NCRA Summer Meeting
Lincoln, NE
July 9, 2007

MINUTES

Agenda Briefs

Item J2: Sun Grant Initiative
Presenter: Jim Doolittle

Background: Contact Jim Doolittle for a copy of his powerpoint (James_Doolittle@sdstate.edu). 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None. 

Item J3: Joint Research/Extension Ventures and Increased Collaboration
Presenters: Arlen Leholm/Carl O'Connor

Background:

A number of people have expressed the desire to have Extension and Research work more closely together.  Carl O'Connor and Arlen Leholm have met several times to discuss opportunities for enhanced collaboration. 

Two areas of initial focus with a high chance for mutual benefit are obesity the bioeconomy. 

Panelists:

• Marjorie Kostelnik, Assistant Director in the Experiment Station

• Beth Birnstihl, Associate Dean, Nebraska Cooperative Extension

• Rick Klemme, Dean and Director, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension

• Daryl Buchholz, Extension Director, Kansas State University Cooperative Extension

Action Requested: Suggestions for increased collaboration.

Action Taken: Please contact Carl O'Connor or Arlen Leholm with any suggestions. 

Item J4: CSREES Report
Presenter: Mary McPhail Gray

Background:

Summary Comments:  CSREES, as evidenced by the Dr. Hefferan’s June 8^th. announcement of the Agency’s new Partnership Awards, is encouraging integrated projects as necessary responses to many of today’s critical issues.  Your North Central Regional identification of Bio-fuels and Obesity Prevention as two issues for effective extension and research integration reflect your understanding of this commitment. 

Bioeconomy:  Our agency contributions to the bio-economy discussions in Washington include both research and extension in messages carried by NPL’s and directors to conferences and to the REE Coordinating Committee.  We have developed a White paper on the Agency’s view of this issue—which is being edited and refined.  The Social Science Working Group has had a major contribution to this paper and is planning additional sessions for its members and the agency so that more NPL’s are able to make appropriate contributions to this work in the programs they administer.    

The SBIR call for proposals in Biofuels and Bio-based products was posted July 3^rd. and has a due date of Sept. 5, 2007.

This spring the CSREES Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Quality Program co-sponsored with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and USDA-ARS Beltsville on Biofuels and Water Quality.

The Announcement by Secretaries Johannes and Bodman of the jointly funded research projects in Biofuels included two in your region.  Congratulations to Minnesota and South Dakota!

The Newsroom on the CSREES web site has been featuring work of the partnership in this area.  

Obesity Prevention:  This issue continues to attract major news media coverage as evidenced in the recent   meta-analysis of research studies on Nutrition Education which carried headlines noting that all but one of 57 studies failed to show a reduction in obesity.  The AP report is located at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FAILING_TO_FIGHT_FAT?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The Kellogg Foundation has initiated their Food and Fitness Initiative  with  half million dollar grants to 9 communities for a two year planning cycle to propose community based practices linking  healthy life styles and healthy food choices in order to reduce obesity.   Dr. Merle Pierson, Undersecretary for REE is a member of the National Advisory Committee with Mary McPhail Gray as an alternate.  Two communities are in the North Central Region: Detroit, MI and five NE Iowa rural counties.  In each of these communities—Cooperative Extension has been in the lead.  The other funded communities are: New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Holyoke, MA, Oakland, CA, and Seattle WA. and Tohono O’odham Native Community in AZ.  CSREES will be in contact with these communities to identify how Cooperative Extension and research are already involved, will encourage sharing of best practices, and identify effective ways the partnership might learn from these pilots.  All 9 communities will be funded for implementation of plans for 7 to 10 years.  The variety of ethnic groups living in these communities, provide arich opportunity for learning. 

The Kellogg Foundation has created a Convergence Project with other major private foundations with intentions of concentrating a great deal of coordinated private funding on this issue.  Robert Wood Johnson has a major funding initiative of five hundred million dollars in grants to reduce obesity.  Kaiser Permanente and other foundations are also engaged in the conversation.  We are positioned to help guide the dialogue and provide opportunities for our scholars to be involved in a number of ways. 

