A Discussion Paper to the Assembly of Extension Program Leaders
Over the years, the Sea Grant network has used a variety of mechanisms to develop regional and national extension programs. As Sea Grant plans its future through the theme team process, it will be critical that well-functioning national and regional organizational structures are in place to successfully implement its vision. In addition, the National Sea Grant Extension Review Panel (the Panel) was recently tasked with making recommendations on national and regional extension programming. With this in mind, at the request of Jim Murray, National Sea Grant Office, the Assembly of Sea Grant Extension Program Leaders appointed a small committee to address issues related to national and regional extension programming.
The committee was tasked with examining the conditions under which it makes sense to establish regional and national programming and the most effective strategies for implementation. This report should be viewed as a white paper, or discussion piece. It is designed to provoke thinking on the issue of regional and national extension programming. The committee approached the task by trying to answer the question, "Is there a better way to develop regional and national extension programming?" We tried to avoid being prescriptive and instead present multiple views on issues.
Sea Grant is uniquely poised to serve as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) window to the outside world. Throughout Sea Grant's history, observers have commented on the necessity of having in place a well-structured and functioning regional infrastructure. Sea Grant has created a successful model as a community-based endeavor that responds to the needs of local constituents. Looking to the future, Sea Grant can extend this model to address community needs across local and regional boundaries. The opportunities and benefits extend to individual programs, the network, extension personnel, and, most importantly, to the community of users. The purpose of this report is to revisit regional and national extension programming for the purpose of improving Sea Grant's capabilities.
Sea Grant programs have traditionally been organized into regional networks based on geographical location. The premise behind this approach was that programs in a similar region might be facing common issues and the close proximity of their personnel would allow for increased interaction. However, this approach has met with mixed success. This report identifies examples of successful regional networks that can be used as guidance to those regional networks encountering barriers.
Networking can also be organized around issues instead of geographical regions. Issue-based networking (intellectual regions) could be the dominant model for future networking, or it could function concurrently with the regional network model. Existing Sea Grant-related organizations and operating procedures do not provide a formal framework for agents and specialists to join together as intellectual regions. To address this issue, we recommend establishing "virtual networks" or other mechanisms to facilitate issue-based programming.
There are several inherent problems associated with the planning, creation, and operation of regional Sea Grant extension programs and positions. However, a few commonly understood and supported practices of conduct would help regional Sea Grant Extension programs operate successfully. Recommendations for best-conduct practices include the following: start by doing no harm; engage in planning, not scheming; aim to be inclusive, not exclusive; guarantee that extension ethics and practices are upheld; respect cooperating programs' roles and jurisdictions; act in a fair manner; commit funding to partnerships; and earn trust but don't expect it.
The following principles should be followed in the development of a networkwide funding process for regional and national programming with internal funds:
The two primary goals of this proposed process are (1) to provide an alternative to the NSIs as a means of mobilizing the Sea Grant network to address issues that are of national concern and (2) to grow the core of the Sea Grant programs. The heart of this proposed approach is provision of both the incentive and the means for Sea Grant programs to respond to centrally identified networkwide or regional needs. Follow-up evaluations through program assessment team (PAT) visits could adjust the program's merit award (not its core), based at least in part on the program's efforts and outcomes that address a specific need.
Successful proposals for new activities would be funded immediately. But those new funds would not be added to the program's core until subsequent assessmentpossibly a PAT visitfound that the proposed work had been successfully carried out. In other words, regardless of which process a program elected to use (either existing or proposed activities), funds would be added to the core only on the basis of performance.
Many federal agencies are now trying to build outreach programs to provide a connection with their users. The desire to incorporate outreach into these agencies provides challenges and opportunities for Sea Grant. Many feel that the most efficient way to provide extension for these other agencies is not to reinvent the wheel but rather to allow Sea Grant to provide the outreach for them, building on the administration and infrastructure that is already in place. If Sea Grant is to partner with other NOAA agencies or with other federal agencies to provide outreach, the advantages and disadvantages to this partnering should be considered. In light of these concerns, the recommendations in this report provide a mechanism for oversight and coordination of regional and national programs by all related Sea Grant programs and solve territorial problems with funding and housing.
We recommend several criteria for selecting partners:
Extramural funds would be needed to develop new regional or national programming. Topics could be selected in one of three ways, two of which evolve from within Sea Grant and one of which (number three) is a response to outside opportunities.
