Purpose, principles and functions of the partnership

The Partnership Task Force presented to the participants in the Workshop a suggested statement of the purpose of the partnership among CES, AES and CSREES, as well as some fundamental principles for the operation of the partnership and possible core functions of the partnership.  In 24 pre-assigned, mixed small groups, participants discussed these suggestions.  Each small group identified whether or not it could consent with the intent of the Task Force’s suggestion, identified questions and concerns about the suggestion, and proposed changes in wording.

Purpose

The proposed purpose was:  Ensure the effective discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that serves the public good.

• 13 small groups indicated they had consensus with the intent of the suggested purpose.
• Most of them also noted some questions or suggestions for changes.
• 11 small groups indicated they did not have consensus with the intent of the suggested purpose.  Some of them developed consensus within the group on an alternative purpose.

Questions and concerns that prevent consensus or proposed changes in wording

Following are all the questions, concerns and proposed changes in wording noted by the small groups.  They are put into categories of similar topics.

“Public good” is too general/not accurate  – 14 groups

• How to identify public good?  Is it needs, meeting the public’s needs, meeting societal expectations?
• Need to put the role in serving the public good at the beginning of the statement because it is most important.
• “Serves the public good” needs to be defined.  Who do we serve?  There is a perception that education is not a part of service.
• Who defines public good?  The state or national legislatures?  Extension?  Other? 
• Program and policy components impact public good.
• Who determines what is the public good?
• Use “public benefit” instead of “public good.”
• Anything that “serves the public good” is a trap.
• Who is our public?
• Our client base has expanded.
• Should the system serve all constituents?
• Add, “as defined by the public we serve”  – based on stakeholder input and as defined by all three partners.
• We are stakeholder-driven.
• Concern about representing cooperation with large commodity groups versus public good.

Too broad/general – 12 groups

• Not specific to us as a land-grant university.  Needs to be strengthened.
• Expanded too fast and too far.
• Generic/lacks specificity
• Is there enough definition to distinguish us from all others?  Uniqueness??
• It’s fine as a short statement, but needs elaboration.  Include “explanatory notes.”   The following terms should be added:  integration – multi-functional for synergism; development – i.e. education (both higher and extension education); and inter-level (federal and state contributions and linkages).
• Does not distinguish from other major agencies (e.g. NSF) or partnerships.
• What is unique about this purpose?  It could be any organization!
• It is reflective of our purpose, but not unique.

Narrow the subject matter scope? – 7 groups

• Include the three systems of food, natural resources and human within our “system” of responsibility.
• Narrow the scope with sub-titles like “food, environment and communities” after the word “knowledge.”
• Refine the wording to reflect the land-grant/content areas.
• Who is the audience?  Add words re agriculture?
• Keep it broader than agriculture.
• Issue of breadth vs. focus on food and ag.-related areas.  The language in the 1977 Farm Bill re food and agricultural sciences is broad but our current focus on food and agriculture is perceived as too narrow.

Does not capture the fact that we do more than disseminate – 5 groups

• Add “problem-solving.”  Application and dissemination is a one-way street.  Problem solving means engaging with stakeholders.  We are moving from traditional dissemination of information to organizing information.
• Change “dissemination” to reflect more “engagement/partnership” with publics.
• Solving local/state problems is left out.  Responsiveness is not noted.
• Change the order of dissemination.

Needs to be clear that it is the purpose of the partnership – 5 groups

• Include the partnership institutions/land-grant system
• There is no evidence that this purpose has anything at all to do with a partnership.

Re “ensure” - 3 groups

• “Ensure” means accountability and responsibility sharing between the partners.
•  “Ensure” is a heavy word . . . just start with the action words, or use “expedite” or “facilitate.”
• How do we “ensure”?  Drop it.

Make it issue-, problem- or solution-focused – 3 groups

• Consider adding positive outcome to statement.

The purpose relates to more than just knowledge – 2 groups

• We need to add “service.”
• Add “technology.”

