University of Maine Cooperative Extension Plan of Work meeting minutes

January 25, 2006
Bumps Room, Memorial Union, UMaine
Meeting Notes

Present: Dennis Harrington, Cathy Elliott, Christy Fitzpatrick. Les Hyde
We missed: Kathy Hopkins, Hank Clark, David Handley, Kathy Savoie (bad weather for travel, especially from the south)

1. Update on PRS

Cathy and Dennis met with Stephen Judd last Friday
developed strategy for having the MPRS ready for rollout on February 13
has been frustrating to have our timeline shift repeatedly, but it is important to have the system functional and not getting repeated error messages
folks will need to be aware of, and patient with, the fact that the system is still to some extent in beta testing … there will be some challenges, but we have come a long way from where we were last fall
concern expressed about the time it will take for folks to develop their individual plan before going onto the system to enter it

2. Criteria for creating individual POW Logic Models

Dennis shared the current version
will be included in a memo to UMCE from the POWTF
each supervisor will be using the criteria as they review POW Logic Models for approval

3. Timeline

has been redone
will be sent to UMCE by the PAs very soon

4. Role of the POWTF

discussion of importance of the Task Force continuing as we proceed through the next few months
support and advice to Dennis, PAs, and AC
help with training and implementation

5. PRS Template

will be sent out at same time as the PA message
is a necessary piece of preparation work for individual’s to do prior to going onto the PRS to enter the information
completing the template (which includes creating one or more logic models) will make it much easier to enter the individual plan into the system

6. POWTF message to UMCE

review the draft message
discussion of challenges that we think we might encounter as this goes out and folks start working on their Logic Models and the PRS

7. Online work with the template and PRS

Spent the rest of our time working on sample logic models and entering plans into the PRS

8. Adjourned at 1:30 pm

Return to Top

December 6, 2005

Present: Dennis Harrington, Cathy Elliott, Christy Fitzpatrick, David Handley

Items covered:

1. Update on development of reporting system

Because of the disconnect between Maine’s fairly “laissez-faire” method of reporting and the more prescriptive requirements in other states, there has been some delay in the development of the system. The developer needed to have a system which functioned without the necessity of drawing from parent plans and this has now happened. The system is now ready for “beta testing” which means a small group of people will try it out and find and report on the glitches to the developer.

2. Group plans–as we see these being entered, it seems important that we make them somewhat similar in size and focus

3. Progress in harmonizing group plans

Cathy is working to make sure there is common language, format, minimal number of duplications and that there is enough similarity so impacts can be measured across programs

4. Seems to be time for another communication to organization

Emphasize that initially there will be work that is challenging and time consuming, but that in the long run this will result in quicker, easier reporting that will better measure impacts

Explain next steps

Be aware that we need to thoroughly understand how the planning/reporting system works before we can explain it to others

(See email sent 12/19/05)

5. Rest of meeting was spent trying to enter practice program into the system

Take home lesson- err on the side of simplicity in choosing most important things to measure!!

Return to Top

November 15, 2005

Present – Hank Clark, Cathy Elliott, Christy Fitzpatrick, Dennis Harrington, Kathy Hopkins, Debbie Killam
Facilitator: Dennis
Notetaker: Kathy H

Check in–Where are we?

About the work of the Task Force:

· Are we at Heartbreak Hill in our marathon? Have we created something exciting? Will the excitement be evident as faculty begin to create their plans of work?

· Is the process working for groups to make new connections and discover new work areas? Yes, some groups are having success, some are not.

· Will the process and tools be open and not restrictive and will new things be able to be added as new areas and new ways of working are established?

· Have we moved from creating a plan of work to creating a planning and reporting system? Are rumors of the planning and reporting system creating a sense of rebellion in the organization? Is everything in the plan of work being funneled into the planning and reporting system and is this an expected part of the process?

· It is exciting to see the organization move in the position of sustainability.

· Have we had time to make program connections from the May and June meetings?

Taking the temperature of the organization:

· Is the organization going to be linking accountability and faculty performance and is that right when the performance issues are under discussion by faculty?

· We need to acknowledge that building a plan of work will always create stress in the organization and we should not be surprised by this.

· Despite the pain, people are buying into the process in many different ways.

· Building in collaboration as part of the POW developments process AND making the planning and reporting system reflect our goal to allow for cross-program / cross-goal flexibility have required an enormous amount of time and we should remember our successes: the issue papers, open public and faculty/PLT meetings, and our progress toward an inclusive Plan of Work. We also need to remember that some boxes (silos) are required to manage any planning and reporting system. We have two diametrically opposed goals: we need to be expansive to create new programming opportunities and ways to work together, while realizing the need to be restrictive to report our outcomes carefully defined categories that meet the needs of the USDA/CSREES.

Updates

· Faculty Meeting–Dennis attended and gave an update to the group. He reported that it was a good meeting, largely positive, and with many questions asked and answered relating to the POW & planning and reporting system. The group was given a draft document that expressed criteria for creating a personal POW, which was accepted without much discussion. Some discussion was held about missed opportunities for some groups to approach their planning expansively, specifically because of a focus on the detailed information requested in the database template.

· Toronto presentation–Dennis attended the American and Canadian Evaluation Associations annual meetings to participate in a panel presentation about the process of developing a multi-state planning and reporting system. The system that we are building is garnering lots of attention from many arenas. People are excited about the multi-state work and we are experiencing many inquiries about the system and out POW process.

· Group POWs–not available to public yet. See Dennis’s email for the link to the website. Do these need to be harmonized (further discussion later in the agenda)? We will be cutting and pasting from these to enter group plans into the planning and reporting system.

Criteria / Elements for creating a personal POW–Dennis passed out a draft document (which was also shared with the faculty at the faculty meeting)

· The criteria was shared with the AC who requested an addition–They wanted more visible emphasis on grants, grantsmanship, scholarly work, professional work and multi-state work. John volunteered to write something up. Discussion about how close to link faculty reappointment criteria to plan of work since many professionals also have to report under the same plan of work. Dennis shared a matrix of how the criteria meshed with the faculty promotion criteria which we decided to toss out as it is trying to combine two disparate systems: planning and performance evaluation for two different groups–faculty and professionals.

NEPRC Update

· Status /Tour–Dennis gave tour of planning and reporting system. USDA/CSREES is requiring that we tie our program areas to up to 10 CSREES Knowledge Areas and attach a percentage to each. The planning and reporting system is still under construction at this time.

· Testing: the system is undergoing an intensive beta testing process by Dennis & Cathy Elliott, and others from NH, MA, and VT. The testing is VERY challenging and is taking much longer than expected, which might possibly delay the overall timeline for completion. It is still the “Beta” version.

· Training and PA role in training: Training intentions for using the planning and reporting system include:

1. some regional sessions conducted by Dennis & Cathy E.,

2. a tutorial in the form of meta-tags integrated within each element of the system which would inform users of the function of each element,

3. an online “manual” of some sort written by Tanner,

4. and one-on-one sessions conducted by PAs for each of their supervisees (may also take place in small groups, such as county office).

Timeline

Adjust timeline with the intention to expand the time for each individual to create their personal POW–a TENTATIVE timeline would require that a finalized and approved individual POW be submitted in March 06.
Tentative timeline:

Group POWs

Harmonizing–Group POWs need to be further harmonized because some of the action outcomes and steps are not really able to be queried in the database due to inconsistencies between groups. Editing submitted plans was seen as a positive idea so that groups could learn the language and receive feedback on their submitted plans. Some edits may be a problem because the submitting group may not have clarified their real goal. Consistent language is needed across all the goals. There seemed to be misunderstanding about the language and how to use it: confusion about the difference between learning indicators, outcomes and methods. The group tried harmonizing the language in the home based business plan. It was clear that wordsmithing for consistency is ok, but the process MUST NOT change the original intent of the goals and indicators as submitted by groups. We will make the appropriate changes and then send back to group asking that they check to make sure their intent was not changed, and clarify that each goal/indicator may be used by many people and that it needs to read consistently for most efficient use by many audiences. How should learning indicators read? All learning indicators should start or end with a verb to make plans consistent. Also, the indicators should have implied but not stated countable numbers.
It was acknowledged that we (the POW task force) should have been more foresighted in setting some format parameters for writing indicators before we asked for them to be developed.

Communication to Organization

Elements–It is time to communicate to organization about where we are at and where we are going. Send revised timeline and highlights of individual plans of work. Also mention that the group POWs are being harmonized and compiled across plans to bring about consistency to the total organizational plan. Start thinking about your individual plan and its key elements and share those with your working group. Also, remind organization that this plan is not being done to us–WE ARE CREATING THIS PLAN. Dennis will compose.

