Meeting Participants
| Kyle Smith, TX | Mitch Flinchum, FL |
| Laverne Blount, AL | Jack Bagent, LA |
| Larry Arrington, FL | Judith Jones, VA |
| Janine Carter, AL | Russell King, NC |
| Frederick Custus, VA | Terril Faul, LA |
| John Park, GA | Severn Doughty, LA |
| Donald Cobb, NC | Carol Webb, SC |
| Rose Simmons, GA | Jacquelyn Ifill, AL |
| Joe Zublena, NC | Dorothy Rodgers, AR |
| Joanne Bankstow, KY | Claude Bess, OK |
| Fred Broughton; SC | James McKee, TN |
| Dan Jones, MS | Charlene Jacobs, KY |
| Rosalee Bivin, LA | Susan Lyday, NC |
Officers for 1997-1998
Chair--Charlene Jacobs, University of Kentucky
Vice Chair--Severn Doughty, Louisiana State University
Secretary--Susan Lyday, North Carolina State University Administrative Advisor--Judith Jones, Virginia Tech
PLC Representatives
Larry Arrington, University of Florida
Patrick Morgan, Alcorn State University
SUMMARY OF MEETING
Items for Information
Larry Arrington reported from PLC Committee - 1998 Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas, August 30-September 2 - Embassy Suites.
Discussion followed on Southern Region Program Leadership Committee including new structure, membership responsibilities, operational guidelines, and proposal guidelines for task force/regional conference (handout).
Report from Dorothy Rodgers and Susan Lyday on 1997 Southern Region Middle Management Meeting in Asheville, NC, including summary of evaluations and suggestions for topics and speakers for the next conference. A final financial report included 115 registered participants. Expenses were covered by registration fees. Final ending balance for conference is $4,035.55. This amount is in trust fund at NC State and is available to be transferred with appropriate written request.
Reports were received from states including current starting salaries for BS and MS level Extension agents (attached).
The Program and Staff Development Committee met with Middle Management Committee to discuss competency development. Bill Shimell, Clemson, introduced the topic and two resource persons - Barbara Stone, Texas A&M, and Bill Murphy, VPI. The presentation focused on competency development and how it can help Cooperative Extension prepare for the future. Discussion centered around the application of competency development for career development and training and selection, as well as the importance of linking core competencies to organizational vision - major issue is how we can collaborate regionally to develop and apply core competencies for professional development and employee selection. Shimel proposed that both committees consider a regional conference on core competencies.
Charlene Jacobs announced the development of a list serve for middle managers. The address is srmidman@ca.uky.edu. Kentucky has agreed to maintain data base and update as changes are received. One note of caution as you hit reply - your response goes to all on list serve.
Rosalee Bivin from Southern Region Accountability Committee, requested feedback on presentation "Demonstrating Accountability through Collaboration and Partnerships". She asked for feedback on three major criteria: relevance, quality, and impact.
How can we benefit from implementing this process across the region?
- Evaluating at high levels
- Consistency in communicating and reporting
- Communicating effectively with general public and public officials
Request from Middle Management is for a plan and the tools to implement this process across the region.
WORK GROUPS ON PLC QUESTIONS:
- What are some successful programs across state lines?
- What are barriers to successful program across state lines?
- What are ways to break down barriers?
Group 1
1. Successful Programs
- Horticulture (educational programs), trade show, newsletter
- Beef cattle
- Small grains - disaster relief
- Forage/forage testing
- Pest management
- Disease control - meat goat, livestock show
- Dairy specialist
- Beef specialist
- Regional fruit team
- Forester
- Family Matters conference
- CD specialist support
- Extension faculty training
- SC/GA sharing CEA (not successful)
2. Common Barriers
- Concern over use of county funds
- Ownership
- CEA time commitment
- Funding issues
- Parity concerns
- Finding faculty interested in broadened responsibilities
- Process barriers
- Creating win-win situations
- Tradition
Group 2
1. Successful Programs Across State Lines
- Child care provider training
- TV programs
- Livestock/Dairy joint training
- Fairs
- Cotton programs and specialists
- Farmers Market/vegetable production; rice, cotton, livestock
- In-service leadership training
- PR materials
- 4-H/Youth exchanges
2. What are barriers?
- Limited faculty
- Financial resources
- Lack of shared vision
- Lack of priority
- Promotion and tenure
- Consulting?
