This summary attempts to capture as fully as possible the responses received from the 98 questionnaires submitted.  From the 98  responses, a number of common issues or categories of issues emerged under each question. These categories are identified and along with the categories is included a cross-section of the individual comments related to that category.
 

Question 1.  In what ways does the partnership function well?
A.	INTEGRATION OF RESEARCH AND EXTENSION  A number of respondents commented that in general integration of research and extension is quite good at the state level, but that integration does not appear to be working as well at the national level.  At the state level, there are concerns about integration at institutions where research and extension are administered as separate functions in the university administrative structure. Integration involving the state-federal partners appears to work pretty well in program areas such as IPM and SARE, and where Joint Task Forces and committees have been developed that involve both federal and state partners.
B.	ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES  There is general lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities of people on both sides. Role and responsibilities seem to be better understood in matters that deal with the technical aspects of the partnership such as financial matters,  fiscal reporting,  fulfilling legal requirements, etc., but general lack of understanding in dealing with the programmatic and planning side of things. A number of respondents identified IPM. SARE, NRI, and Multistate research projects as programs where we have good interaction between the NPL’s and other CSREES folks with state partner administrators and faculty.
C.	DEFINITION OF PARTNERSHIP  Several folks commented that we do not have, and perhaps cannot have a real partnership. Descriptors used by several responders in describing the partnership were that what we have is a cooperative relationship, or more an alliance, or structural relationship, or a limited partnership.
D.	COMMUNICATION  E-mail distribution of newletters, job descriptions, announcements are seen as positive ways for infomation exchange. LGU involvement on review panels, NPL involvment in multistate research activities, IPA assignments, information being stored in one place such as CRIS, joint development of Impact Statements, Joint Planning Committees and Task Forces, interaction of ESCOP and ECOP Chairs with CSREES Administration are all seen as activities that contribute in a positive way to the partnership. The partnership functions well when there are short-term issues and products are well defined, but we do not function well in addressing long-term issues and needs.
E.	REPRESENTATION OF DIVERSITY OF INSTITUTIONS  The partnership does provide opportunity for input and involvement for the very diverse and different types of institutions represented. Institutions vary significantly in size, the clientele they serve, and geographic distribution is a major challenge for enhancing collaboration. The partnership represents a forum for participation by institutions which are very different in size, the clientele they serve, capacity, etc.. Partnership functions well to some extent whereby these institutions can develop some common goals, work toward those common goals, and meet different needs through different funding mechanisms. Partnership gives a “national presence” to the diverse groups  that makes up the partnership.
F.	General Comments  None of the aspects of the Partnership function as well as they should. Not sufficient agreement on roles and relationships to permit evaluation. Multistate activities are moving in the right direction Not aware of much that is functioning well Have come a long way in 3 years. Keep working at it.
Question 2.  What Issues do you see in the partnership?
A.	TRUST, MUTUAL RESPECT  This was an issue identified by a significant number of respondents. Currently there is a lack of trust not only between the federal and state partner, but also between research and extension. And it appears this may be an issue between the 1890's and 1862's as well.  Respect for the cultural differences between research and extension is also an issue.
B.	ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS.  Leadership responsibilities of CSREES, role of NPL;s, and expectations of the state partner and of CSREES of the state partner are clearly issues.
C.	EQUITY  Smaller institutions as well as the 1890 Institutions feel they are not equally represented in decision making and that their needs are not fully considered.
D.	PRIORITY SETTING  We do not have clearly defined national priorities as a partnership, and do not have a common vision.
E.	RESEARCH AND EXTENSION PROGRAM EMPHASIS  Agricultural related programs receive most of the attention.  Our programs as a system are too narrowly focused and do not serve all of the clientele we should be serving. Seems there is a power struggle between research and extension in program emphasis.
F.	COMMUNICATION  Many responders stated there is a critical need for improved communication. What needs to be communicated, appropriate channels of communication, and how are issues identified. Each part of the partnership often speaks for their own interests. No common voice for the partnership. Who should it be? How can we accomplish?
G.	BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ADVOCACY  Different priorities and advocacy come from different parts of the partnership-we do not represent a one -voice when it comes to budget.
H.	LEADERSHIP  Representative leadership. Leadership core is needed in the partnership to allow the system to respond to needs and opportunities. A two-sided issue. Once a decision has been made the members of the partnership need to respond. Often times opportunities and issues arise and leadership proposes actions, but the members are slow and sometimes reluctant to respond.