Added meetings dates Jan. 25, Feb. 15, March 16, April 26

Return to Top

October 25, 2005

Conference Call
1:00 to 3:00 p.m.

Present: Cathy Elliott, Dennis Harrington, Christy Fitzpatrick, Hank Clark, Les Hyde
Facilitator: Dennis
Notes: Cathy offered to fill in for Kathy Savoie

1. Updates

Esperanza has resigned from the POWTF
Faculty meeting Nov 2 – Dennis will be giving the faculty an update
CSREES meeting last week – Dennis attended; Bart Hewitt did an update on One Solution (CSREES reporting system that is being developed)
- CSREES due date for POW has been changed to June 1, 2006
Group meetings
- are all done as of today – success of the meetings has varied
- some frustration with the database itself
- discussion of the need for all of the group POWs to be shared before individuals develop and enter their POWs–Dennis is hoping to put them on the website
- Dennis will be giving the group POWs to PAs for review & comment
- there is a chance that we may need to go back to the groups for some additional information, but will try to keep that to the minimum

2. Progress on the Planning & Reporting System (PRS)

the “alpha” version is mostly done – Dennis and Cathy, with assistance from Deb Seekins, have been playing with data input
are working towards having all the group plans into the PRS by November 11, ready for testing Nov 15 to 25
originally wanted individual POWs to get input from mid-Dec to end-Jan, as well as get them reviewed and approved – this needs to be adjusted
need to have the PRS ready for training in December – testing will help us determine what is needed for training – likely could do some training via conference call, maybe one or two group sessions with a computer for each person (maybe at USM and UM with each person with a wireless laptop)
need to get dates & locations established ASAP
suggestion that have all of January and February available for input of individual plans, and have them reviewed by CECs and advisory groups, and reviewed by PAs
the new deadline would be: individual POWs due by February 28, 2006 (including all appropriate approvals)
suggestion that we have a “sandbox” system (separate from the “real” PRS) available for folks to play with for a couple of weeks (first two weeks in Dec?) before do any training as some folks will be able to figure it out on their own and not need training
suggestion that schedule a training December 16, and a second one January 9
January 1 – open the real PRS (maybe we could do this December 19?)
January 13 – close the sandbox (no more play … time to get to work )
suggestion that we encourage faculty members and professionals to include their PAs in the development of their POW – will ease the approval process

3. Personal POWs
Review of Dennis’ draft

comment that this document could become a checklist to use as individual POWs are being created
need to be aware that there are some unique situations with 4-H Aides (and maybe some other aides) who do not have a faculty member or professional in their office who supervises their work – e.g., Brenda Mowdy, Linda Whitten, Diane Hoppe
review by Executive Committees and Advisory Groups is an essential part of the process; they need to conduct a critical review and make appropriate suggestions for changes
discussion of how comments from Exec Committees and Advisory Groups are handled, e.g., do they get shared with the individual, their supervisor, PAs and AC – maybe a checklist?
Aides and Seasonal employees
• we need to be able to track their time and work, but not really appropriate for them to have a POW that they enter and report against
• at same time, don’t want the supervisor to report the time and accomplishments as their own as it inflates the FTE’s and value of the time input (i.e., salary of faculty member versus salary of aide)
• proposed solution is to have the supervisor create a separate logic model that encompasses the work of the aides and seasonal workers they supervise – reporting would likely be done either by the aide if that was appropriate, or by the supervisor

Criteria

discussion of the draft list
suggestion that take a look at the faculty evaluation process to determine if there is anything there that should be reflected in these criteria – Les volunteered to do that
suggestion to add “needs” to “Relevance”
under “Impact” add “specific, measurable, attainable”
“collaboration” needs some rewording

Draft – It is expected that most UMCE programs will be conducted as a collaborative effort with other UMCE colleagues; most programs also include, or have the potential to include, collaboration with other UM Departments, between Extension and Research, and with other institutions, agencies, and organizations

suggestion that add new criteria that faculty and professional capture the work of aides and seasonal employees

4. Next meeting

next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 15, Buchanan Alumni House, 9:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
following meeting is Tuesday, December 6, 2005, Heritage House

Return to Top

September 13, 2005

Present: Cathy Elliott, Dave Handley, Deb Killam, Christy Fitzpatrick, Dennis Harrington, Kathy Hopkins

Check-in:
• Good summers had by all.

Where are we in POW process?
• Dennis has heard lots of positive things from organization about the process.
• Hank C’s. Northeast Region CARET report – logic model is not universally accepted. Recommendation from CARET - streamline reporting and organizational requirements in favor of doing actual work. (paraphrased and reported by Kathy)
• Confusion exists over the difference between outcomes and indicators. How will PLT groups and others work with this?
• CSREES eldercare group and AARP working on projects for elder programming and using logic model as basis for planning.
• Are we at the stage of using database effectively and focusing on the reporting system in order to move forward? Have we served our useful purpose as a group? Is it now the responsibility of the groups to move forward on their group plans of work?
• Needs of database are now driving the process. We don’t have that much to add to this now. We need to start talking about evaluation because that will become part of the database. We also need to design the amendment process because we have advertised that it will exist and as yet it doesn’t. What goes in “program” piece? Need broader definition that will be an umbrella for current and as yet to be developed programs. Ex. “Workforce Prep” under which would come Mini-Society, Market steer, etc.
• Evaluation – Dennis needs to let us know what information he needs to do his reporting then groups can make plans on what needs to be evaluated and what and when information needs to be collected.

Demonstration of database Cathy Elliott.
Discussion about the linking of action outcomes and learning outcomes and learning indicators.
• Advice to groups – send homework to groups before meetings to look at and play with database and review logic models.
• Groups must submit a plan on CD by October 31 so that Dennis and Tanner can work with the data submitted.
• Database is draft tool – final planning and reporting tool is still being developed. Receiving data on CDs will enhance development of final tool.
• Groups should start to define what numbers they are going to be collecting.
• Further communication to groups – can a tutorial explaining database be prepared and sent out? Michele will have database on website this week. Encourage groups to review before their meetings!
• Groups should start talking about indicators even though the current draft database will not allow the addition of indicators at this time. Groups could put indicators under steps at this time so they capture them at this time.
• Send UMCE offer to have a tutorial especially if they don’t have a POWTF member in their group.
• Most all issue areas are covered except for Food Safety, IPM, Commercial Ag/Sustainable Ag, Potatoes?

Lunch

NEPRC update – first draft of the online reporting system will be presented at the Maine meeting on September 15th. The draft will include a working back end that will allow data input.

Next steps
Dennis will connect with PAs to help them understand the value of developing group logic models, and confirm their role as approvers for group and personal POWs.

CSREES will require us to submit reports relating to
• State Overview– to be written by Dennis & the POWTF
• Stakeholder input– to be written by Dennis & the POWTF
• Merit review process – process to be defined by AC with POW input, possibility exists for review by other New England states.
• Evaluation of multi state and integrated programs
Dennis will expect participation from the POWTF in writing and review of final documents.

Meeting in October - The main agenda item would be to review the Web- based reporting system, David will attend between 9–11 via phone. Review of the group meetings will also be on the agenda.

Return to Top

August 5, 2005

Facilitator: Deb Killam
Present: David Handley, Christy Fitzpatrick, Kathy Savoie, Shirley Hager, Doug Babkirk, Cathy Elliott, Jim Dill (am)

Proposed additions to agenda:
• How will missing pieces be added?
• What communication will go out to the organization in advance of work group meetings?
• What is the definition of an indicator based on work done by Goal 5 group – decided that this will evolve from sticky wall process

Announcements
• Charlie Kittridge(?) has a draft of the database ready for those who wish to see it. This version links action outcomes and learning outcomes.
• Sign-up for work group meetings is being done through Deb Seekins

Reports from “Goal” leaders
• David Handley – Goal 1 – kept the numbering system
Discussion on meaning of “appropriate” = response that fits the situation selected from an acceptable set of strategies
Issue that still needs to be addressed is if we still have questions about wording
who resolves-people who created the outcome or us or…?
• Deb Killam – Goal 2 – issues of definitions and wording
Identified different levels of learning outcomes – ie awareness, learn, etc. – and tried to develop consistent language for each type
Categories of outcomes suggested themselves – these categories have some relationship to the issue area – proposed that clumping the learning outcomes would help people find the ones they needed
• Kathy Savoie – Goal 3 – Concern about action outcomes that are missing – ie seem to
be lacking a whole set of food safety outcomes – how do we insure that the process
allows for gaps to be filled?
• Christy Fitzpatrick – Goal 4 – tried to make sure outcomes were broad enough to fit a variety of programs. Separated long lists – ie develop, implement, use – into separate outcomes. This goal has many action and learning outcomes but it also covers several large program areas
• Cathy Elliott – Goal 5 – Reduced list to 4 action outcomes accompanied to lists of indicators that will show if an outcome has been achieved. For example , action outcome “people will use sustainable living practices” has indicators such as recycle, reduce greenhouse gases.
In discussion about indicators, appears that if you can attach a number to it, it is an indicator, if not it is an action outcome

