PACE Dialogue Session – UC Riverside, February 6, 2013
These are the raw notes, representing the sequence of the conversation. Comments cross-over key topics.
ACTION ITEMS
 Analyze survey question on collaboration (merit/reward system) by program area
 Think about participation in dialogue sessions given by only one in Southern California
 Survey’s program planning questions on whether things are “working well” was confusing; did it mean
in general or for the network?
 Milt McGiffen will help ANR develop a more up-to-date, interactive directory
 Share findings from last Workgroup evaluation
 Post UC ANR land grant history presentation
CLIENTELE
 Growers in region; gets wider and wider
 Specialists work with advisors but aren’t able to get together/work together as much as both think
they ought to
 Specialists view advisors as cooperators not “clientele”
 Perception that “clientele” is a group you are serving
 Advisor approach specialist with problem that advisor needed help with, then end up publishing
together
 “Clientele” receives information. Advisor doesn’t see self as “clientele” to Specialist given the
information goes both ways
 AES historically not involved in orientations (unless on a committee)
 Clientele fluid and will continue to change
 Clientele very educated and adept with technology affects how advisors respond
 Type of need changed; level of expertise needed is higher
 Advisor clientele is more groups and less individual interactions
 More requests from regulatory agencies
 Clientele wait to contact Advisor until issue at level they can’t deal with. Clientele acknowledge that
advisors are spread thin.
 Advisor has a lot of clientele groups that are now more knowledgeable but they are not in the business
of information sharing/Extension
 When advisor contacts specialist what is the feedback? Advisor expects to be treated like a client,
expecting return response.
 Also have project-driven collaboration opportunities; it is two-way relationship.
 Relationships change over time; newer advisor may need more support/collaboration.
 Fluid relationships; Workgroup chair sees advisor as clientele, like w/public agencies; it is projectbased
 What direction are specialists given when hired?
 Clientele and scope of position description focus their program.
 Used to have statewide meetings/training to learn system; problem that we don’t do it anymore. How
do we make this more consistent? How do we get this back in place? To establish shared expectations
as well as help them balance different expectations.
 Observation that new advisors not here.
 Lack of direction on policies.
 Counties and campuses are two different worlds about expectations.
1


Specialist split not given clear expectations for this position; did not get direction from mentors. Need
to reach out and meet people; don’t have enough face-to-face. Suggestion: need both formal and
informal mentorship opportunities. What should it look like?
Specialist got great informal orientation from a KARE Specialist showing him around and introducing
him in person.
ROLES & RELATIONSHIPS
 Relationship between advisors and specialists varies programmatically. Advisor/specialist relationship
is healthy both ways in Nutrition and Youth Development Program Teams. It helped to build these in
terms of shared interests.
 One way specialists heard about advisors was UCR used to keep a directory including specialist areas of
expertise. Why not now?
 Orientation sometimes comes too late.
 Do specialists have formal mentoring program? There are pockets but not a formal statewide
structure.
 Advisors need more than one person to go to (CD mentor, etc.) in order to get input and perspective
on how to best balance everything.
 Even though smaller now still very hard to get together, meet people, be informed. Need more
opportunities for personal interactions.
 Need a list of infrastructure to support new advisors including administrative and program support,
facilities, etc., in addition to the directory.
 There are program gaps such that there are not always people to go to for help.
 Need more formal orientation that is consistent across the state.
 Advisors used to get more training from specialists (for example on statistical analysis)
 Specialists don’t always understand advisors’ funding need to sell programs to county. Orientation
should include expectations about county relationship.
 Opportunity for emeritus to come back and mentor.
 In the past had organizational seminar more than orientation, including in depth land grant history,
mission, etc.
 What are specialists told to do when hired? How are specialists evaluated? Advisors always told to
involve specialists. There is the issue of different expectations.
 Advisors don’t know how specialists and AES are evaluated and rewarded.
 Advisors want/need to know when specialists are working with clientele? Specialists need to make
sure clientele know they are CE.
 University service in advisor merit/promotion feels like a secondary emphasis.
 Grower clientele polarized in terms of expertise: some highly educated and others have no training.
 Sometimes when advisors and specialists share clientele it is competitive. Need to work together to
help clientele.
 Specialist recruits unaware of advisor role.
 Need to use technology or incentivize ANR meetings. Don’t have time to go to more ANR meetings.
