1. Workgroup / Coordinating Conference Chairs & Statewide Program Directors Meeting September 26, 2006 Holiday Inn, Sacramento

2. Plan for the Day  Review Resource Allocation Process  Discuss Roles of Workgroups / CCs and SPs in the Process  Small Group Discussions  Review Workgroup Purpose  Discuss Administrative Issues related to workgroups and statewide programs  Review the Statewide Program 5 year review process

3. Desired Outcomes  Understand the ANR Resource Allocation Process  Understand role of workgroups / CCs / SPs in resource allocation process and identify next steps  Clarify administrative issues including funding and expenditures  Identify elements of good workgroup annual reports  Understand the statewide program 5 year review process

4. ANR Resource Allocation Process Rick Standiford Associate VP - ANR

5. Desired Outcomes  Understanding of the ANR resource allocation process  Understanding of the roles of ANR members, units, administrators in the resource allocation process  Understanding of ANR funding sources

6. UC ANR Systemwide Permanent Budget

7. Federal Support  Research Hatch Formula Funds Hatch Formula Funds McIntire-Stennis Formula Funds McIntire-Stennis Formula Funds Animal Health & Disease Animal Health & Disease National Research Initiative National Research Initiative  Cooperative Extension Smith-Lever 3b & c Smith-Lever 3b & c Smith-Lever 3(d) Smith-Lever 3(d) Other Other

8. Framework for ANR Resource Allocation  The ANR resource allocation process is designed to support high priority issues support high priority issues encourage collaboration and teamwork to address those issues, encourage collaboration and teamwork to address those issues, maintain essential activities maintain essential activities build upon existing preeminence in the Division build upon existing preeminence in the Division

9. ANR Resource Allocation Principles  The resource allocation process should Be open and participatory with input from all ANR stakeholders Be open and participatory with input from all ANR stakeholders Be transparent to all stakeholders Be transparent to all stakeholders Include statewide perspective: local, regional, or broader are assessed from a statewide perspective Include statewide perspective: local, regional, or broader are assessed from a statewide perspective

10. Development of Proposals  ANR counties, departments, other units develop budget proposals  Regional Directors, Program Leaders, Associate Deans, other administrators submit consolidated prioritized proposals to Asst VP  Program Council reviews proposals and makes recommendations to Associate VP  Associate VP, Asst VP make final recommendations to VP

11. Development of Proposals  Position proposals should be shared early and often with all ANR partners  The process should be ongoing, open and inclusive and encourage input from all levels  ANR statewide issues and perspectives should be considered throughout this process  Accessing campus planning information to link specialist needs is critical.  Program Leaders will work to develop programmatic plans for specific program areas to help guide local and regional discussions  The process should link statewide ANR program priorities to county priorities and funding support structures.

12. Program Council Role  Broad input  Non parochial  Statewide integrative perspective  Promote the continuum County—Campus County—Campus Research—Outreach Research—Outreach AES—Extension AES—Extension  Look for emerging needs  Celebrate transparency

13. Proposal Evaluation Criteria The proposal  Is consistent with ANR Strategic Directions and Core Issues  Has likelihood of making a significant impact.  Builds on the strength of ANR.  Develops ANR’s capability to address high priority programmatic areas or critical programmatic goals in emerging areas.  Strengthens the research-extension continuum  Demonstrates input from stakeholders

14. FY 2007-2008 CE Advisor Positions Sept 12Program Leaders (PLs)/Regional Directors (RDs) begin sharing lists of proposed advisor positions Sept 26Wkgrp/statewide program directors meeting. PLs discuss role/mechanisms for program planning Oct 15PLs/RDs receive input on positions from ANR members Nov 7PLs/RDs coordinate position lists Jan 15 Unit budget proposals submitted to Asst VP Feb 6Program Council (PC) budget presentations Feb-MarchPC rates positions/budget requests April 10PC makes recommendations to Assoc VP JuneFinal budget decisions by AVP, VP, pending final budget approval

15. Next Steps How can workgroups, coordinating conferences and statewide programs be involved?

16. ANR Resource Allocation Process Tim Paine PL- Ag Policy and Pest Management

17. Next Steps How can workgroups, coordinating conferences and statewide programs be involved?

18. Desired Outcomes  Understand Workgroup /Coordinating Conferences and Statewide Programs roles in the resource allocation process  Understand process of engagement in resource allocation process  Understand process of feedback on resource allocation issues

19. Engagement: Development of Proposals  ANR counties, departments, other units develop budget proposals  Regional Directors, Program Leaders, Associate Deans, other administrators submit consolidated prioritized proposals to Asst VP  Program Council reviews proposals and makes recommendations to Associate VP  Associate VP, Asst VP make final recommendations to VP

20. Engagement: Development of Proposals  Other units now expanded to include Workgroups and Statewide Programs  Asking these units to evaluate the needs of the program area  Assess critical and emerging issues  Assess geographic gaps  Determine priorities  Coordinate with Program Leaders