Discussion
• Entry into reporting system – most, though not all, believe entry is through a program
• David- concern that we have lost connection to issue areas and that action outcomes to issue areas
• Les proposed that we organize into three columns – goals on the far right, 4-5 big action outcomes with “action steps” under each in the middle, and learning outcomes on the left

Used this format to sort action outcomes on sticky walls
Proposed one new category “Develop/Increase capacity to serve others” – skills needed to make positive contributions to families, communities, businesses - should be located in both Goal 2 (economic, social development) and Goal 4 – (individuals and families)

Next steps
• Group leaders will collate work done today, match to learning outcomes and issue areas
Format
LO AO with sub action steps Goal Issue area
• Dates
Collation ready by 8/15 – send to Deb and she will assemble and send to Task Force and
PA’s (thanks, Deb!) for comment by 8/19

Communiqué to organization
Doug will draft and send out for comment
What groups will work on in their PLT/work group meetings
– identify programs, activities, audiences and other inputs
– add any missing action or learning outcomes (make sure that everyone knows they can still add outcomes at this point)
– develop an evaluation plan that includes a list of measurable objectives

Plan to send out to organization with completed harmonized lists early in week of August 22.

Return to Top

June 9, 2005

Present: Hank, Kathy H., David, Dennis, Cathy E., Christy, Cindy, Debbie, Kathy S.

Christy will draft an email and circulate to task force members and PAs for review/comment.

Final version will be sent out by Cindy under the POW Task Force login to program staff and Pas.

May 2, 2005

Present: Cindy Eves-Thomas, Kathy Hopkins, Christy Fitzpatrick, Dennis Harrington, David Handley, Kathy Savoie
Absent: Esperanza Stancioff, Cathy Elliott, Debbie Killam, Hank Clark, Leslie Hyde.

Reviewed the e-mail and developed details for the sessions to be offered to and discussed with John, including:

Revisions to protocol developed to address John and Caroline’s questions. These will be sent out by Cindy after reviewing with Christy.

Evaluation: to be brief; did participants feel that their input was used and that the process is inclusive and valid. Draft evaluation developed and will be sent out for review.

April 8, 2005

Present: Dennis, Debbie, Les, David, Christy, Cathy E, Ron, and Cindy
Absent: Hank, Kathy S, Kathy H, and Esperanza

The POW-TF received a total of 14 responses. Majority were positive. Lack of responses was viewed by the POW-TF as indicative of acceptance. The group discussed negative responses and questions. It was decided that Cathy would draft a communication, which after review by POW-TF, will be sent to all staff by Dennis on April 19. The message will

Cathy and Debbie will make changes to the document as discussed by the POW-TF (including a statement about the number of templates and the number of discussion participants; a statement that says this document complements the templates; and changes to the table). POW-TF committed to looking at the changes on Friday (Deb will send reminder on Thursday) and respond by Monday. Cindy will post the document to the Web, with links to the complete templates. Cindy and Dennis will plan changes to update/rearrange the site, which Cindy will implement. Dennis will make an announcement to UMCE when the documents are ready.

“Process for Creating Learning and Action Outcomes and Relating Them to Condition Outcomes (State Goals)” draft review

Tentative dates (contingent upon confirmation from facilitator Carolyn Prior (Maine Coast Heritage Trust):

All programming staff, including aides, are invited to the group meetings. PAs will also participate in discussions. People will be expected to come prepared (logic model; issue areas).
Dennis will provide laminated posters of logic model and goals for meetings.
Cindy will replace Roger Rennekamp’s model with the new one (from Dennis).
Cathy and Fran will present a short tutorial of the logic model at each session.

Dennis will talk with PAs about “harmonizing” outcomes (invite POW-TF to their meeting?). POW-TF will cull the most obvious duplication of outcomes from Groups A & B at our June 9 meeting. We will send the outcomes to inform participants of Groups C & D. PAs will do final “harmonizing” between June 23 and July 15.

POW-TF will meet on August 9 (9:30 – 3:00) to review PAs work and decide what needs to be communicated to the organization.

Outcomes to be ready by mid-August so staff can write plans in September and October.

Schedule for the rest of 2005:
September 13
October 18
November 15
December 6

March 19, 2005

Present: Cathy Elliott, Debbie Killam, Christy Fitzpatrick, Kathy Hopkins, Hank Clark, Dennis Harrington and Leslie Hyde. Dennis served as facilitator; Les as recorder.

March 4, 2005

Updates

Cathy Elliott introduced herself as an “ad hoc” member of the POWTF whose work will relate specifically to the NEPRC.

Analysis of County Focus Group

Debbie facilitated a process of identifying themes, trends, and suggested educational methods from the county discussions for each issue area. Debbie will transcribe for the POWTF by Tuesday PM, and send to POWTF members to refine. POWTF members are asked to review this information BEFORE the March 10th meeting in preparation for a discussion about goal setting.

ENVIVO Analysis

Ron suggests that the collective resources of our needs assessment [county conversations and analysis, issue papers, primary and secondary data (including our database), CSREES issue priorities (http.www.csrees.usda.gove/nea/emphasis_area.html), and CSREES draft Strategic Plan] will be as valuable as the ENVIVO analysis, since the process was not carefully planned previous to the county discussions. Further, the process that we engaged in today (see Analysis of County Focus Group above) is of equal value. Group discussion led to the conclusion that there are many different ways that the existing information could be analyzed, including using ENVIVO, however, the additional time involved in further analysis is likely not to provide substantially more information. The idea of an ENVIVO analysis is tabled.

State Goals versus Federal Goals

A long discussion was held relating to the pros and cons of using the federal goals (as proposed in the CSREES Draft Strategic Plan), or creating new state goals mindful of the existence of the federal goals and needs assessment results. After strong discussion the group voted on the 2 proposals – with consensus being blocked on both. Substantial discussion followed with a majority in opposition to adopting the federal goals AS IS. More attempts to achieve consensus at a variety of proposals were attempted. Guided by the intentions of making sure the goals reflected the needs assessment results while honoring our obligations to our federal funder, the group ultimately found common ground in a proposal for a combination of wording from the existing federal goals and proposals made from within the group for unique state goals. Christy agreed to type up 2 versions of what we discussed and email them to the group ASAP, with the intention that the full POWTF would evaluate and comment via email – being ready to make some final decisions as a first priority at the March 10th meeting.

Translating Goals Into Action

This agenda item was tabled due to a lack of time, and will be addressed as a priority at the next meeting.

Next Agenda

Next meeting: March 10th – Heritage House

January 14, 2005

Present: Dennis, Deb K, Les, Kathy H., Hank, Christy, Esperanza, Ron Jones, Dave
Missing: Cindy, Kathy S.

Updates:

Ron Jones was introduced. He will be working with the group for the next few months. One of his roles will be to reorganize our resource lists to match the issue areas.

Dennis talked to Cathy Elliott about how she might work with the group to help with our planning work. She is considering her new schedule and will get back to us.

New England Planning and Reporting Consortium (5 states): Dennis will be attending their meeting next week. Work will include identifying common fields that all 5 states will want to use.

Dennis also would like to consider convening a focus group on reporting issues. Different ideas about how to organize this were discussed. Generally it was felt that

Dennis said that the new network person would be a key participant in this.
Ron offered to help.
Plans for 2 -- one in Orono, one down south.
Not more than 1½ to 2 hours long.
Discussion on how to/involve PLT not completely resolved.
Ron will approach Ron Beard about getting on the agenda of the next faculty meeting (Mar 9) for 1-1½ hours, and will try to set at a time when professional staff can also attend.

Dennis: basic conceptual look of the new reporting system will followed VERN from Vermont

As we plan next steps need to keep in mind that POW is due to Feds by April 1 2006.

Analysis of County Shaping Our Future Discussions

Going to be impractical to do any kind of quantitative analysis due to lack of standardization in each process. TF members reflected that it was quite disappointing that the work and training done by CRE yielded such an inconsistent process

General consensus was that it would not be appropriate to use numbers of votes to assess relative importance of issues.

At Feb. meeting, Deb will take the group through a 2 hour process to identify trends which lead toward state goals.