This report suggests a framework for the coordination and administration of regional and national programming and extension specialists. A full-time employee is needed to coordinate all regional and national programming. This coordinator (and his or her administrative housing body) could serve as the oversight authority responsible for ensuring project deliverables and performance of any regional or national project coordinators or specialists hired on a competitive basis. Regional project coordinators would be funded by the extramural funds brought in to support the effort. Additional funds for local level programming and personnel would also be funded though the extramural initiative. Money brought in by the national coordinator for programming would pass through the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) and be administered to the participating programs.
Given the increased interest of federal agencies to replicate the model established by Sea Grant extension, as well as the obvious rationale and opportunities for regional and national extension programs, the National Office has a remarkable opportunity for leadership.
To be most effective in facilitating regional and national Sea Grant programming, the NSGO should
I. Introduction
Over the years, the Sea Grant network has used a
variety of mechanisms to develop regional and
national extension programs. Examples include: bistate, multistate, regional,
and at least one national-type extension position; informal national extension
networks such as MarinaNet and HazNet; Global Environmental Change Education;
various national and regional competitions and enhancements; and the outreach
national strategic investment. Most observers would agree that the Sea Grant
network has benefited by regional and national programming. However, too often
the mechanisms used to facilitate regional and national programming have been
developed largely ad hoc.
As Sea Grant plans its future through the theme team process, it will be critical that well-functioning national and regional organizational structures are in place to successfully implement its vision. Increasingly, addressing marine and coastal science issues requires a broad, multistate approach. Funding opportunities are often enhanced if multistate programs are in place to address coastal problems. In addition, the National Sea Grant Extension Review Panel is tasked with making recommendations on national and regional extension programming. With this in mind, at the request of Jim Murray, National Sea Grant Office, the Assembly of Sea Grant Extension Program Leaders appointed a small committee to address issues related to national and regional extension programming. The committee consists of Judy Lemus (California), Brian Miller (Illinois/Indiana), and Jay Rasmussen (Oregon) from the Assembly; Bob Malouf (Oregon), the extension liaison from the Sea Grant Association; and Jim Murray (NSGO). The committee considered two kinds of regional and national programming: 1) programs conducted within the Sea Grant Network, and 2) programs involving partners from outside the network, including other NOAA units.
Although the committee was given broad latitude for its approach, the committee was tasked with addressing the following specific issues:
· Are there best practices for involving the Sea Grant Extension Program (SGEP) in national and regional competitions?
The regional networks have varying degrees of participation and effectiveness. Are there best practices for their organization and operation?
This report was developed by the committee through several conference calls and a two-day committee meeting in Portland, Oregon, on April 24 and 25, 2000. During the Portland meeting, the outline for the report was developed and the section writers were identified. The draft report was circulated to members of the Assembly before its biennial meeting in October 2000, and after discussion, modification, and approval, it was presented to the SGA at its November meeting.
The report should be viewed as a white paper, or discussion piece, and is designed to provoke thinking on the issue of regional and national extension programming. The committee's goal was to produce a report that was innovative and forward looking with regard to regional and national extension programming issues. The committee approached the task by trying to answer the question, "Is there a better way to develop regional and national extension programming?" We recognize that one important issue that remains is the balancing of regional and national opportunities with the need to keep a core group of agents at the local level. We hope this report will generate further discussion on this issue. We tried to avoid being prescriptive and instead present multiple views on issues. The ultimate goal is to identify mechanisms to enable the SGEP to more effectively deliver programs to its clientele.
The views expressed in the report are those of the committee. The approaches and suggestions presented in this paper are not intended to limit or place restrictions on two or more programs wishing to join together to conduct regional or national programming (as they do now); rather, it is intended to provide a framework that facilitates additional programming. The committee hopes the report will be used to stimulate and generate discussion within the Assembly, the SGA, the NSGO, and the Sea Grant Review Panel. In particular, we hope the discussion will be useful for the deliberations of the National Sea Grant Extension Review Panel.
Most observers would agree that Sea Grant is more than the sum of its parts, because in addition to its local program capabilities, Sea Grant has the capacity and ability to plan, organize, and deliver programs as a coordinated network. It identifies regional and national problems, shares talent, trains agents and specialists, and organizes outreach programs at the regional or national level. SGEP develops programs at the local level, but local constituents are better served if SGEP has access to expertise outside its jurisdiction.
Over Sea Grant's 31-year history, there have been numerous examples of value added being gained through the development of networkwide SGEP activities. For example, the Sea Grant network developed the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program, which benefited approximately 10,000 seafood businesses nationwide and was awarded the Silver Hammer award by Vice President Gore as an example of extraordinarily effective government programs.
Efficiency is at the core of regional and national programming. No one program can afford to fund and hire all of the pieces necessary to develop a national program such as HACCP, but by using the collective talents within the network, Sea Grant can develop and deliver a comprehensive educational program.