Re “effective” – 2 groups

• What does “effective” discovery mean – timely, reasonable?? Eliminate “effective.”
• Say “effective and efficient.”

Other points made

• Increase the family with additional partners at all levels, NASA and GIS, community planning.
• Who is the focus of the partnership?  How does CSREES fit in?
• Should include human resources development
• Should students be involved in the development?
• Economic-joint consumption doesn’t work here.
• CES has broader mission than Experiment Station.
• Need freedom to expand programs.

Possible suggested rewording

• Utilize the unique capability of the land-grant-federal partnership to effect the discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that addresses public needs
• Utilize the unique capabilities of the land-grant-federal partnership to ensure the effective discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge that positively impacts the major societal needs of our culturally diverse population
• Ensure fulfillment of priority public needs through discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge
• Create a proactive, responsive agenda to ensure the effective discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that serves the public good
• Support the land-grant university mission, which is to ensure the effective discovery, application, dissemination and evaluation of knowledge of agricultural, natural and human systems that serve the public welfare
• Ensure the effective linkage of discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge on food and agriculture, human health and nutrition, environment and natural resources, and community that serves the public
• Ensure the effective discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that serves the public good through comprehensive urban/rural landscape management and the livelihood of people
• Ensure the discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge and technology and the development of human capital through research, education and extension that serves the public good
• Ensure the effective discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that addresses issues of critical concern to serve the public
• Ensure the effective discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge which benefits the public within the food, natural resources and human systems
• Ensure the effective discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that adds value to public decision-making
• Foster the effective discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge that serves the public good and ensures quality through our processes
• Discover, apply and disseminate knowledge that serves the public good
• Ensure joint effective discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that serves our varied publics in a way that is unique to this partnership
• Public service focused on meeting the needs of constituents by ensuring the effective discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge that serves the public good

Principles for the partnership

There were five suggested principles for the partnership.  Following is the list of principles and the numbers of small groups that had and did not have consensus with each principle.

There are bases for these groups to be connected even if there is no federal funding – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • There are bases for these groups to be connected beyond federal funding.  (This recognizes brokering and leveraging potentials.)
  • There is value added for these groups to be connected.  (There is no need to add “even if there is no federal funding.  Benefits are focal point, networking, communication...)
• Yes
  • The partnership has value beyond the federal funding.
  • Without federal funding, individuals and groups would still interact.  Roles might be massaged, but interaction WOULD continue.
• Yes, but . . .
  • Yes, but only sometimes.  Formula funds are necessary.  It is difficult to build partnerships without formula funds.  The overhead on formula programs is 7%; the overhead on grant approach is 43%.
  • Yes, but it would be very difficult.  There is much less connection without dollars.  If no dollars, there is no expertise to support small institutions.  This is leverage money.  Can we be a two-legged stool?
  • Yes, but with the recognition that federal funding provides infrastructure within which collaboration can take place.
  • Federal funding is not the sole purpose of our partnership.
  • However, funding is essential.
  • Yes, but the partnership would likely deteriorate over time without federal funding because it enhances cooperation.
  • What is “federal funding” – formula only?  Need clarification of “no federal funding.”
  • CSREES would still be needed.  Its functions would have to be further articulated – facilitator, provide national big picture.  NPL’s don’t have time to be program leaders.
  • Linkages with other states are more an issue of formula funds, creative resource stability and matching funds.  Resources across state boundaries.
  • It would be difficult without funding, but there is leadership/added value beyond oversight and administration of funding.
• No
  • The partner function relates to funding – if not, there is no need for the partnership.  The assumption of no funding means no CSREES.
  • Without the funding there is no incentive for the partners to cooperate and work together.
  • The consensus was that federal funds drive the agenda and often determine relationships among partners.
  • Not under the existing situation.  But an enhanced CSREES participation and leadership role would be a basis if there were no federal funding.
  • We need a reformed partnership, a national network to broker other funds from other sources.  We need a national umbrella but not necessarily CSREES.  may need the federal partner to encourage multi-state activity.  The program leaders’ job is to bring individuals across the nation together to address a problem and broker to all the agencies.
• Value or benefits of the partnership.
  • The partnership reduces potential for duplication.
  • We need to look at the benefits of the partnership.
  • This is a reason for connectedness, but we question the need for partnership.
  • Program coordination.
  • Programmatic linkages are necessary and need to be expanded upon.
  • Keep everyone in contact with local needs.
  • There is a need to be connected.  It could be done more effectively by a structure we create through NASULGC.
  • Regional projects are good.
  • Community of purpose, with understanding of individual roles
• The partnership is larger than the three initial groups.
  • Which “groups” are included – R, Ed, CSREES?  Institutions?
  • Higher ed. piece is missing.
• The land-grant mission connects us.
  • Serves the land-grant university mission, and addresses global and national issues to strengthen the nation.

