- Author: Elizabeth Moon
- Author: Andrew Lyons
We were thrilled to attend the 2023 Land-Grant Partners Summit [https://landgrantpartners.org/events/land-grant-partners-summit-october-12-13-2023] last week in Denver. The focus of this national meeting was to bring together people who have been working within land-grant universities to strengthen support for Native American students and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and explore the opportunities to work together. Splitting into four working groups, each group explored meaningful short and long-term strategic actions to collaborate and share resources with commitments to continue meeting over the next six months.
The Summit was held immediately before the 2023 FALCON [https://www.falcontribalcollege.org/annual-conference] (First Americans Land-Grant Consortium) Conference, another great conference which brings together hundreds of administrators, faculty, extension educators, researchers and students who work on land grant programs at TCUs and share program successes. Both meetings were amazing. While FALCON has been around for 19 years, this was only the second national meeting of the Land-Grant Partners consortium, and it was our first time at either event.
What's with the dates? We felt in good company being with so many people working in land grant institutions. What land grant institutions have in common is a mission to support communities, agriculture, and natural resources through research and extension. However it was immediately apparent that most of the presentations, and even the conferences themselves, were structured around the three classes of land grant institutions which have become known by the year that federal legislation provided the initial funding: 1862, 1890, and 1994.
The 1862s are land grant universities that were established by the 1862 Morrill Act. This act gave ‘public lands' to every state, most of which was sold to create endowments for universities with programs in agriculture and engineering. Today, these are mostly the big state schools, like the University of California or Penn State, where Cooperative Extension programs are run from. The 1890s are historically Black Colleges and Universities, which Congress had to establish through separate legislation because the 1862 schools discriminated against people of color. Finally, more than a hundred years later, Congress provided funding in 1994 to support Tribal Colleges and Universities, collectively known as the 1994s or TCUs.
source: USDA [https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/NIFALGUs_MapREV_AI0522_508.pdf ]
Why all the fuss?, you might ask, about the three categories of land grant institutions? Well, the sad reality is that although 1862s, 1890s, and 1994s all have similar missions, there are enormous gaps in how much funding they receive from federal and state sources. Not surprisingly, this results in unequal levels of resources for research and extension, and fewer programs for Native Americans and people of color. This is precisely the nut the LGP and FALCON alliances are trying to crack.
Land-Grant Partners Summit
Most of the attendees at the LGP Summit were from 1862 institutions, with a handful of TCUs, federal agencies, and federally funded programs. Many 1862s are trying to do a better job serving Native Americans. This is in line with their mission to serve the entire public, and in recognition that there has been a huge gap for generations. Since 2020, the call for 1862s to try harder has grown louder, informed by research detailing how they got their start by selling millions of acres of stolen Indian land (Lee at al, 2020), and widespread interest in dismantling structural inequality.
Everyone attending the LGP Summit knew this history, and although it needs to be told to a lot more people the focus of the Summit was looking forward. It was exciting to be with so many kindred spirits, to hear what other 1862s are doing, and think about how we can be more effective working together than individually. Some of the leaders in the movement include The Ohio State, which has started a program to reach tribes that were forcibly removed from Ohio, and South Dakota State University, which has diverted funding from its Morrill Act lands to support Native American students and collaborations with Tribal Colleges,
Sponsors and Collaborators of the 2023 Land-Grant Partners Summit
Although the University of California is not at the head of the pack when it comes to spearheading reconciliation and collaboration with Tribes, the ball is definitely rolling. It was wonderful to connect with new and old UC colleagues from UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and UC ANR, to hear what everyone is working on, and think about how we can work together more effectively. There are no shortages of ideas, and many faculty, students, and programs across UC are already doing amazing work to foster understanding and provide support for Native American students and other underserved populations. However the goal will not be reached through the work of a few individuals. Rather, we need to shift UC as an institution - its policies, priorities, governance, incentive structure, and culture - so that the hard but rewarding work of healing and learning from Tribes is not the exception but the norm.
From left to right: Phenocia Bauerle (UC Berkeley), Michelle Villegas-Frazier (UC Davis),
Rosalie Fanshel (UC Berkeley), Elizabeth Moon (UC ANR), Andy Lyons (UC ANR), Kase Wheatley (UC Davis)
Making Space for Native Voices
A cross-cutting theme expressed in many sessions was the importance of including Native Americans as co-equal partners in designing and developing university programs and policies. Without Native voices at the table, and in meaningful leadership roles, we run the risk of planning programs with the same paternalistic processes that are well intentioned but ultimately fail to produce results. This is hard work, particularly within a university setting where administrators and academics are used to thinking a certain way, and doing things a certain way. But by learning from others, working together, and listening to those our institution owes a debt to, we can become a better university.
