Set A



Set A | |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

| |4-H could provide the clientele that already exist for |Expense related to reorganization; |

|Support county-based structure as primary|research and education; county-based programs is where |lack of county support; |

|vehicle to extend ANR to the public. |research is applied; |some counties are not mandated; isolation; |

| |could facilitate a unified delivery of ANR vision; |county directors must work with both UC and county-related |

| |increase efficiency and reduce duplication; |tasks; |

| |our clientele can provide advocacy; |inconsistencies among county programs; individual county |

| |we have a built in and direct link to audience for the |programs may not integrate the vision into their own mission |

| |programs in ANR to promote; |and goals; |

| |direct contact; |inconsistincies among staff recognition, merit, pay and |

| |county staff best positioned to understand local interests |benefits. |

| |and needs; | |

| |4-H may be the only program that connects families to the | |

| |university. | |

| |4-H could provide the clientele that already exist for | |

| |research and education; county-based programs is where | |

| |research is applied; | |

| |could facilitate a unified delivery of ANR vision; | |

| |increase efficiency and reduce duplication; | |

| |our clientele can provide advocacy; | |

| |we have a built in and direct link to audience for the | |

| |programs in ANR to promote; | |

| |direct contact; | |

| |county staff best positioned to understand local interests | |

| |and needs; | |

| |4-H may be the only program that connects families to the | |

| |university. | |

| | | |

| |Focus on regional issues; |Some issues cannot be solved at the RECs; |

|Increase the presence and expertise of |RECs are a wonderful resource; |Academics could be isolated from their colleagues; |

|academics physically located and assigned|Physical presence of experts; |Greater commitment of resources |

|at the RECs. These would be new |RECs are more accessible to local clientele; | |

|positions (Advisors, Specialists Area IPM| | |

|Advisors, Academic Coordinators. | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|Set A |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

| |Using academic talent more efficiently; |County’s may not supporting that covers other county’s; |

|Reorganize Structure to increase ANR |Equitable distribution for tax payers; |Already do this somewhat (Ex: Cheryl Wilen- IPM Advisor); |

|efficiency by Centralizing ANR with |Current structure with individual county’s is not |We could be stretching ourselves to thin; |

|regional and county clusters. While we |sustainable; |Lose contact with clientele and what the needs are; |

|support centralization, not every group of |Improves efficiency of shrinking FTE; Increase clientele; |Travel time will probably increase; |

|county's need to be clustered. |Clarify association with University of California; | |

| |Focus FTE’s on Initiatives (Strategic Vision) | |

| |More efficient use of our resources; |Potential loss of local decision making; could be merit and |

|Reorganization of ANR around programmatic |Help merit and promotion system; |promotion issues; differing levels of county based resources; |

|themes and reflect this in administrative |Could address inequities within the system; |loss of home base; |

|and reward structures e.g. viticultural or |Greater focus around issues and potential impact; |Challenge--need a unified message; |

|coastal marine issues; Water quality; each |Everyone is and needs to be accountable; all program teams|Tough environment for hiring right now; how do advisors fit |

|would have an outreach coordinators to |would receive equal recognition and reward; |into model; |

|bridge the continuum from ANR to the |Capture new IT methods; |Publication factor/demand; |

|public. Each program area to have base |Leverage more information; enhance visability; |One more layer with an outreach coordinator; |

|funding in addition to grant support; with |Hire outreach experts; |Danger of specialists being more removed from the applied |

|emphasis on expanding clientele. |Better focus; |issues; |

| |More balanced message (not just ag but ag/environment and |Gotta find the money to do and it has be enough and stable for |

| |social); |the base. |

| |More opportunities for funding because of concentrated | |

| |effort; | |

| |Could work and develop new issues; | |

| |Great way to direct focus; | |

| |Increase visability of program and products; | |

| |Foster collaboration; | |

| |Easier to leverage $-though needs to be a stable source | |

| |and organized around strategic vision; | |

|Set B |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

|Increase the presence and expertise of academics |Focus on regional issues; |Some issues cannot be solved at the RECs; |

|physically located and assigned at the RECs. |RECs are a wonderful resource; |Academics could be isolated from their colleagues; |

|These would be new positions (Advisors, |Physical presence of experts; |Greater commitment of resources |

|Specialists Area IPM Advisors, Academic |RECs are more accessible to local clientele; | |

|Coordinators. | | |

|Obtain external professional technical assistance |Depts. must work across lines. |Takes time/$$. |

