 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
December 3, 2001
Dear Extension Colleagues:
Extension needs to change. As you know, change is not new to Extension. We have the ability to provide the necessary leadership for change. The changes outlined in this plan respond to the unique circumstances of today. Our state’s population is more urban and more diverse than ever before. Information technology offers opportunities for adult learning and information dissemination not imagined just a few years ago. All publicly funded activities are under increasing scrutiny to demonstrate relevance and impact, and Extension cannot expect increased support from traditional federal and state sources. In this context, the entire University of Minnesota is challenging itself to build on its history as a great research-based, land-grant institution but with an increasing share of its revenues from earned sources.
Many of us have worked together to identify and understand the circumstances behind the Extension 2002-2005 plan, and I believe this plan is the best strategy to address the current and emerging critical issues of Minnesota. While predicting the future is risky, waiting for it to arrive is worse. So, change we must, and change we will. I ask all of you to join me in implementing the changes that will ensure that Extension extends the excellence of the University of Minnesota across the state and beyond for many years to come.
The plan builds on our current strengths in three ways:
This plan creates a bold new structure for Extension, providing a more effective and flexible delivery system that strengthens access to the University of Minnesota research base, further demonstrating the value of a research university to the people of the state. All Extension positions will be affected in some way by this plan. While some positions will be eliminated, many will be redesigned, offering Extension employees new opportunities for personal growth and development. I ask you to join me in this effort to create a new organization that meets the needs of Minnesota today.
Another important cornerstone of our plan is revenue generation, a term that is fast becoming more prevalent in our Extension vocabulary, as it is for other University units. We must take more responsibility for establishing the value of our programs and garnering revenues to support the enterprise. I ask that we not resist, but rather selectively adopt principles and practices to generate revenue without compromising our mission. The outcome will be a modernized portfolio of high quality, market based products proudly bearing the University of Minnesota brand. And, true to the land-grant tradition, we will continue to reach out to serve all Minnesotans.
Extension has helped improve the quality of life for generations of Minnesotans. Now is the time to extend our record of excellence – to move beyond current boundaries of structure, function and geography. We must be meticulous in deciding what work is uniquely and appropriately ours to do. Our foundation in scientific research, our mission to connect community and the University, and our network of talented educators across the state make Extension exceptionally well-positioned to strengthen the relationship between the University and the public good.
Sincerely,
Dr. Charles H. Casey, Dean and Director
Extension’s commitment to the people, communities and businesses of Minnesota remains as strong as ever. The 2002-2005 change plan reflects our commitment to connect the research of the state’s land-grant university to the people. The intention is to implement a new knowledge model and a new business model to assure that we can meet critical state needs with high quality, relevant, and accountable educational programs. We must first and foremost address how we do our work in a time of changing demographics, changing technology, and changing resources. Therefore this plan introduces a new delivery system for the Extension of 2002-2005. Many of the specifics of implementation are yet to be decided, however the following pages describe the blueprint on which implementation will be based.
The University of Minnesota Extension Service will:
Making a difference by connecting community needs and University resources to address critical issues in Minnesota.
Our new Extension mission statement goes beyond our previous statement of connecting community needs and University resources to more fundamentally explain why Extension exists. In our new statement, we clearly declare our purpose of making a difference…to address critical issues in Minnesota. This new mission challenges us to work for the public good and to continually define the 21st century meaning of our tradition. The mission calls for a new standard of accountability coupled with a market-based structure and process for continuing to define our programs.
As we work toward our mission, Extension will offer a more focused portfolio of high quality programs which continue to evolve and improve in response to Minnesota’s changing needs.
Extension will focus on three arenas of activity:
Our 2002 – 2005 plan continues University of Minnesota’s strong links to agriculture while positioning it to better address the larger array of problems faced by children, youth and families, as well as natural resource management and economic and community development issues in Minnesota. The new Extension offers an outreach portfolio that more fully engages the total university with the people of the state.