We operate as cogent multiple voices for the whole – Feedback

• Suggested rewording:
  • We operate as one voice for the whole.
  • Delete it and add language to the 4th principle.
  • We operate as diverse but unified multiple voices for the whole.
  • We do not need this sentence.  Strike it.
  • We share a vision of needs and issues, and operate as cogent multiple voices to address and achieve that vision.
  • We operate as cogent multiple voices.
  • We operate as cogent multiple voices for the system.
• Yes
  • We need to operate as one voice for the whole, which needs to incorporate and reflect diversity.
  • “We speak for the system.”
  • This is a critical principle.
  • It’s reasonable to work toward.
• Yes, but
  • It needs to be addressed as an action item to improve our partnership.  It’s a work in progress.
  • This is the desired state, but we are not there today.  There is a fair amount that is off-key.
  • This is not true now, but we agree for the future.  This only occurs around programs, but individual interests become more evident when competitive funding is addressed.
  • It may be overstated.  Behind the scenes it is not as cogent.  We need a policy institute to represent all of us, and need a procedure to develop and present policy.
  • We are not currently doing it, but should.  It is critical to the sale of ideas.
  • Include ACOP and ICOP.
  • Change “the whole” to “the system.”
• No
  • But we need to foster mutual understanding, trust and respect within the partnership.
  • This is a viable goal, but we do not now do this comprehensively.  This is not a partnership principle.
  • We do not understand “cogent” and “the whole”!
  • We need a new word for “cogent.”
  • It is difficult to speak with a unified voice for the whole, to commit resources.  However, if there is a true partnership, then we can speak for the whole.
  • We need to define and expand “whole” (e.g., USDA).
  • We aren’t all here.  International and higher education aren’t here.  Do we need to define “whole”?
  • Mistrust among the partners was discussed, especially as it relates to budget.  Some feel that they are left out of this federal process, and tend to be surprised when the budget request becomes public.
  • Democracy does not work with one voice.  Do we want one voice?  We need an ability to hear all of the voices.

We share responsibility for ensuring efficacy of public investment – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • We share responsibility for ensuring efficacy and accountability of public investment.
  • We share responsibility for ensuring accountability to the public.
  • We share responsibility for ensuring appropriate use of public investment.
• Yes
  • Accountability standards have limited our efficiency.
  • Efficacy = efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.
  • We all care and need everyone to succeed.  We rely on CSREES and are partners, though sometimes inept.  We want to demonstrate efficacy, and Congress keeps “beating us up.”  Accountability is a big factor. 
  • RO-1 funding is long-term (NIH).  We need similar funding mechanisms.
  • Inherent to “efficacy” is vision, relevance and quality.
  • We are stewards of public funds.
• Yes, but . . .
  • What is “efficacy”?  We don’t want the opposite, but what else do we want?
  • Who defines efficacy?  Is it accountability?  Making change is answering problems?  Are we doing it well?
  • Public investments and public good are very broad.
  • It could be done better.  We need actions to become more efficient.
  • Mechanisms to do this are problematic (paperwork, detail).  The principle is good, but the practice needs improvement.
  • Shared responsibility implies shared development of methods for evaluation and reporting.  States feel that the amount of time and money spent on federal reporting is disproportionate and they could design a better system themselves.
• No
  • We did not discuss this.  It did not seem to be a major issue related to our discussion.  There are too many other trust and communication issues before the group felt we should address this principle.

