Creating a Community Sounding Board

Gone are the days when Extension educators dealt primarily with agriculture and rural populations. Societal change and pressures have broadened Extension's clientele, research and information base, and educational methodology. Present-day problems of even traditional Extension clientele include more than farm production concerns, and are no longer solved merely by applying some improved technology. In many cases, today's troubles require working with local groups and stakeholders who have vested interests in the "public" policy alternatives and consequences of the problem.1 In some cases, technology transfer may be identified as the trouble. This article chronicles our efforts, operating as a team with other Extension educators, to work with nontraditional clientele. Our goal was to develop a training program focused on an analytical problem-solving model and interactive group processes for a city government eager to deal with the public and ongoing problems in a more proactive manner.

In the Spring of 1990, we were asked by the city manager of Fairfield, California, a city with a population of 80,800 to provide educational help to increase the number of community residents involved in the citizen participation process. They were frustrated by the "no-win" attitude at public meetings and the lack of community leadership on pressing issues such as affordable housing, open space preservation, and gang activity. The city manager and other city leaders wanted to create a citizen "sounding board" that would analyze important community issues, report potential solutions and their consequences, and make recommendations. Participation in the sounding board group could enhance the members' abilities as potential members of boards, commissions, and committees, and might interest them in remaining involved in city government affairs. City leaders were clear on their goals and outcomes, they weren't sure how to achieve them. Extension agreed to develop a comprehensive training program, funded by the city, to prepare citizens for participation in Fairfield's "Vision 2020 Sounding Board."

First, we organized a public policy education team of seven Extension educators: six from Solano County and neighboring counties, and the public policy specialist. Team member selection was based on a willingness to participate and expertise in public policy analysis and process training. Next, we split the six county-based members between two subgroups to design a plan for two training components: one that focused on a public policy analytical decision-making process and the other that provided participants with interactive "how-to" skills needed for implementing their public policy information within a group context.

Since much of the activity of the sounding board would be in meetings, the group process subteam developed educational materials based on an interactive meeting model.2 Organized around the three roles of facilitator, recorder, and group member, the model focused on a design for successful meetings, including agenda setting, goal identification, ground rules, active listening, full participation, and a written group memory. The materials also covered coalition building, conflict management, group maintenance, and teamwork.

The analytical decision-making subteam designed educational materials based on a problem-solving model used, and refined, in California over the past 15 years.3 This model is similar to many developed and used by Extension staff throughout the country.

We used a ladder to symbolize the problem-solving model: the rungs represent the steps involved in the analytical process. A ladder is a tool used in the construction of alternatives to the status quo. At the "problem" site, a ladder is used to go from where one is to where one wants to be. You start at the bottom, and proceed, rung by rung, to the top. You can go up and down the ladder to retrieve something, or you can stop at a certain rung for a specific purpose. At the completion of the job, you pick up the ladder and take it to another problem site.

The five-part model begins at ground level with a definition of the problem: selecting a problem topic (Step 1), identifying the situation and concerns surrounding that problem (Step 2), refining the problem into one or more specific issues (Step 3), and selecting and analyzing one issue in terms of a goal (Step 4).

Part II consists of identification of alternative solutions (Step 5) and their consequences (Step 6). In Part III, making a decision, the model helps establish criteria (Step 7) to choose an alternative solution (Step 8).

Part IV helps generate a strategy for implementing the decision (Step 9). Last, the model helps the user to evaluate the process (Step 10).

During the planning phase, we obtained agreement from the city leaders that we would involve both citizens and city staff as students. City staff would participate in the general educational sessions and in some additional "train the trainers" session so that they could act as faculty for future training cycles and as facilitators of various community group meetings. The city recruited through newspaper articles, local cable television, and fliers mailed to community groups. All 75 interested citizens who applied were selected by the city manager to be part of the first class of "Vision 2020 Sounding Board." Our analysis confirmed the city's success with inclusive recruitment. Half of the citizen participants were female, 32 percent were minority, and several were teens. The city manager also picked 12 city department managers to join the class.