Our EFNEP Programs and our work in the Food Stamp Nutrition Education both give us significant environments to show how best practices which are nested in community support can make a difference.  Attached is a document which summarizes current multi-state projects which will have direct or indirect impacts on the obesity crisis.   The EFNEP project will provide critical information to use in a variety of conversations with your collaborators in Washington.  CSREES and ARS have already discussed integrated studies they might do together.  FNS is very interested in what our system is able to learn and ERS has added personnel to the NCDC211 committee.   Your region could provide valuable leadership in your work with NCDC211 and the Kellogg funded communities. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None. 

Item 4.0: Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair
Presenter: Forrest Chumley

Background: There has been little Executive Committee action since the March 2007 meeting except for collaboration with Arlen Leholm re: the status of the Assistant Director position and its job posting. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None. 

Item 5.0: Executive Director's Report
Presenter: Arlen Leholm

Item 5.1: Research Awards

Background:

Experiment Station Section
Awards for Excellence in Multistate Research

Purpose

The fundamental mandate of the Multistate Research authority allows State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) to interdependently collaborate in projects that two or more states share as a priority, but for which no one state could address singularly. This is a very high standard for any research project, and has become a hallmark of the Multistate Research Program’s management objectives.

The Multistate Research authority allows other non-SAES partners to join in these project-based collaborations. Thus, many multistate projects include extension specialists as members as well as Agricultural Research Service or Forest Service research scientists. In addition many projects even have private sector and foreign participants. Moreover, the majority of multistate projects have participants from more than a single region, with many having representation from all regions such that they are national in scope.

To many the Multistate Research Program is one of the "best kept secrets" of the Land-Grant University System.

 

The purpose of this program is to annually recognize those scientists who are conducting exemplary multistate activities and in doing so enhance the visibility of the multistate program.

 

Award

• A recipient Multistate Project will be selected from the pool of nominees submitted by the five regional research associations (NCRA, NERA, SAAESD, WAAESD, and ARD), and deemed by the review panel to exhibit sustained, meritorious and exceptional multistate activities.

Award and Presentation

 

The National Excellence in Multistate Research Award will consist of a plaque for the project's group chair and a certificate for each participating scientist to be presented by the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy Chair and

USDA/Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) Administrator during the Awards Program held at the NASULGC Annual Meeting.  ESCOP will contribute 50% of the travel expenses for the national winner to attend the awards ceremony.

 

Eligibility

Any current Multistate Project listed in the NIMSS (http://nimss.umd.edu/) is eligible for consideration for an Excellence in Multistate Research Award.

 

Basis for Nomination

Each of the five regional research associations may nominate one Multistate Project chosen from the entire national portfolio of active projects each association.   Nominations shall be made to the Chair of the respective regional multistate review committee (MRC) chair via the regional Executive Director’s office.

 

Such nominations should describe the:

• Accomplishments that have been realized by the Project as measurable outputs, outcomes and benefits (either directly or through indicators); and
• Synergistic advantages of the particular project derived through interdependency.

 

The documentation for this type of nomination should be sufficient to allow the review committee members to evaluate the Project according to the criteria listed below.

 

Criteria and Evaluation
Selection of multistate teams for an Award for Excellence will be based on panel evaluations of nominations that demonstrate: high standards of scientific quality; research relevance to a regional priority; multistate collaboration on the problem's solution; and professional leadership in the conduct of the project.  All nominated shall be evaluated using the same criteria including, in descending order of importance.  The Project’s:

 

1. Accomplishments, indicated by outputs, outcomes, and impacts,
2. Added value, from the Project’s interdependency;
3. Degree of institutional participation (SAES and others as well);
4. Extent of multi-disciplinary activity; and,
5. Amount of integrated activities (i.e., is it multi-functional).
6. Evidence of additional leveraged funding to further the goals of the project.

 

Selection Process

 

The ESCOP Science and Technology Committee will select from among the regional nominatees a national winner in time for public announcement and award presentation at the NASULGC Annual Meeting each year. 

___________________________________________________________________

Format for Applications or Nominations

An application or nomination should be a very concise statement. It should include:

Number and Title:  
Name(s) and addresses of individuals nominated
Phone_____________________________
E-mail____________________________
(add more lines as needed for additional committee members)

Summary of Project's Significant Accomplishment(s) (should be less than 3-5 pages) noting:

• The issue, problem or situation addressed by the project or committee;
• The project or committee's objectives;
• The outcome(s) of the research;
• The impacts of the project or activity (actual or anticipated);
• The extent of links to extension that have been formed; and
• Any additional and relevant partnerships, associations or collaborations that deserve mention.

