proposal to develop a national urban extension system
TRANSCRIPT
Proposal to Develop a National Urban Extension System:
A Vision of the Future for Cooperative ExtensionPresented at the National Urban Extension Conference in
Atlanta, Georgia
Christopher C. Obropta, Ph.D., [email protected]
www.water.rutgers.edu
May 5, 2015
249,157,649 people
URBAN EXTENSIONB R I D G E S T H E G A P B E T W E E N L A N D - G R A N T U N I V E R S I T I E S
A N D U R B A N C O M M U N I T I E S A C R O S S T H E C O U N T R Y
Urban Extension Version 1.0
“A vision of the future of U.S. Urban Extension programs as well as a suggested framework within which the vision can be realized.”
“The Extension System urgently needs to build and expand programs for urban audiences”
The 1996‘Call to Action’
• Develop effective partnerships withother educational, service, and business organizations
• Increase communication between urban Extension and urban communities
• Build capacity by creating greater linkages through networks of Extension professionals working in urban environments
• USDA and the Cooperative Extension System must continue to recognize and support the fact that Extension's mission includes urban and metropolitan audiences
The 1996 Call to Action• Financial support for metropolitan work must
increase through collaboration with Congress and other federal agencies. In addition, more funding sources should be identified in state, county, and city governments.
or
What was missing besides the money?
What is the structure/function? Who are the responsible parties? Where do you look for leadership?
The National Water Program• Operated from 2001-2013• Funded by USDA Section 406 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998
• Committee for Shared Leadership• Built on EPA’s 10 Regions• Promoted national collaboration• Annual conferences
Goals for CSL• Foster a national program through a regional network
of NIFA research, education, and extension professionals• Elevate the visibility of the USDA NIFA network• Be responsive and proactive in decisions and actions that
integrate research, education and extension activities• Create, manage, and foster institutional change through
visioning and leadership• Practice effective communication and dialog to ensure
cooperation and collaboration of integrated programs• Pursue new opportunities in a coordinated fashion• Market the value of internally and externally funded/leveraged
activities• Establish partnerships and work to meet common goals.
CSL Takeaways
• national program • regional network • visibility• decisions and actions• visioning and leadership• communication • opportunities • value• partnerships and work to meet
common goals.
Benefits of CSL
• Strong leaders (the movers and shakers)• Great communicators• Common vision
Regions• Great Lakes• Heartland• Mid-Atlantic• Northeast &
Caribbean Islands
• Northern Plains & Mountains
• Pacific Northwest
• Southern• Southwest &
Pacific Islands
National Themes
• Animal Waste Management• Drinking Water and Human Health• Environmental Restoration• Nutrient and Pesticide Management• Pollution Assessment and Prevention• Watershed Management• Water Conservation and Agricultural Water
Management• Water Policy and Economics
Information Sharing Framework
Cost = $12.4 million per year
Regional Water Quality Coordination, 48%
National Water Resources, 7%
Extension-Education, 5%
Conservation Effect Assessment, 6%
Integrated Research, Extension, & Education, 34%
Why did it end?
• USDA wanted to consolidate funding under one NIFA budget line item
• APLU stopped fighting for 406 budget line item
• We did a great job, good structure, good leadership, good leveraging, and high impact – no crisis with water
Model for National Urban Extension System
Possible Themes
Protect the Environment
Feed our Future
Enrich the Youth
Improve our Health
Strengthen Communities
Structure Leadership/responsible parties Function
Now we have the missing pieces
The Structure
National Urban Extension Network
Regional Centers
State Urban Extension Programs
National Steering Committee
Regional Directors
State Urban Extension Coordinators
The Leadership/Responsible Parties
The Function
National Urban Extension Network
• Sets national agenda• Collects national impacts• Solicits funding for
national network• Provides national
networking opportunities
Regional Centers
• Develops regional focus areas• Facilities collaboration among the
state programs within the region • Collects regional impacts• Provides professional development
opportunities
The Function
• Conducts needs assessment of local stakeholders to identify problems
• Assembles the best available science to address these problems
• Develops and delivers educational and outreach programs to provide solutions to stakeholders
• Works with local stakeholders to implement the necessary solutions
• Measures impacts and adapt programs to enhance impacts
State Urban Extension Programs
The Function
NATIONAL URBAN EXTENSION SYSTEM
NATIONAL URBAN EXTENSION SYSTEM
NATIONAL URBAN EXTENSION SYSTEM
The Complete System
Potential Federal Partners
• US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• US Dept. of Energy
Other Possible Partners?
Other Possible Partners?
Cost for Pilot Program
• $6 million per year for five years • Funding going to four regional centers• Center support several states• Engage in one or two focus areas
Cost for Full Program
• $150 million per year • Regional centers and Land-grant
universities would receive funding through a competitive proposal process on a four-year cycle
• Hope is that all the states and territories would participate as some level
