In the public value message structure (seen
here for example), I distinctly separate private benefits to program participants from the public value accruing to the rest of the community. In a recent seminar for
Penn State University Agricultural Extension and Education program, I was asked whether I saw an intersection between private and public benefits, or need they always be separated in the model. I think the intersection between private and public benefits occurs when the program participant is a member of the community that enjoys the subsequent public benefits. In those cases, the participant will benefit from her own involvement in the program–through gaining new skills or making behavior changes that personally benefit her–but along with her neighbors, she will also enjoy the community-level changes the program generates. For example, someone who participates in an entrepreneurship program may enhance her business skills and improve the profitability of her own business. Her business’ success improves local economic conditions–perhaps attracting new customers or suppliers to the area or enlarging the tax base–which improve opportunities for everyone in the community, along with the original entrepreneur.
I don’t typically emphasize this intersection, because the objective of the public value works is to adopt the perspective of the non-participant payers of Extension programs–the community-members who are being asked to share in the cost of the programs through public funding, but who do not receive the private benefits of program participation. Nevertheless, the point that an intersection between public and private benefits exists, is well-taken.