The University of Minnesota will provide leadership for ensuring that our programs “address critical issues” and “make a difference” by instituting a more formal process of community assessments with involvement of regional educators and campus faculty. The University will provide leadership in selecting which local needs to address, given institutional strengths. We will also create new systems for program evaluation and commit to annually replacing at least 5% of programs in our existing portfolio.
Extension 2002 – 2005 will require a significant investment to develop programs that address community needs, access a broader spectrum of expertise in the University’s colleges, re-deploy and support our workforce, and develop the technology and other systems to more effectively deliver our services. We will achieve these goals by creating a strategic investment pool estimated at $5 million by FY2004. The strategic investment pool will be used to leverage resources across the University and will provide greater flexibility to address critical issues. This investment pool will be funded by generating external earned revenues (e.g. grants, contracts, fees, and gifts) coupled with internal savings from staff and expense reductions.
For some time, Extension has acknowledged that its current financial model is not sustainable. (See Attachment A) Declining public support is a budget reality that must be addressed. Centrally allocated state and federal funds are flat at best and there are no resources available to invest in the things we must do to remain relevant and viable. At the present time, nearly 90% of our state and federal resources are committed to Extension personnel costs, precluding vitally needed budgetary and organizational flexibility. Our 2002 – 2005 plan addresses this problem in concrete and specific ways. We have set a goal to commit 75% of our centrally allocated resources to personnel costs by the end of FY2005. To achieve this, we have also established detailed principles and procedures for generating and capturing earned revenues that will total $2.5 million annually by FY2004 and our expense reductions will total $4.5 million annually by FY2004.
As we in the University of Minnesota Extension Service redirect our work toward a more focused agenda, we must also realign the organization to support focused programming. We will re-direct our human resources to the work that matters most and fully capitalize on the increasing role that technology plays in the lives of Minnesotans.
This 2002 – 2005 plan builds a new structure for Extension’s field organization that forges a much closer partnership between field and campus. We will both deepen and broaden the field’s access to the University’s research base, allowing us to better serve the state’s residents. We will access scholarship across more colleges, and we will call for greater expertise among our regional educators. Key structural elements include the following:
Technology offers an exciting 21st century opportunity to fulfilling our mission of connecting community needs and University resources. Our vision is to build on our award winning website to offer the public 24-hour self-service access to consumer information and to maximize the reach of Extension with increased efficiency. Similarly, our goal for educational programs is to make 20 percent of Extension programs accessible through information technology by 2005, building on successes such as our nationally recognized Master Gardener training program.
While we face immediate budget constraints that require change, these organizational changes proposed for Extension should be made because they will make Extension a more effective and flexible delivery system demonstrating the value of a research university to the people of the state.
A recent Kellogg Commission advocates for increased engagement of land-grant universities in addressing critical issues in communities. The Commission identified seven factors as important to successful engagement efforts: responsiveness, respect for partners, academic neutrality, accessibility, integration, coordination and resource partnerships.
The University of Minnesota Extension Service’s new knowledge model will
add value to the University’s overall engagement efforts by connecting
the scholarship from academic units and colleges across the University with
Extension educators who are regionally based throughout the state. The University
of Minnesota will provide leadership in identifying which local needs to address,
given institutional strengths. The three arenas of Extension’s programming
serve as a means to bring research-based knowledge to bear on critical state
issues:
Extension’s knowledge model emphasizes the importance of connecting the wisdom as well as the needs of communities with the campus. This underscores the two-way nature of the outreach mission as defined by the Kellogg Commission and supported by the University of Minnesota as a land-grant institution. Extension’s statewide presence and its emphasis on critical issues assessment enhances the public trust and support of the University.
The University of Minnesota Extension Service must and will offer a more focused portfolio of high quality programs that respond to critical Minnesota issues. Our commitment to program excellence requires that we dedicate ourselves to doing a few things well rather than attempting to meet the very broad agendas of the past. For the 2002 - 2005 period, we will continue to commit to program priorities within three broad arenas of work.
