Posts By Date
On Tuesday, April 7th, there was an urban extension webinar, titled "Delivering Extension Programs to the City". The presentation was given by Dr. Jennifer Tiffany, Director of Outreach and Community Engagement at Cornell University's Cooperative Extension - New York City. The purpose of the presentation was to explain the ways in which Cornell Extension is able to impact a city as large as New York City, and share strategies that Extension in other states can use for their urban programming. New York City, as of the 2010 census, had 8.2 million residents. The estimated population as of 2014 is roughly 8.5 million, and the metropolitan area population exceeds 20 million residents. The amount of people, per Extension staff member, is approximately 1 to 160,000, which is cause for a different approach than might be handled in a rural county. Another obstacle that Extension New York City faces is how far away Cornell is from the population base. Ithaca New York, is a four hour drive from NYC, making "day trips" inconvenient to say the least. All of these barriers have created a need for strategic planning on behalf of the Extension offices in the City. A factor that has been beneficial to Cornell Extension in NYC is the presence of Cornell in the city, as there are multiple colleges within the university that are present, and have partnered with Extension, assisting their programming in a multitude of ways. The motto of NYC Extension is "bridging research and community needs." To do this, they have made a directed effort in creating partnerships, connections, and long term collaborations with local entities and groups. These relationships are often informal, on more of a word-of-mouth basis, but there are also many formal connections. These partnerships extend to proactively address the growing concerns within the city, and have resulted in accessing different groups of people, mostly first generation Americans, that were previously unreachable. By focusing on particular community based localization and specific neighborhoods, they have been able to develop a certain level of trust that enables ling term programming, and diversifies connections. All of these endeavors have been in the pursuit of sustainable Extension work in cities. For NYC, this has been being able to adapt programming, sustain change, and sustain processes of incubation and innovation that can be handed off to well-developed programs and partners when it is time to start a new program. This model has been crucial to the continued success of Extension in NYC, and should been seen as a catalyst for program development in urban areas across the country.
Relevance to OhioComparing OSU Extension to Cornell Extension New York is a difficult task. Both are top 7 states by population, but the similarities end there. New York has the large majority of its population concentrated in one part of the state, which is a significant distance from the Land Grant University, Cornell. Ohio has major cities in three corners of the state, with the largest city in the center containing the Land Grant University. There is still a great amount of information that learned from NYC Extension, especially for the urban areas in Ohio. OSU Extension still has a considerable ratio of educators to people in counties containing major cities. Below are the six counties that contain the largest populations in the state, along with the ratios of people per program staff member (Educator, Program Coordinator, Program Assistant) Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) - 1/75,000 Franklin County (Columbus) - 1/90,000 Hamilton County (Cincinnati) - 1/80,000 Lucas County (Toledo) - 441,815 - 1/49,000 Summit County (Akron) - 1/135,000 Montgomery County (Dayton) - 1/38,000 Although not as extreme as the ratios in NYC, these are still overwhelming to comprehend. Assuming that an employee would reach a substantial fraction of these numbers is unrealistic, but it speaks to the importance of maximizing the potential of OSU Extension within the most populous counties. This is a great example of why partnership based programming is very important. A small group of educators can be extremely productive, and not make a dent on the counties they serve. With partnerships, connections, and an extensive list of dedicated volunteers, they are able to both impact large numbers of people, as well as continue to develop current and future programs. Urban Extension is different all across the country. While there are plenty of similarities within programming, the diversity that every city has eliminates the possibility of a "cookie cutter" approach. By exploring the ways other states manage Extension in their cities, we are able to expand our knowledge of programming, assisting both project development, and professional growth. You can listen to the webinar in its entirety here. Written by James Stiving, Program Assistant, Ohio State University Reviewed by Julie Fox, PhD
Posted In: City CED, Courses/Webinars, Urban Serving Universities