Proposal to Develop a National Urban Extension System: A Vision of the Future for Cooperative Extension Presented at the National Urban Extension Conference in Atlanta, Georgia Christopher C. Obropta, Ph.D., P.E. obropta@envsci.rutgers.edu www.water.rutgers.edu May 5, 2015
249,157,649 people
URBAN EXTENSION BRIDGES THE GAP BETWEEN LAND- GRANT UNIVERSITIES AND URBAN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY
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 with other 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 Integrated Research, Extension, & Education, 34% Conservation Effect Assessment, 6% Extension- Education, 5% National Water Resources, 7% Regional Water Quality Coordination, 48%
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 Improve our Health Protect the Environment Enrich the Youth Strengthen Communities Feed our Future
Now we have the missing pieces Structure Leadership/responsible parties Function
The Structure National Urban Extension Network Regional Centers State Urban Extension Programs
The Leadership/Responsible Parties National Steering Committee Regional Directors State Urban Extension Coordinators
The Function National Urban Extension Network Sets national agenda Collects national impacts Solicits funding for national network Provides national networking opportunities
The Function Regional Centers Develops regional focus areas Facilities collaboration among the state programs within the region Collects regional impacts Provides professional development opportunities
The Function State Urban Extension Programs 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
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 fouryear cycle Hope is that all the states and territories would participate as some level
Questions? Christopher C. Obropta, Ph.D., P.E. obropta@envsci.rutgers.edu www.water.rutgers.edu