|to help us design new organizational structure |Campus/county linkage strengthens. |Depts. must work across lines. |

|conducive to an integrated, multi disciplinary |Need for incentives for faculty/specialist. |Leadership resistance. |

|approach to fulfill our strategic vision. |External assistance provides fresh perspective. |External group does not understand us. |

| |Increased efficiency. |Without chance in merit/promotion, it won't work. |

| |Greater impact. |Changes in management responsibilities. |

| |Results-driven. | |

| |Objective look at turf issues. | |

|Structural Change: Maintain flexibility to retain |Greater efficiency reduced redundancy; |Commodity based structure may result in mismatch of skill |

|community connection and support IE:County vs. |Community based connection leads to greater support; |& responsibility; |

|Regional; Commodity vs. Issue based; team |Flexible delivery system; |Campus based would be isolated, community connection lost;|

|approaches on issue programming(Advisor, Spec, | |Loss of community/county based organization will cost DANR|

|AES) Present Regions vs. No Regions or more | |more; |

|regions and more program leaders | |Increase redundancy; |

| | |Loss of efficiency in regions |

|Improving efficiency of ANR by: |Costs would be reduced at regional level; |Costs and work could potentially increase at the county |

|Eliminating Regional Offices. Certain services |Centralized staff would have more specialized skills and |level; |

|such as contracts grants could be |training such as financial analysts; |Would run counter to current initiative to decentralize |

|consolidated/centralized at a single location. |A single office provides a sense of system unity; |functions handled by Oakland in the past; loss of |

|Other administrative services related to personnel|Job duplication is minimized; |potential for regional director to mediate issues between |

|management (hiring, evaluation, disciplinary |Advisors would be evaluated by person closer to their |Advisors and their CDs; |

|actions) and financial management would be |program (the county directors); |Loss of Regional Director representation on Program |

|decentralized- giving more power to county |Contracts and grants / accounts would be executed more |Council |

|directors) |expeditiously | |

|Streamlining promotion system | | |

|Reducing time that professional staff spend on | | |

|clerical functions (PR, DANRIS-X, MyTravel) | | |

|Set C |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

|Build issue-driven UC teams, partnering with the |Teams will be multi-disciplinary and multi-functional to |Teams to be established into non-traditional structures |

|community to address issues consistent with the |include strengths such as: research, program development |driven by issues and refined by community needs |

|strategic vision. |and implementation, media advocacy, legislative advocacy, |assessment. |

| |graphic arts and technology, professional and consumer | |

| |based-writing, statistics, grant writing, | |

| |fund-raising/securing resources, marketing, and | |

| |evaluation. | |

|Assess resources to realign with UCANR initiatives. |Bring in outside resources (grad students?) to assist (to |Staff time to organize and maintain the database |

|These include: 1) UCANR internal resources, and 2) |think outside the box); | |

|External resources, including higher ed. |Will help us better address our mission- (we'll be more | |

| |issue focused); | |

|How: Survey; map; regional work groups; create a |Identify collaborators; | |

|database of expertise and interests. |Greater likelihood of a higher quality impact addressing | |

| |an issue; | |

|Purpose: To identify who is doing work/has specific |Be more accountable (receive more credit for resources. | |

|interest in the nine initiatives Resources= | | |

|volunteers; areas of staff expertise; programs | | |

|(location, clientele, time frame);campus faculty; | | |

|county-based academic program staff; Communications | | |

|Services= UC support for grant and fund development. | | |

| | | |

|How: assess and align resources; develop database to | | |

|form teams in the UC, CSU, CC, and private | | |

|institutions; Create searchable database that will be | | |

|available to all interested parties. | | |

|Develop a system where content experts/programs are |Strengthens campus relationships; |Support from county government?; |

|statewide and not defined by county borders. Where |Better use of limited people/resources; potential to reach|Threat to middle management (CD, RD); subject to UC |

|local community members have access to all the content|new audiences; |budgets and cuts; who will administer this structure; |

|experts/programs regardless of where the |Sets employees up for success; empowers volunteers; |Are we doing the work of specialists? (redefine job |

|experts/programs are housed. Balance of pedagogy and |Changes caste system; piggyback on existing tech; |descriptions); |

|content so information gets put into action. Develop |Increases collaborations (internal & external); |Resistance to change/old ways; |

|best practices institutes (real/virtual) that are |Increases depth & decreases breadth. |What happens to current partners, volunteers, |

