WCRSDP Assessment Report Engin Sungur Jon Anderson UMM

WCRSDP Assessment Report Engin Sungur Jon Anderson UMM Statistics

Outline Introduction and Overview n Overview of Identified Assets of Region n Overview of Identified Lacking Assets n Overview of Identified Needs of Region n Assessment of WCRSDP Projects n Discussion n

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. n During spring 2005 data and responses were analyzed and a report prepared. n 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. n

Data Collection Instruments WCRSDP Board Member Survey: 14 current or past members responded. n Grant Recipient Survey: 7 responses. n Partner Survey: 20 responses n

Tonight’s Procedure You will work, we will officiate. n For each section, we will present our survey findings. n 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. n Then we will discuss this section together. n

Existing Assets Physical: clean air, clean water, close to nature, potential for natural energy sources, productive land. n Demographic: innovative, creative people, retired people. n Institutional: UMN/UMM, education institutions generally, Center for Small Towns. n

Existing Assets Economic: Agricultural resource potential, low cost labor force, locally owned businesses. n Social: Entrepreneurship, quality of life. n Cultural: arts culture/counterculture, work ethic, caring for others, care about lifestyle. n

Lacking Assets Physical: land use thinking, land use planning. n Demographic: young people. n Institutional: regional development commission, administrative support with UMN, health care. n

Lacking Assets Economic: economic infrastructure, retail sector, job creation ability. n Social: visionary people, base of engaged people. n Cultural: cultural and art opportunities, dining opportunities. n

Needs Physical: modest housing, water quality. n Demographic: none listed. (young people? ) n Institutional: health care infrastructure, within and between county partnerships, telecommunication, and regional broadcasting media. Combine redundant county and related administrative functions. n

Needs Economic: economic development, affordable health care, increasing wealth and capital. n Social: develop partnerships, enhance communication, harness abilities of elderly. n Cultural: cultural activities and restaurants/dining. n

Partnership Assessment Effectiveness: Scale 1 to 5, with Neutral=3. Average rating: 3. 54. n 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. n

Partnership Assessment Sustainability: Scale 1 to 5, with Neutral=3. Average rating: 3. 92. n 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. n

Partnership Assessment n n n 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: n Project Actual Return n Hybrid Poplar Minimal n Phosphorus Minimal to Moderate n Biomass Project Minimal to None n Methane Study Potential for Moderate n

Partnership Assessment n n n n n 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 n n n n n 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. n Variation in project effectiveness. n Funding outside partnership is related to effectiveness. n Project administration quality. n High frequency of evaluation, discussion, planning, workshops, feasibility, etc. n Consider projects as a portfolio with periodic review to adjust to goals and performance. n

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. n Consider mix of low-impact, low-risk projects (CAP) in overall project mix. n

Discussion n Next steps ?