The concept of working regionally and nationally is almost as old as the Sea Grant program. In the 1970s, all regional networks were eligible to submit proposals and receive operating budgets, and in the case of the Northeast region, an office was established to coordinate regional programs. The 1983 report titled The National Sea Grant Advisory Program* recognized the value of the nationwide network, as evidenced by the following:
It is common for the results of a Sea Grant research project at one university to be applied throughout the nation because the advisory service network works in concert with other organizations and agencies. In this way, regional or inter-institutional projects produce results that are of national importance.
In part because of budget constraints, by the 1990s there was concern that the networking concept was being diminished. As reported in the 1992 think piece titled Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service: the Nation's Coastal Technology Transfer Program for the 21st Century,
The networking concept is not working as well as it has in the past. There are a number of constraints (distance, financial, institutional and personnel) that often prevent regional networking from operating effectively. A diminished regional effectiveness may be adversely affecting clientele services.
The report concluded that "the regional infrastructure should be examined to determine if improvements can be made to strengthen SGMAS programmatic capabilities and efficiencies."
More recently, the 2000 report by the National Research Council, Bridging Boundaries through Regional Marine Research, recommended that to enable regional marine research, programs should
"Establish a communications network that effectively
links political, social, economic and environmental interests in the design,
implementation and evolution of the program for more effective science education,
public outreach, economic development and management of ecosystems and living
resources;"
and
"Ensure sustained public and political support for the
stable funding through outreach activities that increase awareness of current
research activities, describe changes in the health of coastal ecosystems, and
explain how the results of research and monitoring are used to support environmental
decision-making. This last element, building public and political support, is
essential to the success of regional research programs."
In short, throughout Sea Grant's history, observers have commented on the necessity of having in place a well-designed and functioning regional infrastructure. The purpose of this report is to revisit regional and national extension programming for the purpose of improving Sea Grant's capabilities. If regional programming were easy, this report would not be necessary. The committee recognizes that there are obstacles and impediments to regional and national programming, including the following:
The committee hopes to provoke a dialogue within the Sea Grant network on how Sea Grant can overcome impediments to regional and national programming so that the benefits of this collaborative, larger-scale programming can be fully realized.
Sea Grant has created a successful model as a community-based endeavor that responds to the needs of local constituents. Looking to the future, Sea Grant can extend this model to address community needs across local and regional boundaries. A number of factors, including increasing populations, urban sprawl, increased infrastructure for travel, and emigration toward coastal cities, have blurred the distinction between once-separate communities geographically as well as culturally and economically. It has also resulted in the amalgamation of a number of issues that are common to almost every coastal city in the world: water quality, invasive species, habitat destruction, seafood safety, coastal hazards, and planning and development.
Likewise, ocean resources rarely adhere to political boundaries, and their successful management often requires cooperation throughout the geographical ranges of species. The committee believes that while it has always been a good idea, it is now imperative for Sea Grant to step up efforts toward national and regional extension programming. The opportunities and benefits extend to individual programs, the network, extension personnel, and most importantly, to the community of users.
The regional and national Sea Grant extension programming that has occurred to date typically has been accomplished by voluntary efforts where two or more programs have banded together for the purpose of combining skills, talents, and resources to address an issue of mutual interest. In some cases, this collaboration was catalyzed by an RFP requesting multiprogram involvement. In other cases, collaboration resulted from formal, regional network activities (for example, shared network publications resulting from work team activities). Sometimes, the collaboration was born out of an issue-based concern that many programs shared (Global Environmental Change Education, MarinaNet, HazNet, Coastwatch, AquaNIC).
While Sea Grant can show many successes in regional and national extension programming that has resulted from interprogram networking, this networking can be strengthened by institutionalizing some of the successful networking strategies and providing a more formalized structure where programs and individuals can join together to collaborate. The suggestions that follow describe strategies that have been effective in the past and offer some new ideas that might allow for more cohesive regional and national programming in the future.
Sea Grant programs have organized into regional networks based on geographical location. The idea behind this approach was to provide programs a structure in which they could band together to work on issues of mutual interest and concern. The premise behind this approach was that programs in a similar region might be facing common issues, and the close proximity of their personnel would allow for increased interaction. This approach has met with mixed success. Some regional networks have been strong and active for short periods, while other regions have been able to sustain longer periods of success. The characteristics that have contributed to regional network success and those problems that have contributed to network inactivity are detailed below.
Networking can also be organized around issues instead of geographical regions. Several good examples of issue-based programming have been the result of programs' across the country participating in projects of mutual interest (for example, HAACP, MarinaNet, HazNet, and Global Environmental Change Education). Issue-based networking could be the dominant model for future networking or could easily run concurrently with the regional network model. Much can be gained by employing both approaches simultaneously. Strong regional networks ensure long-term collaboration and cooperation among programs while a formalized structure for issue-based programming allows for concentrated efforts on issues that are of importance to more than one region. Our existing Sea Grant-related organizations and operating procedures allow for issue-based programming to be developed in two ways: from the bottom up or from the top down.
Issue-based networking can be started from the bottom up by two or more programs joining together to tackle an issue of common concern. This process could be formally facilitated by the SGEPL through issue-based work teams. The SGEPL work teams could decide what objectives need to be accomplished, what resources are needed to accomplish them, what regions and programs are in the best position to address this issue, and where resources might be obtained to accomplish this. The Extension program leaders involved could then work with their staff to respond to and participate in this issue and could work collectively to obtain funding (perhaps through a collective proposal to National Sea Grant, NOAA, or some other agency). The assembly as a whole is responsible for determining what topics warrant the formation of a work group. Any work groups formed would be accountable to the entire assembly for their productivity and could be required to identify their two-year objectives (corresponding with SGEPL meeting cycles) to the assembly, to report their progress to the executive committee prior to their regular conference calls, and to give a report at each regular assembly meeting.
Issue-based programming can also be started from the top down by the SGA or the national office identifying issues that need attention. The process could be catalyzed by identifying objectives, setting aside funds to accomplish this objective, and issuing an RFP to develop a network activity that is issue based and accomplishes the desired objectives. This approach is discussed in more detail in section VI of this report.
Existing Sea Grant-related organizations and operating procedures do not provide a formal framework for agents and specialists to join together to work on an issue of common concern. This would be of particular value to new staff or personnel that reside in a remote location and would provide excellent in-house learning opportunities for all staff working on a particular issue. In the above examples, work teams can be created and monitored under the umbrella of a parent organization such as the SGEPL or regional networks. Since no organization exists for agents and specialists, perhaps a "virtual network" could be established. The SGEPL could supply server space and support for discussion groups.
This process could be started by having a general discussion group where agents and specialists could interact and determine topics of common interest. Once sufficient interest was established, they could petition the SGEPL to have a separate discussion group established for that topic. Once the group was established, everyone in the discussion group would essentially become a work team and would follow the guidelines described above for SGEPL work teams. The discussion group is just a tool that allows the work team to meet and communicate. A more active communication alternative would be through listservs or computer videoconferencing. Any of these communication techniques could be supported and administered by the SGEPL.
The desire to meet a broad set of geographic or programmatic needs in an efficient manner promotes strong interest in regional Sea Grant extension programs within the network and by the national office. More recently, interest has grown in determining information needs of stakeholders and extending the research knowledge of other agencies within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through Sea Grant extension, often at a regional level.
In the planning for and the creation and operation of regional Sea Grant extension programs and positions, all the inherent problems of personnel associated with academic staff are exacerbated by a number of factors. These factors include traditional skepticism and competition between semisovereign state programs, by issues of funding arrangements and long-term commitments among the partnering programs, by the faculty member's ability to provide services that are seen proportional to the program's investment, and often by the geography involved (particularly in the West).
However, there seems to be a plethora of commonly understood and, it is hoped, supported practices of conduct that would help ensure a considerably improved opportunity for regional Sea Grant extension programs to operate successfully-if not flourish. These practices can be described using the initialsSEA GRANT:
The overall vision is that the National Sea Grant College Program can be responsive to our nation's marine and Great Lakes needs via core-funded efforts.
The following principles have been followed in the development of a networkwide funding process that will allow the vision to be realized.
1. New SG dollars, obtained through funding initiatives or other means, should eventually be folded into networkwide core funding.
2. Core funding of individual Sea Grant College Programs (SGCP) should have a transparent and competitive means of growing.
3. Any increases in core funding through a modified NSI process should be better integrated into individual SGCP omnibus plans so as to maximize involvement of communications, extension, and education.
4. National Strategic Investments (NSIs) in the field relating to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources should be developed cooperatively by the Panel, the National Sea Grant College Program Office, and the Sea Grant Institutes.
The two primary goals of this proposed process are (1) to provide an alternative to the NSIs as a means of mobilizing the Sea Grant network to address issues that are of national concern, and (2) to grow the core of the Sea Grant programs. The proposed concept is based on recognition that the programs' core funding has been so seriously eroded over the past two decades that the programs are having great difficulty maintaining current activities, much less responding to emerging national needs.
