Click on ESCOP Subcommittees to link to Annual Reports
ESCOP Executive Subcommittee
ESCOP Chair's Advisory Subcommittee
ESCOP Legislative Subcommittee
ESCOP Strategic Planning Subcommittee
ESCOP FY 1998 and 1999 Budget Development Subcommittee
ESCOP Nominations Subcommittee
ESCOP Resolutions Subcommittee
ESCOP-ACOP Leadership Development Subcommittee
ESCOP Genetic Resources Subcommittee
ESCOP Human Nutrition Subcommittee
ESCOP Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee
ESCOP Social Sciences Subcommittee
ESCOP Environmental Affairs Subcommittee
ESCOP/ECOP Image Enhancement Committee

Please see Chairs Advisory Subcommittee Report below.

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year:

The Chairs Advisory Committee which includes all members of  the Executive Subcommittee serves as a policy setting body between meetings of the full committee to provide advice and directions to the Chair and other subcommittees as appropriate. This committee met via teleconference on a monthly basis during the past year. Issues related to Title VIII were the major topic of discussion. Other topics included, but were not limited to GPRA, budget preparation and advocacy, impact assessment, strategic planning, new initiatives, interactions with USDA and other COPs and developing agendas for forthcoming meetings.

2. Major Issues or Opportunities Relevant to Subcommittee's Forthcoming Activities:

Hopefully the Title VIII revision of the Farm Bill will be complete by the end of this year.  As of this writing, only the conference committee had yet to act.  If  the new initiative is preserved one of the biggest issues will be to interact with the Department to get this program and the expanded genome effort in place.  The present uncertainties with regard to implementation of GPRA will also demand attention as will adoption and implementation of the new strategic plan.

3. Recommended Revisions to the Charge to the Subcommittee:

No recommended changes.

4. Plans for the Up-Coming Year:

It will be necessary to deal with policy and procedure issues as they arise.  The major programmatic issues that need attention are summarized in item 2.

5. Recommended Changes to the Membership:

No recommended changes.
 

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year (1996-97):
The Subcommittee has devoted its energies to the development of a draft Strategic Plan for the SAES System. The process of planning involved our traditional partners, and players from the broader agricultural community. T-5, in addition to its member-representative, interacted with the Strategic Planning subcommittee's chair both at the outset and in the final stages of this planning exercise. Moreover, joint meetings with ECOP's Strategic Planning Council helped coordinate this plan with extension's strategic directions. The penultimate draft of the SAES System Medium-Term Strategic Plan can be found at:

http://www.escop.msstate.edu/archive/strgpln.html

The plan will be discussed by the membership at the ESS meeting at NASULGC in November. Comments before the NASULGC meetings to the Subcommittee's Chair (dm184@umail.umd.edu) are invited.

2. Major Issues or Opportunities Relevant to Subcommittee’s Forthcoming Activities (1997-98):
Despite considerable efforts by the Subcommittee, the current plan fails to link with the implementation of the GPRA. This was a disappointment to many on the Subcommittee, but it was a logical consequence of timing. The present uncertainties with regard to GPRA implementation mandated that we either delay our activities for a considerable period, or simply say that we intend to participate (which we did say).

There are many significant points and issues that are addressed in the draft plan. ESS members are encouraged to look at the draft carefully, and come to the Section meeting prepared to make a decision on the document's adoption.  Subsequent to the November NASULGC meeting the Subcommittee will revise the plan, based on the Directors' input.  The Subcommittee will then meet in Las Vegas in early February to discuss issues and concerns face-to-face.  Following that meeting the Subcommittee will once again redraft the document in time for each of the regional associations of SAES Directors to discuss the redrafted plan at their Winter/Spring meetings.  Finally, all comments from all sectors will be assembled into a final draft document for consideration by the members of ESS, possibly by e-mail (Summer?), or at the November 1998 NASULGC meeting.  The decision on the final strategic plan's adoption process will be at the discretion of ESCOP's leadership.

3. Recommended Revisions to the Charge to the Subcommittee:
The implementation of the proposed Strategic Plan (if adopted) will require a re-evaluation of the ESCOP Subcommittee structure. Later in this report we propose that the Strategic Planning Subcommittee develop a plan for subcommittee re-structuring, for consideration at a later date. Thus, no recommendations are made at this time for any change to the Subcommittee's charge.