As of January 1, 2002, Extension will provide leadership and organizational support in five capacity areas, and all Extension faculty will affiliate with one of them. The newest capacity area, youth development, will begin operation January 1, 2002. Leadership for this capacity area will be provided by the director of the Center for 4-H Youth Development. This capacity area will work in cooperation with the other four capacity areas, especially family development. The five capacity areas are:
To ensure the integrity and high standards of Extension programs, the following University planning criteria will be used. Only programs that meet these criteria will be candidates for investment of resources and expertise:
We live in a dynamic environment and any system we create for program delivery must be flexible and responsive to the changing needs of our state. Our plan accomplishes the need for program flexibility in two basic ways:
1. Programs Based on Community Assessments. Educational programming will be designed by regional educators and University of Minnesota campus faculty to address issues that are identified through community assessments. These scholarship-based assessments will be conducted by county Extension directors working with district directors and collaborating closely with county and regional planners. In many cases, program design and delivery will be a collaborative venture, involving key public and private partners.
2. Program Evaluation. Measures of program demand and impact will give stakeholders and program subscriber’s evidence of the relevance and quality of Extension’s program portfolio. To assure that data are available to make the case for Extension’s public value, evaluation instruments will be developed and used for all Extension priorities. Evidence of impact, as well as continuous identification of emerging critical issues, will provide a basis for replacing at least 5% of Extension’s program portfolio each year.
One of the most compelling reasons that Extension needs to change is that it has reached the point where its current financial model is simply not sustainable. Centrally allocated resources from state and federal sources have very little flexibility and carry no assurance of continuation at historical levels. In fact, Extension’s federal budget has remained flat for several years, while costs have continued to rise. Nearly 90% of those central resources are committed to personnel costs, severely limiting Extension’s ability to respond to new and emerging program demands. There are no resources to access a broader spectrum of expertise in the University’s colleges, develop new programs in response to urgent community needs, provide staff development or invest in vitally needed technology to deliver programs.
These constraints on state and federal funding are not new for Extension, and, in fact, Extension endured staff reductions in both 1982 and 1992. While expense reduction is necessary, Extension also will need to work to more aggressively improve its ability to generate its own funding.
Extension faces immediate budget constraints that require change. We believe public and private funds are and will be available to support educational efforts that fit our mission. However, we must quickly implement different strategies for accessing support. Key to our fiscal success will be identifying a focused portfolio of programs addressing critical issues and applying University expertise in ways that generate public value.
Table 1 Planned Budget Changes for Extension:
|
Category
|
2003
|
2004
|
Total Annual Change by 2004
|
| New Resources | |||
| County Contributions |
375,000
|
125,000
|
$ 500,000
|
| Revenue Generation |
1,500,000
|
1,000,000
|
$ 2,500,000
|
| Total New Resources |
1,875,000
|
1,125,000
|
$ 3,000,000
|
| Budget Reductions | |||
| County Staff Reduction |
(1,500,000)
|
(1,000,000)
|
(2,5000,000)
|
| Colleges' Budget Reductions |
(750,000)
|
(750,000)
|
(1,500,000)
|
| Extension Administration |
(250,000)
|
(250,000)
|
(500,000)
|
| Total Budget Reductions |
(2,500,000)
|
(2,000,000)
|
(4,500,000)
|
To reach these goals we have developed principles to assure both financial viability and allegiance to our mission.
The new business model for Extension will require changes in procedures. Detailed procedures for evaluating and charging program fees and for handling grant acquisitions have been developed and will be applied. Where knowledge and skills are not sufficient to meet budget goals, staff development will be designed and implemented to assure the financial viability of the organization. Because these procedures are new for Extension, we will continue to refine and modify them as we learn what works best.
In the new structure, Extension will continue to offer its programs via a multi-level distribution system that provides a stronger campus-field connection and increased use of technology. The 2002 – 2005 plan calls for a significant restructuring that builds on many successful models that already exist in our field organization. It creates clearly defined jobs and accountability, including the creation of two vitally important field positions, regional Extension educator and county Extension director. The plan will strengthen the relationships between academic departments and regional educators.
