Workshops

Key to making the case for funding for Extension is our ability to explain why Extension–and not some other public or nonprofit organization–should provide programming aimed at improving conditions in the state. In other words, we need to answer the “Why Extension?” question. When I ask Extension professionals to name Extension’s strengths relative to other possible program providers, the first response is usually that Extension provides sound, unbiased, research-based programs. Case closed, right?

At a recent workshop for University of Wisconsin Extension’s Western Region, this question arose: Can we really say that Extension has no bias? We do not have a profit motive, like private sector service providers. And we do not have specific mandates, like many local government service providers. But, can we say that our program content that has no bias at all? Isn’t striving to improve conditions in the state a bias? Isn’t striving for public value a bias? Isn’t using scientific research as a base from programming a bias?

This discussion brought two things to the forefront for me. First, we need some language other than “unbiased” to describe Extension programming. “Motivated by the public good”? “Based on the best scientific knowledge”? “Designed to create public value”? I’m not yet sure what the answer is…Second, for whatever descriptor we use, we need to ensure that Extension programming actually fits the descriptor. We need to be certain that we are doing whatever it is that separates Extension from other program providers.

I got some constructive feedback on a recent four-hour “Building Extension’s Public Value” workshop that I taught here at the University of Minnesota for NELD. While the evaluations were largely positive, I also heard that some participants grew weary toward the end of the workshop and even “checked out” during the later small group exercises. One participant wrote on the evaluation form, “Content was very good, but a very long time sitting with no activity.”

My search brought me to the University of Minnesota’s Techniques in Learning and Teaching (TILT) blog. The October 17, 2011, entry is about reinvigorating student learning during the “mid-term slump.” My issue is more with a “late-workshop slump,” but I’m willing to try some of the suggested techniques. For example, I think I can adapt the flipchart-page-synthesizing technique to the BEPV workshop. It is described here:

“Version 2: Create four flip chart pages, each with its own unique synthesizing question and post each page at different locations around the room. Group students in 3s or 4s and have them discuss the question on one chart, come to a consensus, and then record their thoughts. At a designated time all groups rotate to a new flip chart, review and respond to previous groups and raise new questions. By focusing the four questions on a specific, common-to-all case or scenario, students must draw on all they have studied to analyze and address the discrete components of an overall problem, while also reflecting on how content and coherence of previous commenters.”

I can think of two ways this technique might work:

(1) I could use the activity to help participants synthesize the main content of the BEPV workshop (modules 1-4): the criteria for public sector action. I’m not yet sure what the “unique synthesizing questions” for the flipchart pages would be…perhaps something like, “Can the criteria for public sector involvement be used to justify public funding for any Extension program?” Alternatively, each flipchart page could simply hold one of the criteria, as identified in the slide below, and groups would add to each page examples of Extension programs that satisfy the criterion.

(2) After participants complete the “Demonstrating Extension’s Public Value” activity (module 8), but before they refine their work with the public value message template (module 8.1), I could post draft public value messages on four flipchart pages. The messages would come from elsewhere, i.e., not from the workshop participants. I would sort participants into new small groups, as explained in the TILT blog excerpt, and ask each small group to critique the draft messages. Perhaps they could re-draft the messages on the flipchart pages. If there is enough time, I could rotate the small groups through the flipchart pages, asking them to improve upon the previous groups’ work, if possible. The slide below, providing some guidelines for drafting messages, could serve as a resource for the activity.

What are your reactions to these ideas? Is it worthwhile trying to invigorate the second half of the workshop with a get-up-and-move-around activity? Do you think the suggested activities would help accomplish the learning objectives, and not simply add minutes onto a tight agenda?

We included a blank version of the public value message graphic, like the one below, except with empty boxes. Prior to the session, we asked Sue Letourneau, program leader for health and nutrition programs, to share a public value message for Extension’s Simply Good Eating program. I created a slide that included Sue’s text within the message graphic and added animation that brought the text in one box at a time. At the session, I asked Sue to present her message, explaining how her team arrived at the language they chose.

Given the short amount of time, we hope this approach helped participants see how a program team can go about constructing a public value message, even if they didn’t get a chance to do so themselves. It also gave an example of a UM Extension program that had completed the workshop, hopefully dispelling concerns that it would be too demanding. Finally, Sue helped participants see how the public value message was related to the research agenda that the Simply Good Eating program team is currently implementing.