4. Plans for Up-coming Year:
If the Plan's concept is endorsed by the ESS, the Subcommittee would like to complete the document and work on its implementation. This would entail:

• Working with the ESCOP Budget Development Subcommittee to plan resource allocation patterns in the out years (i.e., five years out);
• Developing a marketing and advocacy plan for ESS, that links to the Strategic Plan;
• Planning for the creation of the national programs proposed in the Plan, hopefully in partnership with ECOP and ACOP;
• Working to finalize the formation of the National Impact Assessment/Image Enhancement Panels, as described in the Plan;
• Recommending to ESCOP the re-design and re-structuring of ESCOP's Subcommittees, to better address the emerging issues and tasks identified in the Plan;
• Initiating, with ECOP and ACOP, a longer term futuring process, looking outward on a 20 year horizon;

None are recommended at this time, as the Subcommittee's present membership is well suited to the proposed next tasks.

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year (1996-97):

• The FY 98 ESCOP Budget Subcommittee has not met since February of 1997 when it finalized its budget numbers and associated program descriptions.  Since that time, the subcommittee leadership has met numerous times by fax and teleconference with other members of the NASULGC Board on Agriculture Budget Committee.  The major topics of discussion have been related to the Fund for Rural America, the response to Senator Lugar's research title document, reauthorization of the Farm Bill Research Title and interactions with AESOP in keeping budget support at its highest possible level in all categories of our research portfolio.

• The ESCOP FY 99 Budget Subcommittee has met by fax, telephone and e-mail.  The chair and vice-chair of the ESCOP Subcommittee met with the Board on Agriculture FY 99 Budget Committee on February 21, 1997,  April 23, 1997 and September 17, 1997.  The vice-chair, along with the other Executive  Directors, also met with CSREES leadership on May 15, 1997 to discuss the CSREES budget and to enhance coordination and identification of high priority areas for the FY 99 budget.

• ESCOP developed a pairwise comparison test for budget lines within each of the major categories of the USDA research budget - base funds, NRI, special grants, and other.  The results of the pairwise comparison were used in the development of the ESCOP FY 99 budget. The budget was reviewed by the EDs, the membership of the ESCOP FY 99 Budget Subcommittee and the ESCOP Executive Committee.  The budget is a viable document that will be changed as the other members of the Board on Agriculture budget process come forward with their line item numbers and attempts will be made to develop a satisfactory system-wide document.

• The committee vice-chair and Dr. Terry Nipp, AESOP Enterprises, met with congressional staffers, representatives of  CSREES (NRI), OMB and OSTP on June 25-26, 1997 to discuss the FY 98, FY 99 budgets and the research title reauthorization. Specifically, a common topic in all of the discussions was the status of genome initiatives and the      mechanisms to identify prominent needs and the necessary support.

• The subcommittee is presently in the process of developing FY 99 budgets at three levels of funding.  FY 97 + 3%; + 8%; and 12% as prescribed by the Board on Agriculture FY 99 Budget Committee. These activities will be coordinated with ECOP and other members of the BOA Committee.

• The chair and vice-chair continue to interact with the Title VIII Committee and assist in the reauthorization process.

• The vice-chair has met several times with USDA offices, OMB, OSTP and congressional staffers to advance and assist in the development of an interagency Agricultural Genome Program to be funded via the research title.

• This subcommittee should take the lead in developing and implementing a BOA plan that addresses budgeting in the out years. This effort must be coordinated with the Strategic Planning Subcommittee and also be linked to the Image Enhancement/Impact Statement activities.

    See 3 above.
 
5. Recommended Changes to the Membership:

    None at this time.

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year (1996-97):

• Through teleconference, e-mail and fax the nominations subcommittee sought input from ED's  and SAES directors from throughout the U.S. regarding potential candidates for the position of Chair-elect of ESCOP.

• The name of Darrell Nelson, from Nebraska was submitted to ESCOP in Lake Tahoe in July with the recommendation that his name be forwarded to the ESCOP membership as the nominee for chair-elect.

• The committee has no additional offices for nominations to be prepared.

    None

3. Recommended Revisions to the Charge to the Subcommittee:

    None

4. Plans for Upcoming Year:

    The new past chair will assume responsibility for the next nomination cycle.
 
5. Recommended Changes to the Membership:

    At the discretion of the incoming chair of ESCOP.

Nothing to report.