- Co. government approval
- Paradigm - narrow perspective
- System of accountability
- Lack of technology, incompatible technology
- Not understanding benefits
- Isolation of specialists
Group 3
1. Shared Programs
- In-service training
- Family well-being conference
- Beef/dairy research
- Red River Valley Bollweevil Eradication
- Environmental education program
- Leadership development
- Processing forage samples
- Southeast States Forestry Collaboration Project
- Quinn-State CRD Project
- Southern Region Aquaculture Center
- Southern Region Development Center
2. Barriers
- Funding
- Turf protection
- Local government support
- Establishing relationships with coworkers across state lines
- Variations in bookkeeping/recordkeeping
3. Breaking Down Barriers
- Increase communications among administrators across state lines
- Increase communications among local government officials
- Increase communications among Extension agents across state lines
- Create clearinghouse for states to share program information (4-H has web site)
Group 4
1. Programs Shared Across State Lines
- Cotton, peanuts
- Boll weevil education
- Joint field days
- Fruit production
- Dairy
- Integrated swine operation
- Leadership development training
- Conflict management training
- Value added cons.
- Twin State Conference - resource development
- Informal sharing
2. Common Barriers
- Travel funds
- Turf
- County politics
- Faculty preferences
- Workload
- Reporting/accountability
- Lack of incentive (awards)
- Communication - not knowing what is available next door
3. Needs to be Met to Accommodate Sharing Resources Across State Lines
- Policy that adjoining counties - agents don't require out of state permission
- Interstate contracts
- Cross line access to each publication bank
AREAS FOR POTENTIAL COLLABORATIONS ACROSS REGION
1. Health
2. Gerontology
3. Welfare Reform
4. Program Evaluation and Accountability
5. Risk Management in Agriculture
6. Share Resources in Urban Programming - Share "Successful Models"
Dr. Walter Walla, Univ. of Kentucky, discussed responsibilities of middle management as it relates to urban issues. Directors perspective is that same principles of programming work in urban settings as they do in rural areas. Decision has been made not to have an urban big cities task force.
The need surfaced to have a forum for sharing program successes in urban settings.
Suggestions for Addressing Urban Program Issues:
1. Use of Middle Management List Serve - to discuss successes in urban settings...Janie Carter, Alabama, working with Alabama middle managers volunteered to begin electronic discussion on successful program delivery in urban areas.
2. Focus session at next middle management conference.
Severn Doughty - report from Big Cities Conference (attached)
Positive inspiring meeting - theme: "Urban Rural Interface in Program Delivery" - pulling together of urban and rural communities and how we can cooperate. Concept of "community" same in rural and urban areas. Building advocacy groups from urban areas; concepts and process are same.
PROPOSED BUDGET - 1998 CONFERENCE
SOUTHERN REGION MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 1998
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
AUGUST 30 - SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
EMBASSY SUITES
DEPOSITS
| Amount forwarded from NC State University |
$ 4,035.55 |
| Registrations @ 100 X $150 |
$15,000.00 |
| TOTAL |
$19,035.55 |
EXPENDITURES
| Postage |
$ 320.00 |
| Supplies for Hospitality Suite |
$ 302.00 |
| Name tags, printing |
$ 130.00 |
| Tour expenses |
$ 1239.00 |
| Audiovisual Equipment (microphones) |
$ 106.00 |
| Speaker Gifts |
$ 223.00 |
| Speaker Expenses |
$ 2,358.00 |
| Honorarium |
$ 1,500.00 |
| Meal Expenses (Dinner) |
$ 967.00 |
| Hotel lodging, meals, breaks |
$ 9,176.00 |
| Returned checks |
$ 100.00 |
| TOTAL |
$16,421.00 |
| BALANCE (Approx.) |
$ 2,614.55 |
SOUTHERN REGION MIDDLE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT
MARCH 17-20, 1997
ASHEVILLE, NC
Report prepared - August 21, 1997
DEPOSITS
| Amount forwarded from Oklahoma State University |
$ 1,478.32 |
| Registrations |
$18,980.00 |
| TOTAL |
$20,458.32 |
EXPENDITURES
| Postage |
$ 320.00 |
| Supplies for Hospitality Suite |
$ 302.08 |
| Name tags, printing |
$ 130.12 |
| Tour expenses |
$ 1,239.00 |
| Audiovisual Equipment (microphones) |
$ 106.00 |
| Speaker Gifts |
$ 223.24 |
| Speaker Expenses |
$ 2,358.15 |
| Honorarium |
$ 1,500.00 |
| Meal Expenses (Dinner) |
$ 967.50 |
| Hotel lodging, meals, breaks |
$ 9,176.68 |
| Returned checks |
$ 100.00 |
| TOTAL |
$16,422.77 |
| BALANCE |
$ 4,035.55 |
CEA STARTING SALARIES
|
STATE |
BS |
MS |
|
Texas |
$23,000 |
$24,200 |
