(Prepared by the Statewide Project)

INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS:

• California Community College Chancellor's Office 
• California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 
• California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo
• California State University, Chico
• California State University, Fresno
• College of the Sequoias 
• DQ University
• Hartnell  College
• Kings River Community College
• Los Medanos College
• Santa Rosa Junior College
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Davis
• University of California, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources
• University of California, Riverside

ORGANIZATIONAL PARTNERS:

• Bank of America 
• California Canning Peaches Association 
• California Farm Bureau 
• California State Department of Food and Agriculture 
• Minority Agricultural Resource Center
• National Farm Workers' Service Center
• Organic Farms
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Phase 1 of the California Food and Fibers Futures Project (CF³) began in January of 1997. The following describes our intentions and accomplishments thus far. We have made strong commitments to diversity in our steering committee and in our inclusion of visioning participants. We are also committed to a strong evaluation component by employing an outside evaluator who is charged with giving honest, accurate feedback throughout the process. Our visioning is guided by a conceptual framework which has as its centerpiece statements of purpose, principles, values, and issues. The steering committee has identified six key overriding principles which inform and reflect our process: equity, opportunity and access for all, mutual respect, ethical behavior, integration of ideas and perspectives, and coordinated efforts that result in partnerships.

PURPOSE FOR PHASE 1

The California Food and Fibers Futures  Project (CF³) accepts the teaching, research, and outreach challenges facing the food and fibers system and higher education in California. The purpose of CF³ is to refine our vision and our visioning skills concerning the broadly defined food and fibers system in California and to use that visioning process to enhance mutually beneficial connections between postsecondary education, the food and fibers system, environmental issues, present and future professionals in the system, and state residents.

The points of intersection that defines our purpose have to do with forming partnerships, understanding the issues that impact food and fibers futures, and relationships with the higher education system. Our purpose is inclusive of the expectations, accomplishments, learning and contributions expected of higher educational systems in California, our stakeholders, and community.

PHASE 1: VISIONING PLANNING

We expect our vision of the future to be constantly evolving as we continue to hear from and include new stakeholders, identify new challenges, develop productive habits of collaboration, and shape innovative educational initiatives. We envision highly progressive models of interaction and communication which provide for the flow of information among residents, scientists, and stakeholders. We are particularly committed to reaching those who have not had a voice in the system, those who have not had access to information and resources, and those most in need of the benefits of our knowledge and advancements.

A pilot visioning activity was conducted with the Steering Committee as the participants to test pilot a visioning process. Visioning is proceeding in three stages:

Stage 1 is regional, focusing on institutions, either singly or in concert with their regional partners. 

Stage 2 takes a broader perspective by identifying and working with stakeholders from around the state who were not included in Stage 1. 

Finally, stage 3 is a capstone conference bringing together input from Stages 1 and 2. It will also include outcomes and participants from visioning which have recently been conducted in the state but which are not a part of the CF³Project.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES COMPLETED BY THE END OF PHASE 1

By the completion of Phase 1 the California Food and Fibers Futures Project (CF³) expects to have:

1. formed, defamed, and empowered a Steering Committee;

2. constructed a vision for a shared future for California reflecting input from and review by educators, stakeholders, and constituencies;
3. constructed a vision for each participating school and infuse those visions into the shared statewide vision;

4. enhanced working relationships
 (a) among institutions, 
(b) among food and fibers system members, 
(c) between food and fibers system members and the general populace, 
(d) between postsecondary education and food and fibers system students, stakeholders, and constituencies;

5. developed collaborative processes and professional expertise for enhancing on-going visioning and change;

6. developed frameworks which can enable a vision to actually contribute to institutional change;

7. increased opportunities for relevance and responsiveness of postsecondary education to constituencies and stakeholders, including inclusion of new educational and communication technologies;

8. strengthened postsecondary education's communication with and ties to minority, traditionally excluded, and newly emerging constituencies and stakeholders;

9. enhanced understanding and promoted inclusion of ethical concerns, new models of thinking, and broad social contexts into food and fibers professions education;

10. developed and maintained appropriate relationships with the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and other visioning consortia;

11. increased understanding of food and fibers systems in the broader social context by food and fibers system members, by agricultural and environmental interest groups, and within institutions of postsecondary education;

12. increased expertise among a number of postsecondary education personnel in visioning processes, activities, applications;

13. statement of initiatives directed toward achieving the vision also derived from the input of a broad range of people in California and which responds to their needs and dreams;

14. the timely completion of formative and summative evaluation reports as indicated by WKKF requirements and the requirements of the Steering Committee; and

15. the creation and submission of a successful Phase 2 Proposal.

PROJECT ORGANIZATION FOR PHASE 1

CF³ is organized to foster stewardship of the project as a whole by incorporating two important components: a Steering Committee that provides direction for the project and a project management team that facilitates communication and coordination of project activities. As the lead institution, the University of California, Davis has provided office space, administrative support, and other resources essential to the project's management. Dr. Barbara Schneeman, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences and Dr Ross MacDonald, Director of Special Projects at the University of California, Davis are the Project Directors and have the responsibility of project management, coordination, and facilitation. An outside evaluator and retired professor of education, Dr. Ned Flanders, designs and oversees evaluation of all activities; conducts formative and summative evaluation. The project consultant, Steve Bosserman, guides the steering committee in its visioning process by providing the conceptual framework that guides the visioning process by giving it integrity. The project coordinator with the aid of student assistants provide administrative support.

EVALUATION PLAN FOR PHASE 1

Evaluation Methods

The evaluator plays a critical role both in shaping the project as it proceeds and in assessing the project overall as it ends Phase 1. The Project has three related areas of concern for evaluation: Steering Committee; Visioning Processes; and Project Outcomes. The evaluation processes are both formative -- intended to enhance our activities as we are engaged in them; and summative -- intended to provide an objective, in-depth set of  judgments about the quality of our activities, the degree to which our stated goals have been met, and analyses of unintended effects both positive and negative. Our evaluator has provided four basic evaluation tools:

A. Journal entries: one individual's running commentary and impressions of an event or activity.

B. Paper and pencil questionnaires: using single-scaled and double-scaled items to assess changes in people's perception before and after an activity.

C. Interviews (one to one or buzz groups): participants divide into pairs, discuss issue and give verbal report or a trained interviewer completes a longer planned interview.

D. Group activities: role playing, interpretation of Polaroid snapshots, etc.

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation reports address these important questions:

• Steering Committee and Visioning Teams:

1. To what degree is the Steering Committee representative of the key partners and stakeholders?

2. What processes do institutional representatives use to gain input from faculty, stakeholders, and administrators?

3. To what degree is there an environment of trust, openness, and purpose?

• Visioning Activities and Processes:

1. Who is involved in visioning activities, and how are they reached?

2. Are visioning goals of diversity, inclusiveness, and attentiveness being met?

3. What changes and refinements occurred during the visioning process as the project matured?

• Project Outcomes:

1. To what degree were the project objectives met?

2. What changes in structure and policy were identified as needing to change for long-term success?

3. To what degree do stakeholders and other participants feel that a sustained process has been initiated that will transcend the lifetime of this specific effort?

CONCLUSION

Out of the need for information and a regard for the potential of science to provide it, Congress passed the 1862 and 1890 Morrill Acts, ensuring funds for a new type of institution

-- a "land grant" university that would conduct research, teaching, and outreach in agriculture and the mechanical arts and provide access to all to postsecondary education. These universities have proven to be a noble and powerful tool for advancing agricultural and civics education. However as we approach the 21st century, the land grant university faces serious challenges. Agriculture is now an entire system of concerns and issues regarding food and fibers production, the environmental concerns, and consumer practices and cultures in regard to health, safety, and well-being; all of which are inextricably linked to societal issues.

Like other regions in the United States with a collection of institutions whose roots are in agriculture, postsecondary education in California is faced, therefore, with the dual challenge of clarifying its mission in a manner that emphasizes the total food, fibers, and environmental systems from production through consumption (Meyer, 1993) and of redefining "its public and scientific roles in an environment of rapid scientific change and public debate and disunity" (Danbom, 1992). Accepting this dual challenge is the California Food and Fibers Futures Project, which is committed to an on-going effort to (a) work collaboratively to link issues of production with environmental stewardship, resource planning, and societal issues and contexts; (b) reformulate educational responses and models to prepare the food, fibers, and environmental system professionals for the 21st century; (c) integrate ethical thinking and societal knowledge into the teaching, research, and outreach mission of the land grant university; and (d) enhance institutional and personal benefits for forward thinking in these areas.

Danbom, D. B. (1992). Research and agriculture: Challenging the public system. Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7(3), 99-104.

Meyer, J. H. (1993). The stalemate in food and agricultural research, teaching, and extension.