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year (1996-97):

• Phases I-III of Class 6 completed
• Indianapolis Workshop Phase I (September, 1996);
• Participants’ individual locations for Phase II
• Washington DC for Phase III (June, 1997)
 
• Vicki McCracken served on NELD Advisory Committee; attended Winter and Fall meetings

• Planning for Phase I, Class 7
• Revisions/changes made to Guidelines for Phase II
• Added the Leadership Development Action Plan (LDAP) to assist participants and to encourage director support during Phase II.
• Added Goal-Getter System to facilitate behavioral change during Phase II and to better link Phases I and II with Phase III.

• Reanalyze the roles of the ESCOP/ACOP and the NELD (ECOP) Leadership Programs, as well as to review the needs for Leadership Development in the System

• Karen Kubena, Texas A&M, was named as ACOP successor to Jim Oblinger.  Jim Mortensen, ACOP will be rotating off and his successor needs to be named.

• For ESCOP, decision need to be made whether or not anyone rotates off and is replaced.

• Dr. Mayes remains as CSREES representative.

• Pam Monroe, Louisiana State University, and Duane Larick, North Carolina State University, were asked to serve on the Advisory Committee, in the status of previous participant.

• Phase I, Class 7 activities completed in Indianapolis (September 13-19, 1997) with 75 participants
• Regions:
North Central                                         17
Northeast (includes 5 from USDA)         10
Southern                                                 31
Western                                                  17
• Gender
 Female                                                  19
 Male                                                     56

• Phase III (Washington DC) planned for June 1-3, 1998

• Reanalyzing closely all Phase I activities with the goal of replacing less useful activities with more critical topics.

• Each year, one ESCOP and one ACOP representative should rotate off and be replaced.  It appears that 3-year terms would be most appropriate for maintaining continuity.  It is also suggested that the program coordinator remain on the committee for the class after serving as coordinator.

• Rotate membership on “workshop” calendar” vs. yearly calendar, i.e., Subcommittee members rotate “off” after Phase III experience.

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year (1996-97):

• The ESCOP Genetic Resources Subcommittee has met by telephone and e-mail twice and in Washington, D.C. on August 27, 1997 with members of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the Plant Genome.

• The subcommittee was briefed on the status of the genetic diversity white paper, development of a microbial germplasm database, consumer focus group activities and USDA/ARS and CSREES activities.

• The subcommittee is involved in the development of two strategic plans to assist in supporting plant breeding and genetics programs at Land Grant Universities.  These plans result from a two-day workshop (supported by USDA) held in St. Louis in September, 1996 and directed  by Dr. Ken Frey, Emeritus Professor, Iowa State University.  One plan deals with assurance that their will be a satisfactory number of scientists, primarily breeders and geneticists, in the LGUs to develop state-of-the-art cultivars of minor crops.  Minor crops are described as those lacking in sufficient sales to encourage/entice private research to continue to make available high quality cultivars for the general public's use.  The second plan is to assure the enhancement and evaluation of existing germplasm collections so that they are of  value to both public and private breeders who are involved in cultivar improvement.  Both plans have relied heavily upon the direction and judgment of private industry and land grant scientists and administrators.  They will call upon ESCOP leadership to develop a suitable framework to put these plans in place and to monitor and administer them in the coming decades.

• The subcommittee was updated by the IWG, as well as by industry representatives and congressional staffers on genomic activities associated with the Agricultural Genome Program.

• The subcommittee is working jointly with the NASULGC Board on Agriculture Biotechnology Committee and the USDA-ERS in the development of a questionnaire.  The questionnaire will seek information from across the Land Grant System about mechanisms of intellectual property protection for genetic resources and the distribution of any royalties developed as a result of sales of the intellectual property.

• Subcommittee members have met several times with USDA, OMB, OSTP,      members of IWG and congressional staffers about the development and implementation of an interagency Agricultural Genome Program.

• The subcommittee will assist in the implementation of the national plans resulting from the St. Louis workshop (Frey).

• We continue to meet frequently with members of the IWG, OMB, OSTP, and the USDA to assist in the development of an interagency Agricultural Genome Program.

• Nothing additional at this time, the committee is active and sufficiently charged.  The subcommittee should interact closely with FY 99 and FY 00 budget subcommittees as the genome program/initiative is further developed.

• See 3 above.

• None at this time, but membership will probably need to be expanded in the future.

• There were two meetings of a national IPM committee involving ECOP and ESCOP representatives.  Prime emphasis of initial meeting was to develop a strategy, plan and activities to enhance the potential for federal budget for IPM. This involved people from the State Ag Experiment Stations, extension service, federal partners and CSREES and non-government organizations.