|supported by a strong specialist base. | |collaborators, etc. |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

| | | |

|Broaden alternatives for partnerships with County |Maximizes county dollars to address local program needs; |Raises challenges regarding local selection of services |

|Governments. ANR leadership would work with CSAC to |Better chance to continue support for all counties at some|versus ANR/UC priorities; |

|identify ongoing county support and possibly cluster |level; |Could lose county CE presence, some residents may lose |

|those with low funding levels. This could also include|Engaging CSAC = Statewide Advocacy; |access to CE programs. |

|counties choosing from a menu of programs. |Reopens dialogue/partnership between counties and ANR. | |

|Set D |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

| |Secure funding by increased recognition/public awareness; |We're not sure who we are-need to know our own message; |

|Public awareness of our broader integrated|Will force us clarify our role; |Costs (time/funding) for marketing programs; |

|role. |The community will see us as a resource. |Lack of county-level coordination and expertise; |

| | |Too many outreach publications describing who we are; |

| | |Not all counties offer the same programs; too many acronyms; |

| | |Too much to encapsulate (we are doing so many things that |

| | |it's difficult to easily explain who/what we are); |

| | |Addressing our priorities means that we will limit our focus.|

| |Professional fund raiser with incentive based pay can be |Perception of bias; |

|Statewide ANR Fund Raising and Development|more effective; |Dependence on soft funding; |

|of Extramural Funds which includes hiring |Possible source of funds for academic and staff program | |

|a professional fund raiser with incentive |positions; | |

|based pay. |Possible increase in unrestricted gifts; | |

| |Positions allocations would continue through Program | |

| |Council process; | |

| |Statewide fund raising allows for broader opportunities. | |

| | | |

|Uniform branding so that the public |non need to explain different parts of ANR vs. UC; |may create unmet demand; |

|identifies and values ANR as a scientific |facilitate internal communication; improve internal sense |will result in greater accountability; insufficient resources|

|research-based source of information and |of identity |to meet demand; |

|programs | |loss of identity (distinctiveness) for individual programs |

|Marketing Campaign - Grassroots approach |Having new logo/name can be more inclusive of HR & Animal |Changing name / logo could be confusing; |

|(brochures, mailings) etc. Kaiser & |Ag; Brings awareness; |Cost associated with name / log change (including staff time)|

|Yudof's Super Bowl commercial- Promote |increases legis. support; | |

|direct & indirect benefits to the |helps clientele connect w/ ANR resources; | |

|community- Brand ANR as UC promote |improved future funding efforts; increased voter support | |

|collaborations within the community - |for UC; increased county support if believe they have | |

|Create new logos & rename division to |access to statewide resources; | |

|include ALL program areas (H/R & Animal Ag|improved understanding of internal stakeholders | |

|missing from title) - Signage near |(organizational identity clarified); | |

|research locations / producer properties /|fosters loyalty (internally & of participating students); | |

|businesses - County-based programs keep |builds personal connections w/ community to UC (6 degrees | |

|us relevant to the committee = legislature|of separation); | |

|- Inform students of the land grant |can use current / relevant 'hot topics to start the | |

|mission & benefits of division. |campaign) | |

| | | |

|ADVOCACY: Develop advocacy structure |Advocacy will generate funding to support our |Will require increased funding; |

|modeled after industry/commodity groups. |science-based mission-oriented programs; |Public perception of neutrality may be lost; |

|Goal driven, IE. 500 advisors in UCCE |Public will know we exist and we are relevant; |Increased conflict between serving public vs. public |

| |Return to a critical mass |interest; |

| | |Constraints by UC Policy and interpretation; |

| | |May reduce ANR program flexibility |

|Set E |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

|Enhance awareness of ANR with greater |Need human talent and resources to help us do this and |Diverts resources from other priorities; |

|statewide promotion and marketing of ANR |could be cost efficient; |How to capture info to share; |

|programs and achievements...e.g. UC Delivers,|will increase resources in the long run; boost moral; |Need to overcome obstacles of product quality...so that |

|Expanding IT support, GIS and emerging |could incentivise advisors/specialists money to tell |everyone wants to participate-meaning that if it isn't |

|technologies to reach a broader clientele |their story; |good material, people will opt out of participating in |

|base. Increase Communication Services |expand political support base; potentially bridges |the outreach. |

|Capacity. |urban/rural divide; | |

| |IT is critical...WEB 2.0 and GIS systems integration | |

| |into all programs/research; | |

|Communication and advocacy -- Create and |All will get the same message; increase public |Confusion between ANR and UC Cooperative Extension; |

