The University of Missouri Extension needed to develop an annual program review process that collaboratively engaged county-level stakeholders. The results from the first 2 years highlight the results, challenges, and implications of the design process. The annual review process needs to be adaptive, responsive, and reflective from year to year when engaging with local stakeholders. For example, the 2012 program review process changed from the prior year to focus on participant mind mapping to better engaged stakeholders and to produces more detailed data. The process has ensured more engagement with local stakeholders and generated information helpful to regional faculty members

Leuci, Mary

Martin, Michael J

Stewart, Mark

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 52 Number 1 Article 24 2-1-2014 Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process Michael J. Martin Colorado State University, mjm4@iastate.edu Mary Leuci University of Missouri, leucim@missouri.edu Mark Stewart University of Missouri Extension, stewartm@missouri.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Martin, M. J., Leuci, M., & Stewart, M. (2014). Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process. The Journal of Extension, 52(1), Article 24. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol52/iss1/24 This Tools of the Trade is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. February 2014Volume 52Number 1Article # 1TOT8Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide ProgramDevelopment ProcessAbstractThe University of Missouri Extension needed to develop an annual program review process that collaboratively engaged county-levelstakeholders. The results from the first 2 years highlight the results, challenges, and implications of the design process. The annualreview process needs to be adaptive, responsive, and reflective from year to year when engaging with local stakeholders. Forexample, the 2012 program review process changed from the prior year to focus on participant mind mapping to better engagedstakeholders and to produces more detailed data. The process has ensured more engagement with local stakeholders and generatedinformation helpful to regional faculty members.  Introduction and BackgroundThe University of Missouri Extension is engaged in its third year of collaboratively engaging with county-level stakeholders in anannual program planning process. The process began as a mandate from the Agricultural Research, Extension, and EducationReform Act of 1998  (AREERA), which required annual stakeholder input at the local level to help drive decisions at the state level(National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA], United States Department of Agriculture, 2012). However, the mandate fromAREERA did not provide clear directions for how to collect the data. The need to capture local stakeholder input is not new inExtension (Cummings & Boleman, 2006; O'Neill, 2010) and the challenges in collecting stakeholder input have been documented(Kelsey & Mariger, 2002).The mandate from NIFA required us to think critically about stakeholder input. We leaders realized that asking 114 countyExtension offices to conduct an annual assessment of issues and review programs would fatigue local stakeholders unless theprocess was engaging and relevant to local programming. In addition, we were challenged with how to analyze the locallygenerated data help produce to meaningful information for state-level MU Extension program decisions.ProcessThe basic Annual Program Planning process entailed three phases for local engagement of county Extension councils andcommunity members: 1) design data collection process and train local Extension specialists; 2) engage local Extension councils andcommunity members in the process; and 3) analyze data and provide statewide programmatic recommendations. One graduateassistant, specifically hired for this process, analyzed and synthesized all data under the guidance of two MU Extension leaders.Figure 1 provides an outline of the process in more detail.Figure 1.The 2011Statewide MU Extension Annual Program PlanMichael J. MartinAssistant Professor ofAgricultural EducationDepartment ofAgricultural andResource EconomicsColorado StateUniversity Fort Collins, Coloradomichael.j.martin@colostate.eduMary Leuci Assistant Dean,College of FoodAgriculture andNatural Resources CommunityDevelopmentExtension ProgramDirectorUniversity of Missouri Columbia, MissouriLeuciM@missouri.eduMark StewartEast Central RegionalDirector University of MissouriExtensionLinn, MissouriStewartM@missouri.eduThe 2011 ProcessAfter piloting with five county councils in 2010, the process went statewide in 2011, with 108 Missouri counties participating.Facilitating specialists (often from another county) asked these open-ended questions:1. What are the 3-5 issues, opportunities, or challenges that are impacting you, families, businesses, farms, local organizations, thecommunities, and county?2. Which of these provide opportunities for Extension to address?3. What programs are we currently delivering that we should continue as is?4. What programs are we currently delivering that we should change or update?5. What programs are we currently delivering that we should stop doing to address more important issues?The findings highlighted the complexity and enormity of the task. Over 750 stakeholders produced 1193 unique responses from thequestions. These responses had substantial value at the county and regional levels. Statewide data analysis consisted of mergingidentical or similar responses from each question and tallying how many counties reported the comment (Table 1). Statewiderecommendations developed by the program directors were consequently limited in detail and scope. The most significantconclusion was that the general key programmatic issues identified