I.	DEFINITION OF PARTNERSHIP  What is the partnership?  Need a common understanding of what we mean by partnership and what the role of all of the members are in the partnership.
J.	REGULATORY EMPHASIS  GPRA, AREERA, and Civil Rights have placed the federal partner into more of a regulatory mode. Form over function appears to be what is driving the partnership. This has resulted in overburdensome paper work and reporting.
K.	General Comments  Perceptions are that CSREES emphasized research over extension and that the reverse is true as expressed by different respondents. NPL’s give more attention to extension, and the CSREES administration gives more emphasis to research??
Question 3.   What actions need to be taken to strengthen the partnership?
A.	IMPROVING COMMUNICATION  Need more opportunities for dialogue and discussion. More communication from CSREES Administrator and Deputies. More joint sessions at meetings. More joint committee work involving all partners. Use outside facilitators to help build better communication and dialogue. Workshops and conferences designed to address specific issues. Use state of the art electronic communication capabilities. Involve program leaders more in planning efforts and decision making process. Develop common strategies to enhance programs-not a strategic plan. Commitment that one side will not enter in to decisions affecting one another without input and discussion of all concerned or impacted. More joint meetings with leadership of ESCOP, ECOP and CSREES. Provide sufficient travel funds for NPL’s to participate in regional and national activities, particularly for those activities for which they have responsibility.. Work to better understand roles and missions of each partner. Further implementation of AREERA will strengthen AES/CES partnership and the result should also lead to a stronger state-federal partnership
B.	UNDERSTANDING DIVERSITY IN SYSTEM  Needs to be greater understanding of the differences in the institutions that are within the system. Articulation across institutions needs to be encouraged. Better understanding of the difference in needs and characteristics of stakeholders. Need to recognize that different programs are needed in different states or regions and building that into program focus. Joint efforts are needed to elicit stakeholder input. Need to understand and respect differences in research and extension.
C.	SPEAKING WITH ONE-VOICE. Need to find a way for CES and AES to speak with one voice. Align the administrative structures of CES and AES.  CSREES as the facilitator and voice for the partnership with other agencies within USDA and non USDA agences.
D.	REPRESENTATION  More representatives of LGU’s on assignment to CSREES.  More representation of 1890's on national committees.  Ensure there is appropriate liaison or representation on committees, task forces, etc.. Need balance of state experienced people from both research and extension in CSREES. Ensure inclusiveness.
E.	PLANNING  Need to institute joint planning activities. Need to focus planning on action. Hammering out a mutual decision making process on issues, programs and projects.. States really do not take the priority setting process seriously. Take stakeholder assessment and input seriously.  Involve AES and CES in developing the federal budget for the agency.  Develop more integrated planning for programs at the national and state levels. Develop pilot projects to demonstrate the seamless integration of research and extension programs.  Build issue based integrated teams.
F.	DEFINING THE PARTNERSHIP First must remember what a partnership means. Cannot force partners to conform to the way any one partner does things unless it enhances the ability of all partners to fulfill their mission. Define the limits of the partnership. What are the parameters that we work within? Let’s all know the rules and let’s put them out there for everyone to understand.  The term partnership should be discarded and another descriptor sought. In a partnership, each partner has and equal vote on policy decisions. Neither side of the partnership can give unrestricted voting rights to another.
G.	VISION AND MISSION  Establish a vision relevant to future needs. Involve stakeholders. Focus on program areas of  highest priority. Establish a unified vision for ag at the national level.  Develop a  few   mission directed goals that may be agreed upon and to which all subscribe. Understand that each partner has a unique mission. Reevaluate a joint agreed upon mission and vision. Jointly agree upon a set of working relationships that can foster mutual trust.
H.	ACCOUNTABILITY  Working together to improve accountability All parties need to understand the importance of and their responsibility for accountability. Serious consideration needs to be given to reducing paperwork and approval process.
I.	TRUST  We need to know and respect each other better. Need to recognize that each unit has a different portfolio of roles.  Need a system of engagement that will leverage the administrative and program talents of the system to respond to emerging issues-an active not reactive strategy.
J.	CSREES ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS BROKER WITH OTHER AGENCIES  CSREES role with other USDA agencies and non USDA agencies for enhancing the partnership needs to be clarified.
K.	TRAINING  Efforts should be made to provide training for all new members in the partnership relative to the purpose of the partnership.
Question 4. What operating principles would you like to see among the partners in order to strengthen the partnership?