Reporting back to UMCE about the process for identifying state-wide goals

Tools: issue area lists + sub-issues, issue papers, and county and program area meetings, including N-Vivo analysis, review of templates

Also, ask Cindy to make sure that results from the program area meetings are posted in a format that clearly separates them from the template format and will be available to read as group and individual POW are developed.

Due to low attendance at the Ag Trade show on the day the Ag group was going to survey folks, they will be using a different process.

Defining state goals

Will having state goals facilitate the process of identifying group and individual goals?

Generally group seemed to support state goals – use process of looking at Needs Assessment data and then comparing to Doug/Dennis chart to see what emerges and how the two go together.

If we want AC involvement, needs to be presented to AC soon; next two meetings are Feb 9 and 23. Dennis will give the group a “heads-up” about the plan on Feb. 9. A group of POWTF members will attend the Feb. 23 meeting to explain details of the process.

Attending: Dave Handley, Esperanza Stancioff, Dennis Harrington, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Kathy Hopkins, Hank Clark

Updates:

CSREES Goals and Objectives

Dennis reported on NH meeting. CSREES has developed a strategic plan for 2004-2009. They have identified objectives for each of 5 goals that may identify how we will do our work. The draft should be sent to Federal Register in next couple weeks for final comments meaning the draft is essentially the final form.

Analysis of Focus Groups

Has a preliminary compilation of issue areas identified in Shaping our Future sessions. Training by CRE criticized for failure to be consistent and provide consistent results to group. Many county results were skewed because of attendance by specific interest groups.

Dennis previewed the Shaping our Future database that will be searchable by county, alphabetical listing and prioritized issue areas. The group felt this would be usable by staff and by Executive Committees. May add a screen that allows you to group counties and get a regional prioritized list.

Timeline

Plan of Work due April 1 so timeline is compressed to meet that earlier deadline.

Identifying goals and objectives need to have some statewide consistency because state office gets asked for various numbers that can’t be queried in current database because each program area has developed own criteria. To adjust timeline we need to develop common goals, objectives, indicators that relate to new CSREES strategic plan AND allow people to develop their own goals and objectives for their reporting.

Doug joined group to discuss progress of task force and reporting system

A big question is whether we can fit our 18 issue areas under the CSREES 5 goals and still feel that our work is validated and authentic or whether by fitting our 18 issues under the 5 CSREES goals if people will feel that they have no place in our system, and that their work is not validated and is invisible. Some people will feel that we simply adopted CSREES goals and ignored our whole needs assessment process and its results.

We need to be able to validate our work and the specific needs identified in Maine and still be responsive to the requirements of CSREES and be accountable for the $6 million that we receive from them. We need to provide, from our reporting system, numbers that show what impacts have been achieved as a result of our work. The number of workshops, newsletters etc. is not important. How people changed their behaviors as a result of the programs is critically important. We need fewer indicators and more in-depth impact results from our work.

Pros and cons discussion held on having organization-wide 1or 2 day meeting to develop performance goals. Levels of POW = 2 levels: statewide/organizational and individual-based on organizational, team and/or county input. Invite departments on campus to participate in development of POW goals and indicators and outcomes. PLTs should play major role in convening discussions that translate issue areas to performance goals, activities and outcomes. Convene a “Super PLT” meeting where connected PLTs could gather: example convene crops, home hort, commercial hort, livestock teams to talk about issues and possible connections.

How to make small flexible and streamlined POW – have each PLT restricted to 5 performance goals. Research shows that a person can only do 3-4 things effectively. We need to be much more focused and in–depth in our work. All goals should have short and long term goals and impacts.

Doug to provide leadership with Fran to encourage PLTs to undertake this work if POW task force provides blueprint of process for organization to use.

Doug will compile some thoughts about how to offer this information to PLTs and share with Task Force before the next meeting. Doug could meet with us on the afternoon of January 14 for more discussions.

Next Agenda

Please send any additional agenda items. Any questions or comments about these minutes should be directed to one of the attendees…

Attending: Dennis Harrington, Hank Clark, Kathy Hopkins, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Les Hyde, Christy Fitzpatrick, Dave Handley, Kathy Savoie, Deb Killam

Northeast Consortium meeting to look at designing a multi-state (4 state) reporting system. Dennis will present the idea to AC.

Use this data to show general trends. This information has relevance at the local level for planning purposes.

How do we handle…simply make available or compile by topic area and county? Create an abstract by county?

Dennis will work with a student worker to create data tables from the county forums. Sub-issue area tables, and others.

The rest of us need to think about what would like to get out of a database. What would make the most sense and what would we get out of it. TO DO: Bring a pencil sketch of what we want. Dennis will invite Michele to discuss database questions.

Cindy Eves-Thomas will post the templates from County forums (with process comments removed). Deb Killam will send these to Cindy.

Deb Killam provided an update of the last PLT meeting. Deb talked with PLTs about how they could conduct focus groups within their program area.

Deb will follow-up with process related questions from her focus group to the PLTs.

Another item that was discussed was that PLTs did not want to be referred to for developing the goals, objectives and indicators for Issue Areas. They feel it needs to be addressed by UMCE programming staff.

Idea generated at PLT meeting: to have an organizational meeting for staff to come together to identify goals, objectives and indicators.

PLTs also expressed that they want to have feedback on the new reporting template.

Dennis shared a revised Proposed POW Timeline. We discussed items F, G, I and J.

We held a lengthy discussion about items F,G,I and J to discuss sequencing and logic. Members shared their varying ideas.

Dennis will share a draft template at our next meeting. Others are welcome to share theirs as well.

Dave suggested an on-line paper survey with UMCE educational opportunities as incentives. Concerns about reaching our under-served audiences were expressed.

Discussed checking in with county contacts to see if their needs were met through the county’s SOF. We realized we have already asked this question in the SOF Template.

Present: Dennis Harrington, Kathy Hopkins, Debbie Killam, David Handley, Kathy Savoie, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Christy Fitzpatrick

Papers are completed, bound and distributed to facilitator trainees. Generally, they are well done and will serve the organization well for several purposes. Having PAs and outside reviewers strengthened the process and helped strengthen connections with collaborating agencies.

A message should be sent to the organization announcing the document's availability so that groups can use it for local purposes such as grant-writing, county budget requests, etc. Accompanying the message should be a thank you and acknowledgement to all the authors for a job well-done!

Training went well. Some minor revisions were made to the template and the process and Deb Burwell sent the revisions out to the trained facilitators from Sept 22. Discussion continued about the process and how the POW relayed information to the organization about what the expectations were for counties. Discussion occurred about whether we could have promoted the focus groups in better ways. It was felt that several messages were sent over the summer and responses given. What we could have done better was submit a list of potential facilitators to the organization sooner. It was disappointing that so few of the organization's trained facilitators offered to help with the process.

Oxford -- had very difficult person in attendance but Deb Burwell managed to control his ranting although he established a poisonous atmosphere. Staff had an attitude toward the process which made the meeting very difficult. Could we add a preface to the Issue Area Papers Document that explained how the issues were solicited and developed and how we arrived at the final research-based document? Deb B. felt that staff in Oxford broke the agreement about ground rules.

Kennebec -- had 7 people attend and that it was reasonably positive despite the low attendance. Some Extension observers were also in attendance. People had difficult time with our issue areas and felt that areas had overlap. They couldn't figure out where to put their individual areas and so wanted to create new areas. Need to emphasize that both local concerns and statewide concerns can be captured during process? Deb B. feels that every participant should have the full document of Issue Areas with all the sub-issue areas included. Include a better explanation of what Extension is and how the issue areas were developed? Fran S. had some good ideas on how to capture people's comments more positively on the flip charts.

Send a message to UMCE: Reaffirming that 2 sessions have occurred and that many more opportunities exist for collecting information. Offer a brief review of how we developed the process and suggest some strategies to add to make it go more smoothly.

Plan of Work due to CSREES April 1, 2006. This moves our timeline forward by 3 months.

Deb K. and Christy planning a 15 minute piece to present to Oct. PLT meeting. Ask PLT chairs HOW they want to participate in development of standards and criteria not to tell them how they will. Doug will need to facilitate the discussion after Deb and Christy's presentation.

Best method for communicating with Task Force (decisions on small details) (Dennis)

Dennis would like everyone to respond to emails as he sometimes only gets just one or 2 responses and no one else sends input. Please send a response even if it is only to ditto what someone else says.

Next meetings: Jan. 14, Feb. 8, March 10, April 8, May 2, June 9. Dennis will send the task assignments for each meeting date.

We need to do a better job documenting our process since we have to submit a report to CSREES that captures how we created our POW.

We need to start thinking about a reporting system. Possibility of joining a Northeast regional reporting system? Dennis attending a conference at the end of October.