- Author: Mike Hsu
The Fresno-Merced Future of Food Innovation Initiative (F3) – of which UC ANR is an anchor institution – took a big step forward during the UC Regents meeting May 18.
The Regents unanimously approved the formation of F3 Innovate – a new 501(c)(3) nonprofit that will raise funds for the partnership initiative that also includes the Central Valley Community Foundation (CVCF), California Department of Food and Agriculture, UC Merced and CSU Fresno.
Largely funded by a $65 million Build Back Better grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration, F3 aims to advance innovation and entrepreneurship in agrifood technology, strengthen food systems, bolster local and regional economies, and bring greater prosperity to the San Joaquin Valley and beyond.
The new F3 Innovate nonprofit will focus on agrifood systems research and commercialization, services for micro-enterprises and small businesses in under-resourced communities, ag-tech innovation seed funding, and building a talent pipeline to sustain these efforts.
“This 501(c)(3) is critical to all of that, because it really lets us bring together the public and private partners, and ensures that broader stakeholder participation and benefit,” said Glenda Humiston, UC vice president for agriculture and natural resources, during her presentation to the Regents (view recording of the meeting).
UC Merced Chancellor Juan Sánchez Muñoz and CVCF President and CEO Ashley Swearengin also spoke passionately during the meeting about the need to form the nonprofit as a key connector and catalyst for the F3 initiative.
F3 – and the new F3 Innovate – will continue to take shape through the work of Gabe Youtsey, UC ANR chief innovation officer; Josh Viers, associate dean for research of UC Merced's School of Engineering; and many other academics and staff across UC ANR and UC.
"Establishing F3 Innovate as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization is a strategic move designed to unlock and accelerate agriculture technology from lab to market. It will pave the way for a wider range of collaboration opportunities between the UC and industry, and ensure the inclusion and representation of all our stakeholders, from small and socially disadvantaged farmers to startups and corporates," said Youtsey, who is also founder of The VINE, UC ANR's Innovation & Entrepreneurship program that is co-leading F3.
"The UC Regents were enthusiastic about this partnership as it aligns perfectly with our mission of transforming cutting-edge agricultural research into practical, market-ready solutions while doing the hard work of engaging our local workers, communities and farmers to adopt these new technologies," Youtsey added. "It enables us to foster deep and meaningful collaborative relationships with industry partners, advancing technology commercialization that is inclusive and truly beneficial to all involved."
- Author: Christine Davidson
- Contributor: Chutima Ganthavorn
Juanita Blakely Jones Elementary School kicked off their first Game On Health Fair April 24, 2019 to celebrate Every Kid Healthy Week. The health fair was a part of the Game On Grant the school received through Action for Healthy Kids. The goal of this grant is to help improve the overall health of students through promotion of physical activity and nutrition education. An estimated 250 students as well as parents were in attendance. All students received a passport that was to be stamped by each vendor as they went around the fair learning about living a healthy lifestyle. The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health held a Rethink Your Drink booth to encourage families to reduce consumption of sugar sweetened beverages. The Department of Public Health Local Oral Health Program held a booth to show students proper tooth brushing techniques and how to take care of their teeth. Loma Linda University Dental Health Clinic was also there to promote dental hygiene. The San Bernardino Superintendent of Schools held a booth to promote MyPlate and nutrition. The University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Master Gardeners brought worms to teach about composting, UCCE Master Food Preservers sampled fruit leather, and UCCE Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program engaged students in growing from seeds. The school staff offered other booths with fun exercises including tricycle races, ring tosses and a hula hoop contest. The highlight of the afternoon was the opportunity to make a smoothie on the infamous smoothie bike. Students lined up to take turns pedaling the bike. All students were entered into a raffle for 3 bikes to encourage physical activity. Students went home with non-perishable food items provided by Tzu Chi Foundation.
The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) has been working with Jones Elementary to provide a series of nutrition education classes to both students and parents. Three of the 6 families participating in both the youth and adult EFNEP program were recognized for their dedication to learning about living a healthy lifestyle at the Game On Health Fair event. The three families went home with a certificate of recognition from EFNEP and a spinning globe from the school principal.