We are mutual advocates for each other regarding our shared agendas and those agendas that are exclusive to each partner – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • We are mutual advocates for each other and treat each partner equitably.
  • We advocate a shared agenda and support actions that build strength in each partner.
  • We are mutual advocates for each other regarding our shared agendas and respect those agendas that are exclusive to each partner.
  • We are mutually supportive of our individual and collective agendas.
  • We are mutual advocates for each other regarding our shared purposes and those agendas that are exclusive to each partner.
  • We are mutual advocates for each other regarding our shared goals and those goals that are specific to each partner.
  • We are mutual advocates for each other regarding dynamic agendas that are shared as well as agendas that are more specific to one partner.
  • We are mutual advocates for each other regarding our shared agendas and we will respect those agendas that are exclusive to each partner.
• Yes
  • This is important at the state level.
  • The word “shared” is critical.
• Yes, but . . .
  • We need to strive for this principle.  It has not been met yet.
  • It’s a visionary goal to strive for.
  • We are improving, but not perfect yet.
  • We don’t do a good job of advocating for each other.
  • It’s an admirable principle, but we fall far short.
  • We need recognition that there are unique agendas of individual partners.  Real damage is done when we don’t talk about the system as a whole.  Some of the biggest opportunities are with non-USDA agencies.  There will be conflict in agendas.
  • CSREES has been an advocate for government.  We need a “mellowing” of understanding of the land-grant university system’s constraints and agendas.  It needs to be a force for the shared agenda and we need to share responsibility for development of the budget.
  • We need the communication piece to understand and help shape or inform the agenda.
  • We should operate this way, but don’t necessarily.
  • We are not there now, but support this principle in the future.  It does occur at the program level.
  • “Support” is a better word than “advocate.”  We need improved communication to do so.
  • We need to foster mutually beneficial relationships.  Advocacy is not lobbying.  There is no governance model to develop shared agendas.  We need a clear outline of federal expectations.
  • Do we need to “support” agendas exclusive of other partners?  An example is the move from formula to competitive funds.  We will not allow agendas exclusive to each partner to diminish the partnership.
• No
  • We are not advocates but are mutually supportive of each other.
  • We need AES and CES as ONE partner, a seamless partnership.  LGU and CSREES create an environment for equitable partnerships at AES/CES, etc.
  • This implies communication.  We can’t do this if we don’t know each other’s agendas and don’t understand them.  It implies some group consensus on prioritization of what is important.
  • Agendas are dynamic.  They may be shared yet the responsibilities are divided among partners.
  • We do not have shared agendas, and sometimes our agendas are at odds with each other.  This has led to some mistrust among the members of the partnership.

We are inextricably linked – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • Partners will work aggressively to foster linkages through budget and program development.
  • Learning, discovery and engagement are mutually interdependent and reinforcing.
  • We are inextricably linked through our customers.
  • There is a need to be inextricably linked.
  • We are strongly linked.
  • We are interdependent.
  • We are inextricably linked; the sum is greater than the whole of its parts.
  • We believe in and operate a mutual problem-solving relationship with communities and other key stakeholders.
  • We are synergistically linked.
• Yes, but . . .
  • Does this say we cannot exist without each other?  State partners would exist without CSREES; CSREES would not exist without the states.
  • It’s redundant and unnecessary if others are achieved.
• No
  • We are not linked in budget development.
  • We are functionally linked, but are we dependent on each other?  This implies cooperation and collaboration.  We seek a seamless LGU system.
  • This is a restatement of the first principle.
  • There is great potential.  We are linked statutorily and through our dependence on funding.  It is a good goal, but we are not there.  Or is it too ideal, not achievable.
  • This is overstated.  There are many sources of funding.
  • There is no need for this sentence.
  • We are not inextricably linked, we are more loosely linked.  Linkages are formed when there is mutual benefit.
  • The links between us are no longer natural; we have to keep constantly working on forging common links.

