Transcript WCRSDP Assessment Report Engin Sungur Jon Anderson

WCRSDP Assessment
Report
Engin Sungur
Jon Anderson
UMM Statistics
Outline






Introduction and Overview
Overview of Identified Assets of Region
Overview of Identified Lacking Assets
Overview of Identified Needs of Region
Assessment of WCRSDP Projects
Discussion
Overview



During fall 2004 and winter 2005, board
members, grantees, and other partners
completed surveys meant to identify existing
assets, lacking assets, and needs of our region.
During spring 2005 data and responses were
analyzed and a report prepared.
This presentation is a summary of our analysis
findings and the start of the next phase of the
evaluation and assessment process: using what
has been learned.
Data Collection Instruments



WCRSDP Board Member Survey: 14 current or
past members responded.
Grant Recipient Survey: 7 responses.
Partner Survey: 20 responses
Tonight’s Procedure




You will work, we will officiate.
For each section, we will present our survey
findings.
You will then complete the survey instrument
we have provided concerning that section. You
will provide additional assets or needs not
mentioned in our survey results.
Then we will discuss this section together.
Existing Assets



Physical: clean air, clean water, close to nature,
potential for natural energy sources, productive
land.
Demographic: innovative, creative people,
retired people.
Institutional: UMN/UMM, education
institutions generally, Center for Small Towns.
Existing Assets



Economic: Agricultural resource potential, low
cost labor force, locally owned businesses.
Social: Entrepreneurship, quality of life.
Cultural: arts culture/counterculture, work
ethic, caring for others, care about lifestyle.
EXISTING ASSETS
CAPITAL
TOURISM
HIGHWAYS
INDUSTRY
FOOD NETWORK
LOCAL INVESTMENT
LOW COST LABOR
ECONOMIC
ABILITY TO LEVERAGE
DOLLARS
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
SMALL BUSINESSES & FARMS
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AGING
POPULATION
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE & LAND
STEWARDSHIP CONNECTION
HUMAN-MADE ELEMENTS
QUALITY OF LIFE
ENTREPRENEURS
INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE COMMITTMENT
UMN & UMM
UMN RESEARCH
SOCIAL
CENTER FOR SMALL TOWNS
UM EXTENSION SERVICES
WORK ETHICS PIONEER PUBLIC TV
CARING FOR OTHERS
EDUCATION
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
INSTITUTIONAL
HEALTH CARE PURCHASING
CULTURAL
REGIONAL IDENTITY
REGIONAL
PARTNERSHIP
ARTS CULTURE, COUNTERCULTURE
EVOLVING EXPERIENCE
CORE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO
CHURCHES
VALUE REGION’S LIFE STYLE
CURRENT PROJECTS
DEMOGRAPHIC
INNOVATIVE
INTEGRITY ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT GROUPS
TALENTED ASSOCIATIONS & NON-PROFITS
RETIRED PERSONS
LOW POPULATION DENSITY
PEOPLE
NATURE
PRAIRIE
CONNECTIONS
CLEAN AIR
CLEAN WATER
WILDLIFE
OPEN SPACES
MINNESOTA RIVER
WETLANDS
CLIMATE DIVERSITY
GLACIAL RIDGE
PHYSICAL
SOIL PRODUCTIVITY
AGRICULTURAL LAND
WIND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FOR ENERGY
NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM
BEAUTY OF NATURE
Lacking Assets



Physical: land use thinking, land use planning.
Demographic: young people.
Institutional: regional development
commission, administrative support with UMN,
health care.
Lacking Assets



Economic: economic infrastructure, retail
sector, job creation ability.
Social: visionary people, base of engaged
people.
Cultural: cultural and art opportunities, dining
opportunities.
LACKINGASSETS
CAPIT AL,
WEALT H
T OURISM
OPPORT UNIT Y
INFRAST RUCT URE
FOOD
NET WORK
ECONOMIC
RET AIL BUSINESSES
LOCAL INVEST MENT
LOCAL PROCESS OF SOME
FOODS
ENERGY & ALT ERNAT IVE ENERGY
RESOURCES
HEALT H CARE PURCHASING GROUP
MEDIUM & HIGH PAYING BUSINESSES
LACK OF JOBS T HAT PAY A LIVING WAGE
HUMAN-MADE ELEMENTS
SOCIAL
CULTURAL
VISIONARY PEOPLE
CIT IZENS WIT H ENOUGH
T IME T O DEVOT E
ENVIRONMENT , ECEONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT & DIVERSIT Y
LACK OF INT EGRAT ION
OF INT EREST
YOUNG ENT REPRENEURS WIT H
INSTITUTIONAL
“ COMMUNIT Y BUILDING” SMALL BUSINESS INCUBAT OR
DEMEANOR OR COMMIT MENTINFORMAT ION & EDUCAT ION ABOUT
T HE BENEFIT S OF T HE REGION
CULT URAL & RECREAT IONAL
OPPORT UNIT IES HEALT H CARE
YOUNG PEOPLE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DIVERSE PEOPLE
LACK OF T RUST BY T HE DEANS WIT HIN U
DEMOGRAPHIC
PEOPLE
CONNECTIONS
LAND USE T HINKING
PHYSICAL
NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM
BEAUTY OF NATURE
Needs



Physical: modest housing, water quality.
Demographic: none listed. (young people?)
Institutional: health care infrastructure, within
and between county partnerships,
telecommunication, and regional broadcasting
media. Combine redundant county and related
administrative functions.
Needs



Economic: economic development, affordable
health care, increasing wealth and capital.
Social: develop partnerships, enhance
communication, harness abilities of elderly.
Cultural: cultural activities and
restaurants/dining.
Partnership Assessment


Effectiveness: Scale 1 to 5, with Neutral=3.
Average rating: 3.54.
Comments: more resources (people and money)
would help, more accountability to project
leaders for funding received, keep enthusiastic
board members engaged, continue outside
evaluation of board.
Partnership Assessment


Sustainability: Scale 1 to 5, with Neutral=3.
Average rating: 3.92.
Comments: more quantitative and less
qualitative evaluation of projects needed, fund
projects over longer time period, keep in mind
triad of (economics, environmental impact, and
human capital) of a project – without one of the
three the project dies.
Partnership Assessment






High Investment, High Potential Returns, High
Need Areas:
Project
Actual Return
Pride of Prairie
Minimal
Renewable Energy
Moderate to Substantial
Health Care Purchasing
On-track for substantial
Mn River Basin Project
No Return to Minimal
Partnership Assessment






Moderate Investment, High Potential
Returns, High Need Areas:
Project
Actual Return
Hybrid Poplar
Minimal
Phosphorus
Minimal to Moderate
Biomass Project
Minimal to None
Methane Study
Potential for Moderate
Partnership Assessment










Moderate Investment, Moderate Potential Returns,
High Need Areas:
Project
Actual Return
Local Windpower
Unknown
Traverse BRE
Unknown
Swine Roundtables
Unknown
CERTS
Unknown
King of Trails
Moderate
Prairie Woods
None
Hwy 29
Minimal
Carbon Sequestration
Minimal
Partnership Assessment










Moderate Investment, Moderate Potential Returns,
Moderate Need Areas:
Project
Actual Return
UM Children’s Garden
Moderate
Walking History
Minimal
Rural Dev Scholarships
Minimal
Milan Housing
Unknown, Moderate?
WACCO Tech Project
Moderate
WACCO Mental Health
Moderate
Hwy 29
Moderate Expected
Evaluation
Minimal
Partnership Assessment






Projects consistent with aims and mission.
Variation in project effectiveness.
Funding outside partnership is related to
effectiveness.
Project administration quality.
High frequency of evaluation, discussion, planning,
workshops, feasibility, etc.
Consider projects as a portfolio with periodic
review to adjust to goals and performance.
Partnership Assessment


Consider multi-stage proposal design. Assessment
at end of each stage of project implemented and
overseen by board. Presuppose project will
continue at each stage, be prepared to stop funding
if project goes astray or increase funding if
warranted.
Consider mix of low-impact, low-risk projects
(CAP) in overall project mix.
Discussion

Next steps ?