|John Beverly (TX)
Jim Boling (KY)
Jack Britt (NC)
Bill Brown (LA)
Bob Cannell (VA)
Brett Carver (ESCOP Intern, OK)
Jerry Cherry (GA)
George Cooper (CSREES)
D.C. Coston (OK)
Nancy Cox (MS)
Larry Crowder (OK)
Elwyn Deal (SC)
|Everett Emino (FL)
Jim Fischer (SC)
Frank Gilstrap (TX)
T. J. Helms (Exec. Dir.)
Richard Jones (FL)
Fred Knapp (KY)
Ken Koonce (LA)
John Neilson (FL)
Bill Ocumpaugh (ESCOP Intern, TX)
Graham Purchase (MS)
Anna Marie Rasberry (Asst. to ED)
Don Richardson (TN)
|Larry Rogers (LA)
Charles Scifres (AR)
Ike Sewell (TN)
Helen Shaw (NC)
Dan Smith (SC)
David Teem (AL)
Fred Tyner (MS)
Philip Utley (GA)
Vance Watson (MS)
Greg Weidemann (AR)
Johnny Wynne (NC)
Eric Young (NC)
8:00 – Opening Remarks and Introduction of Participants – D. C. Coston
8:10 – Agenda Item 1: GPRA – William H. Brown and George Cooper
8:30 – Agenda Item 2: SAAESD Planning Session – Richard Jones
- Introduction – Richard Jones
- Overview Presentation – James Boling
- Discussion – Richard Jones
9:10 – Breakout Session I – Identify weaknesses, problems, improvements, etc.
- Group 1 – Planning (Bill Brown, Facilitator)
- Group 2 – Regional Research (David Teem, Facilitator)
- Group 3 – Meetings (Don Richardson, Facilitator)
- Group 4 – Partnerships, Program Integration (Johnny Wynne, Facilitator)
10:10 – Break
10:30 – Reports from Breakout Session I – Discussion and added input
11:30 – Decisions – D. C. Coston
12:15 – Lunch (catered)
1:30 – Breakout Session II – Identify actions to address issues from Breakout Session I
2:30 – Report actions to group – Discussion and added input
3:30 – Break
4:00 – Final Discussions
- Roll up action items into goals – Richard Jones
- Discuss next steps of planning – D. C. Coston
4:45 – Agenda Item 3: Distribution of CRIS data – T. J. Helms
5:00 – Adjourn
In order to respond to questions of accountability under the Government Performance and Results Act (GRRA), CSREES is planning regional training sessions to provide information on the new planning and reporting system. Each institution is being asked to send a team of three individuals to one of the regional sessions. These sessions will provide participants an understanding of the GPRA planning and reporting framework, including the framing of goals, objectives, outcomes, outputs and performance measures and indicators. In turn, participants will then be able to transfer this knowledge within the context of their own institutions and other institutions within their region.
More information about GPRA can be obtained on the GPRA homepage.
For information only.
The following presented for information only.
Presenters noted that GPRA framing of goals, etc. is located on the GPRA homepage (see above) and urged participants to view that information and provide feedback by February 7, 1997. A GPRA list serve is established at CSREES to receive comments. The address for comments is GPRA@reeusda.gov.
Dates/locations for the four regional GPRA training sessions are:
Western Region – March 26-27, 1997 – Denver, CO
Southern Region – April 9-10, 1997 – Memphis, TN
NC Region – Week of April 14, 1997 – Milwaukee, WI
NE Region – April 24-25, 1997 – Newport, RI
Up to three team members are expected from partner institutions. In the Southern Region equal participation is expected from both 1862 and 1890 institutions. Participants should have administrative responsibilities for planning and reporting, a broad understanding of research, extension and/or higher education issues, or play a major role in completing reports submitted to CSREES. Participants from any region who cannot participate at the session scheduled within their region, can select a convenient date from among the remaining training sessions.
Administrators should submit the names of team members to CSREES by February 28, 1997 to the GPRA Training Coordinator by FAX (202-720-4730) or e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org). The Southern Rural Development Center is coordinating registration for the Southern Region Training Session. The session begins at 8 am on April 9 and adjourns at noon on April 10. For hotel and conference registration information, contact email@example.com .
- Purpose – To initiate a planning process for the SAAESD that addresses the needs of the association. This process is not another program planning process. The principal objective is to define a set of actions for implementation by the association.
- Method – To use two breakout sessions of four groups to identify: 1) weaknesses, problems, needed improvements, etc., and subsequently to identify: 2) specific action steps to alleviate items identified in 1). Each of the four groups will address one of the following four components of SAAESD activities:
- Planning Processes
- Regional Research Projects
- Meeting Structure
- Partnerships-Program Integration
- Rationale – SAAESD has for several years conducted a programmatic planning process that identified priorities, analyzed fund allocations, and identified needed changes. Some frustration resulted because implementation occurred at the state level and action items were not a regional reality. Recent discussions concluded that a strategic plan was needed that addressed directly the activities of SAAESD. Moving from goals and objectives to action items and implementation was identified as a high priority.To accomplish this, we have organized the planning day to focus on identification of items upon which we need to act. This will be done in the format of identification of problems, weaknesses, needed improvements, etc., in our current structure, priorities, and operating procedures. Subsequent to this process, we will formulate action items that can resolve the items identified above. These items can then be rolled into objectives and goals.
For today’s purposes the activities of the SAAESD have been broken into four major areas:
- Planning – SAAESD has conducted annual program planning processes. There is a body of opinion that this is an ineffective process, that SAAESD has no power of implementation, that the priority setting process is broken, etc. Additionally, accountability is now an important aspect of programs. We need to answer such questions here as in what way is this not working? What are the problems? What’s broken?
- Regional Research – There are a large number of issues about regional research that have been raised in the past. These include timing of reviews and approvals, quality of research, priorities, travel, fund inflexibility, off-the-top funds, fund visibility to PI’s, termination, etc. We should itemize all of the problems and pose action plans to change. Accountability must be addressed here also.
- SAAESD Meetings – How can we optimally use our time at these meetings? What things can be omitted? What things can be handled in written format? What should be priority agenda items?
- Partnerships, Program Integration – We have spent large amounts of time in recent years interacting with our partners within our own institutions, e.g. CES and APS, and also sister institutions such as the 1890’s. Many feel that however well intentioned, these sessions have not been as productive as possible. What is wrong with these processes and how can we fix it? What specific problems should be addressed by cooperative efforts?
Participation by attendees via Work Groups to determine issues and identify action steps to resolve those issues.
Participants in each of the four work group areas (Planning, Regional Research, Meetings, and Partnership-Program Integration) identified problems, weaknesses, needed improvements, etc. in our current structure, priorities, and operating procedures. Subsequently, decisions were made as to which issues could be addressed with specific action items to address the issues raised. Those decisions are as follows:
Data sets compiled specifically for SAAESD by the Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State University will be distributed. This material includes a Southern Region report as well as individual state data. (Individual state data will be distributed only to a representative of the respective state). These data sets are sorted by GPRA goals and objectives. An additional report outlining funding sources of Southern Region RRF projects will be distributed.
For information only.
|Benefits of sharing state-specific information with other states in the region were discussed. Individual state data related to assets and capabilities could enhance efforts for multi-state collaboration. Thirteen states represented at the meeting agreed to allow sharing of their specific data with other Southern region states. (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were subsequently contacted and expressed concurrence).|