gave validity to the new strategic themes of MU Extension. Thedata also indicated many issues related to program delivery and criteria for program cancellation.Table 1.2011 Statewide Analysis SampleFebruary 2014Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process JOE 52(1)©2014 Extension Journal Inc. 2The 2012 ProcessIn 2012 the process became more innovative and focused on specific Extension strategic themes. The evolution of this processhighlighted the need for adaptive, responsive, and reflective practices at the local and state levels. This time, 111 counties and1,180 participants addressed these questions:1. What are the community, economic, business, and workforce development issues in your community?2. What are the global food systems issues in your county?3. Discuss where different programmatic delivery methods might work with programming in your county.4. Identify and discuss the criteria you feel should be used to determine what programs should be offered or discontinued in yourcounty.The first two questions engaged local participants in mind-mapping activities. Figure 2 depicts one local map created using X-mindsoftware, which followed the ripple effect mapping process (Kollock, Flage, Chazdon, Paine, & Higgins, 2012).Figure 2.Sample of a Missouri County's Mind MapFebruary 2014Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process JOE 52(1)©2014 Extension Journal Inc. 3Local participants were asked to use dots to identify the top priority items from each mind map. Photos of the maps and the twoitems receiving the most votes from each map were shared with us for analysis. The last two questions were in response to thefindings from 2011. The more focused nature of the data collected allowed for detailed analysis and synthesis. For example, thepriorities identified in mind maps allowed us to aggressively group related comments. Figure 3 provides a small sample of thefindings. The 2012 process created initial linkage for new strategic themes and criteria for program offerings.We developed regional mind maps from counties in each region. As regions were realigned in 2013, these were important for localfaculty, new regional directors and the emerging program teams around the larger issues.Figure 3.2012 Statewide Analysis SampleThe 2013 ProcessIn 2013, the regional facilitators are working with local stakeholders to map the other three strategic themes (educationalattainment, health systems, and environmental concerns).February 2014Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process JOE 52(1)©2014 Extension Journal Inc. 4Benefits and LimitationsThe process has ensured more engagement with local council stakeholders and generated information helpful to regional facultymembers. Regional and state program directors have additional data upon which to build programs. New collaborations also formedamong faculty to address identified needs. Additionally, the local dialogue is seen as one of the most positive aspects.Limitations do exist. The data generated is limited by who participates in the local process and the 2 hours generally allocated forthe facilitated process. Variation naturally occurs in the facilitation and recording process despite training provided throughwebinars, presentation templates, data templates, and printed support materials. Reports sent to us can vary in depth and detail.Finally, the issues represented from the mind mapping are limited because only the top two items from voting are reported—losingsome of the richness.ConclusionsThe process has proven valuable in regularly engaging local Extension council members and providing significant input to localfaculty. Similarly, the process has generated information of value for regional analysis. At the state level, the process provides ageneral view, but has been limited in utility for determining specificity. The potential exists to use these results to fashion astatewide survey to be delivered directly to individuals on a larger scale.ReferencesCummings, S. R., & Boleman, C. T. (2006). We identified issues through stakeholders input—Now what? Journal of Extension  [On-line], 44(1). Article 1TOT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/tt1.phpKelsey, K., & Mariger, S. C. (2002). MA case study of stakeholders needs for extension education. Journal of Extension  [On-line],40(2). Article RB2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/rb2.phpKollock, D. H., Flage, L., Chazdon, S., Paine, N., & Higgins, L. (2012). Ripple effect mapping: A "radiant" way to capture programimpacts. Journal of Extension  [On-line], 50(5). Article 5TOT6. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2012october/tt6.phpMU Extension. (2013). Program integration. Retrieved from: http://extension.missouri.edu/staff/pi-questions.aspx.O'Neill, B. (2010). Obtaining high-quality, "low maintenance" stakeholder input: How to create a virtual statewide extensionprogram advisory committee. Journal of Extension  [On-line], 48(2). Article 2TOT3. Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2010april/tt3.phpUnited States Department of Agriculture. (2012). AREERA State Plans of Work . Retrieved from:http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html.Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal.Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion ofarticles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic orwritten permission of the Journal Editorial Office , joe-ed@joe.org.If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical SupportFebruary 2014Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process JOE 52(1)©2014 Extension Journal Inc. 5

Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2468&context=joe

Challenges of Engaging Local Stakeholders for Statewide Program Development Process

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints