Issues-Based Programming Shouldn't Be All-or-Nothing

Nelson's article is insightful, thought-provoking, and raises a number of interesting and challenging questions, but leaves the reader with the impression that issues-based programing is an all-or-nothing proposition. I join a number of other Extension professionals who believe it's not totally new. Many states have been basing programming on issues! The adoption of issues-based programming can be thought of as a "new label, new bottle, but old wine." True, the terminology and the process for selecting "issues" that translate into priority programs and initiatives may be different, but the results are the same. Extension will have identified problems, or in this case "issues," and developed programs it believes will be responsive in answering these problems and should elicit constituency support.

Nelson raises the question about whether issues-based programming is being initiated because it's new and modern rather than because it's a better process for program planning. I'd hope it's the latter. Over the years, Extension has broadened in program scope and content and adjusted delivery methods. Therefore, it's reasonable Extension should consider new planning processes to reflect this expanded scope of programs and new constituencies. Extension programming and the environment in which it operates is dynamic, so Extension's approach should be dynamic. I'd agree that Extension shouldn't change just to embrace a modern management concept unless the change is better.

Nelson suggests issues-based programming and discipline- based programming are mutually exclusive and incompatible. I don't believe that. I feel too much energy has been spent on suggesting incompatibility between the two, rather than looking at the complementary relationships. Issues-based programming and discipline-based programming are compatible. Issues-based programming depends on the disciplines for its foundation, and disciplines depend on issues for their survival.

Nelson indicates a possible inconsistency and conflict between the adoption of National Initiatives by the system and the concurrent encouragement of states to begin their own issues- based programming processes. It may appear inconsistent and problematic to have the states and the national level doing separate processes. But remember, present national issues and initiatives were developed from a process that included state input into the identification of issues. Also remember, both issues and initiatives, by definition, are dynamic and will change or dissipate over time. If the issues-based programming process is to have new life nationally, the states will need to initiate issues-based programming processes to provide input as replacement issues and initiatives are considered. With this grassroots input from the states and territories, new issues and initiatives should truly be reflective of the Extension System.

A valid concern is the potential interdisciplinary divisiveness. The potential for this divisiveness is greater if the concept and processes of issues-based programming aren't well -understood and are perceived as discipline competitive rather than collaborative. Many believe that competitiveness and lack of cooperation were major weaknesses in our previous planning systems. It provides a definite challenge to the state Extension Services and the national Extension staff to reinforce and promote the value and worth of the disciplines as the foundation of base programs as well as the issues and initiatives. Without a discipline-supported base, you have no foundation to return to when the issues and initiatives dissipate. It's also critical the reward system reflects this understanding.

There's some truth in Nelson's suggestion that individuals who have questioned issues-based programming and some of the processes involved have been labeled as cynics and "againers." While in some cases it may be cynicism, I believe in most cases it's an honest and professional concern about the appropriateness and utility of issues-based programming. The role of the "questioners" can be valuable when change is being considered or implemented, if these concerns are addressed honestly. Raising these concerns can contribute to change as it forces clarification of philosophies, concepts, and processes that should ultimately enhance both the change and the process.

Issues-based programming can be a useful concept to Extension and has the potential to enhance the relevancy of the Extension System to our constituency. However, a sensitivity must continue on suggested changes that will have an impact on the partnership at the various levels, and to consciously maintain sufficient flexibility to allow for these differences. Issues- based programming shouldn't be an all-or-nothing proposition.