Next meeting Nov. 1 at Buchanan House

September 10, 2004

Present: Esperanza Stancioff, Dennis Harrington, Kathy Hopkins, Debbie Killam, David Handley, Kathy Savoie, Les Hyde, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Christy Fitzpatrick, Hank Clark

2. Task Force Members: Joyce, Doug, Kyle, Nick, Jim Campbell (cooperating grad student) and Dennis.

Request from Jim Campbell w/ Marketing Task Force: Can we include a ½ page card in focus groups as a marketing survey for Extension

We agreed this was too off the focus of the Planning Discussions and were not in support of this.

Task: Deb will send to us the information she generated for statewide focus groups format and will send information to PLT contacts and program staff as reminder of focus groups, purpose, etc.

Task: Dennis will invite Doug to November 1st meeting for 1 hour at Buchanan Center (correct?)

Task: Esperanza will check in with Kennebec College for facilitator/note taker training

Doing Business WERU Jane Haskell on 10/9/04; Dennis was a guest; will update group on results from continued phone calls to Jane.

June 10, 2004

Present: Esperanza Stancioff, Dennis Harrington, Kathy Hopkins, Debbie Killam, David Handley, Kathy Savoie
Missing: Les Hyde, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Christy Fitzpatrick, Hank Clark

E-mail sent out by Cindy:

What is missing or still needs to be communicated?

Training of facilitators:

Question re: use of POW Task Force login to send messages so when folks reply it goes to all of us. To do this, login of POWTF and enter POWTF as password

Note takers:

Issue Papers

Paper Survey

Agenda – for September 10th meeting

May 13, 2004

Present: D. Handley (note taker), D. Harrington, C. Eves-Thomas (facilitator), E. Stancioff, K. Hopkins, H. Clark, K. Savoie, D. Killam, C. Fitzpatrick
Missing: L. Hyde

I. Change of date for September, 2004 meeting.

Original date of Tuesday September 7 has been changed to Friday, September 10, 9:30 a.m. at the Heritage House (Dennis will check for availability)

II. Review and discussion of the recent Program Leadership Team Leaders meeting

D. Killam, C. Fitzpatrick and K. Hopkins attended the recent PLT Leaders meeting and reported that this group expressed some concern about the planned POW focus group meetings for county needs assessment.

Overall reaction from the group was mixed, but it is not surprising that different groups are at different points in this evolving process. Hopefully, all will become more active and invested as the POW Task Force strives to keep them informed of the process through regular updates.

K. Hopkins and H. Clark reviewed their meeting with the County Executive Committee Presidents regarding the focus-group process. They reported that the process seemed well received and that the committee members are willing to participate and create the focus group invitation lists. There was significant interest in developing greater inter-county cooperation and coordination, especially in regard to setting County-based priorities.

D. Harrington distributed the list of 20 issue areas with the authors who have so far volunteered to write the papers for them. There are several areas for which no authors have been committed. Dennis has contacted potential authors, based upon recommendations of Program Leaders. If no results after two weeks, Dennis will send out a follow up request.

As per her e-mail to the POWTF, D. Killam would like to modify one of the issue areas from “Chronic Diseases” to “ Health Literacy, Disease, and the Healthcare System.” Change approved by the POWTF.

Dennis would like to reconnect with the people who have agreed to author issue papers, to offer help from the POWTF, and encourage authors to consult peers for drafting the papers and for review. He also recommends sending a list of the authors and issues to UMCE staff with encouragement to participate in the process and contribute to the papers.

Cindy will work with the editorial staff once the papers are received to assure readability of the abstracts. These should not be too technical, as they may be the most frequently read and used part of the papers by the focus groups.

D. Harrington distributed a proposed session format developed by Suzanne Hart and Deb Burwell from discussions with D. Harrington and C. Eves-Thomas (revised copy sent with minutes).

The format was reviewed and generated the following concerns, which D. Harrington will bring back to Suzanne Hart and Deb Burwell.

April 1, 2004

Present: D. Handley, H. Clark, D. Harrington, C. Fitzpatrick (facilitator), L. Hyde, C. Eves-Thomas (note taker), and K. Hopkins
Missing: E. Stancioff and D. Killam
Guest: Suzanne Hart, Center for Research and Evaluation

Updates: Dennis met with Nancy Franz, Associate Director of the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension during her visit to Maine on March 29-30 to discuss UNHCE’s needs assessment process. Dennis distributed handouts of UNHCE’s caucus results, logic model template and sample Ag Resources Program logic model.

Dennis posed the following question for the POW-TF’s future consideration: Where/when is the best place/time to consider the question: What will UMCE start/continue/stop doing?

Archival of POW-TF Group Process: Meeting minutes will continue to be posted online (by Cindy). All handouts will be kept in a binder (by Dennis). Christy suggested that a note be added (by Cindy) to the online minutes, warning staff that all the minutes are currently contained in a single document and hitting “Print” will cause many pages to print.

Planning Focus Group (FG) Meetings: Discussion led by Suzanne Hart from the Center for Research and Evaluation (CRE). Conclusions:

1-Year Anniversary of the POW-TF: The group celebrated with carrot cake. Thanks, Dennis!

Focus Group Details: Will the same questions work for county FGs (regional/general) and PLT/commodity groups (program-specific)? Discussion:

Upcoming PLT Meeting (May 7): The POW-TF will not present formally at this event, however, some POW-TF members, who will be in attendance, can answer POW-related questions, if any.

Organizational Meeting Visioning Activity: The results of the visioning activity were organized by Christy. They will be transcribed by Dennis’ student workers and then placed on the Web by Cindy. Cindy will point UMCE to the URL.

Issue Areas -- Questions: The POW-TF will review the issues list and make appropriate changes to the Excel document in the Public Folder (at the bottom of the Outlook email directory) prior to 8:00 a.m. on April 8. When the document is ready, Dennis will send out a Call for Authors message and Cindy will place the final document on the Web site.

March 8, 2004

Present: Dennis (facilitator), Christy (note taker), Kathy H., Kathy S. and Cindy
Missing: David, Les, Esperanza, Deb, and Hank

Thanks to Kathy Hopkins who will be presenting an update about our work to the County Executive Committee presidents’ meeting on April 3 in Waterville. She will update last year’s presentation, will explain the purpose and logistics (as much as we know) of the focus groups, and will explain how executive committees can take leadership in the county Plan of Work process

Discussed details in hopes of further refining the focus group process – information will become part of Esperanza’s presentation

Discussion on the papers identified some changes to the requirements which should be shared at the meeting

The afternoon of this meeting has been given to the POWTF. We decided to focus on issue papers, getting authors, and in fostering some cross-disciplinary issue papers between different groups. We also need to have the process completely ready to go by this meeting. We only need one hour of time and 20-30 minutes of that may be to allow authors time to get together and discuss what they want to write.

Communications to the organization were discussed. Alternatives were presenting information on a regular basis so people get used to having it arrive during a certain time period versus just communicating when there was a specific need to do it. We decided that communicating as needed would be more effective.

There was a question about what kinds of records, if any, of our work should be kept. It was decided that it would be important or useful to document the work. This needs to be simple to do and simple to read. Minutes and documents handed out at each meeting will be kept. A timeline showing exactly what we did and when we did it will be included.

February 3, 2004

Present: Les Hyde, facilitator, Dennis Harrington, note taker, D. Killam, K. Savoie, K. Hopkins, C Fitzpatrick
Absent: C. Eves-Thomas, E. Stancioff, H. Clark
Maternity Leave: D. Handley (congratulations David!!!!)

Timeline

Dennis communicated that he review the timeline details before the meeting today and we are on schedule. Suggestion to add numbers along the side of the timeline list so that the items would be easier to reference in conversations.

Committee Commitments

Debbie has created a spreadsheet for task force members to communicate their overall availability to participate in task force work in the future. It has been placed in the POWTF public folder and 5 of 10 people have added their intentions. Our intention is that the rest of the group review soon. It will remain there for updating as situation demands.

CRE Contract/Deb Burwell as Focus Group Facilitator/Budget

CRE Contract: Dennis presented his assessment of focus groups as per CRE conversation

Debbie expressed that there is qualitative software that has applications for this type of analytical process. Analysis is also possible with other carefully designed processes. Best if we develop some sort of “Process” that will help us summarize the results.

Deb Burwell: Dennis & Debbie reported on their meeting with Deb Burwell regarding our intentions to explore hiring her as a facilitator for focus groups.

Budget: Dennis reported that the AC had approved the addition of Deb Burwell to the POWTF budget. They overtly affirmed the value of our work by doing so.