The Extension 2002 – 2005 plan creates a new district structure, more aligned with the current population distribution and diverse needs of the state. As of January 1, 2002, there will be 7 rather than 8 districts, with one district exclusively devoted to the needs of the Twin Cities seven-county metropolitan area. (See attachment B) The new district boundaries were drawn with careful consideration of many criteria, including more consistency with Association of Minnesota Counties district lines, geographic feasibility in terms of distance and number of counties, location of the University’s Research and Outreach Centers and county similarity. In the new Extension organization, district directors will continue to provide administrative leadership and program oversight at the district level.
The unique opportunities and challenges inherent in providing a focused, high quality Extension program in urban and suburban Minnesota calls for a different strategy of delivery for Extension programming in the seven county metro area, including the counties of Dakota, Anoka, Carver, Scott, Washington, Hennepin and Ramsey.
Two committees have recently completed preliminary work that supports both a carefully focused program portfolio for the metro district and principles to guide design of a delivery system that will show program impact and result in public value. A design team will be appointed in December and charged to furnish recommendations for a program delivery system that meets the requirements for successful Extension work in a densely populated, highly diverse, rapidly developing part of Minnesota. Implementation of the new metro delivery system is slated to begin by mid-March, 2002.
Extension 2002-2005 calls for intensifying the rigor of our educational programming while we also bring more focus to the programs we design and deliver. A goal of this change process is to have a more seamless continuum of scholarship from campus to community, optimizing resources for efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, Extension’s delivery system will include groups of regional educators who will work across county boundaries. This concept borrows from a recent structure of “clustered” staff, with some critical differences. First, these regional Extension educators, while they may be housed in existing county offices, will be expected to serve an entire region rather than one lead county. Second, regional Extension educators will be specialized and will have significant accountability to their capacity area leaders and colleagues. In most cases, regional Extension educators will hold masters degrees and will be affiliated with appropriate colleges. Regional Extension educators will be supervised by district directors, with performance evaluation input from capacity area leaders. (See Attachment C)
While replacing the county Extension educator role with regional positions initially appears to reduce direct service to local communities, the goal is to increase Extension’s ability to respond to critical issues facing those communities. Having a team of highly skilled program professionals working together in each region will generate greater public value from University outreach.
Potential locations for regional Extension educators include present county or district offices, Research and Outreach Centers, and other University facilities throughout the state. Regional staffing will increase the opportunities for other creative partnerships beyond county government, for example: municipalities, other higher education units, tribal colleges, etc. Extension’s mission, University performance criteria, and evidence of value provided to funding entities will influence decisions about location of staff.
Regional and state-wide teams will assure quality programs, working within and across capacity areas. Priorities will be determined through community assessments, respond to critical issues and be supported by one or more capacity areas. The University of Minnesota will provide leadership in identifying which local needs to address, given institutional strengths. Some of what Extension currently is doing in communities will not continue.
Faculty who hold Extension appointments and other University faculty whose scholarship contributes to outreach will benefit from a delivery system with more focused community outreach workers. Again, because of Extension’s commitment to engagement, the goal is to make campus-field more of a single Extension system.
Creation of County Extension Director Position. In the new plan, counties continue to be important partners in Extension’s program delivery system. The new delivery system provides a county Extension director position, which will typically serve multiple counties. Extension has created this role at the request of many county elected officials with the goal of connecting a wider range of University resources to critical issues across the state. The county Extension director will play a key role in assuring that the land-grant principle of two-way connection between the University and citizens is strengthened as a result of the Extension 2002-2005 change plan. The county Extension director role is not program delivery, but rather includes county office management, resource brokering, building educational partnerships, conducting scholarship based community assessments, facilitation of issues critical to the county and assuring that Extension programs are implemented. As a result, Extension will be able to play a more integral part in the total outreach effort of the University.
