- Email: [email protected]
Implementation of Regional Programs
Implementation of Regional Programs O. LEWIS WYMAN and MAHMOUD M. EL-BEGEARMI Cooperative Extension Service, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469 (Received for publication July 26, 1989)
1990 Poultry Science 69:242-244 INTRODUCTION
STRATEGY
Five years ago, the directors of the New England Cooperative Extension Services (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) expressed renewed interest in regional cooperation in programming. The New England agricultural program leaders responded with several propositions and were willing to formalize the informal cooperation that had been occurring to some extent among the states. O. Lewis Wyman, Maine Agricultural and Business Management Program Leader, was selected by the New England agricultural program leaders to put together a six-state compact of poultry specialists. Others initiated work in different program areas.
The staff elected, and have continued to elect, an individual to serve as leader of the New England Poultry Specialists' team. This leader coordinates team efforts, calls meetings, handles information flow, and cooperates with the program leader liaison in carrying out the program. The states' poultry industries were made aware of the plan for interstate cooperation and have been kept informed to allay initial suspicion that the plan was a ploy by the universities to hide reductions in Extension Service staffing. As soon as the cooperative arrangement went into effect, a related industry advisory committee was established. The committee comprised two persons from each state, selected at the state's option. The committee does not advise about the educational program, but it considers regional cooperative activities, monitors the program, and reports back to the state's industries. It was obvious to all involved in the agreement that public educational activities would be most influential in establishing the credibility of the regional system. Major state and multistate Extension Service meetings were redesignated as New England conferences, sometimes with a transitional title, "(state)-New England," to emphasize the regional cooperation and to encourage wider participation. This redesignation worked more effectively than had been expected and appears
THE PROCESS
First, a meeting was organized for all Extension Service staff members who thought that they had poultry responsibility in the six New England states. About eight full-time equivalents (FTE) of poultry faculty attended. The idea of regional cooperation was appealing, even exciting. After some deliberation, a plan was developed, and its key components were combined as a "strategy", which then was presented to the New England Extension Service directors and agricultural program leaders and approved by them.
242
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at NERL on May 10, 2015
ABSTRACT The six New England Cooperative Extension Services worked out a formal agreement to conduct their education programs in poultry on a regional basis. As a result, Extension Service specialists in poultry at the six New England universities formed the New England Poultry Specialists' team. A single regional poultry newsletter, The New England Poultry Letter, replaced individual state poultry newsletters. The agreement also formalized the establishment of two regional poultry conferences instead of individual state poultry conferences: the New England Poultry Health Conference, usually held in the spring, and the New England Poultry Management Conference held in late summer. These two conferences and the Northeast Turkey Conference are the three major educational meetings organized by the team. The agreement has been in effect for over 3 yr and serves as a model for the success of regional arrangements as well as a learning experience for all. (Key words: regionalization, Cooperative Extension Service, programs, poultry, New England states)
SYMPOSIUM: REGIONALIZATION OF EXTENSION PROGRAMS
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine; and specialists recommended mat these be maintained. The arrangement for involvement of county or state staff was that as the interstate cooperation and exchange developed, there would be an increased forwarding of problem situations and information requests to individuals who had higher expertise in other states. It was agreed those requests would be forwarded by local Cooperative Extension specialists and agents, and the information and assistance returned to local people to maintain relationships and manage the demands upon other states' personnel. No two states have the same travel policies. The agreement circumvented this by stating that the Extension Service specialists within the regional project would have the same approval processes for out-of-state travel as for normal in-state travel in order to respond promptly to program needs. It was understood that the state receiving the assistance would pay for the travel from the home state line. THE OUTCOME