|
Florida |
$23,500 |
$26,000 |
|
Virginia |
Required |
$28,000 |
|
Georgia |
$25,000 |
$30,000 |
|
North Carolina |
$24,500 |
$26,500 |
|
Louisiana |
$22,500 |
$25,500 |
|
Mississippi |
$23,000 |
$25,000 |
|
Kentucky |
$22,700 |
$24,200 |
|
South Carolina |
$25,500 |
$26,500 |
|
Alabama |
$23,000 |
$30,000 |
|
Arkansas |
$24,000 |
$26,000 |
|
Oklahoma |
$22,000 |
$24,000 |
|
Tennessee |
$23,000 |
$25,000 |
A Report and an Urban Programming Model Concept Concerning the Big Cities Conference
Held in Pittsburgh, PA - August 7-9, 1997
Prepared by Severn C. Doughty, PhD., District Agent, Louisiana
The discussion entailed - The Urban-Rural Interface and Program Delivery
The conference tone centered around urban-rural programming which is really not that different from traditional programming, i.e.:
1. " The Internet does not differentiate between urban and rural."
2. " Environmental Quality does not differentiate between urban and rural."
3. " Health Care does not differentiate between urban and rural."
4. " Nutritional Requirements do not differentiate between urban and rural."
5. " Crime does not differentiate between urban and rural."
*Programming whether urban or rural should be needs driven. Therefore, we must utilize the advisory process to determine programming needs.
*The most perplexing aspect of urban Cooperative Extension Service work is reaching stakeholders, i.e., mayors, city council members, school board members, legislators, lingmakers, etc.
*We must determine ways to relate to stakeholders how important Cooperative Extension Service programming can be to their constituents as well as ours. We teach the basic survival or creature comfort programs.
- Water Quality
- Food, Nutrition, Health
- Economics for the home and business in some instances
- Family Economics - money management, parenting, etc.
- Community Development
- 4-H Youth and other youth character building
- Waste Management
- Other Environmental issues
*The next perplexing aspect of Urban Cooperative Extension Service work is reaching the public with programs. In many instances we advertise subject matter programs. That is, we deliver the programs and that is the end of it. What came to me in this conference was a realization of what Cooperative Extension Service must do in urban areas. After working for nearly twenty years in Metro New Orleans with a potential clientele base of 1.5 million people, and pondering for years as to how an Extension Educator in an urban area can create educational programs with a support base, the simple answer came to me: Build advocacy groups or support groups with a large volunteer component. (example: Rather than an urban horticulturist answering horticulture questions by phone to the general public--create a Master Gardening Program--this then becomes an advocacy group which, in turn, can go to stakeholders and request support, etc.)
*Cooperative Extension Service is 83 years old and since its beginning it has helped people organize into clubs or organizations, for example: 4-H clubs, homemaker clubs, Cattlemen's Association, Farm Bureau, etc. This has been Cooperative Extension Service's support base for many years. Today, Cooperative Extension Service must continue to organize support groups but in other commodity or focus areas.
*Other advocacy groups could be:
1. Tree Guardians in coalition with the city's parkways commission
2. EFNEP, but using volunteers as well as aides.
3. FCE
4. Legislative advocacy groups--trained volunteer leaders to talk to stakeholders in our behalf.
5. Commodity or focus area advocacy groups:
a. Green industry
b. Agribusiness councils
c. Character education
d. 4-H youth education
e. Waste management
f. Other environmental issues
g. Disaster response
h. Parenting education
i. Nutrition and health education
6. Form coalitions with other groups which then can become advocacy groups for Cooperative Extension Service
*One important caveat is that once we reach the public with any programming, it must be of top quality, preferably research based, relevant, and action oriented--that is, something the audience can take home and do.
*Cooperative Extension Service must dispel the notion that urban is different from rural. We all need to be united and together in programming. It is only the delivery that is different.
Cooperative Extension must train urban and rural agents to recognize opportunities to promote their value to stakeholders and to the public. We must take advantage of volunteer leaders and to continue to build advocacy groups to ultimately reach stakeholders with the fact that Cooperative Extension work is necessary, even vital, to the success of our community, our state, and our nation.