Nominations should be submitted by email to the Office of the regional Executive Director.

 

Item 5.2: State Visits

Leholm continues his visits to each SAES in the region.  He has been gaining valuable insight and suggestions and looks forward to completing the visits by October. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: If you have comments regarding the research awards, please email them to Arlen by July 20. 

Item 6.0: MRC Report
Presenter: Bill Ravlin

10.4.1: MRC/NCRA Project Expectations:

Background: During its March 2007 meeting, the MRC discussed creating a document outlining regional project expectations of NCRA projects.  This document would be distributed to project participants, particularly those writing new proposals.  This document would serve as a guide not only to the project participants, but also to the NCRA MRC.  The NCRA office will suggest to ESCOP that the highlighted section in the first part of the document below be added to the national MRF guidelines.  Also, the NCRA will share the rest of this document with the other regional associations for their use and input.  

DRAFT

NCRA MULTISTATE RESEARCH COMMITTEE
REGIONAL PROJECT EXPECTATIONS 

Committee Types and Descriptions  

Multistate Research Projects (NC-type Projects):  The membership of a Multistate Research Project is called the technical committee, and is made up of SAES scientists, an AA, CSREES representative, other public and private sector scientists, and as applicable, extension specialists and/or extension agents. This type of activity involves cooperative, jointly planned research employing multidisciplinary approaches in which a SAES, working with other SAESs, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), or a college or university, cooperates to solve problems that concern more than one state and usually more than one region. In addition, the following must be demonstrated in the project proposal: 

1. The objectives are clearly focused.

2. Each participant listed has direct involvement in the accomplishment of the stated objectives.

3. The project is multistate and multidisciplinary

4. The project proposal has been peer-reviewed.

5. The proposed project is oriented toward accomplishment of specific outcomes and impacts and based on priorities developed from stakeholder input.

6. The project is responsive to CSREES goals.

NC Projects: The "engine" of the multistate research program is the collection of funded, technical committees.  In the North Central Region, these are referred to as NC committees and the associated projects as NC projects. An expected outcome from NC projects is an externally funded sponsored project.  The guidelines and criteria for NC projects are described in the Prioritization Process document (NCRA Guidelines Appendix A-1).  Projects are reviewed, in most cases, every five years with a midterm review within the third year of existence.  SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting. 

Multistate Research Coordinating Committees (CC) and Education/Extension and Research Activity (ERA): The membership of a CC or an ERA is made up of an AA, CSREES representative, scientists, and as applicable, extension specialists and/or extension agents. A CC or ERA provides opportunity for scientists, specialists, and others to work cooperatively to solve problems that concern more than one state, share research data, and coordinate research and other types of activities. This is presently one of the most common mechanisms for functionally integrated activities such as the regional IPM programs. These activities are reviewed and approved by the sponsoring regional association.  The steps for development and approval of Multistate Research CCs and ERAs are described in Appendix N of the NCRA Guidelines. 

NCCC Committees:  In the NCRA, CCs are referred to as NCCC Committees and provide a mechanism for addressing critical regional issues where multistate coordination or information exchange is appropriate within a function (ie. research, education or extension); have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; and are peer reviewed.  These activities are reviewed and approved by the sponsoring regional association. The duration of the committee can be up to five years.  Membership of the committee is comprised of scientists appointed by participating state research and extension directors, as appropriate.  There is one voting member per SAES, but participation by others is an option of each director.  Meetings are held annually, with provisions for interim meetings upon authorization by the administrative advisor.  SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting. 

NCERA Committees:  In the NCRA, ERAs are referred to as NCERA Committees and serve to integrate education (academic and/or extension) and research on a particular topic where multistate coordination or information exchange is appropriate; have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; and are peer reviewed. The duration of the committee can be up to five years.  Membership of the committee is comprised of scientists appointed by participating state research and extension directors, as appropriate.  There is one voting member per SAES, but participation by others is an option of each director.  Meetings are held annually, with provisions for interim meetings upon authorization by the administrative advisor.  SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.   