Possible additional principles

• Customers and stakeholders need to be central to defining the public need to be addressed through discovery, application and dissemination of knowledge.
• We are responsive to the needs of our clients.  We need a principle that reflects clients/stakeholders.
• We put customer service before self-service.
• We need to keep constantly identifying our public as the political milieu changes.
• We share a commitment to open and free communication.
• Shared communication (this is a function but should also be a principle).
• We value the ability of each entity of the partnership to develop, implement, evaluate and communicate independent programs that contribute to the priorities of the collective whole.
• We value and embrace diversity, pluralism and inclusivity.
• Our communities are children, youth, families and communities across America.
• There is shared mutual understanding of the principles of partnering behavior, i.e. trust, respect, inclusiveness, mutually shared values, consultation, etc.  (We need to develop these partnership principles.)
• We seem to have different agendas.  We need to try to develop shared agendas.
• We recognize that sometimes we will not need to work together; partnership is not merger.  Sometimes working together may not be possible.
• We will preserve and enhance public funding.
• We must communicate the value of collectively addressing our shared agenda to the public.
• Partners recognize and honor links with other partners outside this “partnership.”
• The voice of all partners is equally valued.
• The term “partnership” needs further definition, to compare partnership with other working relationships, e.g., memos of understanding, loose confederation, etc.  Partnerships, i.e. collaboration/integration, are difficult to achieve.  They require four conditions:  (a) common goal; (b) shared accountability; (c) equal decision input; and (d) open communication.
• There are mutual benefits to our partnership.
• Our partnership creates synergy.  The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
• We are a leader in discovery.
• We add value to public decision-making.
• We do not seek legal opinion before action.  We look for ways to do things, not for the legal opinion of why not to do things.
• We minimize legal barriers and restrictions.
• We operate with trust and mutual respect.
• We create a diverse cadre of future scientists and educators.
• We need to share a uniform understanding of the make-up of the partnership.
• We have complementary missions and are strategically linked.
• We do joint/mutual decision making around major issues that guide and lead the system.
• We need a principle on how to disagree.  What will happen to the partnership when we disagree?  There is an issue of respect for agendas that are exclusive to each partner.
• The partnership discovers, disseminates and applies knowledge through the state-based partners, supported and facilitated by the federal partner.
• There is a synergy of comparative advantage.
• There is shared trust.
• The science base is restricted:  there is a limitation of human science.

Functions of the partnership

There were six suggested functions of the partnership.  Following is the list of these functions and the numbers of small groups that had and did not have consensus with each one.