In Phase I of the project, the group process subteam taught effective meeting skills ("how-to") over several Saturday sessions. Each educational segment consisted of an opening orientation and agenda-setting discussion with the entire class; intensive analytical work in small groups, each facilitated by one of the trainers and recorded by a city staff member; and a closing session to debrief the participants and outline the next session. Two primary group process goals were to increase the participant's group effectiveness and enhance her/his leadership skills through trainer-led small group demonstrations, practice, and feedback. Participants received a binder of handouts that complemented their newly learned skills.4

During the six evening sessions of Phase II, the decision- making subteam provided the class with a working knowledge of public policy, and demonstrated the use of the ladder model in creating viable alternative solutions to real problems. Breaking into small groups during each session, the trainees analyzed selected city issues, rung-by-rung, step-by-step, before debriefing their evening's work in a "what-went-well-and-what- could-have-been-better" evaluation. Individual and/or group analysis of other issues was assigned as homework. Throughout Phase II, the trainers emphasized that knowing "the answer" was less important than learning how to apply an analytical process to any problem. The trainers also modeled how to work within an effective and efficient group meeting process-the techniques taught in Phase I. More materials were added to the students' binders to supplement the training.

Evaluations were done twice: once midway and once at the conclusion of the program. Results indicated that 77% of the participants were pleased with the training results and this percentage remained constant to the end. City officials have since kept the public policy educational team updated on the sounding board's successes. Now in its third year, Fairfield's sounding board continues to function as an independent forum for discussing community issues before citizens and city government start to take sides. City managers credit the sounding board with defusing potentially hot political battles. Earlier in the year, when "teen cruising" became a problem in the downtown shopping area, a city proposal to ban the practice was passed to the sounding board for its input. Members went back to the community and polled neighborhood groups and local businesses. Ultimately, the sounding board recommended enactment of the city's proposal to the City Council. The measure won easy approval by the council and a ban went into effect with few objections from the community.

In 1991, a group of five city staff members, graduates of our educational program, became the trainers of 30 community volunteers in Cycle II of the sounding board. During the Fall of 1992, the city began recruitment for Cycle III.

Evaluations conducted by the team coordinator with the team members indicated they found the project to be highly useful on several levels. Some expressed enthusiasm for having learned presentation skills through the cross training and modeling done by other team members with more experience. The program was rich in research opportunities-one member gathered evaluation materials for use in her Ph.D. program. The concept and materials that were created for the project have been replicated and used in subsequent training projects in at least six other county, city, or community settings.

Should Extension be involved in community development on this level? Did we make a difference? Part of the original team was invited back in mid-1992 to provide a "refresher" course to the original city staff trainers and an additional 15 city employees, an indication that city officials still find the "Fairfield-Extension connection" relevant and useful. Team members also are involved with helping specific city staff in their ongoing roles as facilitators to city and community groups. As a result of excellent press coverage, the project heightened the public's exposure to Extension educators as being more than "agricultural" advisers. It also helped recruit new members to the Extension public policy educational team.

Some of the more traditional program Extension advisers acknowledge they can't ignore the public policy implications of their clients' problems, particularly in the ever-urbanizing state of California. They also concede that having the skills to help their clientele in examining their concerns, defining the issues, and identifying potential solutions is worthwhile and necessary. Demand for, and administrative support of, similar training for Extension staff has increased.

The success or failure of Extension programs in public policy isn't necessarily a function of the quality of the decisions made by citizens and their representatives. Quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the stakeholder. However, the program's success in Fairfield depended on whether our training process "improved" the breadth of community participation and the depth of the discussion, and whether, and how well, participants were able to use the process when next faced with a tough issue. More knowledgeable problem solvers make better, more informed decisions-a core Extension mandate and a core tenet of the democratic process.

1. Verne W. House and Ardis Young, Working With Our Publics, Module 6: Education for Public Decisions (Raleigh: North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, 1988).

2. Donna R. Ching, Designing Successful Meetings: A Participant's Guide (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1991).

3. James R. Reedy and L. Tim Wallace, The Ladder: An Analytical Decision-Making Process (Berkeley: University of California Cooperative Extension, 1992).

4. Mastering Meetings for Results: The Interactive Method (San Francisco: Interaction Associates, Inc., 1986).