A.	COMMUNICATION  Clear explanation of current roles and function  Consultation among members of the partnership before release of administrative directives.  Simplifying as much as possible reporting processes. Reduce bureaucracy.  Open and clear complete information sharing.  Speak with one consistent voice relative to program priorities and federal budget.  CSREES will be at the table with other USDA and non USDA agencies that are important to the partnership  Two way communictions and consensus building on solutions before action is taken.  More site visits by program leaders and specialists.  Develop trust and understanding to enhance open communication.  Greater communication among between groups.  More sharing of ideas.
B.	STRUCTURE  Develop an infrastructure that supports equal respresentation, decision making and resource development among partners.  Put more emphasis on joint planning committees.  Reduction in Bureaucracy. Design a mechanism for the cooperation that make it a strategic partnership rather than an administrative partnership.  Must clearly define  exactly the “partnership” we are discussing. What is its nature and purpose?  Maximum effort and minimum rules/regulations/barriers  Putting our stakeholders first. Putting access before delivery  Research, extension and education are equally important functions.  Seamless flow from research to outreach programs  Build on strengths of each partner. Do not force mechanical functions that one system knows upon the other partners without telling them why or how to adapt.  More inclusion.  Cross-representation on all national committees, task forces, etc..  Joint meetings with agendas of substance , Mechanism for follow through actions.
C.	VISION and MISSION  A shared vision. What is our mission? Establish a vision for agriculture in the US. Operate the plan to accomplish the vision.
D.	TRUST and RESPECT  Numerous comments on the importance of building trust and a common purpose. Full commitment to team work.
E.	PLANNING  Needs to be greater involvement of all the partners in all phases of planning. Accountable, risk-taking, flexible and adaptable, realistic and timely.
F.	TRAINING Training is needed for new members of the partnership at all levels using professional trainers and evaluators.
Question 5. Why is it important that there be a partnership among AES, CES and CSREES?
A.	A UNIQUE PARTNERSHIP  Our strength and uniqueness is this relationship. No other organization has this people focused integrated effort. We must capitalize on the differences we make. Each unit carries an important role and we must value each role. CSREES is an important interface to an increasingly arcane federal bureaucracy. Presently. this interaction needs more help than it is getting.  We have a common binding principle-discovery to improve lives. The relation between research and extension as a filter up and down relation is critical to success of each. To ensure that what programs are implemented in the partnership serve the constituents of the states, and reflect the diversity of populations as changes occur nationwide. Problems, issues and needs of agriculture and the food sciences are great and multifaceted, and expertise of all in the land-grant system network are needed to adequately address them. Provides program direction, funding multiplier effect, and support for engaging volunteer educators. Reduces duplicity and gives a practical insight to the problems to the research component. Need a federal partner that can articulate and capitalize on that unique arrangement . The alliance between USDA and state partner has been shown to be among the most effective mechanisms for fostering a systematic approach to classroom instruction, informal education and service, and discovery of helpful knowledge. Without the federal presence, it is unlikely that some universities would recognize the strength of these arrangements. The federal, state, county educational connection is a strength that other countries and private industry want to emulate. The partnership allows the system to provide a unique product that no one else can deliver. This has been the most successful venture in US history. Dissolving of the partnership will lead to duplication of efforts in the states, would slow research and the network of communication would be severely hampered. Essentially every issue of any importance to society has a need for activity along the entire continuum from discovery to application. None of these partners can accomplish what is needed alone.
B.	SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE  To speak with one voice. Be on the same page in terms of priorities and issues. What is the alternative? A partnership is critical to good decision-making. It implies communication, consensus building, and joint problem solving. We must present a united front to our stakeholders and to congress. Congress has given the LG system and CSREES five years to get our act together (accountability and communication) Do not believe that Deans, Directors and faculty realize the jeopardy we’re in!  None of the components can do it’s job without the others. For too long, CES operated as a “loose coalition” of absolute monarchies rather than a cooperative system. The AES were worse, with competition for funding being their major characteristic. CSREES brings a national perspective, the states bring the state, regional and local perspective. “Clearly, electronic connectivity and the need for rapid change call for more and better joint efforts”. This can be facilitated in part by a “neutral NPL”
C.	INTEGRITY OF LGU SYSTEM  In order for the integrity of the LGU system to endure, the partnership of AES, CES and CSREES is vital.