Promote a shared agenda  – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • Promote a shared vision
  • Identify, promote and jointly address a shared agenda
  • Need to make a number of edits on sub-points:
    • Identify and jointly address important local, regional, national and international issues
    • Participate in developing agendas
    • Assess resource capacity to deliver on agendas
    • Delete “Bring their collective intelligence-gathering systems together to identify emerging issues”
    • Communicate regularly on elements of agendas
    • Report regularly on impacts and emerging issues
    • CSREES will be responsible for the role of synthesizing information gathered.
    • Involve stakeholders and constituencies in developing and addressing the shared agenda.
    • Delete bullet that says, “It was noted that there currently is no one who plays the role of synthesizing the intelligence gathered.”  We recognize the concern and are concerned about the effort to capture and synthesize.
    • Develop and implement strategies and process to secure the needed resources
    • Bring their collective information-gathering systems together to identify emerging issues
    • Bring their collective expertise gathering systems together to identify emerging issues
    • Bring together information from collective systems, synthesize and communicate it
    • Change the statement that “no one plays the role of synthesizing the intelligence gathered” to a positive.
    • Add “Work jointly to assure adequate funding of shared agenda”
    • Identify and jointly address important nationwide issues where the partners’ agendas overlap (There may be state issues that we need to work on.)
    • Identify and jointly address important national issues
    • Add “Perform the role of synthesizing intelligence gathering”
• Yes
  • Emphasize the identification and joint addressing of important national issues where the partners’ agendas overlap and developing and implementing strategies to secure the needed resources.
• Yes, but . . .
  • All of these functions are ideal but don’t actually always happen.
  • Need to reverse the order of items under “This includes to:”  Put “Involve stakeholders” first, and “Develop shared priorities” last.
  • Reorder the items under “This includes to:” as 2, 3 and 1.
  • Reorder the items under “This includes to:” as 3, 2 and 1.
  • Reorder the items under “All partners will need to carry out the following roles.”  Add “Listen to stakeholders” first, then 3, 5, 4, 2 and 6.
  • We need to define groups, sources and the system for intelligence gathering to identify emerging issues.
  • We need to decide whether the federal or state partner takes the lead/responsibility in synthesizing intelligence we gather collectively.
  • We need improved stakeholder input and improved information systems.
  • This is a noble function but we don’t necessarily operate this way.  Are we capable of having shared priorities?
  • Could we take the strengths of each in compiling information?
  • We need to communicate better.
  • We don’t control the political process.  This is linked only to executive branch, not the legislative.  It’s a check and balance system.
  • CSREES should be the synthesizer per the 1998 AREERA Act.  Pieces are being developed that are not there yet.
  • There is no strategic plan for the partnership.  Where do we plan to be in 5 years?
  • The statements are correct but are not being implemented.  There is a lack of administrative leadership and communication at all levels.
  • The issue approach in Extension is out-of-date and needs to be rethought, i.e. base programs and initiatives not related to the budget.
  • We need a coordinated budget process.
  • There are unclear expectations.
  • Who does it refer to?  It’s not taken to states as much as it should be and is not communicated between research and extension as much as it should be.  It is variable across the country as far as cooperation between extension and research.  Deans’ support for CARAT varies, depending on the Dean’s representatives.
  • We have lost committees and other useful tools to help in developing shared agendas when the agencies were joined in 1994 to form CSREES. 
  • Links with other agencies should be developed.  How would information be shared?  The reporting system needs to be improved.
  • These functions should be principles.
  • Do we have the capacity to carry out the agenda?

Support and advocate for each other, even where these agendas do not overlap – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • Support and advocate our shared agendas
  • On sub-points:
    • Acknowledge the strengths and constraints of each partner
• Yes
  • We need to reframe our perspectives to see the shared agenda, across functions, as a system working in a powerful partnership.  We need to speak to the power of the system as a partnership.  “All boats rise with the tide.”
  • This means support for activities, even if unfunded.  It means using various media for the public.
• Yes, but . . .
  • We question the truthfulness of this.  A mechanism does not exist.  We need simple, straightforward and direct communication.
  • We are not currently doing this as we should, we are not willing to risk our money for others and need to address the unwillingness to sacrifice.
  • No additional reports!  We need to do planning and reporting in a usable form.
• No
  • Yes, this should be addressed, but we question whether the federal government understands the impact of paperwork requirements on states.  Fear of audit has led to increased accountability requirement, lessening our efficiency to respond to programmatic needs.  We have not acknowledged the impact on the partners.
  • There is no added value to the POW and/or impact statements.  What happens to it?  Paperwork requirements are a major issue for small institutions.

Promote and encourage sharing of knowledge, within and among states and institutions and among the partners – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • Promote and encourage sharing of resources within and among states and institutions and among the partners
• Yes
  • This is key.
• Yes, but . . .
  • This could be enhanced.