Summary: There was a motion made to commit to both CRE and Deb Burwell. Consensus reached by group. Dennis agreed to communicate to CRE and Deb Burwell.

Format for Issue Papers

Debbie presented her revised draft of the issue paper format. The group discussed the questions in the format and after a discussion about areas of potential overlap, supported them the format.

Grouping of Issue Areas

The group undertook to sort the 460 issue area suggestions that were received from 49 UMCE staff, 7 CEC boards and the homemakers group. The process of grouping helped to illuminate 23 headings which will be reviewed by the committee during February, revised and presented to UMCE at the March organizational meeting. UMCE will then be able to provide feedback, and begin the process of creating issue area papers under these general areas. The areas are:

Dennis will sort the issues for publishing and post them to the POWTF public folder for review by the committee during February.

Note: This was a large and difficult task which stressed the capacity of each of us at some point in the process. The activity brought up many thoughts about intersection, overlapping priorities and programming partnerships that appeared not to be addressed by the process. We found comfort in knowing that the exercise was intended to help illuminate broad areas of common work, and was not intended to be inclusive of all aspects of each issue or their relationship to others. The importance of encouraging Issue Paper authors to review other issue areas and their sub-issues was discussed and agreed upon.

Creating Presentation Plans for UMCE Annual Meeting (March 9, 2004)

A discussion was held about the opportunity that we have as a committee to communicate to UMCE in a positive and productive way. A tentative agenda was designed for the day.

The meeting was adjourned at 3 PM, there was no time to create an agenda for the next meeting, but Dennis agreed to work on it.

The meeting convened at 9:15 PM. Present were: Esperanza Stancioff, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Debbie Killam, Christy Fitzpatrick, Leslie Hyde and Dennis Harrington. Absent were: Kathy Savoie, Hank Clark, Kathy Hopkins and David Handley. Dennis agreed to chair the meeting.

1. Review Committee Commitments: The group agreed that each member should review their commitments to the team. Several mentioned that there are dates when they are not able to be part of the team. Deb agreed to create and post a “chart of Commitments” on email. The chart will show a month-by-month calendar for the POW team through September 2006 and invite members to indicate meetings and time when they are and are not available for committee work.

2. Center Research and Evaluation update: Dennis circulated an updated letter/ draft proposal from Walter Harris, Director CRE. CRE agreed to help with the design, data collection and analysis for a fee of $3500. This is less than the earlier proposed amount. Dennis is feeling positive about the proposed collaboration. The committee is supportive of further exploring this collaboration.

3. Facilitator for focus groups: Dennis shared his conversation and a follow-up letter from Deb Burwell indicating her interest in helping with facilitation. A discussion followed around which meetings would be facilitated, role of CRE, role of a contracted facilitator and how many focus groups there would be and their scope: county, regional or statewide. Discussion followed around the cost of facilitators and whether there are sufficient funds. There was strong support for securing a facilitator for focus groups. Dennis agreed to meet with Deb Burwell, explore possibilities and report back at next meeting. Debbie agreed to support Dennis as needed.

4. Timeline review: The group reviewed the time line. There appears to be some confusion at the county level as to our request for “issue areas”. Message will be resent to Board Presidents, including Tanglewood, faculty, professionals, etc.

The group briefly discussed who would write focus papers: Faculty, PA’s, specialists? Deb suggested that papers might be peer reviewed by a team.

5. Issue statements sorting: Dennis distributed the listing to date of issue topic areas and their contributors. Cindy proposed that we keep track of all contributions and the category where it is placed. The group agreed that we should start by grouping the topics under the five major categories already identified. Dennis agreed to sort the topics under the five broad issue areas using a spreadsheet and report back at our next meeting.

The Task Force has previously identified the following five broad program categories under which most of Extension’s work might fall:

6. Format for issue area papers: Debbie reviewed the proposed format for issue area papers. Item “F” was added as a result of discussion.

The length and format of the issue area papers was discussed. It was agreed that each issue paper should begin with an abstract, two pages of text and listing of citations; 4 pages total! Other instructions: date due, two sided, hard copy and electronic word document, use of creditable sources, list principal author and title and peer reviewers on the front page, listing of at least 3 peers reviewers and title, (suggested peers include a UMCE program administrator and someone from outside Extension), 12 point font, Times New Roman, one half inch margins minimum.

A question for the focus groups: What else do we need to know as we consider the potential for Extension to do this work? Debbie agreed to incorporate our discussions and report back at our next meeting.

Quick update about CRE: Dennis is continuing to negotiate with Walter Harris. Debbie has approached Deb Burwell about facilitating/training facilitators for our focus groups. We discussed the possibility that our funding may be decreased because of the budget cuts so will make revisions in our plans when the amount of cut is known. Dennis will contact Deb Burwell to talk about her participation, Deb Killam will also attend that meeting.

The responses that we have received to our request -- and an extension of the December 8th deadline accompanied by a clarified list. Discussed the input sent by some that the request was unclear and felt after reading the letter that it was clear but that the timeline was too short to gather enough information. The letter requesting issue areas will be resent with a due date of Jan. 23. Issues gathered by then will be discussed at the Feb. 3 meeting.

Creation of a sub-group that will create a format for writing of issues statements, and present it at the February 3rd meeting. Deb volunteered to create a letter requesting issue statements. She will send it out for comment the week of Jan. 5 for review and feedback by the committee.

Quick update of our facilitation schedule: Hank, Dave H. and Kathy S will not be at the Jan. 9 meeting. After much discussion about setting the schedule ahead by a month which would mean Kathy S. would be on to facilitate a meeting she can't attend, it was decided to keep the schedule as is, Kathy H. will facilitate in Jan. and Kathy S. will drop to the bottom of the list to facilitate later in the spring.

Letters to Deans and Department chairs were going out today. Lavon received positive feedback for the project and the timeliness of the letter. Thanks to Hank and Diane B for working on the project.

Attending: Hank Clark, Les Hyde, Dennis Harrington, Kathy Hopkins, Dave Handley, Deb Killam, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Christy Fitzpatrick, Kathy Savoie

Topic: Clarifying committee commitment for 3 year phase. Briefly discussed. To be discussed next meeting.

Dennis, Deb, Esperanza, and Kathy Hopkins were present at the PLT bi-annual contact meeting. They shared the Timeline and Needs Assessment Process Visual Model with this group.

They expressed that this effort generated a good discussion and there were no specific suggestions to change it. Comments from the group included: add departmental contacts to identify issues and keep in mind budgetary expenses related to this process.

Dennis met with CRE and has received a revised proposed contract from them. We reviewed this document and had discussions related to the seeking clarity and coming to consensus. The Level of Consensus was used to move the group forward on making the decision. The group supported the following decision: Dennis will break the proposed contract into component jobs for CRE to itemize focusing on #2 and #3 and minimizing #1. Dave Handley suggested offering the UMCE graduate assistantship as a means to reduce costs.

The committee contributed tasks for each Timeline Section (A – E). We then worked together to define and clarify the tasks.

Kathy Savoie will send out the updated Timeline with Details for the committee to comment on by December 5.

Dennis, Christy, and Cindy will send a memo via e-mail to UMCE and EC Presidents to provide and update of the POW process, call for expansion of outlined 5 Issue Areas.

Hank urged to have Department Heads/Deans included in these communications. He will discuss with Lavon when he meets with her soon.

Present: Dennis Harrington, Christy Fitzpatrick, Kathy Hopkins, Hank Clark, Esperanza Stancioff, Kathie Savoie and Debbie Killam.

Esperanza Stancioff opened the meeting at 9:30 AM and passed out an agenda for the day’s meeting.

Dennis Harrington brought the committee up to speed on pertinent points discussed at the last meeting with the AC group. He mentioned that Dean Bartel applauded the POW-TF’s decision to stick to the time line. Dennis said he felt that all the members of the POW-TF were willing to extend their time on the committee, with the exception of David Handley.

Dennis reported that the next USDA program funding might come with more strings attached. This may be due in part to Massachusetts’ move to get rid of 4-H from their program.

Dennis talked about POW-TF budget discussions with the AC and John Rebar, and a budget estimate for FY 04 and 05 was passed out. He also announced that all POW-TF expenses should be charged to 5-5-39923, including task force members’ travel.

Dennis then discussed his attempts to communicate with our regional partners. To date the only response has been from New Hampshire, which is assisting in the planning for a conference call with all states included.