 Maybe the problem is that we expect to have a real system when we don’t really. Maybe we should
just change our expectations.
 Issue sometimes can’t work together, e.g. specialist could not fill in for advisor on grant when took
sabbatical.
 Sometimes easier to work with out-of-state people. This is an internal ANR issue. Specialist at UCD not
recognized at UCR as part of ANR.
 Have similar program rep. issue that can’t supervise; based on campus affiliation.
2



























Problem is interaction; try to promote teamwork but evaluated on individual contribution.
Should be called Competitive Extension instead. Compete amongst selves at every level (e.g. ANR
competitive grants program); 30 years ago structure was better.
ANR grants don’t foster collaboration; not all grants had continuum.
Compete for positions (proposal/process) at all levels (geographically, program, etc.)
CA always spread thin. Should start with reality of current capacity, then what is realistic for roles and
relationships.
Need a more centralized administrative unit. Centralized expectations, rewards, etc.
May never be one model; not bad just eclectic.
Vision document inaccurately describes advisor role as being at the end of continuum delivering
information. UC advisors have been doing research for a long time.
Should flatten the organization. Why not make all advisors specialists?
How can ANR administration work with campus administration to address differences? It is a given
that we will never all fit all AES into a stovepipe.
Suggestion to take out the “middle man,” and instead have AES work directly with one
Advisor/Specialist role.
Need to define roles in a more interdependent way. This has worked on a project basis; it could it be
expanded to describe the relationship in general.
“Advisor” title/name presents problems since other states have “Agents.”
“Specialist” title/name also problematic; lots of “specialist” positions on campus, which makes it
confusing.
“Extension” refers to different organizations within university, also always creates confusion.
Use “Advisors” instead of “Agents” since Advisors do research; now relying on volunteers and softfunded staff to do what Agents do in other states. Concern about their consistent neutral
representation of the university.
Need to be mutually respected as peers. Advisor role not to be directed by AES or Specialists.
Relationships vary programmatically. Youth, families, and Communities program area seems to be
more collegial.
Concern that when AES/Specialist splits relinquish Specialist part, then they may not work with
Advisors.
Make sure when set up mentoring program mix Advisor and Specialist.
If Advisors become Specialists need clear about the expectations. Publish or perish won’t work
because still serve clientele; need to continue to recognize and reward community level work.
Need to function independently and interdependently, like Jared Diamond’s (UCLA) model from Guns,
Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.
Lack of respect already set up with inequitable salary scales, more important than titles. Institutional
support (ex. travel funds) also needs to be made more equitable. Note: AES and Specialist support
varies by campus and department.
Advisors and specialists used to be in same merit/promotion system with more input on each other’s
packages; now more advisory.
Have specialists become more like AES?
Need to recognize these shifts and what they mean to strengthening roles/relationships.
How are specialists and AES viewed differently between campuses? At UCR for every merit/promotion
action need 6 letters from Advisors. It makes a big difference for specialists’ 5-year promotion.
Publications are important for research component but advisor letters are important for promotion.
CE’s review stays in Dean’s Office. Not done this way at UCD.
Advisors need to demonstrate impact to clientele. Do specialists also have to? For specialists it is more
about academic and university impact (publications). It is a very different standard.
3










Specialists do need to articulate Extension accomplishments unlike other faculty. But is not very clear.
And it is difficult for reviewers to understand and evaluate.
Where do specialists report how they interacted with clientele? There is a special section in their
merit and promotion write-up.
USDA reports also go to Deans’ Offices.
Specialist appt [UCD, UCR] cannot vote on other department academics. Can if have I&R appt.
AES faculty expected to articulate outreach. But question how much they actually do it.
First class is the UCD Academic Senate (review all I&R appts.). Second class is UCD Academic
Federation.
Specialist review process very different at different campuses.
Advisor likes part where needs to have clientele outcomes beyond pubs; wouldn’t want re-thinking to
lose that.
Advisors not promoted on impact but on performance in program.
Advisors not told who their clientele is; but that they needed to identify clientele. Should have a more
structured needs assessment process. The needs assessments should be reviewed. This should be for
advisors, specialists, and AES. Should have a cycle and structure where advisors and specialists provide
feedback and review each others.