D.	GENERAL  Not sure there needs to be a partnership. Do believe there should be a partnership between the Federal Government and the Universities. However, in today’s world. the most important local community issues needing unbiased research and education in partnerships with universities is much broader than production agriculture. Therefore, the scope of interested funding and sources and felt needs may be better served by an organization that is not limited in their mission and vision as CSREES. A much smaller and focused program would be more cost effective.
Question 6. What potential dangers or risks do you see if the partnership is not approved?
A.	FUNDING  Decreased funding especially at the federal level. W/o partnership do not see a future for AES and CES. Suspect that formula funds would go into competitive pool. Will lose support from stakeholders. . Will lose formula funds. Will see continued inequities in funding and the provision for resources. Lose advantage of partnership for securing support and resources. If no partnership we will not be in a position to garner the increasing resources needed to support the system. A federal budget with all ear-marked items and no formula funds.
B.	LOSS OF EFFICIENCY  Taxpayers may perceive that efforts are being duplicated. There would be reduction in quality of programs. Inefficiency in use of public funds, Good programs could be lost. Increases in inefficiency of our organization that will result in reduced funding and effectiveness. The demise of truly national research and extension programs. Unnecessary duplication of efforts.
C.	SERVING STAKEHOLDERS  A loss of some of the core and special projects responsible for getting important education programs to communities. Small growers will go out of business. Disadvantaged populations will suffer> LGU’s major mission of eduction for average people will be lost. Loss of LGU -stakeholder network. Erosion of public confidence in the system Public rejection of our agenda. Eventually the citizens willl change a bureaucratic system to get what they need and want. If we do not respond, our successor will be created. There will be no appearance of a national system of science and education in agriculture and related fields. There will a natural development of laboratories of excellence around and about, but there will be little sharing of knowledge. As partnership erodes, congressional support for CSREES will decline as local constituents report on lack of USDA involvement or support of their needs. Disconnect between research and stakeholder needs. LGU’s will increasingly become removed from their local constituents. Special interest groups will exert more control on scientists. Other organizations will attempt to construct an extension ttype education system. Research agenda becomes less relevant . Outreach could be based on less high quality science. Would lessen the benefits of multistate activities. Too much research on unimportant issues. Lack of relevancy research. Will become ineffective in serving the public good.
D.	STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT COULD OCCUR  If the land grant agriculture components of our universities become indistinguishable from the other university units, it is unlikely that science and technology will continue to be carried through the development and application phases in public hands. This will emasculate the extension component, and teaching function as well. Might divide CSREES two ways: NRI to competitive grants agency as National Academy of Science recommends. Rest of agency to ARS. Number of Coll of Ag and Human Sciences units are going to decrease. Their standing in the Univ will erode. A continued marginalizing of the land-grant system. CSREES will not be able to adequately represent the university partnership and will increasingly lose its reason to exist. Further isolation of CSREES and the states attempting to finding other ways to do business. Each group working more independently of the others. Greater impact on smaller institutions. Greater disparity in the land grant programs and ability of institutions to respond to national, regional, state and local needs. A weak partnership will carry the greatest risk in those institutions where federal funding is a relatively large proportion of the funding portfolio. Smaller states will walk away when the demands exceed their capacity to respond. The development of a few big players at the expense of many smaller players. Will weaken the traditional LG team approach.
E.	GENERAL  How could it get any worse? Honestly see the federal partnership eroding rapidly and unless there is drastic change, it disappearing quickly. I think the collaborative aspects of AREERA and the direction in which we are going is a move in the right direction.
Question 7. What joint programs and projects does the partnership need to focus on in the next few years?
A.	SPECIFIC PROGRAMS  Youth and families and community development in the federal budget. Quality of life. More multistate, multi-regional integrated programs. Sustainable communities. A safe, diversified and partially locally grown food supply. Food Safety, Health and environment. Agricultural-Environment interface. Try some new themes, like health, herbs, pharming Kellogg Commission Report-“Renewing the covenant” lays out a strong future plan. Future of ag in the US and world; land use; soil quality; water quality; genetics, natural resource allocation. Sustainable management of natural resources. Rural America Issues. Agriculture in the Urban Area. Biodiversity of urban space. IFAFS, Genomics Initiative and GMO education. USDA CSREES (and even worse ARS) are too oriented to commodities, rather than products. More focus on commodities than food. Agricultural and science literacy in urban areas. Consumer Issues Balance of efforts for basic and applied research activities. Improved communication-more one-on-one between state and federal agencies. Joint appointments for research and extension Continue 401 and 406 efforts. Value added agricultural systems Globalization of markets Divergence of commodity-based agriculture and product - based agriculture.