At the same time, we hope to improve the quality of the network's response to national needs. Currently, at the level of an individual program, responses to the NSIs involve only one or two independent proposals that are unrelated to each other and are related to the program's omnibus plan only by accident. We believe that funding the responses through the core would allow them to become integrated into the programs' omnibus plans. Thus integrated into the programs' omnibus proposals, the network's response would be vastly improved, because responsive activity could then appropriately involve communications, extension, and education-not just research.
Clearly, funds for the proposed new process would need to come from the same sources that now support NSIs. That would reduce the number of NSIs or their scale. However, we are not proposing complete elimination of the NSIs. We recognize that they serve a purpose. On the other hand, we believe that some of the objectives of NSIs (for example, building partnerships with other NOAA entities) would have been more effective had the funds been used to provide incentives and rewards to the programs through their core funding, as we propose below.
The heart of this proposed approach is provision of both the incentive and the means for Sea Grant programs to respond to centrally identified networkwide or regional needs. Networkwide response funding might be as follows. The first step would be identification by the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) of an issue or issues (for example, invasive species) or a desired programmatic practice (for example, use of regional partnerships). Of course, we would hope that NSGO would employ an open and inclusive process to identify the needs, but the specifics of that process are outside the scope of this document. Having identified the response that they seek from the Sea Grant network, the NSGO would next make that response known to the 30 programs. What form the notification might take, and particularly what the timing should be, are critical issues, but we are confident that those issues could be resolved if this new concept is itself accepted.
Although details are not given here, we do want to emphasize two areas of concern. First, lead time for a networkwide response will need to be greater than has generally been the case for the NSIs. This new concept has its foundation and its strength in a reward system and will require time for the programs to respond. Second, there needs to be included a clear statement of the NSGO's expectations and its criteria for assessment of responses to nationally identified needs. That is, the programs obviously would have to clearly understand how the NSGO will determine whether or not they are adequately responding to or proposing to respond to the expressed need.
Once a networkwide response has been solicited, we propose two different ways that each program might respond. To a certain extent the response is a matter of choice, but that choice is largely predetermined by whether or not they already have activity underway and included in their omnibus plan that they believe meets the expectations of the NSGO relative to the identified need. Initially, each program would need to choose one process or another, not both.
1. Responding with ongoing activities: If programs have activities that they believe already constitute a response, that is, that already fit the NSGO's stated criteria for responsiveness, we propose that they present the ongoing programs to an assessment process that the NSGO would use to verify that the activities meet those criteria. If the assessment process verifies that the criteria are being met, funds would be added to the program's core award. These would not be "merit" funds but would become part of the program's core. However, as with merit funds, the amount available to any one program would be capped in such a way that it is possible for all programs to be successful. If the NSGO does not accept the ongoing activities as being responsive to the identified needs, the program would still have the option of pursuing increases to its core through the proposal process described below.
If the need for a networkwide response is a continuing one (for example, regional programming), future PAT visits would conduct followup evaluations and could adjust the program's merit award (not its core) based at least in part on the program's efforts and outcomes that address the need.
2. Responding by proposing new activities: If a program chooses not to submit ongoing work for assessment, or if its ongoing work is determined by assessment to be unresponsive, then the program can propose new responsive activities. Proposed new funding to each program would be capped at an amount that would be equivalent to the "reward" added to program's cores for already having responsive activities underway. That way (and in that way only), the process could result in the funding of all the proposals. Such proposals would be evaluated on the basis of established standards in a process that would need to be developed for that purpose. Although the evaluation would in some sense be competitive, it would be primarily a matter of determining whether or not the proposals are likely to effectively address the need. Successful proposals would be funded immediately. But those new funds would not be added to the program's core until subsequent assessment, possibly a PAT visit, found that the proposed work had been successfully carried out. In other words, whichever process a program elected to use (either existing or proposed activities), funds would be added to the core only on the basis of performance.
We feel that the proposal process would both stimulate new activity and help level the playing field for programs. Compared to smaller programs, large programs can obviously afford to have a wider variety of activities underway at any one time. Therefore, large programs have a higher probability of already having responsive work underway. If the only mechanism available for programs to receive additions to their core were based on ongoing activity, then it is probable that relatively large programs would get even larger, and the gap between large and small programs would grow wider.
Further, although funding resulting from a successful proposal would not immediately be part of the core, the inclusion of the second process at least provides an opportunity for all programs to receive additional funding at about the same time.
