" priority. Consistent with review -team recommendations and
those in this proposal, a clear strategic plan will be developed to strengthen and expand 4-H
youth development, guide it into the next century and beyond, and ensure that it continues to
serve the young people of this state by helping them grow to responsible and productive
adulthood and citizenship. At a minimum, the 4-H youth -development strategic plan will:
define the role and expectations of the 4-H agent;
plan for parent and volunteer training that addresses cultural sensitivity and
functional roles;
utilize existing and new conduits to access low-income and ethnically diverse
populations;
establish access channels and mechanisms for consumers (children/youth) to
impact program content and delivery, as well as governance policies and
practices;
contract with the College of Applied Human Sciences to be the primary academic
resource for program innovation, planning, and implementation;
develop outcomes -based objectives and plans for evaluation and documentation of
impact;
establish clear administrative and programming policies and procedures,
articulated in bylaws, that cover administrators, agents/leaders, volunteer leaders,
students, and advisory board members;
reduce bureaucracy, empower agents to function as youth -development
professionals, and hold agents accountable for program outcomes;
define metro service area(s);
develop a strategy to expand the 4-H "image" beyond the traditional club
programs to appeal to a broader segment of today's youth population;
include a strategy to design and implement youth -development programs for
underserved children; and
work with other youth -development agencies and programs on campus to
encourage interdisciplinary training and program development.
TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The future of Cooperative Extension is closely linked with its ability and commitment to adopt
modern technological approaches to program delivery and communications strategies. This is
particularly critical for these reasons:
11
1. Distance learning and communications are time -sensitive. In a state as large and
geographically diverse as Colorado, telecommunications technology is the only
way to effectively deliver many of our "products" to Extension clients in a timely
manner.
2. The logistical costs of moving personnel within a state as large as Colorado
precludes historical ways of delivering many of the educational and
communications products emanating from current programs.
3. Extension no longer can afford to deliver programs on a "one-on-one" basis. In
this economy, many users of programs and information do not have the luxury of
attending field days and sifting through long reports. The adoption and use of
appropriate technology will eliminate many of these barriers and expand the
capacity to deliver programs that are more accessible, user friendly, and high
quality.
Adopting technology has been hampered by many factors, not the least of which is lack of
resources. Representatives from Cooperative Extension, the Agricultural Experiment Station, the
Colorado State Forest Service, Continuing Education, the Office of Instructional Services, the
College of Agricultural Sciences, and the College of Applied Human Sciences currently are
developing a comprehensive outreach technology plan that will identify the most critical
technology needs, recommend strategies for acquiring communications technology hardware and
software, address personnel -training needs, and recommend specific strategies to implement the
most critical components of the plan relative to program delivery.
Further, Extension will reallocate or garner new resources, funds equivalent to one percent of its
budget (about $200,000) per year for a minimum of five years, to address the "technology gap."
Additionally, resources will be set aside for innovation and adoption of new technologies.
IMPACT OF SERVICE AREAS ON PROGRAM DELIVERY
Historically, programming has been constructed according to county -based needs, which ensured
that local needs were addressed and that program priorities reflected local input. Furthermore,
much of the expertise resided within Cooperative Extension and thus was available to meet high -
priority county needs. County -based program delivery is becoming increasingly inefficient and
ineffective in terms of human and fiscal resource management, timeliness, and relevance to target
audiences.
Today's issues and problems are complex and require specialized and often expensive expertise;
thus, counties operating solely through the Extension agent often are unable to respond as
effectively as counties that draw on a variety of resources.
12
1. Regional Service Areas: Advantages to counties. Co -location and coordination
of regional Extension, research, and outreach functions provides an improved
basis for flexible and responsive programming. Cost -containment is realized
because of shared staff, facilities, and technical costs. Co -location also provides
the critical mass of University personnel that will help ensure quality and access
to technical, educational, research, and outreach resources.
2. Service Areas: Disadvantages to counties. Inevitably, there will be reduced
county -based identification and ownership of certain programs and activities.
Establishing service areas will require greater coordination and collaboration
among county governments and may require "regionalized" approaches to
payments and programs. Physical access and convenience may be impacted, as
there will be greater reliance on technology -based access.