21. Proposal Evaluation Criteria The proposal  Is consistent with ANR Strategic Directions and Core Issues  Has likelihood of making a significant impact.  Builds on the strength of ANR.  Develops ANR’s capability to address high priority programmatic areas or critical programmatic goals in emerging areas.  Strengthens the research-extension continuum  Demonstrates input from stakeholders

22. Coordination and Evaluation of Proposals  Program Leaders share lists of proposed positions with Workgroups and Statewide Programs, Regional Directors, and County Directors  Development of integrated plans for specific program areas to help guide local and regional discussions  Determine areas of common concern among groups – geographic and program  Evaluation of new opportunities and emerging issues  Determine priorities

23. Coordination and Evaluation of Proposals  ANR counties, departments, other units develop budget proposals  Regional Directors, Program Leaders, Associate Deans, other administrators submit consolidated prioritized proposals to Asst VP  Program Council reviews proposals and makes recommendations to Associate VP  Associate VP, Asst VP make final recommendations to VP

24. Feedback to Workgroups and Statewide Programs  Program Leaders provide feedback to Workgroups and Statewide Programs on outcome of the budget cycle process – positions to be filled  Feedback includes information on prioritization at the level of Program Council  Rolling process that occurs each year – priorities are determined annually but there can be a legacy effect  Workgroups and Statewide Programs need to maintain ongoing communication and process for identifying new opportunities, emerging issues, and developing prioritized position proposals

25. Feedback to Workgroups and Statewide Programs  New process may mean change in meeting cycle, number of meetings, and annual budget requests – coordinate between the budget timelines and the conventional Workgroup meeting times  New process may mean a change in organizational structure within Workgroups – development of subcommittees and methods of feedback and information exchange within Workgroup  Continuing Conferences and may provide venues for communication among Workgroups and Statewide Programs and opportunities for programmatic prioritization

26. Engagement and Feedback: Workgroups and Statewide Programs  Your turn  General topics  Program area discussions

27. Workgroup/Coordinating Conferences Overview & Purpose Maxwell Norton PL – Ag Productivity

28.  Central purpose is to collaboratively plan and coordinate research and extension activities

29.  Needs assessment  Communication and networking  Plan major publications  Plan collective research – especially multi-site projects  Plan outreach extension programming  Evaluation and reporting of program results  In-service training  Develop grant proposals (esp. Core grants)  Long-term staffing needs

30.  Accomplishing ANR’s high priority research and extension goals through collaborative grassroots leadership.  Bring together AES and CE personnel along with non-ANR partners such as ARS scientists.

31.  WG may be formed when an issue or program opportunity calls for ANR members and other stakeholders to come together and collaborate on an ongoing basis.

32.  WG should make every effort to include the full continuum of CE advisors, CE specialists and AES scientists.  ANR non-academic staff may be involved in WG as appropriate to their role.  WG can include non-ANR scientists and clientele (eg: commodity board research directors).

33.  Face-to-face meetings  Teleconferencing  Video or web-conferencing  E-mail list serves.  ANR collaborative tools sites

34.  No prescribed internal structure.  AES scientists, CE advisors, CE specialists, and other ANR academics may serve as chairs.  If co-chairs, one needs to be identified as the primary contact.

35.  Chairs are responsible for communication and liaison between and among the workgroup and the Program Leaders.  Chairs ensure workgroup funds are expended in accordance with their approved budget and financial policies

36.  Workgroup funding decisions are based on the importance of the issues or problems to be addressed, the merit of the proposed strategies and success.  Proposals undergo comprehensive peer review.  Program Leaders present recommendations for workgroup ratification and funding to the Program Council.

37.  WG may have sub-committees  Informal interest groups  WG may involve other states or the WG may be a member of a larger interstate WG.

38.  Coordinating conferences (CC) typically coordinate the activities of a number of closely related workgroups (e.g., PECC) or serve as a forum for sharing information in one of the Division’s major subject matter areas (e.g., NRCC).

39.  Overall Purposes Foster communication and collaboration across traditional inter-campus, interdisciplinary and inter-departmental boundaries. Foster communication and collaboration across traditional inter-campus, interdisciplinary and inter-departmental boundaries. More visible and active focal point for research and outreach activities. More visible and active focal point for research and outreach activities. Facilitate the formation and activities of appropriate workgroups addressing targeted areas. Facilitate the formation and activities of appropriate workgroups addressing targeted areas. Provide leadership for addressing crosscutting issues. Provide leadership for addressing crosscutting issues.

40.  Meetings of the CCs are also an opportunity for meetings of workgroups and provide an opportunity for development of extension, research or outreach programs that involve the members of multiple workgroups.

41.  The four ANR Program Leaders are responsible for promoting understanding, interest and involvement in ANR WG and CC.