• The integration of research and extension for IPM continues to progress. Currently, each region has a joint committee involving research and extension personnel. Additionally, a grant program in each region now has a process which involves receiving proposals for research, extension and joint-extension research proposals.

• Gerrit Cuperus of Oklahoma State University served as the IPM coordinator in USDA during the past year. He served in this role as an IPA. Harold Coble of NC State is due to assume the position in the fall of 1997. Communication enhancement continues to be a primary goal and a thrust of the joint research/extension group. A major component of one of the committee meetings was to identify and describe the data gathering activities that are occurring by five different entities. This data gathering activity involves information on pesticides, pesticide use, and pest management practices collected via several different federal and state programs.

• There was an enhanced effort at identifying the needs of the stakeholders. These needs are being identified at the state and regional level.

• During the year, a review was conducted of the pest-management information decision support systems with a set of specific recommendations by the study team.

• There has been an improved level of communication and coordination developed within and between agencies as the result of the work by the two IPA coordinators, Gerrit Cuperus and Barry Jacobson.

• The pest management budget at the federal level was a level where an increase was seen in two areas, that is, the pest management alternatives and the IR-4. The pest management alternatives program was successful in partnering with EPA to gain additional resources for RFP in the alternatives arena. A major development at the federal level was the creation of an office of pest management identified in USDA. The precise location and role responsibility of this office is being developed at the current time. The primary emphasis for establishing this office was language in the food quality protection act, which mandated certain activities developments by USDA. This office is expected to work with the agency with the land-grant system. There is a correlary minor use program group identified in EPA to facilitate working through some of the requirements put on stream by food quality protection act.

• The Food Quality Protection Act is expected to have a tremendously potential impact on the use of pesticides. There is a general view that the organic phosphates and carbonates are at great risk with the new Ag and its potential interpretation. A workshop has been planned through CSREES with the AWPA to review the potential impact and determine avenues of approach to this new challenge.

• The primary focus for emphasis for the next year needs to be in the development in an increase to resources for the program. Significant expectations have been created in the research, extension and stakeholder community with the administration's emphasis on IPM. Yet, significant new resources have not been realized as a result of this administration initiative. It is quite probable that a totally new approach will need to be engaged in order to create and forge the partnerships that will be required to gain additional resources and funding.

• There is a need to continue to strengthen the network from state to region to grower and to develop a more definitive and direct stakeholder involvement in the program.

• A primary emphasis of this upcoming year will be to identify ways in which to work effectively with the newly created office of pest management.

• Tracking and responding to issues of food quality protection act is expected to require a significant commitment on the part of many research and extension and stakeholder groups.

• A key activity, which the group expects to undertake during this year is the development of impact statements. The ECOP and ESCOP Leadership has concurred that impact statements are a critical element for telling the story about programs. The IPM group in its discussions has indicated that they wish to be significant participants in the providing of information and development of impact statements.

• Workshops. It is expected that regional workshops will be considered during this ensuing year.

• The labeling of products grown under IPM practices is becoming a prime issue and activity while at this time it is regional, it is expected that it will become a national venture during the current coming year.

• The group is probably at the point in which we should explore a unique designation of a co-ECOP, ESCOP, national IPM committee. Pest management has been in a leadership role to forge ahead in the collaboration, coordination and partnering of research and extension in program development, management and execution. It is timely to consider how this activity can receive formal designation and identity.

Social Sciences Subcommittee
Chair - Lou Swanson 

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year (1996-97):

• Held winter meeting in Washington, D.C. (Feb. 10th and 11th).  The committee received briefings on agricultural policy activities, particularly on Title VIII of the Farm Bill from Dr. Terry Van Doren of AESOP Enterprise and from Dr. Howard Silver of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA).  This meeting was expected to deepen the interdisciplinary efforts of the ESCOP social sciences.  These include Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Communications, Agriculture Education, Human Ecology, and Rural Sociology.

• At the same meeting spent an entire afternoon with Dr. Walter Walla, Extension Director at the University of Kentucky and Chair-Elect of ECOP.  The purpose of this meeting was to assess the degree of fit between ESCOP T-5 social science agenda (and ESCOP's Social Science Agenda) and the research needs of the Cooperative Extension Service.  (More on this below.)

