WCRSDP Assessment Report
Engin Sungur
Jon Anderson
UMM Statistics

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

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

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

TonightÕs Procedure
You will work, we will officiate.
For each section, we will present our survey findings.
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.
Then we will discuss this section together.

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

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

Slide 8
Lacking Assets
Physical:  land use thinking, land use planning.
Demographic:  young people.
Institutional:  regional development commission, administrative support with UMN, health care.

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

Slide 11
Needs
Physical:  modest housing, water quality.
Demographic:  none listed.  (young people?)
Institutional:  health care infrastructure, within and between county partnerships, telecommunication, and regional broadcasting media.  Combine redundant county and related administrative functions.

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

Slide 14
Partnership Assessment
Effectiveness:  Scale 1 to 5, with Neutral=3.  Average rating:  3.54.
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.

Partnership Assessment
Sustainability:  Scale 1 to 5, with Neutral=3.  Average rating:  3.92.
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.

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

Partnership Assessment
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
Moderate Investment, Moderate Potential Returns, Moderate Need Areas:
Project Actual Return
UM ChildrenÕs 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.
Variation in project effectiveness.
Funding outside partnership is related to effectiveness.
Project administration quality.
High frequency of evaluation, discussion, planning, workshops, feasibility, etc.
Consider projects as a portfolio with periodic review to adjust to goals and performance.

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

Discussion
Next steps ?