Thank you to everyone who showed up at 8:00 (!!) Tuesday morning in Duluth to participate in the UM Extension Annual Program Conference session on “Demonstrating Your Program’s Public Value: The Key to Gaining Support from Stakeholders and Funders.” In the 90 minute session, I was able to present only a very abbreviated version of the public value content, but the little bit that we were able to cover stimulated some great questions and discussion.
I wonder if, when I have only a short amount of time to introduce the public value concepts and lead groups in one or two exercises, if I should focus on one criterion for public sector action (one source of public value), rather than explain all three of them. To be clear, I typically cover all three of the criteria listed in this slide:
In a full workshop, I believe it adds a lot of value for participants to consider how their programs address the first (information gap) and second (fairness or justice) criteria. After all, most programs will need multiple public value messages to meet the concerns of multiple stakeholders, and the additional criteria can help a team develop a suite of messages. But, for an “Intro to Extension’s Public Value” session, such as the one we had in Duluth, perhaps I should describe only third criterion: public value arises from creating public benefits or reducing public costs.
What do you think?
Did you attend the session in Duluth? What do you think we could have done differently?