• Meet with Dr. Colien Hefferan, Associate Administrator for CSREES and her staff.  Of particular note were extended discussions with Dr. Sally Rockey of the NRI and Dr. Pat O'Brien of the Fund for Rural America.  Both discussions focused on social science performances in USDA competitive grant programs.

• Held extended discussion with Dr. George Cooper and Dr. Fred Woods on the impending requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

• Provided invited testimony to Congressional Appropriation and Authorization committees in support of the NRI.  Testimony provide by Dr. Peter Barry (University of Illinois) and Dr. Jerry Skees (University of Kentucky).

• Fall meeting was held in Washington, D. C.  (September 15th & 16th).  Dr. Van Doren of AESOP Enterprises provided an extensive discussion of Title VIII of the Farm Bill and Dr. Howard Silver, COSSA provided a very detailed discussion of other Congressional activities affecting the social sciences.

• Dr. David MacKenzie provided an extensive presentation on ESCOP strategic planning.  This was a very important discussion for the representatives of ESCOP social sciences.  This discussion directly influenced T-5's decision to develop a publication highlighting the Social Sciences and the Land Grant Mission (which is a primary activity for the next year).

• This year's activities underscored the need to work much more closely with the research needs of ECOP.  T-5's research capacity closely matches the research needs of the Cooperative Extension Services, but much needs to be done for this relationship to prosper.

• It has become very apparent to the T-5 member disciplines that emerging Land Grant Missions (for example in the environment, rural development, GPRA, Multi-disciplinary issues, other social issues, communications) provide significant opportunities for the social sciences to facilitate mission evolution.   At the Fall meeting the T-5 membership voted to start the process of developing a publication (including brochures) that articulate the opportunities for the social sciences.

• We recommend no specific changes but would welcome more formal ties with ECOP.

• We plan to meet in Cincinnati, Ohio to develop a publication on the opportunities for the social sciences among the Land Grant Universities.

• We plan to develop/deepen T-5's relationship with CSREES's Rural Economic and Social Development Division.

• At the Fall meeting there were several potential new representatives nominated by their respective disciplines.  Our proposed list of membership for the new year will be forwarded from Dr. Jerry Klonglan of Iowa State.

• Dr. Lou Swanson (Colorado State University) was asked and agreed to serve a second year as Chair.

ESCOP Environmental Affairs Subcommittee Annual Report
Experiment Station Section-NASULGC Annual Meeting
Monday, November 17, 1997, 8:00 - 10:00 a.m.
Dr. Gerald Arkin (Georgia AES), Chair of the Subcommittee, Reporting

1. Activities Undertaken in the Past Year (1996-1997):
The primary focus of the Environmental Affairs Subcommittee is to work with the SAES/ USDA-CSREES National Environmental Initiative (SUNEI). SUNEI is a collaborative project of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) and the USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Launched in January 1997, the Initiative is building on the long-term Federal-state partnership between the Land-Grant Universities (LGUs) and USDA-CSREES. A primary goal of SUNEI is to extend the partnership to other agencies within and outside USDA that are involved in environmental and natural resource management programs and research.

Selected SUNEI activities since last November:

• Hired Mary-Ellen Devitt, Project Coordinator and set up Secretariat at University of Maryland.
• Appointed a Steering Committee and held an organizing meeting in March.
• Followed-up with EPA-Office of Research and Development (ORD) on the identified joint research agenda and discussed the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program Grants.
• Met with representatives of OSTP, NSF, EPA, and NASA to learn of program opportunities.
• Served on the Mid-Atlantic Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Steering Committee.
• Contacted lead institutions regarding the White House's Regional Climate Change Workshops and assisted in identifying the key LGU researchers on this issue for participation.
• Discussed with EPA's Office of ORD ideas for another LGU-EPA research conference.
• Produced a list of regional research projects with environmental abstracts for ORD.
• Integrated and oriented the CSREES Liaison, Chuck Krueger, into ongoing project activities.
• Reported to two regional water quality projects (NCS-5 and NEREAP-1) and the NASULGC Water Quality Task Force.
• Convened a planning group of SUNEI and NASA's Office of Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) personnel numerous times to explore collaborative opportunities and encouraged NASA's request for proposals on agriculutural/natural resources applications for geospatial data.
• Facilitated collaboration between EPA, NSF, and USDA on a $9 million competitive research grants program on water and watersheds for FY98.
• Created a WWW home page for ESCOP and SUNEI.
• Distributed regular communications about research, meetings, funding opportunities, etc.
• Wrote a research/education proposal for NASA-MTPE for the application of geospatial data.
• Held a brainstorming session with NASA and LGU scientists on geospatial tools, environment, and precision agriculture leading to a plan on interagency project areas and task forces.
• Coordinated LGU and NASA scientists to submit poster exhibits for the American Farm Bureau Federation Annual Meeting in January.
• Identified LGU scientists to serve on task forces for OSTP's NOAA led hypoxia assessment.
• Initiated joint planning for a conference between EPA-LGUs-NASA-USDA to expand areas of mutual interest and to improve local environmental decision making.
• Drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NASA and USDA.
• Worked with MTPE on a 90-day report to the Administrator of NASA and the Secretary of USDA on collaborative activities.
• Organized a meeting for Mid-Atlantic LGUs on Pfiesteria with the Under Secretary of REE.
• Drafted a proposal for a regional competitive research and extension grants program on Poultry Waste Management.
• Solicited projects for a SUNEI booth at the National Marketplace for the Environment Trade Show and Conference in November.