County Contracts and Cost Sharing. Extension seeks to maintain the current contract between Extension and county government, with a level of staffing the partnership can sustain. Continued cost sharing of salary (40% county, 60% Extension) for county Extension directors and regional educator positions is critical to assure a statewide delivery system that offers high quality, focused programs. Extension will continue to cover the cost of benefits for faculty identified in the county contracts. In addition to delivering higher quality programming, the new structure will allow county governments to access a broader range of University expertise. People in local communities will assist in assessing needs that drive program priorities and evaluating the value of services offered in the county and the region.
Extension will not initiate the closing of any county Extension offices, but will work with counties to determine the appropriate level of program delivery that can be expected, based on local ability and willingness to invest. The goal is to move by 2005 to a system where local funding buys Extension programs rather than specific positions.
While the advantages of the Extension field organization and the local presence of an Extension educator can never be replaced, the Extension 2002 – 2005 plan also calls for some increase in the delivery of programs directly from campus-based faculty and staff. Some of Extension’s programs are now delivered directly to individuals and organizations throughout the state, independently of the Extension field structure. Examples include the work of the Minnesota Council for Economic Education, the Agricultural Professional School, the Cold Climate Housing training for the construction industry, and the FDA required Better Process Control School for the food canning industry.
As we gain broader access to the University’s research base, it is likely that in some cases direct delivery of specialized knowledge to constituents will be most efficient.
Information technology further facilitates the dissemination of information and programs directly to consumers and organizations throughout the state. As described in the technology section of this report, the 2002 – 2005 plan envisions significant growth in technology-based delivery.
Extension’s 4-H Youth Development program requires specific mention, as the field structure and positions vary somewhat from those described previously. For almost 100 years, Minnesota has supported the education and development of young people through 4-H programs. Extension remains committed to serving as a resource, advocate and catalyst for improving the quality of developmental experiences for all Minnesota youth, especially in the out of school hours. However, as with other parts of the Extension plan, effective delivery of the 4-H mission in the current environment requires changes in how we do our work.
The plan for 4-H Youth Development recognizes two distinct and integrated goals:
The first goal requires an active local presence, while the second requires less of a local presence, but is tied very directly to the University’s land grant mission in research, education and outreach. To reach these goals, two types of regional educator positions will be created:
Regional 4-H Educators will work at the local level, serving multiple counties. Their primary role will be to work with a growing cadre of county-funded 4-H program assistants to ensure the health and growth of 4-H opportunities.
Regional Community Youth Development Educators will work closely with 4-H educators and staff in other organizations to offer training, consulting, applied research/evaluation and facilitation services that help communities become more intentional and effective in youth development.
Both types of regional educators will be closely connected to and supported by a restructured Center for 4-H Youth Development within Extension and headed by a capacity area leader. In order to maintain and improve quality, accessibility, and impact of 4-H programs, the Center will work with district directors and counties to increase the number and training of local 4-H program assistants. These local staff, and the volunteers so crucial to 4-H, will be more fully supported and supervised by the regional 4-H educators, who will have stronger connections to the campus and special state level responsibilities in specific program areas. These are critical changes that we must make to ensure that 4-H remains a premier youth development program that offers local youth first rate experiential learning opportunities in research-based ways.
Extension will work cooperatively with academic units and colleges across the University to help engage the University with citizens and communities statewide. Memoranda of understanding will identify benchmarks and seek clear outcomes where the resources of both the colleges/departments and Extension make a difference in addressing critical issues.
Current memoranda of understanding will be re-negotiated to strengthen programming.
To support a goal of building campus-field relationships, we will establish
departmental affiliations for regional educators. Colleges will play an increased
role in providing staff development for regional educators. Extension will define
its value-added benefit to colleges to create a clearer expectation for program
delivery.
The strategic investment pool will be used to leverage resources regionally
and in colleges and departments. We will identify and develop program initiatives
and requests for proposals. Funding will be provided for a specific period of
time with additional funding possible, based on deliverables and impact data.
