Minnesota

Because the Building Extension’s Public Value workshop began at the University of Minnesota, you might think that UM Extension staff are all familiar with the public value approach. Surely, most of us are. But for newer Extension staffers–and not-so-new staffers who have never participated in a BEPV workshop–this year’s fall program conference provides an opportunity to learn the basics. Below is the description of the BEPV mini course that Aimee Viniard-Weideman and I will present as a concurrent session on October 4. I hope to see many of you there!

Your Program’s Value: Tell it like it matters:

Have you ever had a great opportunity to tell someone who matters about the value of your program —but you just didn’t have the right words at the right time? Do you need a little help making the case for how your Extension program makes a difference in Minnesota? Here’s your chance to develop key messages you can share with key stakeholders about the pubic value of your program. Laura Kalambokidis has trained Extension faculty members across the country to develop messages that matter. Take advantage of this opportunity to participate in an abbreviated version of her nationally recognized program and learn new ways to influence your key stakeholders.

On Thursday, September 22, I will teach a Building Extension’s Public Value workshop as part of the National Extension Leadership Development NELD North Central meeting here at the University of Minnesota.

NELD’s mission is “…to build leaders in Cooperative Extension at all levels and provide them with the vision, courage, and tools to lead in a changing world.” Extension’s world certainly is changing–and fast. I hope public value will be one of the tools NELD participants will find useful as they lead through that change.

Many Extension programs receive sponsorships from third parties: individuals, businesses, or organizations that wish to ensure that a program takes place. The program’s sustainability sometimes hinges on the sponsor’s financial support, and sponsors have an interest in the program’s outcomes. University of Minnesota Extension’s Farm Transfer and Estate Planning program is an example. According to Agricultural Business Management Extension Educator Gary Hachfeld, sponsors for the program include attorneys, accountants, and bankers who support the program so that their clients (and others) may attend.

When assembling a public value message, we consider the private benefits to the program participants and the public value that accrues to the greater community. But, is it legitimate for a program to also create benefits for the third-party sponsors? In my view, when the sponsor’s financial support is crucial to the program, and the program persists in creating substantial public value, creating benefits for the sponsor is warranted.

Consider the schematic below, based on the diagram we typically use to illustrate the elements of a public value message:

Note that the program’s outcomes may result in private benefits, public value, and sponsor benefits. Moreover, the sponsor’s interests may overlap with those of the program participant (private benefits) and the greater community (public value). In the case of the farm transfer program, a sponsoring attorney may value improved business outcomes for her clients, as well as an increase in demand for her own estate planning services. Being a member of the same community as her clients, she may also value the economic vitality and social capital improvements that arise from the program.

So, generally, where the interests of a third-party sponsor coincide with–or at least do not compete with–a program’s public value, a sponsorship can create a win-win-win-win for Extension, program participants, the sponsor, and the community.

I am on the planning committee for the University of Minnesota Extension Fall Program Conference. For any readers from University of Minnesota Extension, please share your ideas or preferences for this year’s conference. Would you be interested in any public value trainings? What other kinds of offerings would be useful? Feel free to share in the comments or in an email to me. Thank you!

 

I am continuing to look for ways that the theory of transformative learning–including the disorienting dilemma and perspective change that Mezirow (1) included as elements–applies to the “Building Extension’s Public Value ” workshop. One of the ways we try to encourage a perspective change for workshop participants is by setting up the free market ideal…and then knocking it down, or at least identifying its limitations. Hopefully we create a disorienting dilemma for someone who has bought into that free market ideal.

For someone who is confident that there is a private-enterprise-driven, government-hands-off solution to every condition that challenges a community, it’s hard to see a role for publicly-funded outreach programs. But, once that person understands that free markets and private businesses alone can fail to lead to ideal outcomes, she can see that there is room for the public sector to act to improve those outcomes. Outreach programs in general, and Extension programs in particular, are one way the public sector can take action. (Recall that the “Public Value of Public Programs” workshop makes the same kind of case for outreach education that is sponsored by local governments and non-profits.)

I presented this argument, and the above slide, last week when I guest lectured in the “Transforming Public Policy” (PA 8001) course in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, here at the University of Minnesota. A student challenged me by saying that she didn’t see the point of my illustrating the limitations of the free market argument because she didn’t believe it in the first place. She started from the perspective that the public sector has a role in addressing market failure, and so didn’t need to make the transformation I was advancing.

Surely, this is often the case: that the audience for the BEPV workshop (Extension professionals) is made up of people who fully grasp the limitations of the market ideal. That’s why they work for Extension in the first place! But, the above illustration is really intended to help BEPV participants to view the world from the perspective of a stakeholder who is skeptical about public sector involvement in the economy: someone who highly values the role of private enterprise. Hopefully, BEPV participants will then be better positioned to make their case for Extension to that skeptical stakeholder, perhaps by setting up the disorienting dilemma and inducing a perspective change in them.

(1) Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Those of you working within Cooperative Extension have likely heard about Minnesota Extension’s major reorganization and shift to a regional/county program delivery model. I frequently field questions about the shift: Why did Minnesota make the change? How did it happen? What has been the result? How is Minnesota Extension doing now?

I am very grateful that George Morse and a knowledgeable team of co-authors have now published a book, The Minnesota Response: Cooperative Extension’s Money and Mission Crisis, that answers these questions and more.

On his blog, “Economics in Cooperative Extension,” George Morse explains what the book is about:

“The Minnesota Response explains how Minnesota Extension responded to its mission and money crisis in 2004 with a sweeping reorganization. Breaking with 95 years of tradition, Minnesota Extension shifted from a county based delivery model to a regional/county delivery model. Regionalization, however, is the tip of the iceberg. Several other policies define Minnesota’s new approach, including changes in funding sources, degree of specialization of the regional educators, more statewide program teams, development of business plans, increased use of market research, supervision of field educators by program specialists rather than geographic supervisors, and new scholarship and promotion expectations. The Minnesota Response details these policies and reports on their initial impacts on program quality, scholarship, access to Extension, and public support for Extension.”

The full citation to the book is: George Morse, Jeanne Markell, Philip O’Brien, Adeel Ahmed, Thomas Klein, and Larry Coyle. The Minnesota Response: Cooperative Extension’s Money and Mission Crisis. iUniverse, Bloomington, October 2009. 428 pages.

It is available from amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com in soft cover or hard cover.

Google Books allows you to read some of the book. To find the book easily, enter the full title at the Google Books link. George has also included some excerpts at his blog.

I’d be pleased to hear of your reactions to the “Minnesota Model” and to the book, and I’m sure George would be, too. Feel free to share your reactions in the comment section here (particularly as they relate to public value) or at George’s blog.