COLLABORATION
 Collaboration is a feature of Youth Development and Human Resources program areas. Function in this
way to be successful.
 Small Farms program also takes collaborative, holistic approach (not crop or issue specific.)
 If not collaborating will be evident in merit and promotion process. Collaboration expectations need to
come from bottom up as much as from the top down.
 ANR grants need to require collaboration. Don’t fund those without it.
 Need to make sure collaboration is real on grant proposals. Articulate what this actually means. Clarify
for reviewers and Program Council. State what each cooperator will do. Not apparent for funded
projects.
 What is the capacity to support collaboration? How support grassroots collaboration?
 Don’t believe in collaboration just for collaboration’s sake. Historically always trying to force the
continuum.
 How responsive to local needs are the big grants?
 Offer smaller seed grants to foster collaboration and be responsive to local needs.
 Expectation on the grants in terms of collaboration amongst ANR academics?
 One grant proposal told there were too many collaborators?
 Time is the other key limited resource. Taking research through extension takes awhile; need to be
multiyear.
 Advisors need to explain role in collaboration in merit and promotion process. Just being named
doesn’t work.
 Each collaborator needs to have unique, genuine role contributing to the whole.
 Collaboration limited by limited time to contribute/effort reporting.
 Collaboration is important but shouldn’t be required for everything. What are you trying to
accomplish? What is the need? The goal?
PROGRAM PLANNING
4






























Would be nice to have direction from Program Team and Strategic Imitative leaders about who and
what to work on, in order help identify project focus overlaps.
Differences between Northern & Southern ANR capacity.
There were likely too many Workgroups. There are a few naturally occurring Workgroups that are
likely still succeeding.
If you don’t have any money why have Workgroups.
Need videoconference capabilities; use it and reward it.
Maybe it is not one size fits all. Not work well in Natural Resources program area. Nice but not resulted
in anything new.
The Strategic Vision’s focus on science literacy seems diluted. Now just focused on youth; public
officials also need it.
HFC has strong strategic leadership & working well. HFC tried to incorporate science literacy with other
program areas but didn’t get much traction.
Program teams don’t have a sense of who we are, what are we really about, and why we are we doing
this? Program teams are “storming” not “norming.”
Workgroups and Program Teams are issues vs. commodity based.
It would be useful to have mechanisms to get people together by shared interests.
Moved to being issues based. Programs have become issues rather than discipline based.
Money based if working in Ag. Commodity based if Board has money.
More than one issue may fit under different Strategic Initiatives and Commodities; but, Workgroups
work well.
Does Strategic Initiative success depend on funding? Stable leadership?
Why did Sustainable Food Systems initiative definition leave out Environmental Horticulture & nonfood crops?
Sustainable Natural Ecosystems so broadly defined.
Struggle with falling critical mass but can’t be solved by advisors having larger geographic areas. That
approach should be tested and not uniformly applied.
Advisor doesn’t think it makes a difference. Started with 1 county and now has 6, same job.
Advisors having larger geographic areas does affect program.
In certain fields ANR does have name recognition.
People know UC and Cooperative Extension. Should use UC ANR.
Need proactive staffing. Lapse after retirements. Need mentoring relationships in place.
MCPs?
o If it is not broken, don’t fix it.
o Not a one size fits all.
Lack of staff support. Supervising staff takes a lot of time.
Advisors old UC Davis email addresses confused people that they were from UC Davis; but, now it is
worse since ANR has no name recognition.
If advisor positions include multiple program areas, it will make it difficult for them to succeed. May
adversely affect retention.
Today’s session made organization’s complexity very clear.
To expand UC ANR brand may need to extend more to other non-ANR campuses and even CSUs.
The third pillar is Academic Coordinators. Have them be more like other states’ “agents” doing
outreach and program management, and advisors would focus more on research. Also revisit role of
Program Reps.
5
Meeting Evaluation
+
What Worked Well
++
What Would Make It Better
Do electronically (option)
More AES (especially UCR) participation
Do again/ make iterative ongoing process
Encourage younger, newer people to come
Confirmation to be sent out sooner
Being in So. Cal
Facilitator/moderator recording excellent
Narrowed focus on key topics
Like face-to-face
Logistics worked well (parking)
Timing good
Diversity of participants
Engaged participation
6