The two processes outlined above are intended to eventually add funding to each program's core award. At the same time, the processes would reward programs for responding to identified national needs. Particularly in situations where the nationally identified need involves a fundamental change in the program's practices (for example, a need for better regional partnerships), future PAT visits could reinforce the reward and institutionalize the practice by including continued responsiveness to the need among the criteria used for programmatic assessment. On the other hand, any program that for whatever reason does not want to or cannot respond to the identified national need could simply forgo the additional funding. We submit that, having declined to accept funds targeted for a nationally identified activity, the program should not be expected in future PAT visits to have increased its involvement in that activity, at least to the extent expected of programs that have accepted such funding. In other words, we are primarily proposing a process for rewarding programs for being responsive, not a process for punishing unresponsive programs.
Many Sea Grant programs are struggling to maintain extension positions, and in some cases they will lose positions to inflation. As Sea Grant looks to the future and implements its growth strategy, pursuit of external funding and partnering with other agencies could provide one avenue of growth for extension programs.
Sea Grant is known throughout NOAA and other federal agencies as having a successful extension and outreach program that provides a critical connection with users. As funding becomes tighter and reauthorization becomes more difficult, agencies find that this connection with users is critical to maintain or increase funding in the appropriations process. Therefore, many federal agencies are trying to build outreach programs to provide this connection with their users. The desire to incorporate outreach into these agencies provides challenges and opportunities for Sea Grant.
When potential partnerships have been discussed, some program leaders feel that additional extension programs in the same parent agency would give Sea Grant extension personnel other people to work with in these agencies and would provide a conduit for involvement with their scientists. However, many feel that the most efficient way to provide extension for these other agencies is not to reinvent the wheel, but rather to allow Sea Grant to provide the outreach for their building on the administration and infrastructure that is already in place (provided that adequate additional funds are supplied to cover the increased activities). This latter view is the premise on which the committee developed the following external model.
The idea of forming partnerships with Sea Grant to conduct outreach minimizes competition for funds and clients, reduces inefficiencies that result from duplicating extension infrastructure, and avoids duplication and overlap between programs that add a layer of difficulty. Sea Grant has some experience in developing national programming with partnering agencies. For about 10 years, several Sea Grant programs (New Hampshire, Virginia, Mississippi/Alabama, Wisconsin, Washington, and Hawaii, plus land grant Extension in Nebraska) worked together to provide education on our changing global environment to educators and the public. Funding came from NOAA's Office of Global Programs (OGP), USDA, and NASA as well as state and local sources. Products included a nationwide videoconference, regional workshops, and a resource guide useful for teaching that science to others. This was an excellent joint effort and we can draw on its experiences.
If Sea Grant is to partner with other NOAA agencies or with other federal agencies to provide outreach, several advantages and disadvantages to this partnering should be considered.
The concept of sharing positions and partnering to do national and regional extension programming with other agencies has been discussed and attempted on two occasions during the past year (GLERL position and NMFS/SG positions). A number of concerns are raised by individual programs in the network regarding how these positions will be funded, housed, and administered:
Many problems that occurred when discussing new shared programs centered around the logistics of sharing a person who represents the region or nation on a particular project. Some problems are logistical and are related to equitable distribution of time and attention to all participating programs and the variation of support facilities and programming in participating states. Some are topical, variations in target audiences, or local issues. Some problems are political, related to control of the position; how do positions other than the housing program get their fair share? And finally, how will positions and programming be supported long term? Will it be the burden of the housing or initiating programs to pick up the burden if extramural funding diminishes?
In light of these concerns, we have developed a template for a model that we believe addresses many of the above concerns and provides a framework whereby Sea Grant can play a lead role in providing national and regional extension programming, for scientific results generated by scientists in other related agencies, that strengthens Sea Grant's overall mission to better serve its clients. We believe the model described provides a mechanism for oversight of regional and national programs by all related Sea Grant programs, provides a mechanism for coordination, and solves territorial problems with funding and housing.
The national office should be empowered to act on behalf of the Sea Grant network in exploring opportunities with other agencies (as outlined in section VII) and should communicate such activities openly with the network. This report strives to outline some guiding principles that the NSGO can follow when exploring and discussing opportunities for regional or national programming funded by an external agency. The guiding principles are as follows:
Extramural funds would be needed to develop new regional or national programming. Topics could be selected in one of three ways.
The model outlined above presents an administrative framework for national programming that would allow for national coordination, regional planning and prioritization, and local implementation of any new national or regional extension initiatives. In this example framework, national coordination of a networkwide project could be provided by a project coordinator (funded competitively) responsible for deliverables to a national programming coordinator housed in Washington, and the project could be steered by an oversight committee representing all components of the Sea Grant network (whether this were provided by existing theme teams, SGEPL work teams, or a steering committee appointed specifically for this purpose).
This committee could write the RFP, oversee a process to select successful proposals, or steer project activities. National projects should have a committee representing a diversity of programs' interests from the full Sea Grant network. Regional projects should have representation from all programs in the region that choose to participate. Regional planning and prioritization would occur when project personnel in state programs met as a region in conjunction with the national project coordinator (this could occur during regular network meetings or through some other venue). Local implementation naturally occurs at the individual program level as each program decides how the project will best be implemented locally. The internal model described in this section documents how review and evaluation of each program's performance might be conducted.
In some instances, national or regional programming might best be facilitated
by a specialist instead of a project coordinator as described above. In cases
where an extension professional must work with agencies, organizations, and
policymakers at a regional or national level to affect change and to address
client needs (instead of conducting programming locally), the establishment
of a regional or national extension specialist might be more appropriate.
A past example that was well received was the National Ports and Harbors specialist
position, formerly held by Tom Dowd. Work performed on turtle exclusion issues
affecting clients in all Southeastern states is an example of a regional issue
that may have been appropriate for a regional extension specialist position.
Work at the national level on issues concerning ballast water and nonindigenous
species might also be appropriate.
Selection of issues, funding of positions, selection of a site to house the position, and oversight of the position could all be conducted as described above for the project coordinator positions. Use of this model would provide for specialists that could work at a level transcending state and program boundaries, provide for input from all Sea Grant Network components, and fund the position in a way that the burden would not be carried by any one program.
There is little doubt within the National Sea Grant
Network that its extension component contributes to making Sea Grant a unique
and highly successful program within NOAA. Increasingly, agencies within NOAA
and in other sectors of the federal government recognize that an extension component
significantly adds to their ability to fulfill the organization's mission. The
recognition of extension's value should provide ample evidence to the NSGO and
to the SGA that Sea Grant Extension is a program element that deserves cultivation
and support-as well as protection of its integrity.
This paper has attempted to describe opportunities for regional or national extension programs, some of which may respond to the needs of other federal agencies without undermining the credibility of extension. But what is the role of the National Office of Sea Grant in facilitating regional or national programs?
Given the increased interest of federal agencies to replicate the model established by Sea Grant extension as well as the obvious rationale and opportunities for regional and national extension programs, the National Office has a remarkable opportunity for leadership.
To be most effective in facilitating regional and national Sea Grant programming, the NSGO should
This committee fully recognizes that the NSGO is understaffed in the area of extension. If the network and NSGO are fully committed to exploring national and regional extension opportunities, to be effective the NSGO will require additional staffing, namely a person specifically responsible for regional or national programming. This responsibility includes understanding the interests of federal agencies, communicating that interest and the interest of the NSGO to the network, assisting in developing and disseminating effective models, and otherwise ensuring that Sea Grant extension is capable of responding effectively at multiple levels to the many needs and opportunities that exist.
Regional and national SGE programming has a long history in Sea Grant. Given the growing complexity of coastal and marine issues and the need for increasing specialization to address those issues, it is apparent that developing and implementing regional and national extension programs will be even more necessary in the future. The SGEP has employed a variety of mechanisms over the years to conduct these programs. The committee's intent was to provide new ideas and alternative methods for organizing and conducting regional and national programming.
The committee provided the rationale for regional and national SGEP programming, identified best-management practices the network should follow when developing them, suggested some new approaches for implementing programs, recognized procedures to strengthen the regional networks, and addressed the role of the NSGO in identifying and coordinating regional and national programming opportunities. The committee views this report as a medium to provoke discussion within the Sea Grant Network. It is our hope that such discussion will lead to an improved report and ultimately the improved delivery of extension educational programs to Sea Grant's many constituents through regional and national SGEP programming.
Compiled by Brian Miller and Jay Rasmussen,
Sea Grant Week 2001
There are many similarities between the Byrne Report and the report developed by the Assembly of Program Leaders titled Regional and National Programming: Some Issues, Opportunities, and Conceptual Mechanisms for Improving Sea Grant's Capabilities. This document highlights the similarities between the two reports and offers additional recommendations to the Implementation Committee on how the recommendations of the Byrne Report, relative to regional and national programming, can best be achieved.
The relationship between the two reports is best articulated by the following statement from the Byrne Report:
"Through NSGO, Sea Grant Extension should develop principles
to guide the response to pressing issues and new program opportunities. These
principles can be based on the report "Regional and National Sea Grant
Extension Programming" developed by an ad hoc committee of the Assembly
of SGEP leaders. This report addresses new approaches and guidelines for national
and regional extension programming. The Panel endorses several of the ideas
in the report."
The Assembly encourages the implementation team to consult the Assembly report for implementation strategies recommended in the report. The Assembly hopes recommendations on issues including "Framework for the Coordination and Administration of Regional and National Programming" and "Framework for the Coordination and Administration of Regional and National Specialists" will be useful to the committee as they work toward implementation strategies. There are four topical areas where the two reports specifically coincide: (1) national partnerships, (2) regional and national programming, (3) state partnerships, and (4) regional and national networks. A summary follows.
Byrne Report
The need for engagement with citizens exists for several agencies within the federal government. NSGO has the opportunity to work with other federal agencies in engagement with citizens of the United States. By combining or coordinating efforts in partnerships, all can benefit. The Panel recommends that appropriate partnership opportunities be explored and pursued by the NSGO. Further, it recommends that the NSGO add one additional staff person with responsibility for developing and administering such external partnerships.
We would like to emphasize the partnership criteria of the assembly's report. These criteria address the following:
The Assembly wishes to add the following issues for further discussion by the implementation team regarding partnerships:
The Assembly concurs with the recommendation of adding a full FTE in the NSGO
to facilitate regional and national programming. This responsibility includes
understanding the interests of federal agencies, communicating that interest
and the interest of the NSGO to the network, assisting in developing and disseminating
effective models, and otherwise ensuring that Sea Grant extension is capable
of responding effectively at multiple levels to the many needs and opportunities
that exist.
Byrne Report
The Panel recommends the establishment of regional extension programs. Such programs should be multistate in nature and, where possible, should be competitively funded by the NSGO in partnership with other agencies in response to proposals developed to address grassroots needs. The regional programs selected for funding should be focused on issues that truly reflect regional or multistate needs.
The Assembly fully agrees with the Byrne panel recommendation; however, we would like to clarify the role of the national office and emphasize the importance of adding funds allocated for regional and national programming to the core budgets of state programs. We would like to highlight six specific recommendations made in the Assembly report and in our deliberations yesterday:
1. Emphasize adding funds for regional and national programming to the core budgets of state programs as opposed to funding through temporary competitions.
2. Evaluation of a state program's performance on regional and national programming with core funds should be conducted through the PAT process.
3. The role of the NSGO should be to encourage, reward, and facilitate regional and national programming, not mandate or control it.
4. Regional programming could be enhanced by the NSGO's providing funds for regional programming activities to each regional network that could be spent on activities agreed upon by the regional Sea Grant Network (for example, travel to work together and product development).
5. Regional and national programming should be an integral part of strategies and activities conducted by Sea Grant's theme teams.
6. Funds available to facilitate regional and national programming should recognize and mitigate limitations posed by matching-fund requirements on participating programs and their partners.
Byrne Report
During the past two decades, the decreasing proportion of federal Sea Grant funds that support the salaries of extension staff in the field, and the need to maintain staff levels, have caused SG program directors to obtain substantial shares of staff salaries from non-Sea Grant funds (state, private, or local agencies, for example). While this "buy-in" is viewed as testimony to the excellent work of SGEP, such external funding creates the potential for a dilution of allegiance to the core Sea Grant extension program. The Panel recommends that formal principles be developed to guide the use of outside funds in the support of program priorities and needs at the strategic planning level.
We concur with this recommendation and would like to emphasize the partnership selection criteria detailed in the Assembly report.
Byrne Report
One of the strengths of NSGCP lies in its ability to plan, organize, and deliver programs as a coordinated network, especially by its extension program. Regional programs, subject-based programs, and the sharing of talent and information across programs and between people all make the extension program more than the sum of its parts. It is not uncommon for the results of a Sea Grant research project at one university to be applied throughout the nation because the extension program works in concert with other organizations and agencies. The Panel recommends that NSGCP encourage and fund more regional and national networks. Talent sharing and professional development in and among programs should also be encouraged and supported through peer-group meetings and through continuing education on a regular basis.
The Assembly concurs with this recommendation and would like to emphasize the role and importance of intellectual and issue-based networks needed for programming in the 21st century. This concept is illustrated by approaches such as Sea Grant's theme-team concept. Additional recommendations for intellectual programming are detailed in the Assembly's report and include recommendations for networking in three primary ways:
The Assembly greatly appreciates the opportunity to participate as a member of the Sea Grant community in working toward implementation of new strategies that will improve Sea Grant's extension programs in this century.
Note: This is an accessible version of a document originally produced for the Web in .pdf format. While it contains all significant content of the original print document, it may omit layout and graphic elements which contribute to the look and feel of the original, and make the .pdf version more suitable for printing.