At the inception of the compact, directors were reminded that several senior staff members would be leaving almost immediately, and that others would soon retire. Within financial capabilities of the host state, the participating specialists insisted on the right to recommend expertise needed in the replacement of personnel to broaden the subject matter available to the regional project. In other words, hiring within the state was to fill the gaps among specialties, and thus reduce duplication of efforts. The group's agreement did not address loss of positions. Since the program started, several personnel have been lost, but despite repeated appeals, none of the positions has been refilled. The result is that the compact operates with exactly half the FTE it had involved at its inception in 1986. Through the agricultural program leaders, the poultry group has repeatedly urged the participating states to refill the positions, and has suggested the type of expertise needed. There have been valid reasons for the lack of action in replacing poultry staff by the states: 1) budgetary problems; 2) changing priorities in agriculture; 3) changing priorities about agriculture; 4)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at NERL on May 10, 2015
to have increased the educational program's impact on its clientele. A calendar of educational events presented by the Extension Service, including the New England conferences, was maintained and publicized throughout New England to increase efficiency while simultaneously encouraging communication by and with the poultry interests of the six states. It was agreed that bulletins, circulars, fact sheets, and audiovisuals of regional interest would be developed regionally, but none has been developed. The concept certainly makes sense, and the quality and unit cost of these efforts should be favorable. One reason for the failure to produce materials cooperatively may be local parochialism. In trying to effect other changes in programming, one of the most serious "turf problems can be newsletters. Surprisingly, there was no problem with the replacement of the individual state's newsletters by a single New England poultry commodity letter. The New England Poultry Letter is produced in one state and bulk-shipped to each of the other states for mailing under its own interpretations of the regulations concerning mail permits. There has been very favorable support of the efforts of the specialists with regard to the newsletter. The poultry group decided to include all poultry interests to the maximum degree possible, within existing resources, including management and marketing aspects of egg production, broiler production, breeder flocks and turkey production, with the full range of the industry involved in each. Rabbit production was specifically included in the program expectations. One reason mat the interstate arrangement went into place so easily was that the New England directors had specifically instructed that there was not to be a regional Plan of Work as such. It was necessary to maintain the flexibility for the individual states, but it was agreed that there would be a high commonality of subject matter, affording more efficient use of personnel as well as greater quality and variety of presentations. Program priorities were poultry health, nutrition, general management, housing, product quality, marketing, and the waste management complex of manure, fly control, pollution of air, and groundwater. When the agreement was formulated, there were poultry-disease diagnostic laboratories in
243
244
WYMAN AND EL-BEGEARMI
The world of university finance is a one of chance. No state can predict a university's resources over a very long term; multiply this risk by the number of prospective participants and apply a factor of nonfinancial switching of priorities within or from agriculture, and planners encounter a most unstable environment. THE FUTURE
It is expected that new priorities of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Land-Grant Universities and their colleges and divisions will result in fewer resources allocated for Extension education in agriculture by the Extension Service. Thus, states will, and should, be considering more efficient use of their human resources (specialist positions). Regional cooperation is surely an option. But, where regional cooperation is attempted, there should be a clear contract stating: 1) what each state contributes, with renegotiations if there are any changes; 2) an annual review, regardless of changes, to ascertain that those who really control inputs are involved and committed; and 3) clear communication with the industry. If cutbacks are necessary, they must be announced and explained.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at NERL on May 10, 2015
shrinking industry and, consequently, shrinking influence; and 5) bureaucratic delays in departments. The best evidence of New England Poultry Specialists teamwork to date is: 1) an excellent Extension Service poultry newsletter and 2) strong industry conferences, held on a regional basis. More interstate travel was expected, but diis has not occurred. The arrangement for such eventualities made sense and was supported most of the time. The geographic area for the New England poultry industry is a band along 300 miles of Interstate 95. It was expected that specialists would be traveling frequendy to other states to handle specific industry problems, but this has only occurred in those states that are short staffed, leaving no one to handle the day-to-day problems when specialists were absent. New England specialists can be proud in successfully continuing the compact despite thinning ranks. But the inability of states to replace people who have retired or resigned raises questions. The first obvious question when considering regional cooperation is: Is this simply a hidden way of reducing staff in the commodity, and avoiding objections? Administrators need to examine their resources and be prepared to give forthright answers.
