Applied
Research and Extension |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stakeholder Engagement Introduction Effective stakeholder involvement in planning, conducting, and evaluating our programs is a central intent of the new program development process being implemented.
Some Stakeholders Do NOT Feel Engaged In recent years, stakeholders and others have criticized CCE as reflective of a by-gone era, no longer meeting critical needs. Certainly there are examples of excellent research and extension programs both in county associations and on campus that are addressing critical needs and involving stakeholders. But as a system, we are only as strong as our weakest link. And we do have some weak links! Within Extension, educators, faculty and administrators have expressed frustration over the disconnect within our system. Over the years we have lost the structure and processes that directly link local needs to extension, research and education. County extension associations carry out their educational programs, often without support from the campus. Campus departments tend to carry out their programs and research with little reference to what is going on at the county level. We have lost the processes and events that bring faculty and educators together. Faculty members have little contact with association staff and stakeholders; county-based educators have few opportunities for discussion with faculty or campus-offered professional development. Our connections between associations and campus are broken. It doesn’t matter so much when or how the linkages were severed. The fact is, we don’t have a “system” and that needs to be fixed. return to contents As New York’s land-grant institution, Cornell University has a mission “to extend the riches of science for the benefit of all, with a special new emphasis on responsibility to the community in the form of research and extension serving public needs.[1]” This mission has traditionally been carried out predominantly through the Colleges of Human Ecology and Agriculture and Life Sciences, the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, and Cornell Cooperative Extension. It is inherent in this mission that our efforts be informed by and bring benefit to our stakeholders, particularly our external stakeholders. This enhanced program development process in the current Cornell Cooperative Extension revitalization plan is a key mechanism for implementing the Land Grant mission, ensuring that “public needs” are identified, and leading to a statewide research and extension education response. Bringing together teams that represent diverse perspectives, interests, and expertise to shape statewide educational responses to priority issues isn’t simply something that is nice to do -- it is a mandate of our mission! We cannot operate under the assumption that we “know what is best” for our audiences. Giving voice to associations and stakeholders in determining statewide research and program priorities is not an option – it is a requirement. return to contents As New York’s land-grant university, federal support through the USDA is provided to the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (CUAES) and Cornell Cooperative Extension. These Federal Formula Funds (FFF) programs are known to many of us as Hatch, Multi-state Research, and Smith-Lever funds. They are an important segment of research and extension support, providing a unique source of funds that can be locally directed. In 1999 about $4 million was allocated to 280 projects involving 225 faculty; another $845,000 supported 42 projects, as well as departmental support. These funds are especially important for CCE to:
While CCE’s mission has always required seeking stakeholder input, recent federal legislation has dramatically changed the “rules of the game.” The 1996 Farm Bill moved funding from entitlement to competitive grants, as a way to increase accountability and responsiveness. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 requires that Land Grant colleges and universities receiving Federal Formula Funds “establish a process for receiving input from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, extension, or education on the uses of such funds.” Annual reporting must indicate 1) actions taken to encourage stakeholder input, and 2) the process used to identify individuals or groups as stakeholders and to collect input from them. Failure to comply may result in withholding of formula funds and the redistribution of those funds to other institutions. The bottom line is that direct, broad-based, and meaningful stakeholder input is now expected for research and extension priority setting and decision making about projects to be funded by the CUAES and Cornell Cooperative Extension. return to contents It is critical that CUAES and Cornell Cooperative Extension create integrated program development strategies and processes that are more responsive to priority concerns of communities, that actively engage stakeholders, and that are more accountable to both internal and external stakeholders. This needs to happen for our research and extension system to succeed in the future. Our funders, our stakeholders, and we ourselves demand it. Revitalizing our Program Development process is critically important. To do this, we need to:
return to contents The Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cornell Cooperative Extension have long recognized the value of broad stakeholder input. Our emphasis on effective stakeholder involvement is born out of Cornell’s assessment of what is right to do, not simply a response to legislated mandates. Active stakeholder engagement is key in the program development process. To be responsive to priority needs and to be accountable to our audiences and funders, both CCE and the CUAES must have strong stakeholder engagement. This is a mandate of our mission, and it is a requirement to receive Federal Formula Funds. This means not simply keeping stakeholders informed, but rather a system wide commitment to, and a process that effectively involves and partners with stakeholders. While historically associations have sought regular stakeholder input, departments or faculty in determining applied research and education programs have not necessarily utilized this information. And while some departments have sought stakeholder input, there is no systematic process, nor standard expectation, that departments will involve or seek information from stakeholders. Indeed many outreach and extension efforts have been based on the “expert model”, feeling that “we know what is best for you”. Neither our audiences nor our funders will tolerate this approach. As a land grant institution, we have both a responsibility and a commitment to ensure that our research and education are relevant and based on current needs and issues and that we engage our stakeholders in determining, implementing and evaluating the programs we conduct. The proposed Program Work Teams will have primary responsibility and be accountable for determining processes to effectively engage stakeholders and gain on-going input. They will be expected to:
The bottom line expectation is that a stakeholder-input process relevant to the work of the PWT must be articulated and defensible relative to the scope of work of the team. Recognizing that communication needs to be two-way, the PWTs will determine methods to both gain stakeholder input, and to communicate program priorities and decisions regularly to stakeholders. return to contents Stakeholders are persons who sponsor, conduct, use or benefit from our research, extension, or education projects and programs. There are both internal stakeholders (e.g., research and extension colleagues and collaborators with Cornell or CCE, faculty, educators) and external stakeholders (e.g., individuals, families, communities, businesses, industries, policy makers, sponsors, collaborating agencies and organizations). return to contents What does stakeholder engagement mean? Stakeholder engagement is an ongoing involvement process. Effective engagement requires bi-directional communication, not just one-way data gathering. One obvious mechanism for stakeholder involvement is “at the table” representation such as through advisory groups, steering committees or strategic planning committees. Other methods include:
return to contents Which stakeholders do we engage? “Like the Florida presidential elections, such decisions on which stakeholders to “count” are at the mercy of people doing the counting. Gaining input from the “same old, same old” stakeholders results in our programs being “same old, same old.”[2] While we could choose “safe” stakeholders who will support those priorities that we have already identified, it begs the question, why bother? If one of our values is that effective stakeholder involvement is the right thing to do, both for the CUAES-CCE system and for our audiences, then it is not simply a response to legislated mandates. The better answer is “as many as possible, with a goal of giving voice to likely similar and differing opinions of faculty and educators.” We should have the courage to involve stakeholders who may have views outside of the generally accepted views. If the size of potential stakeholder groups is large (such as youth audiences), perhaps representative members, or staggering terms from different stakeholder groups would engage a variety of stakeholders over time. [1] Justin Morrill, ca. 1860 as reported in the KELLOGG PRESIDENTS’ COMMISSION ON THE 21ST CENTURY STATE AND LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY, January 1996. Last updated: October 1, 2007 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||