|present a clear and consistent identity that |awareness; uniform brand recognition (i.e. email says UC|cost; |

|increases recognition of ANR -- both |Davis, yet all of us are UC); |Losing individual identity; |

|internally and externally as one unit |Increase county support; |Cost of technology; missing people; |

|representing many programs. ANR is a |Eases advocacy with legislatures; |ANR could lose cooperative piece; |

|statewide (campus) whose reach is far and |Demonstrates the strengths of ANR; |Be careful using the word campus is misleading as |

|wide. |Helps leverage new funding; |people may expect physical building and location versus |

| |UC gets discounts; |virtual statewide network; |

| |More inclusive, no longer lose people through lack of |If we don't use word campus, may lose resources. |

| |communication. | |

|Avoid loss of local CE by making an argument |Sustainability of UCCE; |Not a quick fix; |

|to the California public based on the direct |Raises public and legislative awareness; |Have to be careful about lobbying |

|and indirect economic value of CE work -- |Improved image of land grant college; | |

|e.g., through PSA's and direct advocacy to |Increased use of CE programs; Increase ability to | |

|legislators -- and strengthening/investing in|deliver programs; | |

|ANR Communications to deliver information, |Markets the Strategic Vision | |

|raise ANR profile and promote new | | |

|communication technologies. | | |

|Improved communications structure with goals |Greater visibility with the public; |Short-term financial costs (new positions); |

|of having communications closer to the |Increased funding; |Not ready to address issues which might be expected if |

|audience and developer of information; |ANR has existing resources for communications that could|we have more effective communications. |

|broader audience base; having appropriate |be redirected; | |

|communications technologies for specific |ANR has current tools that are very effective; could | |

|target audiences; mainstreaming our products |help ANR members share information and be more effective| |

|for distribution in major retail outlets, |in their programs; | |

|etc.; improve internal communication between |Increased demand for our services. | |

|campuses and counties; using trained | | |

|communications professionals; using marketing| | |

|expertise, including the description of | | |

|specific impacts. | | |

|Build funding connections to all foundations |Increased funding; |May not be a new source of funding; variable inputs and |

|and other internal and external government |Increased visibility, multi-disciplinary approach; |staffing - outside funding may last for only 1-3 years -|

|grant funders. Develop administrative systems|More responsive to emerging issues and trends; |what to do after that with program and people hired to |

|for more regional or state or other for grant|People who like UC can give to foundations; |implement; |

|administration – i.e. advisor focus on |Develop system-wide connection with foundations and |Who is responsible for building relationships; |

|delivering the goals and objectives of the |other funding sources; |Perception of pay to play; |

|grant and some other entity focuses on the |Program leaders making the connection. |Foundation and other funders drive work rather than |

|administration. | |clientele; |

|Set F |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

|Achieving vision will require all ANR FTEs, |Give specialist more time for more applied issues and|Weaken specialist ties with campus. |

|including buy-in from CE specialists and AES |to get off campus. |Departments may oppose.*CE specialist position |

|faculty on campus. |Good history to build on |roles/responsibilities do not align with ANR vision and dept. |

|*Alleviate specialists from departmental committee |Help provide carrot for campus buy-in/alignment to |missions. |

|responsibilities. *Reward campus-based ANR for |vision. |Need accountability at dept. level or it won't work. |

|fulfilling ANR's vision & mission as well as those |Progress to recognize specialist and advisor roles in|Fear of impact on merit/promotion. |

|of departments. |counties. | |

|*Include ANR in a modified review process for |Opportunity to examine roles & responsibilities of | |

|specialists. *Give ANR support money for |advisors. | |

|specialists to the specialist, not department. |Specialist review (at Dean's level) of specialist | |

| |role in counties. | |

|Strengthen continuum – |More practical; |Decrease in knowledge of discipline; |

|reaffirm importance of CE specialists to |More applied; |Decrease in creditability within department; |

|county-based programs; reinforce accountability of |Increase specialists training advisors; |Decrease student connection; |

|AES faculty to AES mission; define and reward |Increase specialist relationships with advisors and |Decrease applied information being delivered to students; |

|advisors in continuum; reinforce 2 way continuum |clientele; |Loss of faculty / senate representation; |

|i.e. campus to county and county to campus; limit I|Increase relevance of specialist position; |Loss of county / campus continuum; |