1990 Poultry Science 69:242-244 INTRODUCTION
STRATEGY
Five years ago, the directors of the New England Cooperative Extension Services (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) expressed renewed interest in regional cooperation in programming. The New England agricultural program leaders responded with several propositions and were willing to formalize the informal cooperation that had been occurring to some extent among the states. O. Lewis Wyman, Maine Agricultural and Business Management Program Leader, was selected by the New England agricultural program leaders to put together a six-state compact of poultry specialists. Others initiated work in different program areas.
The staff elected, and have continued to elect, an individual to serve as leader of the New England Poultry Specialists' team. This leader coordinates team efforts, calls meetings, handles information flow, and cooperates with the program leader liaison in carrying out the program. The states' poultry industries were made aware of the plan for interstate cooperation and have been kept informed to allay initial suspicion that the plan was a ploy by the universities to hide reductions in Extension Service staffing. As soon as the cooperative arrangement went into effect, a related industry advisory committee was established. The committee comprised two persons from each state, selected at the state's option. The committee does not advise about the educational program, but it considers regional cooperative activities, monitors the program, and reports back to the state's industries. It was obvious to all involved in the agreement that public educational activities would be most influential in establishing the credibility of the regional system. Major state and multistate Extension Service meetings were redesignated as New England conferences, sometimes with a transitional title, "(state)-New England," to emphasize the regional cooperation and to encourage wider participation. This redesignation worked more effectively than had been expected and appears
THE PROCESS
First, a meeting was organized for all Extension Service staff members who thought that they had poultry responsibility in the six New England states. About eight full-time equivalents (FTE) of poultry faculty attended. The idea of regional cooperation was appealing, even exciting. After some deliberation, a plan was developed, and its key components were combined as a "strategy", which then was presented to the New England Extension Service directors and agricultural program leaders and approved by them.
242
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at NERL on May 10, 2015
ABSTRACT The six New England Cooperative Extension Services worked out a formal agreement to conduct their education programs in poultry on a regional basis. As a result, Extension Service specialists in poultry at the six New England universities formed the New England Poultry Specialists' team. A single regional poultry newsletter, The New England Poultry Letter, replaced individual state poultry newsletters. The agreement also formalized the establishment of two regional poultry conferences instead of individual state poultry conferences: the New England Poultry Health Conference, usually held in the spring, and the New England Poultry Management Conference held in late summer. These two conferences and the Northeast Turkey Conference are the three major educational meetings organized by the team. The agreement has been in effect for over 3 yr and serves as a model for the success of regional arrangements as well as a learning experience for all. (Key words: regionalization, Cooperative Extension Service, programs, poultry, New England states)
SYMPOSIUM: REGIONALIZATION OF EXTENSION PROGRAMS
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine; and specialists recommended mat these be maintained. The arrangement for involvement of county or state staff was that as the interstate cooperation and exchange developed, there would be an increased forwarding of problem situations and information requests to individuals who had higher expertise in other states. It was agreed those requests would be forwarded by local Cooperative Extension specialists and agents, and the information and assistance returned to local people to maintain relationships and manage the demands upon other states' personnel. No two states have the same travel policies. The agreement circumvented this by stating that the Extension Service specialists within the regional project would have the same approval processes for out-of-state travel as for normal in-state travel in order to respond promptly to program needs. It was understood that the state receiving the assistance would pay for the travel from the home state line. THE OUTCOME
At the inception of the compact, directors were reminded that several senior staff members would be leaving almost immediately, and that others would soon retire. Within financial capabilities of the host state, the participating specialists insisted on the right to recommend expertise needed in the replacement of personnel to broaden the subject matter available to the regional project. In other words, hiring within the state was to fill the gaps among specialties, and thus reduce duplication of efforts. The group's agreement did not address loss of positions. Since the program started, several personnel have been lost, but despite repeated appeals, none of the positions has been refilled. The result is that the compact operates with exactly half the FTE it had involved at its inception in 1986. Through the agricultural program leaders, the poultry group has repeatedly urged the participating states to refill the positions, and has suggested the type of expertise needed. There have been valid reasons for the lack of action in replacing poultry staff by the states: 1) budgetary problems; 2) changing priorities in agriculture; 3) changing priorities about agriculture; 4)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at NERL on May 10, 2015