Dennis reported on a recent follow up meeting to Debbie Killam and Kathy Hopkins’ meeting with the Center for Research and Evaluation (CRE). He felt the meeting was excellent and provided the committee members with a written copy of the proposed process for the UMCE plan of work needs assessment. This document is quite thorough in its discussion of what is sought and who will do what. CRE proposed a cost of $3,500 for their part of the task. Included with the above CRE document were two appendices, first a Program Area List (proposed topic areas for meetings), and second, a proposed POW planning timeline. These three documents precipitated a great deal of discussion, especially the two appendices. There appeared to be general acceptance of the CRE document itself, though there was concern over the availability of original data sets analyzed by the CRE to the POW-TF.

The first appendix appeared far too extensive, mixing sub-categories with major category areas. It was generally felt that presenting as few all-encompassing issue areas as possible would make the most sense. Five general areas that would encompass everything were chosen; these were:

The second appendix presented a proposed POW planning timeline, which Dennis had broken down and presented, on a more visual flow sheet for the committee. This time line occupied a great deal of the afternoon’s discussion. It was carefully discussed in relationship to the responsibilities and timelines discussed in the primary CRE document. These discussions resulted in the revised timeline sent to all members of the POW by Dennis subsequent to the 10-9-03 meeting. Members of the committee were asked to identify all tasks in relation to the 14 timeline events. Any changes that a committee member felt were appropriate, either additions or deletions, were to be sent to Debbie by the 31^st of October. Debbie would then make changes to the timeline events as appropriate and have a new timeline work table for the next meeting.

During the day’s discussions the POW members became aware of the scheduled PLT meeting one day before the next POW meeting in November. Dennis will attend this meeting and it was strongly felt that he should present the status of the POW, the issue areas under consideration and a timeline of our plan of action. It was also felt that this information should be sent to UMCE immediately after the POW-TF’s next meeting.

In attendance: Hank Clark, Kathy Hopkins, David Handley, Christy Fitzpatrick, Dennis Harrington, Les Hyde, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Debbie Killam, and Esperanza Stancioff

2) Summary of work By Deb K and Kathy H with Center for Research and Evaluation (CRE).

TASK: Dennis agreed to check in with counterparts for POW process for following states: in a month’s time.
NH, VT, MA, NY, and RI
What is their process?
Do they have a task force?
What are other ways to communicate?
Conference in April, regional meeting

TASK: When committee member has a responsibility for gathering information and needs input from other committee members through email, put a date as a deadline in subject line as a responsibility; commitment of other members is to read and respond accordingly by deadline when possible. We agree to move on with our work when the deadline for response to something has passed.

We need to design the systems that will be used. We need to revisit the timeline for needs assessment so that writing personal POWs will be more appropriate timing. Suggestion is to move everything up one year-- this and the CRE plan was discussed in the afternoon by two subgroups:

Afterward—come back and discuss in large group and look at personal time commitments to revision (to be continued).

Step 1 -- Identify existing research and information—pull together that information and determine what gets used (by Task Force). Synthesize existing info. Ask specialists, faculty, PLTs to:

Step 2 -- Identify facilitators (would have ½ day training for them by CRE) ID focus group—broad group who knows something about UMCE; code groupings

TASK: Deb Killam is updating the timeline in the table format and will send out according to the following:

Present: David Handley, Christy Fitzpatrick, Dennis Harrington, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Kathy Hopkins, Debbie Killam, Esperanza Stancioff, Kathy Savoie, Les Hyde

Return to Top

June 3, 2003

Members present: Deborah Killam, Dennis Harrington, Les Hyde, Kathy Savoie, Hank Clark, Kathy Hopkins, Cindy Eves-Thomas (facilitator), David Handley (notetaker)

II. Skills Inventory: Les Hyde led the Task Force through a skills inventory exercise to help the group appreciate the personal resources that members bring to this Task Force.

May 8, 2003

Members present: Christy Fitzpatrick (facilitator), Cindy Eves-Thomas (notetaker), Hank Clark, David Handley, Dennis Harrington, Kathy Hopkins, Debbie Killam, Kathy Savoie

ACTIONS: Dennis will send edited Vision Statement to POWTF via email. POWTF will review. Final document will be communicated to all UMCE staff via email (Dennis?) and added to the Web site (Cindy).

Updates from Albuquerque CSREES conference: Dennis reported that CSREES is currently redesigning POW guidelines in two significant ways: 1) defining program areas to use as the organizing theme for the POW (instead of the 5 national goal areas), and 2) allowing for the design of the “One Solution” system for reporting POW accomplishments (to replace the 68 current databases). To accommodate these changes, UMCE is being asked to consider delaying the start of its next POW cycle by one year, starting the new 5-year POW cycle in the fall of 2005. There are no definitive guidelines as yet for the 1-year extension of our current POW. If this intended change is approved by USDA (and others in the approval process) the guidelines won’t be available until fall 2003.

After some discussion, those present came to a consensus regarding a decision to recommend to AC that UMCE extend its current POW by one year and begin the next POW on October 1, 2005.

ACTIONS: Committee members who were not present (Les and Esperanza) will be asked (by Christy) to weigh in with their views. If consensus is not met, the decision will come back to the committee for further discussion. If consensus is met, the recommendation will be brought to AC (by Dennis at the May 13 AC meeting). AC will be asked to respond to the POWTF via the group login. If AC accepts the committee’s recommendation, the POWTF will communicate the revised POW cycle schedule to UMCE, indicating AC’s endorsement. If AC does not accept the recommendation, the POWTF will revisit the issue.

The group reviewed Christy’s PowerPoint presentation, originally scheduled for the April 5 county executive president’s board meeting, rescheduled for May 17. Minor edits were suggested.

The group reviewed the POW Web site. Minor edits were suggested. The group decided the Web site will be available to an internal audience only; UMCE staff will access the site from a quick link on Plugged In’s home page.

ACTIONS: Cindy will make suggested edits, announce the Web site to UMCE via email, set up a message board for future POW-related discussions, and post meeting minutes after they are approved by the group via email. All group members will be given one week to accept the minutes or respond with changes.

Timeline: Due to the amended schedule, the group sketched out a revised timeline for POW activities.

MAY 03 – SEP 03: Design Needs Assessment template/survey. County assessment instrument to be ready to implement by Fair time (July 03).

ACTIONS: Dennis will communicate the timeline to UMCE after the May 17 AC meeting.

Needs Assessment: Debbie reviewed UMCE’s 1992-96 needs assessment process, in which data was gathered from existing sources, a paper survey, Statistic Maine Poll, and community forums. Based on this experience, Debbie suggested the POWTF consider gathering data from:

ACTIONS: The group will prioritize the Needs Assessment tasks/schedule at our next meeting.

HOMEWORK for next time (June 3): Everyone will review existing data reports/resources.

Members present: Hank Clark, Cindy Eves-Thomas, Christy Fitzpatrick (notetaker), David Handley, Dennis Harrington (facilitator), Kathy Hopkins, Les Hyde, Debbie Killam, Ric Mallamo, Kathy Savoie, Esperanza Stancioff

After introductions, Dennis provided an overview of the Task Force’s Responsibilities
Federal Funding and Partners

Our job will be to define and design the process involved in creating the new POW

We will receive transcribed lists and Dennis will consolidate ideas and draft a vision statement for each question.

We will do an activity identifying the tools we each bring to the process next time.

Meeting Dates: A list of upcoming meeting dates, facilitators and note-takers

Dennis reviewed the Components of the Plan of Work in section 1 of the notebook which reviews pieces needed and who will create them

Concern that summer may not be best time for contact with Executive Committees; on the other hand don’t want to waste the time advantage we have right now

Discussed how we will make sure each county has information to share with Executive Committees – group members will contact neighboring counties

A Member of the University of Maine System
Last Modified: 08/13/06
These pages are currently being maintained from the
Communications Office, University of Maine Cooperative Extension.
Send comments, suggestions or inquiries to www-questions@umext.maine.edu

In complying with the letter and spirit of applicable laws and in pursuing its own goals of diversity, the University of Maine System shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veterans' status in employment, education, and all other areas of the University. The University provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities upon request.

Questions and complaints about discrimination in any area of the University should be directed to the Director of Equal Opportunity, 101 North Stevens, (207) 581-1226.

Information in this web site is provided purely for educational purposes. No responsibility is assumed for any problems associated with the use of products or services mentioned in this web site. No endorsement of products or companies is intended, nor is criticism of unnamed products or companies implied.