|and R appointments; Specialists review advisors and|Address common problems across disciplines; |Redundancy between role of specialist and advisor. |

|advisors review specialists. Does not mean taking |Focuses specialist job; | |

|specialists out of departments. |Directs activities to relevant issues | |

|More closely align organizational and individual |Can use leadership/ |Now emphasis on academic papers/presentations; |

|performance metrics without mission and use them to|influence in outreach/extension to reward; ability to|Difficulty in measuring impact; academic senate can provide |

|measure outcomes in CE (should be in programmatic |measure impact helps acquire grants; |hurdles; |

|category) |Provides opportunity to measure our impact - see |Staff (non academics) not currently utilized as well as we could |

| |business metrics - immediate feedback; equal emphasis|for extension/outreach; |

| |on outreach would make us all more effective; |Need to develop, define, and agree on metrics; |

| |Push to put specialists in academic equivalence is |Push to put specialists in senate move in wrong direction |

| |the right direction to put everyone on same level | |

| |while encouraging diversity in delivery | |

|Increase the capacity of ANR to meet our public |Increased extension to clientele; Re-engagement of |Advisors inclusion in Academic Senate would require that advisors|

|mission by modifying the promotion criteria for AES|AES faculty in land-grant mission; |obtain PhDs?; |

|faculty and CE Specialists to reflect our values |Increases visibility of University to public and |Movement towards extension would shift resources away from |

|and priorities (i.e. strong continuum, |legislators; |research; |

|interdisciplinary teams, addressing critical |Extension is easier to promote when advocating for | |

|problems in the state). Switch focus from research |ANR (easier sell than research); | |

|to extension and reward it! Facilitate engagement |More people engaged in the mission | |

|of campus-based researchers with the people of | | |

|California by rewarding land-grant mission-oriented| | |

|publications (e.g. California Agriculture), | | |

|collaborations with county-based researchers, and | | |

|clientele's demand for extension. CE Advisors | | |

|should be included in evaluation process of AES | | |

|faculty through ad-hoc committees. Advisors and | | |

|Specialists would have Academic Senate status. | | |

|Implement Strategic Vision by making us a Team |Increase teamwork between the specialist and multiple|Cost more money to implement. Increase Specialist workload if not|

|How: |advisors, which thus reduces redundancy Specialist |organize where Cooperative Extension connection is the main part.|

|1. Create one UC system for- financial and grant |would answer calls from the Advisors | |

|systems between campuses and advisors. |Specialist would use us to put out a trial from their|Advisors may be forced away from Cooperative Extension (Toward |

|2. Farm advisors should be a major part of a |research Specialist could be lead PI’s on ANR grants.|Research) |

|specialist advancement and promotion. | |Lose connection with public Overexposure |

|3. Farm advisors be on their peer review committees|Clarifies mission to clientele | |

|4. Recognize specialist for their contributions on | | |

|workgroup. | | |

|5. Advisors members of Academic Senate | | |

|6. More Brand Identification of Cooperative | | |

|Extension | | |

|Set G |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

|Create integrated common culture" |Develop an extended (multi-yr) orientation for all new |Fund internships for students to link to faculty with |

| |hires in ANR statewide along the model of CA Ag |county advisors" |

| |Leadership (cohort of faculty/CE cross campus/county stay| |

| |together)" | |

|Implement a permanent ANR grant program, |Fosters/forces integration/collaboration |Must get funding |

|Meeting California Challenges to support |Provides internal ANR funding for ANR initiatives; |requires advocacy to get the needed funding; |

|research and extension projects under the|Can get AES scientists to the local level |possible hurdle is ANR reluctance to accept funding that |

|strategic initiatives -- modeled after | |is not competitively awarded; |

|the Core Issues Grants, National | |Casts ANR in a competitive role with other UC units |

|Initiatives, SCRI; and requiring CE | | |

|Advisor/Specialist/Campus teams across | | |

|disciplines, with a major extension | | |

|component. | | |

|Breakdown Barriers: |better advocacy if we know what we are capable of |implementation barriers - hard to do or we would have |

|Adapt current structure to improve multi |attract more resources; |already done |

|interdisciplinary research and outreach |increase internal (shared) resources |risk of losing local accountability to program deliver |

|continuum via incentives and |address strategic initiatives |how to offer incentives to staff when no merits for staff|

|accountability. - have a pool of funding |more effectively dress local need |non-campus, and remote academics |

|under local advisor's control for AES |improve ability to sustain local county office | |