to have increased the educational program's impact on its clientele. A calendar of educational events presented by the Extension Service, including the New England conferences, was maintained and publicized throughout New England to increase efficiency while simultaneously encouraging communication by and with the poultry interests of the six states. It was agreed that bulletins, circulars, fact sheets, and audiovisuals of regional interest would be developed regionally, but none has been developed. The concept certainly makes sense, and the quality and unit cost of these efforts should be favorable. One reason for the failure to produce materials cooperatively may be local parochialism. In trying to effect other changes in programming, one of the most serious "turf problems can be newsletters. Surprisingly, there was no problem with the replacement of the individual state's newsletters by a single New England poultry commodity letter. The New England Poultry Letter is produced in one state and bulk-shipped to each of the other states for mailing under its own interpretations of the regulations concerning mail permits. There has been very favorable support of the efforts of the specialists with regard to the newsletter. The poultry group decided to include all poultry interests to the maximum degree possible, within existing resources, including management and marketing aspects of egg production, broiler production, breeder flocks and turkey production, with the full range of the industry involved in each. Rabbit production was specifically included in the program expectations. One reason mat the interstate arrangement went into place so easily was that the New England directors had specifically instructed that there was not to be a regional Plan of Work as such. It was necessary to maintain the flexibility for the individual states, but it was agreed that there would be a high commonality of subject matter, affording more efficient use of personnel as well as greater quality and variety of presentations. Program priorities were poultry health, nutrition, general management, housing, product quality, marketing, and the waste management complex of manure, fly control, pollution of air, and groundwater. When the agreement was formulated, there were poultry-disease diagnostic laboratories in
243
244
WYMAN AND EL-BEGEARMI
The world of university finance is a one of chance. No state can predict a university's resources over a very long term; multiply this risk by the number of prospective participants and apply a factor of nonfinancial switching of priorities within or from agriculture, and planners encounter a most unstable environment. THE FUTURE
It is expected that new priorities of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Land-Grant Universities and their colleges and divisions will result in fewer resources allocated for Extension education in agriculture by the Extension Service. Thus, states will, and should, be considering more efficient use of their human resources (specialist positions). Regional cooperation is surely an option. But, where regional cooperation is attempted, there should be a clear contract stating: 1) what each state contributes, with renegotiations if there are any changes; 2) an annual review, regardless of changes, to ascertain that those who really control inputs are involved and committed; and 3) clear communication with the industry. If cutbacks are necessary, they must be announced and explained.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at NERL on May 10, 2015
shrinking industry and, consequently, shrinking influence; and 5) bureaucratic delays in departments. The best evidence of New England Poultry Specialists teamwork to date is: 1) an excellent Extension Service poultry newsletter and 2) strong industry conferences, held on a regional basis. More interstate travel was expected, but diis has not occurred. The arrangement for such eventualities made sense and was supported most of the time. The geographic area for the New England poultry industry is a band along 300 miles of Interstate 95. It was expected that specialists would be traveling frequendy to other states to handle specific industry problems, but this has only occurred in those states that are short staffed, leaving no one to handle the day-to-day problems when specialists were absent. New England specialists can be proud in successfully continuing the compact despite thinning ranks. But the inability of states to replace people who have retired or resigned raises questions. The first obvious question when considering regional cooperation is: Is this simply a hidden way of reducing staff in the commodity, and avoiding objections? Administrators need to examine their resources and be prepared to give forthright answers.