Jo se ph E . Mo rris Dire c to r, No rth Ce ntra l Re g io na l Aq - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Jo se ph E . Mo rris Dire c to r, No rth Ce ntra l Re g io na l Aq ua c ulture Ce nte r (NCRAC) Io wa Sta te Unive rsity D. Alle n Pa ttillo Cha ir, NCRAC E xte nsio n Ba se Wo rkg ro up Io wa Sta te Unive rsity So rre l Bro wn Io wa
Jo se ph E . Mo rris Dire c to r, No rth Ce ntra l Re g io na l Aq ua c ulture Ce nte r (NCRAC) Io wa Sta te Unive rsity
Cha ir, NCRAC E xte nsio n Ba se Wo rkg ro up Io wa Sta te Unive rsity So rre l Bro wn Io wa Sta te Unive rsity E xte nsio n
fo r Applic a tio ns (RF A)
mpro ve c o mmunic a tio ns a mo ng a ll pa rtic ipa nts
nc re a se d ne e d to ide ntify impa c ts
pro g ra ms to the pub lic
A logic model is your program ROAD MAP
Where are you going? How will you get there? What will tell you that you’ve arrived?
a c tio n” – wha t is inve ste d, wha t is do ne , a nd wha t re sults
Provides a common framework for your work
Action Plan
INPUTS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES
Program investments Activities Participation Short Medium What we invest What we do Who we reach What results Long- term
Programs aren’t linear
Feedback loops and multi-dimensions
ha t wa y e ve n if yo u do n’ t finish yo u ha ve the info rma tio n fo r impa c t sta te me nts fo r e ve ry pro je c t
ha t wa y yo u g e t the da ta yo u ne e d
INPUTS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES
Investments
What we put into the program to develop it
Activities
How we structure our educational program
Participation
Who makes up the target audience for our activities?
Short
What will
audience learn?
Medium
What actions will they take as a result of
program?
Long
What conditions will change as a result?
THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE OUTCOMES
Source: Western Regional Aquaculture Center (WRAC)
OBJE CT IVE S: Our lo ng -te rm g o a ls a re to (1) De ve lop c ost e ffe c tive alte r native ingr e die nt die t for mulations that suppor t maximal gr
he alth and pr
(2) Inc r e ase utilization of alte r native ingr e die nts in tr
e r s r e gar ding amino ac id availabilitie s and r e te ntion e ffic ie nc ie s of synthe tic amino ac ids.
T
(1) I de ntify c o mme rc ia lly a va ila b le a lte rna te ing re die nt c o mb ina tio ns tha t c a n me e t the pro duc tio n ne e ds o f ra inb o w tro ut (2) Re duc e inte ra c tive g ro wth de pre ssio ns whe n no ve l c o mb ina tio ns o f ing re die nts a re utilize d b y re fining a mino a c id b a la nc e . (3) De te rmine ho w fo rmula tio ns in fish g ro wn to ma rke t size influe nc e g ro wth, fish he a lth, pro duc t q ua lity a nd c o nsume r a c c e pta nc e . (4) Me e t sta ke ho lde rs e duc a tio na l ne e ds (whic h a re ? ) thro ug h the de ve lo pme nt o f a n inte g ra te d o utre a c h pro g ra m inc luding a t le a st o ne WRAC E xte nsio n pub lic a tio n.
Ar e the following Outr e ac h e le me nts inc lude d and c le ar ly ide ntifie d?
the pre pa ra tio n o f the F ull Pro po sa l?
a rg e t Audie nc e s: Who will b e ne fit fro m re c e iving pro je c t info rma tio n
nte nde d L e a rning Outc o me s: Wha t will b e le a rne d fro m this o b je c tive
nte nde d Ma na g e me nt a nd/ o r Be ha vio ra l Outc o me s
nte nde d Outc o me s
nputs: Who will do wha t a nd a t wha t c o st?
va lua tio n Pla n
xte nsio n pub lishe d a g uide o n ho w to write use ful impa c t sta te me nts in 1971
e we r a nd fe we r Ame ric a ns invo lve d in pro duc tio n a g ric ulture
his me a ns tha t fe we r a nd fe we r le g isla to rs ha ve c o nstitue nts in pro duc tio n a g ric ulture
his me a ns tha t pub lic funding , b o th sta te a nd fe de ra l, fo r the la nd-g ra nt syste m is ha rde r a nd ha rde r to c o me b y
Cle a rly de fine d c ha ng e s a s a dire c t re sult o f the re se a rc h a nd e xte nsio n pro je c ts funde d
to ma rke ts
me tho ds, a nd re sulting c ha ng e s
stima te inc re a se s in pro duc tio n, de c re a se s in fixe d a nd va ria b le c o sts, a nd a c c e pta nc e o f ne w pro c e dure s
a q ua c ulture unit lic e nse c ha ng e s thro ug h sta te na tura l re so urc e a g e nc ie s
fflue nts
e e d supplie rs
ish pro c e sso r Ma ny o the rs e xist de pe nding o n the da ta ne e de d…
g e ne ra l pub lic
The outputs of this project are expected to provide enhanced pest and disease scouting protocols, more rapid diagnostic confirmation, and more timely pest management strategies for implementation by growers throughout the United States.
By improving ornamental irrigation efficiency by 50%, we can save more than 42 gallons of water per person for each of the 310 million people in the US each year. This will help conserve the nation’s water resources. This project will save over 13 billion gallons of water per year or enough for the water needs
Provide quantifiable evidence of change or difference the program made—money, health, environment, jobs) Give other evidence, e.g., trends, expectations, anecdotes, logical inference Realistically project potential benefit for work in progress or work whose impact is more long term Provide only enough detail to be easily understood Highlight public benefits, outcomes, payoffs
Numbers of people reached, meetings held, acres served—these provide context, but don’t capture the element of change essential to a good impact
A list of grants, honors, recognition for
A detailed description
process or what’s been done A long, detailed report Just more paperwork
Go a l fo r the se c ha ng e s is to impro ve c o mmunic a tio ns a mo ng a ll pa rtic ipa nts in the NCRAC c o mmunity while a lso a ssuring future funding o ppo rtunitie s.
Use d in pa rt fo r this pre se nta tio n -
lle n T a ylo r-Po we l (Unive rsity o f Wisc o nsin Co o pe ra tive E xte nsio n) “L
nha nc e Pro g ra m Pe rfo rma nc e ”
xte nsio n, E xte nsio n) “Outre a c h a nd Pub lic Re la tio ns: T he Diffe re nc e is in the Outc o me ”
F A “T he I mpo rta nc e o f I mpa c t Sta te me nts a nd Ho w to Write T he m”