National Research Support Projects (NRSP): NRSPs are made up of four AAs (one appointed from each SAES regional association), a CSREES representative, and scientists from SAES and elsewhere, as appropriate. This type of activity focuses on the development of enabling technologies, support activities (such as to collect, assemble, store, and distribute materials, resources and information), or the sharing of facilities needed to accomplish high priority research, but which is not of itself primarily research. NRSPs are eligible for off-the-top funding.  SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.  Specific guidelines for NRSPs have been adopted and may be found at the following website: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu:8050/escop/NRSP%20Guidelines-1.pdf  

Development Committees (NCDC): Scientist from two or more states may initiate a proposal for a development committee with concurrence of two or more SAES directors.  The duration of the committee is one to two years.  These committees generally are charged to prepare a justification and a proposal outline for a new multistate activity.  Membership of the committee is comprised of an AA appointed by the chair of the regional association and scientists appointed by participating state research and extension directors, as appropriate.  SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.   

Rapid Response Research Activity:  The purpose of rapid response research (Series‑500/ NC‑500) activities is to provide a mechanism to assure responsiveness to acute crises, emergencies, and opportunities using the multistate research approach and MRF.  Activities may range from formally organized research on targeted objectives to very informal research coordination or information exchange activity, depending on the circumstances.  To create a rapid response activity directors from two or more SAES must agree to form the activity.  The proposal is a report of intent which is submitted to the regional association's chair (usually through the ED's office).  The Chair of the regional association approves the project and serves as the AA to the project or assigns that responsibility to another director.  Neither CSREES nor regional association approval is required.  If CSREES does not respond within five working days, the project will be approved.  It would not require review by either the appropriate North Central Administrative Committee (NCA) (committee of department heads/chairs) or the NCRA. The technical committee for a Rapid Response Research activity is made up of an AA, CSREES representative, research scientists, and as applicable, extension specialists and/or extension agents.  These activities have two years from the date of initiation to convert to an association sanctioned activity; thus, the technical committee has the option, at a later date, to obtain approval as a multistate research project or other multistate research activity, through normal procedures.  SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting. 
 

Expectations for Successful NCRA Projects 

In recent years, MRC deliberations have placed a greater emphasis on accountability.  The “bar has been raised” on several different levels.  Each year, the MRC members can plainly see the committees that stand out as “model projects.”

• When the MRC approves a proposal, it typically has high writing quality as compared to those that require revision or that the MRC denies.  These proposals clearly and concisely state the importance of the research.  The committee must address ALL PROPOSAL SECTIONS! 

• The Multistate Research Committee requires that projects submit SAES-422 Annual Reports within 60 days of the annual meeting.  The AA may not authorize subsequent annual meetings without this annual report. 

• On a national level, the MRC examines internal and external indicators of interaction and linkage among participants and stakeholders (linkage).  The MRC identifies linkages by asking the following questions:

  o       Is there evidence of the interaction among committee participants and with other projects/agencies?  A list of relevant joint publications, grant proposals, conferences organized, and meetings can serve to illustrate the degree to which interaction occurs. 

  o       Is there evidence of delivering accomplishments to peer groups, stakeholders, clientele, and other multistate activities?   For example, committee results delivered at workshops, scientific conferences, and publications.

  o       Is there evidence of collaboration (collective interactive activity) among the committee members? Evidence for collaborative activities could include attendance at multistate meetings and demonstrated accomplishments resulting from meetings and planning activities.

  o       Has the committee moved beyond a collection of individual activities and ideas to some collective, integrated activity? Provide evidence of synergy, collaborative output via joint publicity, specific coordinated activity, etc.

• Committees must demonstrate why a multistate project will succeed where an individual project cannot.

• Proposals must clearly state the role of each participating station.

• Other factors taken into account by the MRC:

1.        Outputs: Defined products (tangible or intangible) delivered by a research project. Examples of outputs are reports, data, information, observations, publications, and patents)

• Does the committee routinely publish? Has the committee hosted or taken part in workshops or seminars.

