Public Engagement

The UMN Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships: Determining the impacts of a public partnering

This is the second in a series of three contributions by Kathryn Draeger, Statewide Director of the UMN Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships based on the work of program evaluators Richard Krueger, Mary Anne Casey, Randi Nelson and Okey Ukaga

While it is always enjoyable to share the successes of one’s work, it can seem risky to be forthright with the challenges. We are, however, sharing the results entitled “What’s not working well?” since the questions raised here are probably echoed by other programs and even the University’s own Office of Public Engagement. Some of Richard Krueger’s observations are unique to the UMN Regional Partnerships, but there are also opportunities to address these challenges together within the University.

On June 5, 2006 Richard Krueger, consulting evaluator, reported:

Challenges. What’s not working well?

The Partnerships lack visibility.

• Too few people know about the Partnerships, their goals, and the good work they are doing. Focus group participants believe that funding will be cut if the Partnerships do not highlight what they doing.
  
• Major audiences, including legislators, county commissioners, regents, University administrators, and potential partners, lack information about the Partnerships.

It is difficult to get the word out about the significance of the Partnership and its projects.

• It is difficult to describe what the Partnerships do. Are they grantmakers? Matchmakers? Catalysts? Conveners?
  
• It is difficult to convey the significance of the Partnerships to people who have not been directly involved. For example, how does supporting a farmers’ market contribute to citizen leadership, sustainable development, or building University relationships? Or how do renewable energy projects bring hope to a region?
  
• It is difficult to describe the Partnerships’ intentions because board members interpret the goals differently. Some people described the Partnerships goals as “fuzzy.”
  
  • Some people say “active citizen leadership” refers to the boards’ leadership, but not necessarily the projects. Some switch from talking about “citizen leadership” to “citizen involvement.” Some related active citizen leadership to citizen initiated projects or citizen directed research.
    
  • When discussing sustainable development, some board members talked about the sustainability of projects (would they continue after funding). Some talked about sustainability as it relates to the impact on the next generation. And some board members talked about the three-legged stool of sustainability.
    
  • Sustainability is a subject for some and a process for others.
  
  
• Some say the name—Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships—is hard to remember, is hard to say, and doesn’t convey the essence of the Partnerships.
  
• The individual Partnerships do not have the time, expertise, or money to adequately publicize what they are doing.
  
• Some board members worry that the Partnerships will be unable to support the additional requests that publicity will generate—causing ill will. Others argue that the quality of proposals would increase and the Partnerships could “cream” the best proposals.

Some people question University administrators’ commitment to outreach, civic engagement, and rural Minnesota.

• Some people say it is difficult to tap into University expertise because there are few incentives for faculty to do outreach.
  
• People do not feel they can easily access Twin Cities campus resources. While people are quite positive about connections with local campuses, and to some extent with local research and outreach centers, they are less positive about connections with the Twin Cities campuses.
  
• They wonder why Partnership budgets are being cut if one of President Bruininks’ priorities is civic engagement.
  
• They worry that the University’s push to become one of the top three public research universities in the world will come at the expense of local needs.

Funding for the Partnerships has decreased substantially, while networks, understanding, and vision are increasing.

• Just as the boards are increasing their capacity to do good work, they have fewer dollars to support building relationships between communities and the University.
  
• Because funding has decreased substantially and most administrative costs are fixed, some regions are now spending more on administration than on projects.
  
• The small budgets limit what can be done. Small budgets limit who is willing to be involved, the extent of University involvement, and the kind of outcomes that can be expected.