- Author: Bryon J. Noel
At UC Berkeley and at UC ANR, my outreach program involves the creation, integration, and application of research-based technical knowledge for the benefit of the public, policy-makers, and land managers. My work focuses on environmental management, vegetation change, vegetation monitoring, and climate change. Critical to my work is the ANR Statewide Program in Informatics and GIS (IGIS), which I began in 2012 and is now really cranking with our crack team of IGIS people. We developed the IGIS program in 2012 to provide research technology and data support for ANR’s mission objectives through the analysis and visualization of spatial data. We use state-of-the-art web, database and mapping technology to provide acquisition, storage, and dissemination of large data sets critical to the ANR mission. We develop and delivers training on research technologies related to important agricultural and natural resource issues statewide. We facilitate networking and collaboration across ANR and UC on issues related to research technology and data. And we deliver research support through a service center for project level work that has Division-wide application. Since I am off on sabbatical, I have decided to take some time to think about my outreach program and how evaluate its impact.
There is a great literature about the history of extension since its 1914 beginnings, and specifically about how extension programs around the nation have been measuring impact. Extension has explored a variety of ways to measure the value of engagement for the public good (Franz 2011, 2014). Early attempts to measure performance focused on activity and reach: the number of individuals served and the quality of the interaction with those individuals. Through time, extension began to turn their attention to program outcomes. Recently, we’ve been focusing on articulating the Public Values of extension, via Condition Change metrics (Rennekamp and Engle 2008). One popular evaluation method has been the Logic Model, used by extension educators to evaluate the effectiveness of a program through the development of a clear workflow or plan that links program outcomes or impacts with outputs, activities and inputs. We’ve developed a fair number of these models for the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program (SNAMP) for example. Impacts include measures of changes in learning, behavior, or condition change across engagement efforts. Recently, change in policy became an additional measure to evaluate impact. I also think measuring reach is needed, and possible.
So, just to throw it out there, here is my master table of impact that I try to use for measuring and evaluating impact of my outreach program, and I’d be interested to hear what you all think of it.
- Change in reach: Geographic scope, Location of events, Number of users, etc.
- Change in activity: Usage, Engagement with a technology, New users, Sessions, Average session duration
- Change in learning; Participants have learned something new from delivered content
- Change in action, behavior, method; New efficiencies, Streamlined protocols, Adoption of new data, Adoption of best practices
- Change in policy; Evidence of contributions to local, state, or federal regulations
- Change in outcome: measured conditions have improved = condition change
I recently used this framework to help me think about impact of the IGIS program, and I share some results here.
Measuring Reach. The IGIS program has developed and delivered workshops throughout California, through the leadership of Sean Hogan, Shane Feirer, and Andy Lyons (http://igis.ucanr.edu/IGISTraining). We manage and track all this activity through a custom data tracking dashboard that IGIS developed (using Google Sheets as a database linked to ArcGIS online to render maps - very cool), and thus can provide key metrics about our reach throughout California. Together, we have delivered 52 workshops across California since July 2015 and reached nearly 800 people. These include workshops on GIS for Forestry, GIS for Agriculture, Drone Technology, WebGIS, Mobile Data Collection, and other topics. This is an impressive record of reach: these workshops have served audiences throughout California. We have delivered workshops from Humboldt to the Imperial Valley, and the attendees (n=766) have come from all over California. Check this map out:
Measuring Impact. At each workshop, we provide a feedback mechanism via an evaluation form and use this input to understand client satisfaction, reported changes in learning, and reported changes in participant workflow. We’ve been doing this for years, but I now think the questions we ask on those surveys need to change. We are really capturing the client satisfaction part of the process, and we need to do a better job on the change in learning and change in action parts of the work.
Having done this exercise, I can clearly see that measuring reach and activity are perhaps the easiest things to measure. We have information tools at our fingertips to do this: online web mapping of participant zip-codes, google analytics to track website activity. Measuring the other impacts: change in action, contributions to policy and actual condition changes are tough. I think extension will continue to struggle with these, but they are critical to help us articulate our value to the public. More work to do!
References
Franz, Nancy K. 2011. “Advancing the Public Value Movement: Sustaining Extension During Tough Times.” Journal of Extension 49 (2): 2COM2.
———. 2014. “Measuring and Articulating the Value of Community Engagement: Lessons Learned from 100 Years of Cooperative Extension Work.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 18 (2): 5.
Rennekamp, Roger A., and Molly Engle. 2008. “A Case Study in Organizational Change: Evaluation in Cooperative Extension.” New Directions for Evaluation 2008 (120): 15–26.