2.        Impacts: Actual or intended potential long-term outcomes and impacts. Committees should build information around the activity's milestones, as identified in the original proposal. The report should also reflect on the items that stakeholders want to know, or want to see. List any grants, contracts, and/or other resources obtained by one or more project members as a result of the project's activities. Include the recipients, funding source, amount awarded and term if applicable. If the committee is filing an annual report, the impacts will cover only the current year of the project; for termination reports, list impacts from the entire span of the project. To aid in understanding the “accomplishment” description, the MRC offers these additional definitions:

Additional Definitions of "Impact":

“The economic, social, health or environmental consequences derived as benefits for the intended users. These are usually quantitatively measured either directly or indirectly as indicators of benefits.”  [Example will be inserted.] Source: National Multistate Guidelines - Glossary  

 “The quantifiable difference a land-grant program makes in the quality of life for its clients and general citizenry.’ Supplementing that brief statement is also the definition of an impact statement: ‘A brief document that describes the social, environmental, and/or economic difference that your research, teaching, or extension efforts have made on the public. Specifically, it states your accomplishments and the payoff to society.” Source: National Impact Statement Writing Team  

Activities: Organized and specific functions or duties carried out by individuals or teams using scientific methods to reveal new knowledge and develop new understanding. 

Milestones: Key intermediate targets necessary for achieving and/or delivering the outputs of a project, within an agreed timeframe. Milestones are useful for managing complex projects. For example, a milestone for a biotechnology project might be "To reduce our genetic transformation procedures to practice by December 2004."  

Indicators: Qualitative surrogate observations or indirect measures of quantitative performance measures which permit monitoring the achievement of outcomes when direct measurement of performance is difficult, too costly, or not possible. An indicator of cultivar adoption might be seed certification records, rather than actual land area planted to that cultivar. Has the committee made quantitative impacts?

3.        Progress since the midterm review based on outputs, impacts and milestones. 

4.        Objectives: Clear, concise, attainable one-sentence statements for each researchable objective arranged in a logical sequence.  Include only objectives on which the committee can make significant progress during the life of the project with the resources committed.  Do not specify the exchange of information, the coordination of research, the development of standardized techniques, or joint publication as objectives, as these are to be organized under other types of activities. 

5.        Timelines and benchmarks to gauge success must be evident in the proposal. 

6.        Participation: Proposal must include participants with sufficient expertise and geographical distribution to adequately address the objectives. 

7.        Outreach/Technology Transfer: Proposals must document stakeholder involvement. 

8.        The committee must write a title clearly, concisely and in lay language. 

9.        The committee must demonstrate a complete CRIS search to ensure no overlap with other committees both regionally and nationally. 

Action Requested: MRC presented this document to the NCRA during the meeting. 

Action Taken: The MRC requests that any changes be forwarded to Arlen Leholm (leholm@cals.wisc.edu) NO LATER THAN August 15.  The MRC will present a final version during the September 2007 meeting. 

Item 7.0: ESCOP Reports

Item 7.1: Science and Technology Committee
Presenters: Steve Pueppke, Forrest Chumley

Background: Not much has happened recently.  The group recently held a conference call and is in the process of re-orienting the committee. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None. 

Item 7.2: Communication and Marketing Committee
Presenters: Bill Ravlin, Arlen Leholm

Background:

The “Marketing the SAES” white paper is a result of work by the ESCOP Communications and Marketing Committee.  In February of 2007, this committee was asked by ESCOP and some members of the AHS group to develop compelling reasons why our nation’s State Agricultural Experiment Stations need a marketing strategy. Included in this brief, is a list of frequently asked questions and answers concerning the proposed marketing strategy.

This agenda brief can also serve as a resource to the joint meeting of ECOP and ESCOP in Philadelphia. Elbert Dickey, Dean and Director of Extension in Nebraska, has been a key contributor to the ESCOP Communications and Marketing Committee.   

Marketing the SAES 

Despite the vital work and exciting discoveries at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES), we believe there is insufficient visibility for sustenance of our programs, let alone the growth which the nation needs. We seem to suffer not just from a shortage of fiscal resources but also from a lack of a recognized identity. Too few in Washington D.C. and elsewhere know of us, our mission, and the substance of our research efforts. To remedy this situation, the ESCOP, Communication and Marketing, Committee recommends a marketing (educational) campaign aimed at key federal officials who make the funding decisions upon which our collective destinies depend.  