|faculty to apply to.- |ability to achieve strategic vision: Healthy | |

|improve communication so we know what we |Californians Healthy Communities Healthy food systems | |

|are apart of- centralize collection and |Healthy Environments | |

|distribution of grant availability- | | |

|facilitate natural affiliations | | |

|Develop multidisciplinary initiatives and|If this is the rallying point could create large amount |Danger - should not strictly dictate new position |

|structures to strengthen program |of funds and reduce other resources |need to ID delivery |

|planning, execution, support, and |could be more agile; less duplication of effort |misses delivery component right no |

|delivery. |provide quality control |proliferation of multiple identities |

| |back to the future |crisis in terms of academic governance |

| |statewide programs provide good opportunities for |waste of time |

| |brand/mission identity |under current system everyone independent entrepreneur |

| |ability to provide support |won't be implemented |

| |UC is our brand ID |structure plan without incentives will not be implemented|

| | |structure/plan without incentives goes nowhere |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

|More closely align organizational and |can use leadership/influence in outreach/extension to |now emphasis on academic papers/presentations |

|individual performance metrics with out |reward |difficulty in measuring impact |

|mission and use them to measure outcomes |ability to measure impact helps acquire grants |academic senate can provide hurdles |

|in CE should be in programmatic category)|provides opportunity to measure our impact -see business |staff (non academics) not currently utilized as well as |

| |metrics - immediate feedback |we could for extension/outreach |

| |equal emphasis on outreach would make us all more |need to develop, define, and agree on metrics |

| |effective |push to put specialists in senate move in wrong direction|

| |push to put specialists in academic equivalence is the | |

| |right direction to put everyone on same level while | |

| |encouraging diversity in delivery | |

|Set H |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

|Implement Strategic Vision by making us a |Increase teamwork between the specialist and multiple advisors,|Cost more money to implement |

|Team |which thus reduces redundancy |Increase Specialist workload if not organize where |

|How: 1. Create one UC system for- financial |Specialist would answer calls from the Advisors |Cooperative Extension connection is the main part. |

|and grant systems between campuses and |Specialist would use us to put out a trial from their research |Advisors may be forced away from Cooperative Extension |

|advisors. 2. Farm advisors should be a major |Specialist could be lead PIs on ANR grants |(Toward Research) |

|part of a specialist advancement and |Clarifies mission to clientelle |Lose connection with public Overexposure |

|promotion.3. Farm advisors be on their peer | | |

|review committees4. Recognize specialist for | | |

|their contributions on workgroup. 5. | | |

|Advisors members of Academic Senate6. More | | |

|Brand Identification of Cooperative Extension| | |

|Partnering; |Definition of partnering; |Other |

|Focus and greater measure of impact;Increase |Duplication of efforts | |

|visibility; |cannot afford to compete; | |

|Utilizing strengths based model; Crosses |How relates to existing program | |

|disciplines to address multiple issues; |Merit process-reviewed as not individual | |

|Increased credibility |Address what we are no longer do and community accepts | |

| |Tendency to slip into traditional regional-county structure | |

|Strengthening the Continuum- Encourage / |Promotes collaboration instead of competition; |Increase administrative hurdles |

|write collaborative grants- Reward |Helps w/ marketing campaign approach; |Perceived loss of researcher independence |

|collaborative projects during merit/promotion|Helps build community or organizational identity; |Change of administrative processes/procedures |

|processes (campus & CE)- Outreach within UC |Increased programmatic efficiencie |Getting buy-in / investment from county gov't for |

|(non-Ag campuses) to build/enhance community |Multi-disciplinary synergy opportunities; |statewide positions may be difficult; |

|base- Area/statewide |Greater ability to leverage resources |Writing collaborative grants is more time consuming; |

|advisors/specialists/staff (incl Program |Rewarded for collaboration |Mentoring is time consuming (away from other work) |

|Reps) to supplement county advisors (float |Students have improved community/organizational | |

|where the needs are)- Engage students in |opportunities/more holistic understanding & leadership skills | |

|planned basic & applied research on |development; | |

|collaborative projects (basic research on |Creates mentoring opportunities | |

|campus w/ summer CE internship) |Creates pool of future academics within the organization; | |

| |More outreach in UC increases more awareness of ANR (within UC | |

| |& w/ external stakeholders); IT IS OUR MISSION! | |

|Strategy/Approach |Pros |Cons |

Create a publication showcasing a collaborative efforts between programs &/or campus

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download