Mobilize rapid response to and problem solving on immediate, short-term issues and opportunities – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • Mobilize rapid response to and problem solving on immediate and short-term issues, as appropriate
  • Anticipate, identify and mobilize rapid response to and problem solving on immediate, short-term issues and opportunities
  • Mobilize rapid response to immediate, short-term issues and opportunities (“and problem solving on” is redundant)
  • Establish mechanisms mobilize rapid response to and problem solving on immediate, short-term issues and opportunities
• Yes
  • We should do this.
  • This is really important.
  • We recognize the need to combat misinformation.
• Yes, but . . .
  • Prevention is at least as important as reaction.
  • We agree with the statement but question how or who can accomplish it.
  • Are we capable?
  • We should be able to do this but are not sure if we can.  A mechanism is in place on the research side.  We may need to figure out a way to act like a line agency even though we aren’t one.
  • Statewide, formula funds allow for response to short-term needs and opportunities.  Federally, we need budget flexibility to respond to emergencies.  CSREES can try to get supplemental funds.
  • We don’t do this enough.  Response is usually quick when there is an emergency.  Getting quorums takes time.
  • We need to define a rapid process to do this. 
  • Perhaps links this to synthesizing intelligence (like on mad cow disease).  We must do it better.
  • Use electronic technology.
  • Do not divert funds from the states.
  • This is difficult to do beyond the state level.  It’s a problem for our future because others who are faster out compete us.
• No
  • There are some limits.  We can’t always be flexible when it would be ideal due to financial constraints.

Anticipate, do problem solving and take timely action on long-term issues and opportunities – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • Anticipate, solve and act on long-term issues and opportunities
  • Anticipate and take timely action on long-term issues and opportunities
  • Foresee and prevent problems
  • Perhaps this should be included in #1 on the shared agenda.
  • Establish mechanisms to anticipate, do problem solving and take timely action on long-term issues and opportunities
• Yes, but . . .
  • We need definition of the process.
  • It’s a good function (goal) but we are a long way from doing this.  We don’t have enough flexibility to be able to redirect.
  • We need to put in creative time on long-term issues.  This means long-term commitments.  We are subject to the whims of Congress.
  • There is an issue of program leadership.

Leverage local, state and federal resources to further the purpose of the partnership – Feedback

• Recommended rewording: 
  • Leverage resources to further the purpose of the partnership (Don’t limit it to any specific sources.”
  • Merge this with #3, reworded as “Promote and encourage sharing of resources within and among states and institutions and among the partners”
• Yes
  • We do this well.
  • “Federal resources” include those beyond CSREES and USDA.
• Yes, but . . .
  • Recognition of globalization of our agenda is needed.
  • Emphasize new sources outside USDA.
  • There is not enough time spent on solutions. 
  • Resources are not as mobile.
  • Some states share resources; others have potential (talk about it).
• No
  • The federal partner needs to bring more agencies to the table and support the land-grant mission.

Possible additional functions

• Demonstrate our values/market ourselves
• Coordinate plan to market and advocate to constituents and funders
• Promote/market our shared agenda and successes
• National marketing effort of the system’s work
• Communicate impacts and outcomes
• Communicate each other’s results and impacts
• Engage a broader set of stakeholders
• Facilitate additional partnerships with other agencies and other NGO’s
• Utilize new information technology to gather intelligence, summarize information, communicate and solve problems (i.e. knowledge management systems)
• Conduct focused programs that address diversity to meet the needs of changing population
• Develop mechanism to address globalization and address international components
• Involve budget unit as part of planning
• Each partner helps the others to more effectively understand their political and budget priorities.
• . . . and live [happily] effectively ever after . . .

General comments

• There appears to be a lot of “splitter” terminology instead of “lumper” terminology in this document.
• Rename USDA to the “U.S. Department of Food, Family and Natural Resources.”
• There is a stereotype of CSREES and everyone.  Food system, environment and social contacts are varied areas where CSREES is involved.  There is a perception it is only agriculture and support of rural communities