Extension seeks an important niche within all University outreach through the creation of the county Extension director role, closer campus-field relationships, an investment pool, and a renewed commitment of Extension to work across the entire University.
If the new campus-field delivery system is to succeed, it is essential to have effective and efficient systems of operational support. By the end of January 2002, Extension will re-design positions that support functions critical for carrying out our mission. These functions include: materials production, marketing and sales, external relations and communications, finance, reporting and accountability, grants, information technology, evaluation, and staff development.
The following guiding principles will be used in the redesign:
Funders and stakeholders have conveyed in multiple ways that they have high expectations for Extension programs, and policy makers are mandating new measures of accountability. Extension welcomes more involvement from funders, stakeholders, and policy makers because that involvement means more meaningful engagement, more clarity about program priorities, and more alignment of resources with those priorities. The plan responds to those expectations by establishing clear lines of authority and support systems.
Extension program design and delivery will continue to be based on a campus/community human resources system. Performance accountability for both campus and field staff will be strengthened, with performance appraisals of regional educators led by district directors in collaboration with capacity area leaders. Performance review of campus faculty would be strengthened by including input from regional educators. The academic promotion process currently applied to Extension Academic Professional staff will be reviewed and possibly revised to be consistent with the new knowledge model.
Stronger campus-field connections outlined in this plan will help ensure consistency and high quality across all Extension programs. Clearly defined accountability and reporting relationships will ensure vital linkages with the University.
The following positions are new or existing positions most impacted by the changes in Extension’s regional delivery system. This is not a comprehensive list.
Campus Faculty: An existing position. Conducts and interprets research; assures a credible research base supports Extension program design; provides staff development, consultation and mentoring to regional educators; teaches in regions and delivers some programs directly to clientele; utilizes technology assisted learning; and generates resources to support Extension outreach.
Capacity Area Leaders: An existing position. Has oversight responsibility for all phases of program development on priority issues related to their capacity area, including impact evaluation; ensures collaboration on program priorities that cross college, capacity area and district boundaries; leads resource generation activity; and maintains key external relationships.
District Directors: An existing position. Has oversight responsibility for priority program delivery and impact in their district, including resource generation; supervises county Extension directors and regional educators (with input from capacity area leaders); and ensures external relationships.
Regional Extension Educators: A new position. Applies specialized expertise to program priorities; develops and delivers programs in collaboration with capacity area and regional teams; and is affiliated with a capacity area. Program delivery responsibilities are primarily regional in scope.
Regional 4-H Educators: A new position. Will work at the local level, serving multiple counties. Primary role will be to work with a growing cadre of county-funded 4-H program assistants to ensure the health and growth of 4-H opportunities.
Regional Community Youth Development Educators: A new position. Will work closely with 4-H educators and staff in other organizations to offer training, consulting, applied research/evaluation and facilitation services that help communities become more intentional and effective in youth development.
County Extension Directors: A new position. Includes responsibility for county office management; brokers resources; builds educational partnerships focused on county and regional program priorities and multiple local partners; conducts scholarship based community assessments; assures Extension programs are implemented and public value is created; assists district directors with program oversight and performance appraisal of program assistants; and is likely to serve more than one county.
County Program Assistants: An existing position. Program assistants support local programming, especially in 4-H Youth Development and Family Nutrition Programs.
In today’s information economy, those who lag behind will be left behind. Technology must be a cornerstone of Extension’s 2002 – 2005 plan, necessitating crucial investments in technology infrastructure, staff capacity, and partnerships with other states. Building on our previous technology successes, Extension will expand its use of technology to efficiently and effectively deliver information and programs to Minnesotans and to enhance our organization’s capacity
Our plan identifies three major technology goals for 2002 – 2005:
INFO-U, the Yard and Garden Line and Extension’s web site are excellent examples of how Extension can offer 24-hour self-service access to consumer information, while decreasing the demands on field staff to answer repetitive questions. Increasingly, the Extension web site provides a front door to our services with 250,000 visits per month, second only to the main University of Minnesota web site. The number of visits continues to increase each month and has increased by 250% in less than two years. Through the web site, Minnesota residents gain valuable consumer information, learn about Extension education programs throughout the state and gain access to a county web page system.
