Duration: 10/01/2012 to 09/30/2017

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

WERA Proposal: Urban Extension

This WERA proposal was approved by the Western Extension Directors at their Fall 2011 meeting in Las Vegas.

Statement of Issues and Justification

The western region of the United States is iconic for its western landscapes, Native American, Spanish and ranching cultures, and its extraordinary natural viewsheds. Consequently, most Americans and westerners think of the region as rural. This is certainly the case for the natural environment. This is not the case for its population distribution. The west is profoundly metropolitan. While not all western states have metropolitan areas, those that do are very much influenced politically, socially, and culturally by metropolitan-based issues. Extension services in these metropolitan states have created programs for both rural and high population density metropolitan areas. WEDA commissioned a task force to assess the literature and the possible priorities for an urban extension WERA. Many of the elements of successful urban extension programs were described in the Extension in the Urban West white paper published by WEDA in 2008. Their proposals, accepted by WEDA in 2010, are the foundation for this WERA.

The Task Force reviewed the literature and found that woefully little has been published about urban Extension models or operationalizing them. As a result examined various Urban Extension programs around the country, and particularly in the west, and determine how the various model elements identified in the report have been successfully implemented. The Task Force identified three Urban Extension models in the westone each in California, Washington and Oregon. What is known about the successes and shortcomings of each of the models will be described throughout this report. The Task Force concluded that, while there may not be a research base to help decide best ways to operationalize Urban Extension, there are certainly examples of successful programs in urban areas. The Task Force recommended that these programs are widely shared throughout the region, especially those best practices that may be transferable to other urban situations. Excellent examples of urban programming were identified where Extension has evolved within an urban environment, such as New York City. In the West, the University of Washington in Seattle and Portland State University have urban outreach programs that are decidedly different from most of our Extension Programs in western cities. They found that Extension has become engaged in complex collaboratives around such important research problems as sustainable food systems, urban rural interdependence, storm water research, and conversion of public transportation and county fleet vehicles to biodiesel. Elsewhere in the west, such as Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, new urban-centered programs seem to surround a strong core of more traditional Extension programs. Those core programs that seem best suited to urban audiences include consumer finance, Food Stamp nutrition education and Master Gardener programs. Other programs that make a connection between urban and rural audiences include direct marketing through farmers markets and organic production sales in urban areas.

The report makes clear that the denser the population becomes the more players there are for program delivery. In very rural areas Extension may be the only game in town; while in urban areas residents have access to many more opportunities. This difference demands more partnerships and collaborative efforts in urban areas. In rural areas Extension is well positioned for direct program delivery; whereas in urban areas our role may shift more to training the trainersproviding professional staff development for the program delivery staff from other agencies and organizations that are doing the direct program delivery. The Task Force discussed the hypothesis that any sustainable model for urban extension will depend on a self-supporting business model. One model in Seattle relies on grants and direct contractswhere a group or organization contracts with Extension to conduct a particular program or project. In Seattle, the aim is to support applied research that addresses both existing and emerging urban issues. Another view is that Extension programs are funded from a variety of potential sources including fees, sales of educational materials, grants, contracts, scholarships, partners, etc. In either case Extension programs must be based on local needs, and must have a sustainable funding plan (budgeted earned income, grants, contracts, etc). It does not mean that all programs must be self supporting, but some likely will be. In Seattle, Extension's funding model requires that all projects be totally self supporting contracts.

One of the more challenging elements of the white paper refers to governmental jurisdictions, particularly as it relates to funding agreements for extension; particular focus was on research to understand the relationships between county governments and the state extension services. The Task Force concluded that a more thorough literature search may be valuable to identify relevant and successful engagement models in urban areas. Although the task force did review Extension material, a search should also include urban serving university outreach programs. The output from the review would be most useful if it followed the various elements described in Extension in the Urban West and how they have been used to create a successful and transferable urban Extension model.

The Task Force concluded that If urban Extension is a priority for Extension Directors in the West, the task force recommends that WEDA appoint a standing Urban Extension Committee, requesting biennial progress reports, to advance this agenda. The Task Force agreed that addressing each of the previous five charges is important to advance the urban agenda in the West. They also noted given the minimal resources presently focused on urban Extension, the proposed WERA would need to address the challenges but within recognized budgetary limitations associated with the 2008 recession. The objectives are similar to the original challenges the Task Force were asked to address.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

The WERA will complete any unfinished discussions and investigations of the Task Force. The WERA will then create a white paper on emerging challenges and opportunities for Extension in metropolitan areas. It is hoped that the paper can be disseminated broadly via electronic media.

Projected Participation

All members of the Task Force indicated that they would participate. During a WEDA discussion in Jackson Hole it was thought that all western states with significant metropolitan populations might be interested. Also, at the Jackson Hole meeting, Keith Smith, Director of Extension at Ohio State University suggested there may be a national interest in this initiative.

Literature Cited: The task force provide an extensive list of references and evidence (primarily charts and power point presentations). The limit for NIMSS input prevents including this section, but, it is available by contacting Dr. Swanson.

Objectives

Procedures and Activities

1. In support of each of the five objectives above, the following activities will be undertaken individually and as a committee.
2. Review the White Paper and determine what additional, if any, reviews may be necessary.
3. Address each of the five areas of recommendations of the Task Force
4. Develop a new paper that identifies the challenges for unique urban extension challenges that provide a broad range of best practices for collaboration with urban governments, non-government organizations and private sector.
5. Recommend ways that Extension personnel in urban areas across the West might better support each other and learn from each other (e.g., quarterly phone conferences, webinars to share successes, conference on urban extension in the West, etc.).
6. Identify potential partners for urban extension.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Educational Plan

This committee may have members in states spread across the country. Many members of the Task Force are actively involved in education and outreach within their own states and institutions. A primary outcome will be the development of a white paper on the challenges and opportunities for urban Extension. Given the general theme of the Task Force report, this task and outcome will need to actively think outside the box. There does not appear to be a single paradigm in place, and, the report strongly suggests a heterdoxical paradigmatic/conceptual arena that is undergoing qualitative changes.

Organization/Governance

The governance will tentatively involve a chair and chair-elect. The chair will be responsible for the meeting agenda and chair-elect will handle the annual report. Each year, the chair-elect will become chair and a new chair-elect selected by the committee. A final governance structure will be adopted at the first meeting.

Literature Cited

This project does not involve a literature review. Rather the empirical evidence for creating this project was provided by the WEDA participants in the Urban Extension Task Force. These data are provided in the attachment.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

CO, OR, PA

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions