Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

MINUTES: WERA 1005 and TEMP2981 Date: April 26-27, 2010 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Present at the meeting : Rangesan Narayanan, (Administrative Advisor) University of Nevada, Reno rang@cabnr.unr.edu Don Albrecht, USU (WRDC Director) WRDC and Utah State University don.albrecht@usu.edu Tom Harris University of Nevada, Reno harris@cabnr.unr.edu Buddy Borden University of Nevada, Reno Bordenb@unce.unr.edu Louis Swanson Colorado State University Louis.Swanson@colostate.edu Marion Bentley Utah State University Marion.bentley@usu.edu Abelardo Rodriguez University of Idaho abelardo@uidaho.edu Anil Rupasingha New Mexico State University anilr@nmsu.edu Yong Chen Oregon State University Yong.chen@oregonstate.edu Roger Coupal University of Wyoming coupal@uwyo.edu Officers: Tom Harris (Chair) Louis Swanson (Vice-Chair) Roger Coupal, (Secretary) I. The group reviewed the goals of WERA 1005 and were asked to send to Rang results of work that applied to the goals. Besides a list of work Rang also needs the agenda, minutes, and a termination report for WERA1005. II. Three components of the WRDC Strategic Plan and Priority Areas were used to frame work objectives: a. Human capital changes b. Place based community development c. Promoting rural sustainable development Out of these priorities two projects were proposed. III. Proposed projects Lew Swanson proposed evaluating Extensions ability to serve community development: a. Proposed Project I : AN ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES IN THE WEST This project would evaluate Experiment Stations and Extensions ability and expectations to implement community development education in the Western States with stakeholders expectations of what is needed for community development. Questions that will be answered include: " To what degree are blended projects encouraged in the Western States? " What level are Universities allowing research and engagement in community development? " Assess the match and mismatch between University efforts at community development and stakeholder expectations. " What is the effective capacity in each state for conducting community development research and extension? The project will develop a set of interview instruments using key informant methodology that will be used to assess qualitative data from specialists and educators at the University level and practitioners off campus that might petition for University resources on projects. This latter group includes Rural Development Councils, local economic developers, and others. Outputs will include a State Profile of Community development resource capacity and content focus. Lew Swanson and Don Albrecht will develop the appropriate instruments. Project Expected Cost: $50,000 Project Scope: 13 Western States b. A Discussion on building relationships with federal and state agencies to provide technical resources for agency decision-making c. Proposed Project: ASSESSING LABOR SKILL MISMATCH IN RURAL AREAS OF THE WEST The proposal is to assess the skill/occupational mismatch between industry demand and household supply in selected regions of the west. Each participating state will identify a rural area associated with a metropolitan core and estimate skill mismatch in the rural area and the metro-core. One or two selected areas will combine this seconday data approach with a survey to assess skill matching in the broader regional econom with small and medium size farms that participate in off-farm employment. The research project will support two ongoing extension activities connected with the WRDC: Community Vitality Modeling, and the SET Project Conceptual foundations: Jackman, R., Layard, R., Savouri, S. (1991) Mismatch: A Framework for Thought, in F. Padoa Schioppa (Editor) Mismatch and Labour Mobility; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 44-101. Jackman, R., Roper, S. (1987) Structural Unemployment, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 49 (1): 9-36. Obadiae, Alka.  Theoretical and empirical framework of measuring mismatch on a labour market. Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. " 2006 " vol. 24 " sv. 1 " 55-80 Participants: Open Potential Funding: Targeting AFRI, Agricultural Economics and Rural Communities. A1601. Prosperity of medium sized farms and rural communities. Contacts for information: Don Albrecht, Tom Harris, Roger Coupal

Demographic and economic changes in the rural west give rise to community development challenges. To assist the region in adapting to these changes, this Multistate Coordinating Committee was formed to provide a platform for focused community development discussions leading to strengthened rural economies. Through the years, the Committee has linked researchers and outreach personnel in several states to conduct research, convene multistate collaborations, and to develop and disseminate extension curricula. States involved on the committee have included Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. During this past year, the committee met in Reno, Nevada in August 2008 and January 2009. Among the accomplishments of WERA 1005 include the development and utilization of the Community-Business Matching Model. The Community-Business Matching (CBM) Model provides a framework for communities to use, with the guidance of a trained Extension Specialist, to prioritize their business recruitment and retention goals and identify the assets within their community to help them achieve these development goals. Utilizing the CBM database, a communitys goals and assets are compared to business profiles to determine development decisions that reflect the desires of community members. Basically, generating a list of businesses whose operations best match the communitys goals. Then the Extension facilitator helps the community to outline its economic development strategies to attract those businesses it is most compatible with based on the communitys goals and assets. Specifically, CBM will provide: 1) A framework for good decision-making. 2) Extension information gathered from businesses through the U.S. about their site selection decisions and the benefits they bring to communities. 3) Specialized software that can be used to access this data quickly. To date the CBM program has been applied in Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and California. In the state of Montana, it has been applied in two communities. The first application was at the local community level in Anaconda, Montana. This is an EPA Superfund site where economic development alternatives are limited. The Anaconda economic development group was able to use the results of the CBM process to elicit a strategic economic development plan and successfully recruit two industries. The second application in Montana was with a four-county regional approach. Typically counties have difficulty forming cohesive economic development strategies; however, the CBM approach provided a vehicle for these four counties to easily create a regional development plan and has paved the way for the relocation of firms with little political difficulties. Additionally, clearance and approval has been secured for a new energy generation plant to begin operations in 2011. The new plant is expected to more than double the tax base for one of the counties in the region: Deer Lodge County Montana. In the state of Nevada, the CBM approach was applied to the Colorado River Region border communities of Bullhead City, Fort Mohave, Mohave Valley and Golden Valley, Arizona and Laughlin, Nevada. These communities were impacted by the closure of the Mohave Power Plant. The CBM approach led to a regional approach to economic development and the successful and targeted relocation of firms to the new local industrial district. During 2009, the project team began work in the greater Monterey, California area. As of 2010, the estimated number of businesses that relocated/expanded/created directly as a result of the CBM program is 24 businesses with an estimated permanent employment of 500/600 new jobs (not including the construction phase). The CBM Team continues work on the development of a participants guide and a facilitators guide to be used by the local facilitator that is trained by the CBM team. The Community-Business Matching Model was awarded Finalist in the category of Excellence in Economic Development Research at the University Economic Development Association meeting held November 2008 in St. Petersburg, Florida.

A book chapter has been published on the CBM model. Cox, Linda, Jonathan Alevy, Thomas R. Harris, Barbara Andreozzi, Joan Wright and George Buddy W. Borden. 2009. The Community Business Matching Model: Combining Community and Business Goals and Assets to Target Rural Economic Development. Pp. 255-278 in Stephen J. Goetz, Steven C. Deller and Thomas R. Harris (eds.) Targeting Regional Economic Development. New York: Routledge Press.