During 2002 – 2005, Extension will increase the amount of self-service consumer information available through our web site, increase the site’s usability and interactivity, and take steps to make our site more accessible to underserved populations such as new immigrants and low literacy audiences.
Our innovative online delivery of Master Gardener training, which is the first in the nation, is a good example of how Extension has used the web to deliver on-line learning for niche audiences on subjects for which we have a competitive advantage. In many cases, these on-line learning programs have been developed with grant support. Examples include the national on-line Pesticide Applicator Training program, developed with an American Distance Education Consortium grant and our 4-H Cyber Camp, providing an online learning environment for after school activities. This program was developed with a $1.4 million grant from AT&T. These kinds of programs offer an excellent business model for Extension in that they have the potential for both grant support and fee-support from users.
Our goal for 2002 – 2005 is to make at least 20 percent of Extension’s programs accessible through information technology. We will begin by developing online learning modules to meet audience needs in the majority of our named priority areas of work.
To be successful in implementing the 2002 – 2005 plan, Extension must commit to helping Extension staff gain the technology and the proficiency they need to do their jobs. Technology offers significant opportunities for Extension to improve staff productivity by providing better information and promoting collaboration among field and campus faculty. Current examples under development are two-way video (video over the Internet) as an internal communication tool and web bulletin boards to exchange information. Extension’s accountability and reporting system is gradually converting to a web-based system, allowing us to more efficiently inform authorizers and stakeholders, including the federal government, of our program impacts.
In the 2002 – 2005 period, Extension will develop web-based management information systems to give Extension leadership the ability to track staff effort in priority programs and to track the entire life span of a program from planning, through implementation, evaluation and reporting.
The growing diversity in Minnesota’s population calls for a more inclusive Extension organization. We must also create and adapt programs that meet critical issues affecting some of the state’s newest residents, as well as serve long underserved groups. Three goals guide our work in this important area.
Considerable work is underway to assure that the human resource aspects of the change work are designed, managed and implemented to accomplish key goals and objectives. A redesigned staffing plan will reduce and realign positions to:
The work on the staffing plan is being done in a way that assures attention to processes and criteria that are objective, fair and work related. A system is in place that includes appropriate input and consultation; review of policies and procedures attendant to designing and implementing a plan; review and checkpoints on any recommendations; and ultimate decision-making by the dean.
The staffing plan work has been divided into three phases, as follows:
An opportunity for voluntary retirement is being considered for employees eligible, based on federal requirements, for full federal retirement by June 30, 2002. Once final conclusions have been reached concerning the program, communication will be made directly and confidentially to eligible individuals. Additional federal retirement benefits consultation will be available through Extension human resources.
Three newly configured teams are in place to further the design of a staffing plan, using inputs and recommendations already available from the work of the past several months and refining the focus to meet a tight timeframe. These groups will work intensely during December and January, with decisions and announcements on staffing to be made by early February.
The three teams are:
During this time, criteria for decisions on reduction in staff and realignment and reallocation of positions and personnel will be developed, refined and announced. Job descriptions for affected field positions will be further defined and detailed. Processes for realignment, reallocation and selection of personnel into reconfigured positions will be determined, in line with University policies and procedures.
Attention in this phase will turn to:
| December 2001 |
|
| January 2002 |
|
| February 2002 |
|
| March 2002 |
|
| April 2002 |
|
| July 2002 |
|
|
Agriculture \
Community \
Environment \
Family \
Garden \
Youth
Home \ Search \ News \ Workshops \ Online Shopping About Extension \ Extension Offices
URL: http://www.extension.umn.edu This page changes frequently.
Be sure to reload to receive the current version.
University of Minnesota Extension is an equal opportunity
educator and employer. |