3. Recommended Revisions to the Charge to the Subcommittee:
Charge is sufficient for current activities.

4. Plans for Up-coming Year:
In the coming year, SUNEI will finalize the collaborative project areas and guiding principles documents and establish a structure for SUNEI Task Forces to begin communication through Internet chat rooms, conference calls, and meetings. Specifically, some activities may include:

• Planning a 'Summit' in late May 1998 with USDA, EPA-ORD, NASA-MTPE and other agencies to improve local environmental decisions.

• Holding a meeting of the Land, Sea, and Space Grant Institutions and their respective sponsoring agencies to discuss NEMO as a model for a national land-use planning program and applying it as the cornerstone of SUNEI's Land-use Planning Task Force.

• Working with USDA and other agencies to fund a competitive research and extension grants program for poultry waste management in the Mid-Atlantic and facilitating the expansion of this to a national competitive grants program on nutrient management and animal agricultural issues that are associated with water quality problems of Pfiesteria, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms.

• Facilitating the continued dialogue between NASA and USDA with a memorandum of understanding and coordinating with NASA-MTPE on education and outreach strategies to expand the use of geospatial tools and NASA data for agricultural, environmental, and natural resource management purposes.

• Developing collaborative relationships with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).

• Improving the political capital of the LGU System in the area of the environment and natural resource management by writing an environmental agenda, working with environmental groups, assisting with plans for congressional field trips and/or receptions and writing of congressional testimony, and forming a SUNEI Program Support Group of agency political appointees to advocate for the System.

As proposed jointly by ESCOP and ECOP approximately one year ago, regional impact teams have been formed in all regions.  The Impact 98 project is underway.

This year a clear distinction is being made between the national impact database development efforts and the refinements from the database, such as the Science and Education topical impact reports.

National Meeting for Regional Impact Teams:
Forty-two people from 61 states were involved in an Impact workshop in Minneapolis, Oct. 1, 1997.  The purpose was to help communicators who have been assigned as their state's representative to regional impact team understand what is expected, and provide them with training tools to be used with faculty and staff at their institution.  The over-riding goal is to improve the quality of impact submissions to the National Land-Grant/USDA Impact Database.

Timeline:
November 10, 1997 -- Letter sent to all Deans with 1998 Impact Topic List
November 14, 1997 -- Training materials distributed to regional reps. from NDSU
December 1, 1997 -- Web site for 1998 direct impact submissions will be open. Access to the web site will allow individual states to enter submissions from their state and edit existing material.  The 1998 impact database will be built from the foundation of 1997 submissions. Once submitted via the web site, new submission will be immediately available in the national database.
February 1, 1998 -- The team of writers assembled to develop the 1998 Science and Education impact series will download whatever is available on the national database.
February 10-13, 1998 -- Writer team will produce the 1998 Science and Education Impact series.

Regional workshops will be held by the North Central and Western regions to:
(1) Identify the best impact statements from the states for each impact topic area.
(2) Develop regional impact statements.

Science and Education impact report distribution:
In an experiment coordinated with AESOP Enterprises, 15 states have been sending the 1997 national Science and Education topical impact reports to their Congressional delegations and key staff members in two week increments. Each state has agreed to send the same topic to their delegations along with a cover letter indicating what their institution is doing in the topic.  Every two weeks another topic report is released.  If this proves effective, it may be expanded to all 50 states next year.

(end of reports)