How do we build upon existing efforts to get better recognition of SAES and turn that into strategic support for our programs? The ESCOP, Communication and Marketing, Committee believes that earlier and repeated use of the media to educate and attract major sponsors for our programs is the best way to go forward. We have to build support in home districts and states of our congressional champions and convert that locally-based support into explanations of and publicity for the national SAES system. 

Challenge

Over the past fifteen years (F.Y. 1992 to F.Y. 2006), Hatch program funds have been steadily eroded by inflation.  As measured in constant 2000 (inflation adjusted) dollars, Hatch funding was $192 million in F.Y. 1992 and $153 million in F.Y. 2006. During this same time period (and again measured in constant 2000 dollars), appropriations for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increased from $8.6 billion in F.Y. 1992 to $24.0 billion in F.Y. 2006 and funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) increased from $2.2 billion in F.Y. 1992 to $3.6 billion in F.Y. 2006.  

Why have NIH and NSF thrived while funding for the SAES system has withered?

• NIH and NSF have a strong cadre of congressional supporters who understand the agencies’ missions, support their goals, and champion their causes.

CSREES and the SAES institutions do not have legislative champions who are ready, willing, and/or able to provide the sustained leadership necessary for significant SAES funding growth.

Recommended Solution

The land-grant system (including the Experiment Station Section) has a strong and effective lobbying effort in place. We believe that this existing effort needs to be complemented by a narrowly-focused education campaign aimed at no more than 20-30 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. We need these members to understand:

• What we do in their state or district.

• What we do for the nation and the greater global community.

• How federal SAES funds leverage state, local, and private funds.

• Why increased SAES funding – both through the formulas and competitive methods – is so important.

The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee recommends that the Experiment Station Section retain a nationally recognized marketing firm to help us establish a brand identity and educate federal decision-makers. 

Who, What, Why, Where and When of a State Agricultural Experiment Station Marketing Strategy 

Why do State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) need a marketing strategy?

• The SAESs lack identity, are difficult to describe, and have not achieved the financial and political support levels necessary to take full advantage of their problem-solving and economic development capacity. The SAESs, a $2 billion per year enterprise, do virtually no marketing at present.

• The land-grant system’s current lobbying approach has worked well, but is not designed to educate key federal decision-makers at a level more than needed to support the lobby effort. 

What will the SAESs achieve with a marketing effort?

• It will link state and local-based research impacts to dynamic, integrated and competitive food, agriculture, human systems, forestry, and environment research institutions.

• Also, a successful marketing effort will allow for a more educated base to support increased, sustainable funding (which must include both competitive and formula/capacity-building resources).  

Who is the key audience for the SAES marketing strategy and where should the SAESs first focus resources to obtain the most impact?

• In the next few years, ESCOP should focus the primary marketing message on key members of the House and Senate and House Agriculture and Appropriations Committees and their relevant subcommittees. The SAESs might also focus on leaders in OMB, OSTP, and USDA.

• By initially focusing on key Members of Congress (in their local districts) we would limit the targets and link a national marketing campaign by utilizing experiment station communication expertise already in place to provide access to the local media and other outlets. This would be the most strategic and cost effective approach to marketing the SAESs.  

Should a SAES marketing strategy include teaching and extension functions?

• A skilled marketing firm will help the SAESs determine how best to craft marketing messages for maximum impact. Clearly, teaching and extension functions need marketing assistance too; an integrated approach would better represent the system’s breath and depth.

• The advantage for marketing the SAESs includes its ability to develop multistate research teams and rapid responses to national issues.

• No matter the mission involved, a successful marketing effort must remain focused, simple, economical, and directed at those individuals who affect system budgets. 

Doesn’t our advocacy firm already perform the marketing function as part of its lobbying contract with the SAESs through NASULGC?

• No the existing advocacy firm, hired to lobby Congress on behalf of the Colleges of Agriculture, Extension, the SAESs, etc. does not have the marketing function in its contract. However, the marketing strategy must coordinate closely with the lobbying effort – a strong marketing effort would complement and strengthen the system’s effectiveness. 

What attributes and experiences must a marketing firm possess if selected to develop and implement a SAES marketing strategy? Where would the firm deliver the messages?

• The firm must have demonstrated congressional marketing success and it must understand how to influence our key target audience.

• The firm must be able to deliver marketing messages to the key members in their home districts and to the most important media markets that influence those members but be able to tie local outcomes to a national SAES system.