B.	PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS  Develop joint programs that have importance to all partners. Programs where there is mutual interest, realizing the diversity represented in the states. Concentrate on major programs and issues. Many specific programs are already being addressed. The challenge is to bring together a seamless and operable partnership that demonstrates the interface between fundamental and applied research and extension. Be flexible and willing to change. We must start not with the programs but with respect for each other’s mission. We must recognize that not everything can or should be done jointly. First, a joint and major effort should be mounted to recapture the postion of national leadership in science and education in agriculture and related areas of responsibility. This point of leadership needs to be CSREES with state collaborators infused throughout. We must understand export markets do not mean selling commodities. Do we understand how negative globalization is for so many people? What is globalizaiont? For whom?
C.	INTEGRATION OF RESEARCH AND EXTENSION  Research and extension need to become better integrated on many campuses, when that is done we will be able to do a better job of integrating regionally, and then nationally. Integration will lead to problem-solving at its best. Joint task forces between research and extension have been very successful and we need to identify key areas where teams can develop action items that will lead to increasing support. CSREES reviews should target integrated activities and integrated activities should be encouraged with specific incentives to work together. It is clear that Congress has a desire for more integration and multistate activities. We should take this very seriously. Joint programs and projects that are focused on system-wide issues. Integration of research and extension as a way to improve the scholarly activity within CES
D.	POLICIES, PROCEDURES, ETC.  Streamlining the reporting process as much as possible and move toward a paperless reporting system. Joint needs assessments, priority setting, strategic planning, POW development. Joint priorities as budget priorities. Revise IPA (university working with CSREES and vice versa) Science planning competitive funding mechanisms, like IFAFS. Streamlining the administrative overhead, and looking for more flexible partnering mechanisms-perhaps regional and with other federal agencies. Expanding electronic technology and usage by the system. Staff recruitment and development. The partners need to agree on the most important funding initiatives and the strategies necessary to move the initiatives forward. Minimize redundancy. Jointly develop publications, programs and staff training to the benefit of all. Develop ways to systematize web-based information and make it easily available to all. Concentrate more on emerging issues in society rather than focusing on traditional academic disciplines. We need a common vision or understanding of what it is we are going to do together. An enhanced communication process between AES,CES and CSREES. A professional advocacy program for the partnership. When committees or task forces are formed, ask the question would one or more of the other partners have and interest? Make that the driving factor. Ensure appropriate representation in all activities.
E.	INVOLVING CUSTOMERS  A working partnership between the universities and the other two partner levels. That is the FED’s and the county staff. A reconnect between the Fed level and the customers at the county level. How do we coordinate stakeholders involvement? How do we change our graduate and undergraduate education from superman-superwoman to team players that stakeholders want? Who will take the lead? We need to get behind the national C-CFAR effort which is customer driven. We need to get behind NASULGC’s Food and Society initiative to expand funding.
F.	ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES  The three partners must review together what all CSREES staff do. Do not believe the university knows what priority services wanted/needed from CSREES. Too much of the relationship is based on custom and tradition rather than priority, critical needs. University scientists need to understand the mission of USDA, the breadth of society expectations; as well as broader beyond USDA to focus on critical issues. Become a single, strong voice for influencing legislation. Revamp committee structures so all groups are working together. Redesign regional staffing that now serves only one segment of the partnership. Clarification of roles of all parts of the partnership. Role expectations and relationships. A need-everyone learning about everyone else.
G.	DEFINING THE PARTNERSHIP  Defining the scope of the partnership. Agreeing that it is acceptable for individual partners to have additional partners. Before we can “focus on”, the partnership needs to be refocused.AFO/CAFO Issues. TMDLs. CNMPs. Risk management. A start is to focus on what the “partnership is”, then move to what it might be and how it can serve. That exercise will identify programs and projects for focused activity. Let’s not have a February meeting unless it is necessary and has a high potential for deriving positive results. We need “bigger’ thinking than just thinking about important projects and programs. To some extent this is the problem and why we are not doing well. We keep rearranging the deck chairs wile the ship is sinking. Answering this question only makes the problem worse. Developing a partnership that embraces all land-grant institutions. We must accept that a real partnership must be based on more than structure and guidelines. Making the partnership feel like a partnership. Joint activities with other agencies to maximize the interaction and the support of appropriate agencies. Everybody is doing something, but with coordination, much more could be accomplished Partnership should be about relationship building, trust building, exchange of information about how the partners operate.   go to: top / table of contents