Goals for Today’s Session

1. Goals for Today’s Session • Introduction of PANEL • Review Survey Format and Findings • Share Comments from Las Vegas NAO Workshop • Discuss Next Steps

2. PANEL • Mary Mitchell, Executive Director Manhattan-Staten Island AHEC. • Susan Moreland, Executive Director North Louisiana AHEC. • Richard Kiovsky, Program Director Indiana AHEC Program. • Richard Perry, Program Director Oklahoma AHEC Program.

3. SURVEY OF AHEC CENTER AND PROGRAM LEADERSHIP ON RELATIONSHIPS: CHALLENGES AND BEST PRACTICES National AHEC Organization 2010 Annual Conference Las Vegas NV June 23, 2010

4. Plan for the Las Vegas Workshop • Purpose of Survey • Survey Format • Survey Results • Group Breakout • Groups Report Back • Open Discussion and Next Steps

5. Purpose of Survey “There are different demands and pressures on program offices and centers and there will naturally be areas of tension. We (the NAO) would like to begin to identify some of these sources of conflict and challenge and, also identify some “best practices” from centers and programs offices that have successfully addressed these issues”. January, 2010

6. Format of Survey • Demographic data of PO or Center identified • Anonymous with National Aggregate Pooling • 16 issues identified requiring regular interaction between Program Office and Centers – rated by “time” and “challenges”. • Levels of interaction assessed on same 16 parameters – “hands-off” and “hands-on” • Most problematic areas identified • Possible solutions or “best-practices”

7. 16 Issues Identified • Revenue/fund-raising for Centers • Budget Management • Fed/St $$Allocation • Program Planning • Contract Management • Networking • Legislative Advocacy • Grant Writing • Revenue for PO • Program Deliverables • HRSA Competitive Renewal • Data Collection and Analysis • Progress Reports • AHEC Boards • Capacity Building • PO Expectations of CD to provide timely info

8. Data: Center Directors • N = 89 responses. 38% of total centers. • Tenure: almost normal curve. 52%<5 yrs. • Center established: 75% > 5 yrs, 55% >10 years. • Structure: 501c3 – 53%. Hosted – 47%.

9. Data: Center Directors Challenges in Relationship with Program Office = wide range, but a few issues predominate. • Revenue and Fundraising: 54% • Data Collection/Analysis 36% • Program Outcomes (Deliverables impacting Perf. Meas.)**** 34% • PO Expectations of CD’s to provided timely information 32% • Legislative Advocacy 30% Issues Requiring “Regular Interaction” with Program Office • Data Collection/Analysis: 58% • Program Outcomes (Deliverables) 57% • Legislative Advocacy 56% • Program Planning 56% • Progress Reports 52%

10. Comments: Center Directors Most Frequently Mentioned “Difficult Problems”:

11. Illustrative Comments: Center Directors

12. Data: Program Directors • N = 43 responses. 83% of total programs. • Program Established: 75% > 10 yrs • Tenure: 52%<5 yrs. 24%>10 yrs. • Previous Center Director?: 79% NO • Previous AHEC Staff?: 79% NO • Structure of centers: • 501c3: 30% • Hosted: 26% • Mixed: 44%

13. Data: Program Directors • Challenges in Relationship with Centers • Statewide Revenue and fundraising 63% • Revenue/fundraising for CENTERS 54% • Program Outcomes (Deliverables impacting Perf. Meas): 42% • Technical Assistance 37% • Capacity Building (Board Dev. & Board Issues) 37% • Issues Requiring Regular Interaction with Centers • Program Outcomes / Deliverables 81% • Program Planning 81% • Collaborations/Networking 79% • Budget Management 72% • Coordinating Progress Reports 72%

14. Comments: Program Directors Most Frequently Mentioned “Difficult Problems:” • Disagreement with/Resistance to Program Office Goals/PO Leadership/Expectations of PO: 34% Comments re: “center & host agendas and goals conflict with state AHEC goals” • Funding/Invoices: 29%

15. Illustrative Comments:Program Directors

16. “Hands On” Collaboration Rate 1-5,with 1 being “hands off” and 5 being “hands on,” the level of collaboration your center/program has with your program/centers on the following issues: (%=very or somewhat “hands on”, rating 4 or 5) IssueCentersProgram Progress Reports 27% 65% Revenue/Statewide 24%**** 62% Federal/State $ Allocation 47%*** 62%

17. “Hands On” Collaboration, Cont’d Issue Center Program Provide Timely Information 37% 60% Competitive Renewal 47% 59% Program Outcomes 36% 58% Technical Assistance (Data) 36% 56% Legislative Advocacy 31% 53% Contract Management 31% 46% Collaboration/Networking 23% 45% Grant Writing/Management 16% 43% Program Planning 21% 42%

18. What Did We Learn from Vegas?

19. CD/PD Survey on Relationships:Round Table Discussions 8 round table topics: • Communications • Fundraising • Conflict between Center/Host Agenda and State Goals • Contract Management • Data/Technical Assistance/Reports • Program Planning for Competitive Renewal • Capacity Building/Board Development • Program Outcomes/Deliverables

20. 4 Primary Needs for Better CD/PD Relationships • Joint planning, decision making, responsibility rather than direction by fiat or one-directional. • Mutual Respect. • Clarity and agreement on roles and expectations. • Congruence among goals – local/center, state and federal.

21. 3 Solutions • Create a culture of open communication among all stakeholders • Regular opportunity for full explanation and discussion of points of view. • Clearly stated expectations by all.

22. Suggested Direction for NAO Orientation and Training Input / Process/ SolutionsOutput / Result / Needs Respect (give) Respect (get) Clarity and agreement on roles (People know where they fit) Clearly stated expectations Understanding of expectations (People know what they are supposed to do). Joint Planning Congruence of goals and agenda Full explanations People share in decision- making, information sharing, responsibility & buy-in

23. So, What Now? • There is nothing new to these ideas as to how to have strong personal and organizational relationships with others. • But, our membership identified these relationship issues as those that are most problematic when dealing with the ‘other’ group (center director or program director).

24. So, What Now? • Next Steps: • SHARING – Group Work • How would YOU like to be involved? • What can YOU do to affect change in some of the problem areas in your state/region?

25. Competing Pressures in AHEC Center and Program Relationships Prescribed or Formal Structure Funding Agenc(ies) University Program Director • Reality Center Director(s) Developmental or Organic Structure Community/Board/Funders Staff