GROUP	DATE
A	May 31
B	May 26
C	June 23
D	June 16

TASK	DATE
Define NA process/get buy in	Jan – March 04
Implement NA process	Sept – Nov 04
Analyzing NA results	Dec 04 – Feb 05
Define and communicate needs	Feb – April 05
Identify goals & indicators, get organization feedback	Mar – Aug 05
Create template	Sept – Oct 05
Personal & unit POW	Nov 05 – Jan 06
Consolidate POW/comments/reconsolidate	Feb – April 06
Define merit review	March – April 06
Clean-up & submit	May 06
Reporting System	May – Sept 06
Revisions per CSREES review	June – Aug 06
Start Reporting	Oct 1, 2006

TOPIC	DISCUSSION	ACTION TO BE TAKEN OR DECISIONS MADE	PERSON [S] RESPONSIBLE
GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS
Minutes of June 3, 2003	Copies of minutes distributed Add Debbie Killam to the list of those attending the meeting
Input from UMCE via website, bulleting board, e-mail	Roger Merchant had sent a message related to the planned needs assessment Debbie had initially responded and indicated more information would likely be coming out after the July meeting	a follow-up e-mail will be sent to Roger with an update on needs assessment process and also refer to the minutes of meeting	Debbie
Input from UMCE via website, bulleting board, e-mail		regular monitoring of the bulletin board conversations and alerting us of messages	Cindy
Rachael Caron	Update	We will try to keep her posted on work of the task force	Dennis
Logic Model Training	A day long training will be offered for UMCE. The trainings will be held in two locations: Lisbon Falls [Andro/Sag Counties Ext. Office] on October 29; and Orono [Wells Common] on October 30 Roger Rennekamp, Extension Professor of Community and Leadership Development, University of Kentucky will be the presenter.	POW Task Force members are encouraged to sign up.	All individual members
Logic Model Training		The task force will decide if we still need to have Fran come to discuss the Logic Model with us after the October day long trainings.	Task Force
Working Agreements	Deferred until September meeting	Develop working agreements	Esperanza will facilitate the process
Consolidated consensus information		To be provided to us at the September meeting	Esperanza
Clarification of the New Directions for a New Century document re: UMCE mission	Update – the website [policy manual] is accurate [vs. the New Directions document]	The mission of UMCE is to help Maine people improve their lives through an educational process that uses research-based knowledge focused on issues and needs.	--
Use of the POW Website	There appears to be some confusion about who the website is for.	An e-mail to clarify will be sent out.	Cindy
PARKING LOT ITEMS
Summer meetings	Tentative canceling of August meeting?	It is definite – our next meeting is in September
Power Point Presentations	Kathy H. and Christy have Power Point Presentations that they have developed related to the POW process. Doug Babkirk had suggested a Power Point presentation might make a nice resource addition to the POW website. General thinking was that what we currently have is too preliminary – not particularly useful. Suggestion was made that a Power Point Presentation of the Logic Model and the complete POW process might be helpful	The task force will look to develop a Power Point tool that will include both. Time line would be to have it available in the fall – maybe around the time of the day long training sessions on the logic model?	To be determined
New Directions… mission clarification	Discussed under General Business Items
Starting time for meetings	9:00 AM was supposed to be our regular starting time, but it seems this has been difficult to actually do. Alternatives were discussed.	• We will start our meetings promptly at 9:30 AM. • A 9:15 AM arrival time was suggested. • We will still end by 3:30 PM – earlier, if possible
Meeting attendance and commitment	Deferred any discussion until the September meeting.	This issue should be addressed as we develop our working agreements.	Esperanza [to facilitate discussion]
NEEDS ASSESSMENT STATUS AND DISCUSSION
Somerset County review of survey	[from Kathy’s 6/12 e-mail] • Lower the literacy level!!!!!!! They didn't feel it was readable enough for the entire population to use. • Make it look more user friendly and less "Extensiony" • Translate it in Portland and Lewiston areas • Spread it out to 2 pages and make the print bigger so it is easier to read.
Aroostook County review of survey	Don’t say it will only take a few minutes when you know it will take longer • Won’t return w/out return postage • Possibly use check boxes w/ comment line • More likely to do it online [link to web page] or over e-mail • Didn’t like open endedness • Other suggestions: o Put in the Bangor Daily News o Need prizes to get to fill out Possibly have rank items first, then list options for addressing
General discussion re: broad based survey [of citizens] –Where are we… do we want to do one statewide?	General discussion: Mix of opinions related to the value General sense “it” should be a part of the total needs assessment process, but not without modifications Questions to ask ourselves: • Why should we do a needs assessment survey? • Why shouldn’t we do one?	Why a survey? What do we want to get out of doing a survey? • May be efficient strategy for assessing needs • Politically – a good thing to do • Issue statements • Make decisions regarding programs • Good PR – let public know what we do • Executive Committee and stakeholders are included in the process • Federal requirement • If we don’t, how will we get info? • Random information – unbiased • The public needs to be asked • TARGET underserved Why not? A statewide broad survey. • Time consuming to do and analyze • Relevancy • Cost/benefit? • Time/benefit • Ability do design a valid survey • Existing resources are adequate
Consensus Polling: Do we, as a task force, want to do a statewide citizen survey as one of our assessment tools?	Levels of consensus: 4,4,1,2,2,2,2,3,2 Continued discussion: • What do we need to do now? • What will we ask someone to do for us – design, do, analyze, report? • What would the costs be? • Possible model: This is who we are, this is what we do? How can we help you?	We will go ahead with a statewide citizen survey.	See detailed item below. Dennis to draft thoughts re: possible model
Statewide Citizen Survey Steps	Call Department of Education speak to Walt Harris of the Research and Evaluation Center. See how they might be able to help.	Dennis called over lunch: • They do a lot of external contracting re: research and evaluation • Look for serious and defined projects • Cost range $8,000 to $25,000 • Support could be tailored to what we need/want/can afford
	Set up a meeting with Walt – Who… When…	Will be Kathy H., Debbie, Dennis [if available] – Esperanza may join the group if it fits her schedule Tentatively holding: • AM on the 22nd of July • 28th of July Dennis made call to Walt and left message with dates • Debbie to follow up with and confirm meeting date/time/location	Post meeting: - Meeting set for 7/22 at 10:00 AM at Walt’s office [314 Shibles] - Debbie to send info Dennis drafts and other pertinent info to Walt prior to meeting
	Circulate information about meeting with Walt to Task Force Members for comment and consideration [in August]		Subcommittee members
	Decide how to proceed at the September meeting		Task Force
OTHER ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
Communicating with the organization		e-mail about POW Website [previously mentioned]	Cindy
Communicating with the organization		send minutes out and put on web site	Debbie send out Cindy put on web site
Identification and review of existing material	Discussed doing over summer and come prepared with updates for September meeting	Marine	Esperanza
		Health and Wellness	Debbie
		Aging	Debbie
		Sustainable Communities and Lifestyles	Les
		Youth	Christy
		Agriculture	Kathy H. and David
		Other _______________
		Other _______________
		Other _______________
NEXT MEETING
Date/time/location	• September 4 • 9:15 arrival, 9:30 start, 3:30 ending [or earlier] • Heritage House	Facilitator: Debbie Notes: Esperanza
Agenda Items to date	• Working Agreements [including meeting attendance and commitment] • Update/discussion of meeting with Walt • Continued discussion of statewide citizen survey • Identification and review of existing material
FYI’s
Dennis’s home number	866-5854

Know/Lincoln:	Esperanza
Cumberland:	Kathy Savoie
Somerset:	Kathy Hopkins

2007 - 2011 Plan of Work

Meeting Minutes (All POW minutes are currently contained in a single document; hitting “Print” will cause multiple pages to print.)

June 9, 2005

May 2, 2005

April 8, 2005

March 19, 2005

March 4, 2005

Updates

Analysis of County Focus Group

ENVIVO Analysis

State Goals versus Federal Goals

Translating Goals Into Action

Next Agenda

Next meeting: March 10th – Heritage House

January 14, 2005

Updates:

Analysis of County Shaping Our Future Discussions

Reporting back to UMCE about the process for identifying state-wide goals

Defining state goals

Updates:

CSREES Goals and Objectives

Analysis of Focus Groups

Timeline

Doug joined group to discuss progress of task force and reporting system

Next Agenda

September 10, 2004

June 10, 2004

E-mail sent out by Cindy:

What is missing or still needs to be communicated?

Training of facilitators:

Note takers:

Issue Papers

Paper Survey

Agenda – for September 10th meeting

May 13, 2004

I. Change of date for September, 2004 meeting.

April 1, 2004

March 8, 2004

February 3, 2004

Timeline

Committee Commitments

CRE Contract/Deb Burwell as Focus Group Facilitator/Budget

Format for Issue Papers

Grouping of Issue Areas

Creating Presentation Plans for UMCE Annual Meeting (March 9, 2004)

Return to Top

June 3, 2003

May 8, 2003

Meeting Minutes
(All POW minutes are currently contained in a single document; hitting “Print” will cause multiple pages to print.)