FISCAL IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
It is anticipated that the organizational changes outlined in this plan will be accomplished
primarily by reallocation of the existing Cooperative Extension resource base. Direct costs of
accessing intellectual resources across campus will be supported by reallocation within the
University. In some cases, it will be appropriate to seek foundation or other non -tax funding in
support of certain activities, technology, and developmental experiments. The changes will
result in an organization that expands its impact through greater use of technology and is less
dependent on personnel. Currently, Extension personnel costs consume more than 80 percent of
the budget. To accomplish the changes presented in this plan, a greater portion of the budget will
be devoted to operations and support. The goal is to allot a minimum of 35 percent of the budget
to non -personnel costs.
CONCLUSION
The structural changes outlined in this document are intended to support a change in culture --
change that will create the opportunity for Cooperative Extension to build on the strengths that
have made it successful for more than 80 years. If we are serious about new ways of funding,
marketing, and delivering our programs, we can revitalize a proactive organization that meets the
needs of today's society and makes a significant impact on the critical issues facing this country.
We can build a foundation for a stronger, more effective Extension system for the future of
generations to come. The future of this great organization rests in our hands.
13
PARTIAL LIST OF RESOURCES USED IN PREPARING THIS DOCUMENT
• "The Agricultural and Outreach Agenda at Colorado State University for the Year
2000 and Beyond," December 1992, (a conversation with the people of Colorado).
• "Review of the Colorado 4-H Youth Development Program," October 1993.
• "Reorganization of Cooperative Extension, Select Committee Report," August
1994.
• "Moving to Higher Ground," July 1994.
• "Strategic Framework for the Future of the Cooperative Extension System,"
USDA/ES Draft Document, 1994.
• "The New Political Economy of Extension Education for Agriculture and Rural
Communities." G. R. McDowell, 1992. Invited paper, Annual Meeting of
American Agricultural Economics Association, Baltimore, MD, August 1992.
• "Summaries of COTT Working Group Sessions: COTT Summer Strategic
Working Conference," June 8-10, 1994, Minneapolis, MN.
• "Learning to Collaborate Between Agents and Specialists/Campus Faculty."
Loveridge, S., Claudia Parliament, G.W. Morse, Liz Templin, Sue Engelmann,
and R. Elmstrand. 1994. Choices, Second Quarter, pp. 36-37, "Revitalizing
Specialist -Agent Collaboration in Extension Education."
• "The Renaissance of Outreach in the Land -Grant Tradition." Albert C. Yates,
Seaman Knapp Memorial Lecture, NASULGC Board of Agriculture Plenary
Session, November 7, 1994.
14
COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION
Charting the Course for Change!
2000
Cooperative Extension 2000:
Implementation Plan/Process
Kirvin L. Knox
Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service
University
Cooperative
Extension
DRAFT
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 2000: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/PROCESS
PREAMBLE. We see change all around us, and the call for still further change echoes
loudly. Even a cursory examination of the history of Cooperative Extension reveals that
enormous change has occurred in every decade of the more than 80 years of its
existence. The clear message heard throughout Extension today is that we are ready and
excited about change. Let's get on with it!
THE CASE FOR CHANGE. What is driving change in Extension? Initially, Extension
was the preeminent and primary provider of technical information; not so today. The
world and realities that existed when the Extension system was created are vastly
different now, and that is the framework in which we must function. Our system has not
changed sufficiently or appropriately to best function in the context of new and evolving
public expectations.
Although agricultural and family needs are much broader and more diverse than those
outlined in Extension's original charter, common objectives continue to exist. Providing
technical, informational, and educational assistance to improve agricultural production via
the application of science continues to be in demand. Technology transfer, youth and
family development were all part of a "social contract" that had roots in Roosevelt's New
Deal era. Family and youth services were prime examples of commitment to better the
lives of Americans, especially those in rural areas. As society became more complex and
the economy specialized, the pace of change increased. It seems that three fundamental
issues are the underlying forces that drive the need for Extension to change:
1. Agriculture is in the midst of a major transformation from how to produce
more to how to produce more efficiently in an evermore competitive and
global market. Agricultural production systems must be economically
profitable, while at the same time environmentally compatible and socially
acceptable. The primacy of the consumer is recognized and is driving the
need to find new products, add value to existing products, and do so with
fewer inputs such as water and chemicals. Resources such as land, public
and private, must be managed to sustain or increase productivity without
adversely affecting the environment. Survival of the family farm in the
midst of corporate concentration and industrialization of agriculture is a
major and relatively new challenge. Competition for resources such as
capital, land, water, technology, and management expertise continues to
intensify as urbanization and growth continue unabated.
2. Many families are in crisis and in need of new tools --economic, technical,
and social --to survive in an economy that is uncertain and subject to daily
change. Although there is much public rhetoric about the need for
functional families, much has changed to alter the family unit, e.g., new
family structures, the need for two incomes, and the loss of basic domestic
skills.