At UC Berkeley and at UC ANR, my outreach program involves the creation, integration, and application of research-based technical knowledge for the benefit of the public, policy-makers, and land managers. My work focuses on environmental management, vegetation change, vegetation monitoring, and climate change. Critical to my work is the ANR Statewide Program in Informatics and GIS (IGIS), which I began in 2012 and is now really cranking with our crack team of IGIS people. We developed the IGIS program in 2012 to provide research technology and data support for ANR’s mission objectives through the analysis and visualization of spatial data. We use state-of-the-art web, database and mapping technology to provide acquisition, storage, and dissemination of large data sets critical to the ANR mission. We develop and delivers training on research technologies related to important agricultural and natural resource issues statewide. We facilitate networking and collaboration across ANR and UC on issues related to research technology and data. And we deliver research support through a service center for project level work that has Division-wide application. Since I am off on sabbatical, I have decided to take some time to think about my outreach program and how evaluate its impact.
There is a great literature about the history of extension since its 1914 beginnings, and specifically about how extension programs around the nation have been measuring impact. Extension has explored a variety of ways to measure the value of engagement for the public good (Franz 2011, 2014). Early attempts to measure performance focused on activity and reach: the number of individuals served and the quality of the interaction with those individuals. Through time, extension began to turn their attention to program outcomes. Recently, we’ve been focusing on articulating the Public Values of extension, via Condition Change metrics (Rennekamp and Engle 2008). One popular evaluation method has been the Logic Model, used by extension educators to evaluate the effectiveness of a program through the development of a clear workflow or plan that links program outcomes or impacts with outputs, activities and inputs. We’ve developed a fair number of these models for the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program (SNAMP) for example. Impacts include measures of changes in learning, behavior, or condition change across engagement efforts. Recently, change in policy became an additional measure to evaluate impact. I also think measuring reach is needed, and possible.
So, just to throw it out there, here is my master table of impact that I try to use for measuring and evaluating impact of my outreach program, and I’d be interested to hear what you all think of it.
- Change in reach: Geographic scope, Location of events, Number of users, etc.
- Change in activity: Usage, Engagement with a technology, New users, Sessions, Average session duration
- Change in learning; Participants have learned something new from delivered content
- Change in action, behavior, method; New efficiencies, Streamlined protocols, Adoption of new data, Adoption of best practices
- Change in policy; Evidence of contributions to local, state, or federal regulations
- Change in outcome: measured conditions have improved = condition change
I recently used this framework to help me think about impact of the IGIS program, and I share some results here.
Measuring Reach. The IGIS program has developed and delivered workshops throughout California, through the leadership of Sean Hogan, Shane Feirer, and Andy Lyons (http://igis.ucanr.edu/IGISTraining). We manage and track all this activity through a custom data tracking dashboard that IGIS developed (using Google Sheets as a database linked to ArcGIS online to render maps - very cool), and thus can provide key metrics about our reach throughout California. Together, we have delivered 52 workshops across California since July 2015 and reached nearly 800 people. These include workshops on GIS for Forestry, GIS for Agriculture, Drone Technology, WebGIS, Mobile Data Collection, and other topics. This is an impressive record of reach: these workshops have served audiences throughout California. We have delivered workshops from Humboldt to the Imperial Valley, and the attendees (n=766) have come from all over California. Check this map out:
Measuring Impact. At each workshop, we provide a feedback mechanism via an evaluation form and use this input to understand client satisfaction, reported changes in learning, and reported changes in participant workflow. We’ve been doing this for years, but I now think the questions we ask on those surveys need to change. We are really capturing the client satisfaction part of the process, and we need to do a better job on the change in learning and change in action parts of the work.
Having done this exercise, I can clearly see that measuring reach and activity are perhaps the easiest things to measure. We have information tools at our fingertips to do this: online web mapping of participant zip-codes, google analytics to track website activity. Measuring the other impacts: change in action, contributions to policy and actual condition changes are tough. I think extension will continue to struggle with these, but they are critical to help us articulate our value to the public. More work to do!
References
Franz, Nancy K. 2011. “Advancing the Public Value Movement: Sustaining Extension During Tough Times.” Journal of Extension 49 (2): 2COM2.
———. 2014. “Measuring and Articulating the Value of Community Engagement: Lessons Learned from 100 Years of Cooperative Extension Work.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 18 (2): 5.
Rennekamp, Roger A., and Molly Engle. 2008. “A Case Study in Organizational Change: Evaluation in Cooperative Extension.” New Directions for Evaluation 2008 (120): 15–26.