That varied set of experiences, together with recent conversations with Extension staff who are gearing up to teach workshops in their own states (shout out to New York and Georgia!), made me think that we could benefit from an exchange of ideas about timing.
I have experimented with a number of different structures for the BEPV workshop, but the most common takes about four hours, including a couple of short breaks. Of course, in that amount of time, I can’t teach all of the modules in the BEPV Presenter’s Guide. But, we can usually complete the content and activities for the modules shown below:

Note that the last goal is “have considered next steps,” and not “have completed a public value action plan.” A four hour workshop may not give us enough time to complete the action plan module. Depending on the audience’s objectives, I sometimes replace the full module with a large group discussion about next steps.

As I teach in the BEPV Train-the-Trainer course, I use caution when I skip workshop modules. Each of the optional modules was added to the curriculum, because I repeatedly fielded questions on that topic. So, when I skip a module and the associated exercise, I spend at least a few minutes talking about the issue that the module is intended to address. For example, if I don’t cover module 9, “Maximizing Public Value,” I lead a short discussion about the different types of program characteristics that are responsible for public value outcomes.

If you have taught a BEPV workshop, how much total time did you use? What were you able to cover in that amount of time? If you’ve participated in a workshop, how long was it? Did it seem like the right amount of time? Rushed? Did it drag on? Would you preferred a different schedule?

Last week I presented a mini public value workshop as part of University of Minnesota Extension’s Fall Program Conference. When I suggested that public value messages should address the specific concerns of individual stakeholders, a question came up that I have heard several times before. Are there some stakeholders who will never be receptive to our messages about public funding for Extension programs? No matter how hard we try, are some stakeholders simply unreachable?

I think that particularly skeptical stakeholders pose a challenge, to which we must try to rise. After all, we wouldn’t have identified them as stakeholders if their support for Extension weren’t important. Conversely, if all of our stakeholders were easy for us to reach, Extension would already be enjoying long-term financial sustainability.

Here are my suggestions:

==Consult with others in the organization who may have a better idea than we do of what matters the most to the challenging stakeholders. External and legislative affairs professionals, regional Extension directors, Extension liaisons to stakeholder groups in your state come to mind.
==Find stakeholders who are sympathetic to Extension, but who are otherwise similarly situated to the challenging stakeholder. For example, do you know of a “friend of Extension” who is in the same line of work, of the same age, living in the same region? Ask that person how they came to understand the value of Extension in their community and what information helped them choose to support Extension.
==If the stakeholder is a public official, study what she has said and written–not only about Extension, but about a variety of topics–to get an idea of what really matters to her.
==Evaluate whether this stakeholder truly is crucial to your program, or if it would not be a great loss to focus your efforts elsewhere.

What do you think? What kinds of stakeholders seem to be unreachable? Have you had success with them? What has worked for you?

Your Program’s Value: Tell it like it matters:

Have you ever had a great opportunity to tell someone who matters about the value of your program —but you just didn’t have the right words at the right time? Do you need a little help making the case for how your Extension program makes a difference in Minnesota? Here’s your chance to develop key messages you can share with key stakeholders about the pubic value of your program. Laura Kalambokidis has trained Extension faculty members across the country to develop messages that matter. Take advantage of this opportunity to participate in an abbreviated version of her nationally recognized program and learn new ways to influence your key stakeholders.

On Thursday, September 22, I will teach a Building Extension’s Public Value workshop as part of the National Extension Leadership Development NELD North Central meeting here at the University of Minnesota.

NELD’s mission is “…to build leaders in Cooperative Extension at all levels and provide them with the vision, courage, and tools to lead in a changing world.” Extension’s world certainly is changing–and fast. I hope public value will be one of the tools NELD participants will find useful as they lead through that change.

Looking for a primer on the “Building Extension’s Public Value” workshop? Listen to the recording of a one-hour webinar I presented last week for the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (NCRCRD). Go to the NCRCRD’s webinar archives, and click on the link for my April 28 session. Then come back here and let me know what you think. Did the webinar answer your questions? Or leave you needing more information?

The post Hear about Extension’s Public Value appeared first on Building Extension's Public Value.

This Thursday, April 7, 2011, I will teach a Building Extension’s Public Value workshop to Extension leaders in the Southern region as part of the Southern Region Middle Managers’ Conference in Arlington, Texas. I look forward to hearing how Extension organizations across the South are communicating with stakeholders about their programs’ impact and value.