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 ?