3. Extension functions in an environment of evermore limited resources. In
Colorado, Extension budgets have decreased in real terms for more than a
2
decade. Extension has no choice but to reflect the highest priorities of its
constituents, and it is clear that only some of the priority issues can be
addressed. It is imperative that Extension be an effective and valued
provider of relevant educational programs; otherwise, we will not compete
successfully for public funds. To demonstrate effectiveness, Extension must
adopt objective criteria to measure program impact. If a program doesn't
make a demonstrable difference, it should be discontinued. If a program
cannot prove its effectiveness, it won't be valued and, therefore, public
support will diminish.
In order for Extension to continue its successful tradition of empowering people to lead
better lives, it must find its market niche, which means greater focus on fewer but highly
targeted programs, broaden its base of economic support with an even more focused
agenda, increase its use of technology to deliver programs, become more efficient at
program delivery, develop objective methods of determining and demonstrating program
effectiveness and impact, spin off successful programs to public and/or private entities,
and empower agents at the local level to innovate and be creative, especially in needs
assessment, program development, objective documentation of effectiveness, and
program close-out.
If change is to be effective and long lasting, it must be made from top to bottom and
bottom to top within the organization, tested by having stakeholders participate in the
process, implemented quickly, owned by all levels of the organization, and be credible --
with rapidly evident results.
3
"Cooperative Extension 2000: Charting the Course for Change" contains the concepts
and context for change. The action step is implementation. Many people --staff and
customers-- were involved in validating the context for change. These and other people
need to be involved in developing the implementation steps to achieve a changed
organization, one that meets the needs of its constituents for the beginning of the twenty-
first century and beyond.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS.
• Resources for implementation will come mostly from reallocation of existing
resources from county, state, and federal partners. Regional technology needs will
be addressed centrally via reallocation of existing resources and extramural grants.
• Regional administration structures, priority programs, and regional partners may
be different from region to region.
• CSU CE administration will be responsible for addressing cross -cutting needs such
as communications technology and technical support via "specialists" after regional
needs are identified.
• There will be fewer programs, but those remaining will have clear focus and time
lines.
• Constituents will be clearly identified.
• The county/state/federal partnership will be valued.
• Collaboration will be the norm, and duplication will be eliminated.
• The focus will be on information/education, not administration.
4
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
Technology. A technology plan for CE has been developed. That plan should be
considered by each implementation team. The technology plan is a resource and may be
modified depending on need. Coordination Team V, identified below, will recommend
the elements, priorities, and time lines for implementation of technology goals for the
whole of CE.
4-H Youth Development. A statewide review of 4-H youth development programs was
conducted in 1993. Each team will use the review as a priority consideration in the
implementation plans they develop. The specific action items from the review are to be
incorporated into the individual strategies.
Fundamental questions to be asked/considered by all Implementation Strategy Teams:
1. Who is the customer? Who values programs?
2. How will priority needs of clients be best met?
3. Who determines program and focus priorities?
4. How are program priorities validated?
5. What is the most efficient strategy to implement and eliminate programs?
6. How are programs to be funded?
7. How are program impact and effectiveness measured?
5
IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS.
I. Regions: Regional Outreach Extension Service Areas Team. Five teams will be
organized to develop a strategic plan for each of the proposed regions (see attached).
Each team will have up to 10 people, representing potential partners, constituents,
Extension staff, and county commissioners. One team head will be designated as the
Team I liaison to the Coordination Team (Team V).
Team I imperatives:
1. Validate "regions" (number of regions, counties included within identified
regions). The proposed regional centers are Greeley, Golden, Alamosa,
Pueblo, and Grand Junction.
2. Define/identify constituent priority needs, considering all dimensions of
diversity of the region (no more than 5-10 broad areas).
3. Identify existing or needed programs to address priority needs (needs that
cannot be met or are being addressed by another agency should be
identified, too).
4. Identify other organizations (ARS, community colleges, state, federal, and
private agencies, etc.) in the region with which Extension can partner to
meet identified priority needs (any impediments to such partnerships would
need to be identified).
5. Identify the administrative construct needed to implement regional
strategies that foster coordination with/among county Extension offices,
designate subregions where appropriate, determine a time line for
implementation of regional administrative structure, outline
communications and information technological needs, and consider co -
6
location and coordination possibilities with the Colorado Agricultural
Experiment Station and/or Colorado State Forest Service.
6. Develop communication and marketing strategies to inform constituents,
locally and at CSU, of program activities, successes, and changes.
7. Identify resources, existing or new, needed to implement regional
plans/strategies. If new resources are needed, develop plans to garner
those resources.
8. Determine advisory -board needs for regions and/or counties.
9. Value county/state/federal partnerships.
10. Focus on information/education, not administrative structures.
11. Keep collaboration and cooperation as benchmarks.
12. Eliminate program duplication and/or overlaps.
13. Determine program delivery and communications technology needs.
Time line:
Identification of team: October 15, 1995
Receipt of implementation plan: January 1, 1996
Persons responsible: Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service, CE director,
others as designated
Expected outcome: An outline/description of regional Extension that includes program
priorities, and an implementation strategy which defines the central
CE/regional/county model
7
II. Central Administration Team. A team of three persons has been identified to
recommend an appropriate administrative structure for CSU CE central administration.
The team (a professor of management in the College of Business, the deputy manager of
the City of Fort Collins, and an executive from Hewlett Packard) will examine current
structures and functions and recommend or suggest new constructs for CE
administration, including identification of appropriate support units (technology,
communications, marketing, fiscal, and technical) and personnel needs for central
Extension to implement CE 2000.
Team II imperatives:
1. Keep Central Administration to a minimum; reallocate any "savings" to
regional, county, or specialist needs.
2. Determine how Central Administration can best serve the needs of the
regions, counties, and specialists. Make its orientation "service and
facilitation."
3. Eliminate duplicated functions; streamline reporting, accountability, and
communications.
4. Explicitly define the roles and functions of administrative personnel.
5. Identify technology needs for enhanced administrative support.
Time line:
Identification of team: September 1, 1995
Receipt of implementation plan/report: December 15, 1995
Persons responsible: Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service, CE director
Expected outcome: Organization chart and description of function and service
expectations
8
III. Extension Agent Role and Responsibilities Team. A team of five persons will be
named to examine the role and responsibilities of extension field agents. Definitions are
to include responsibilities as information and education brokers, subject -matter
specialists, and their linkage with and relationship to on -campus specialists and
departments. Team members will include two extension field agents, a county
commissioner, a specialist, and a department head.
Team III imperatives:
1. Define the field agent's role and function as education broker, subject -
matter specialist, and outreach representative.
2. Define the field agent's role as University "ambassador."
Time line:
Identification of team: October 15, 1995
Receipt of implementation plan/report: December 15, 1995
Persons responsible: Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service, CE director
Expected outcome: A report defining roles and functions of field agents
IV. Extension Specialist Resources Team. A team of five persons will be identified to
examine the role of campus -based specialists, their organization and function(s) vis-a-vis
regional and local program needs. Team membership will include a department head, a
specialist, a non -CE faculty member, and two field agents.
9
Team IV imperatives:
1. Define roles of specialists within departments and within CE.
2. Identify models to deliver programmatic and informational support to
regional and local CE agents.
3. Identify support systems within departments, CE, across colleges, and the
University system required to implement interdisciplinary, collaborative
support to regional and local Extension programs.
4. Identify impediments to implementation of CE 2000.
5. Identify program and communication technology needs.
Time line:
Identification of team: October 15, 1995
Receipt of plan: January 1, 1996
Persons responsible: Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service, CE director,
deans, department heads
Expected outcome: A document defining of the role and responsibilities of specialists
vis-a-vis
department, campus, regional, and county program needs
V. Coordination Team. A team of six persons will serve as a team to coordinate and
integrate the implementation of CE 2000. Each team identified above will work
independently; thus, the coordinating team will oversee each of the CE 2000
implementation teams. One member each from Teams I -IV, the CE director, and the
CAES director will coordinate the various implementation plans and strategies.
10
Team V imperatives:
1. Use the fundamental objectives outlined in CE 2000 to guide the
development of an integrated plan.
2. Develop a process for program review and objective evaluation, to include
setting criteria for program continuation, restructure, spin-off, and
elimination.
3. Develop, in concert with regional and local agents, evaluation vehicles to
determine the use, effectiveness, and value of programs.
Time line:
Identification of team: October 15, 1995
Receipt of plan: January 1, 1996
Review, modification, and acceptance of strategies/plans: February 1, 1996
Implementation start date: February 15, 1996
Persons responsible: Associate Provost for Agriculture and Public Service, CE director,
others as designated
Expected outcome: A comprehensive implementation plan and strategy with time lines,
specific objectives, and assigned responsibilities
11
COLORADO
Hello