43. Administrative Issues Karen Varcoe PL – Human Resources

44. Administrative Issues  Central Administrative Support  Budget/Expenditures Funding Funding Allowable Expenditures Allowable Expenditures Joni Rippee and Chris Casey

45. Workgroup Reports Used to: Evaluate WGs for funding and re-ratification Evaluate WGs for funding and re-ratification Provide up-to-date information Provide up-to-date information Activities, projects, researchActivities, projects, research MembershipMembership Use in UC DeliversUse in UC Delivers Provide data for reports Provide data for reports

46. Workgroup Reports, cont.  Reports need to be concise… The Science, Technology, and Environmental Literacy (STEL) workgroup continues to address the need of increasing scientific literacy among youth and adult populations through collaboration and special projects. The workgroup has two ANR workgroup funded projects and non-funded UC projects as well. All projects have collaborative partnerships with UC academics, faculty and/or other professionals and agencies. The Science, Technology, and Environmental Literacy (STEL) workgroup continues to address the need of increasing scientific literacy among youth and adult populations through collaboration and special projects. The workgroup has two ANR workgroup funded projects and non-funded UC projects as well. All projects have collaborative partnerships with UC academics, faculty and/or other professionals and agencies.

47. Workgroup Reports, cont.  Identify accomplishments Grants received Grants received Papers written and accepted in journals Papers written and accepted in journals Presentations Presentations Websites developed Websites developed Conferences held Conferences held …

48. Workgroup Reports, cont.  Outcomes and Impacts: How do you know that you are succeeding? How do you know that you are succeeding? How is success being measured How is success being measured Short-term--# or % or participants gaining knowledgeShort-term--# or % or participants gaining knowledge Medium-term--# of persons adopting a practiceMedium-term--# of persons adopting a practice Long-term--% decrease in contaminants or % increase in vegetable consumptionLong-term--% decrease in contaminants or % increase in vegetable consumption Tell us about your evaluation efforts Tell us about your evaluation efforts

49. Examples  “The new intervention showed promising results by significantly reducing biomechanical risk factors. However, productivity results are not as promising.”  “Young people have to perceive adults in the community value youth; it is not enough for the adults to say they value youth. The youth have to believe it.”

50. Examples  “Evaluations from…showed that overall 61% of participants gained new knowledge. Ninety-eight percent of those who did not gain new knowledge reported that it was because they had a high level of knowledge prior to attending.”  “Our results highlight the need for further research exploring the potential effect of parental experience on portion sizes and food intakes of children. Serving larger portions of food to children may be implicated in the development of overweight among children. Future studies…”

51. Workgroup Reports  They should not be: Individual reports of activities Individual reports of activities Compilation of member’s individual research Compilation of member’s individual research …

52. Workgroup Process Review  Purpose: To review and assess the productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of workgroup activities and impacts of the past 7 years To review and assess the productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of workgroup activities and impacts of the past 7 years To determine the appropriateness of the continuation of workgroups for the next 5 years To determine the appropriateness of the continuation of workgroups for the next 5 years

53. Process for Review  Associate VP will appoint committee  Data will be collected during winter, 2006- 2007  Report to Program Council in Spring, 2007  Recommendations made to Associate VP and Vice-President ANR

54. Review Criteria Have workgroups:  Achieved objectives as outlined in the proposed framework for workgroups?  Engaged in outreach activities to transfer knowledge?  Developed objectives and plans of action?  Brought AES, CE and non-ANR partners?  And more…..

55. Statewide Program Review Process  Each Program reviewed every 5 years  Purpose Review and assess productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of the program’s activities and impacts over the previous 5 years Review and assess productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of the program’s activities and impacts over the previous 5 years Determine the appropriateness of the program’s strategic plan for the next 5 years and its continuation as an ANR statewide program Determine the appropriateness of the program’s strategic plan for the next 5 years and its continuation as an ANR statewide program

56. Selected Review Criteria  Mission statement and strategic plan relevant and responsive to ANR Critical Issue(s)  Serve as mechanism for integrating campus- and county-based efforts  Identification of impacts  Generate an appropriate quantity and quality of scientific, professional and general publications

57. Selected Review Criteria  Effectively leverage ANR funding  Clearly identified and appropriately broad clientele for its outputs and activities  Have effective mechanism for assessing needs of clientele  Engage in public outreach efforts to transfer knowledge to clientele

58. Review Process  Program Director presents a 5 year review to Program Council (PC)  PC assists in framing the overall review process and questions  Program Leader (PL) consults with AVP to develop the plan for the review  PL assembles and charges the review committee

59. Review Process  Review committee makes recommendations to PL  Statewide Program Director reviews report and prepares a response which is submitted to PL  Program Council reviews full committee report and Program Director response  PL presents the final report with recommendations to PC  PC makes recommendation to AVP regarding appropriateness of strategic plan and for continuation of program.  AVP makes final decision

60. Review Schedule  2006-07 4-H Youth Development (near completion) 4-H Youth Development (near completion) IPM IPM Mosquito Research Mosquito Research Genetic Resources Conservation Genetic Resources Conservation  2007 – 08 Ag Issues Center Ag Issues Center SAREP SAREP Renewable Resources Extension Act Renewable Resources Extension Act California Communities California Communities