Author: James Stiving

The Impact of Higher Education on Cities

columbus

Many large universities are located in America’s largest cities. Leaders at these universities recognize their impact on surrounding communities. In many instances, multiple partnerships between cohorts of universities and local communities address key issues and reach large audiences. For example, key initiatives focus on food security, health, and accessibility to higher education.

The Ohio State University connects with people living and working in urban communities. OSU is distinct in that it is a:

Land-Grant University (LGU)
As a land-grant university, Ohio State has campus research centers throughout the state and Extension offices in each of Ohio’s 88 counties.

Urban Serving Universities (USU)
USU members are public urban research universities that are located in metropolitan areas with populations of 450,000 or greater. They demonstrate a commitment to their urban areas.

Carnegie-Engaged University
OSU was recognized for its extensive engagement programming and how its mission, culture, curriculum and resources are structured to support high-impact community engagement.

Member of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities (CUMU)

For the past year, administrators and representatives form OSU’s 15 colleges have convened to collectively advance OSU’s urban mission.
More to come… What co-discovery projects are you involved with in Ohio’s largest cities?

Reviewed By: Julie Fox and Brian Raison Ph.D. Associate Professor, Extension Educator Community Development, Miami County Ohio.

Technology in the City

Extension Technology in the City

Cities have been known as centers for innovation and progress for as long as they have existed. This is especially true in the technology sector, as cities often produce new methods of communicating and living with technology. Technology has become a very integral part of society, having something to do with virtually every aspect of our lives, in urban, suburban, and rural regions. As technology becomes more and more prevalent, the need to keep up with the technological changes grows as well. There are already many ways that Extension uses technology to disseminate information and knowledge, reach a larger audience, facilitate professional development, and communicate more efficiently with their local community (Typhinia 2015).

Technology as a Form of Communication

Urban Extension programs have the most to gain from maximizing technology use for their various programs due to their large population base (Schneider 2011). There are many innovative ways of using technology to better communicate with residents, and distribute knowledge on a larger scale, boosting Extension’s presence. There is also an opportunity to become more relevant with a younger generation who otherwise would not use Extension’s services (Typhinia 2015). These connections can be made through social media and educational programs that integrate technology. In addition to reaching new audiences, Extension could connect with other programs/partners who are interested in the tech side of youth development (Typhinia 2015).

The Digital Divide

 

 Mapping digital divide_nofig

According to the Whitehouse Brief, Mapping the Digital Divide (2015), factors influencing those who are often disproportionately limited by the digital divide include age, income, educational attainment levels, community type, people with disabilities, and language. The number of people living in Ohio’s largest cities who reflect these demographic characteristics presents an opportunity for OSU Extension in the City.

Potential Impact

Technology innovations give Extension the opportunity to impact the people, programs, partners, and presence of Extension in urban areas. Technology increases the ability to communicate with socially and ethnically diverse populations, assists in the accessibility of our programs, expands the variety of partners that we are able to work with, and increases the presence of Extension, both by name recognition, and physical locations. Maintaining a strong connection to technological changes will assist OSU Extension in the City to continue to be locally relevant, responsive statewide, and recognized nationally. Using this to improve marketing, programming, personnel through professional development, and new partnerships is necessary to have the collective impact that we are aiming for, while also laying the framework for years of Extension excellence in Ohio’s urban areas.

Interact – Respond to this blog post

Without a doubt, you use technology in numerous facets every day. In what ways have you seen technology have a positive impact on your programming? What areas in your programming would you like to see technology use increased?  What do you think is Extension’s role in bridging the digital divide?

 

 

 

Sources

  1. Kudryavtsev, Alexey, Marianne Krasny, Gretchen Ferenz, and Lisa Babcock. “Use of Computer Technologies by Educators in Urban Community Science Education Programs.” Journal of Extension5 (2007): n. pag. Extension Journal, Oct. 2007. Web. Sept. 2015.
  2. Mapping the Digital Divide https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/wh_digital_divide_issue_brief.pdf
  3. Schneider, Sandra, Donna-Jean Brock, Crystal Lane, Peggy Meszaros, and Barbara Lockee. “Using Information Technology to Forge Connections in an Extension Service Project.” Journal of Extension6 (2011): n. pag. Extension Journal, Dec. 2011. Web. Sept. 2015.
  4. Typhinia, Eli, Robert Bardon, and Laurie Gharis. “Collaborating with Your Clients Using Social Media & Mobile Communications.” Journal of Extension1 (2015): n. pag. Extension Journal, Feb. 2015. Web. Sept. 2015.

 

 

National Urban Extension Conference

At the beginning of May, a handful of OSU employees attended the National Urban Extension Conference in Atlanta Georgia. The conference was an excellent experience with representation from 44 states, with the total number of attendees exceeding 300.

Through the various speakers, workshops, and networking, one thing became clear; urban Extension efforts are gaining momentum, and more universities are acknowledging the need for strong urban models. Extension educators and administrators from all over the country shared information on how they are able to handle unique challenges and opportunities in large cities.

The National Urban Extension Leaders held a special event for attendees to discuss their vision for the future of Extension in urban areas. This added to an already exceptional experience, assisting us in further developing the framework for advancing OSU Extension in the City.

OSU Extension professionals presented the following:

Leadership in the City – Julie Fox

Urban Youth and 4-H: Research-Based Engagement – Janice Hanna

Extension in the City – Julie Fox, Laquore Meadows, James Stiving

Vacant to Vibrant – Suzanne Mills-Wasniak, Brad Bergefurd, Tony Nye, Julie Fox

To see the conference information, click here

 

 

Urban Extension in New York City

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 Ohio

Comparing 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

 

 

 

 

2014 Population Changes in Ohio’s Cities

Every ten years, there is a census which determines the population of places throughout the country, along with the demographics of those populations. A lot can happen in ten years that would affect the size of a city or county. Industry could leave a place, causing the population to plummet, or on the contrary, industry could grow and expand, causing the population to boom. While the official population will stay the same until the next census, there is a yearly survey that monitors the growth of population, although not as extensive. This facilitates the tracking of population growth and decline on a yearly basis, and can be helpful on many levels.

The 2014 data has just been released, and there are some growing trends that should be focused on. To see more in depth versions of these statistics, visit Census Quick Facts and allcolumbusdata.com

The decline of the American rust belt is still in effect in northern Ohio, as Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Lucas (Toledo), and Mahoning (Youngstown) all reported a decline in population over the last year. This should not come as a shock to most, as that region has been declining for close to five decades, and although it seems to be tapering off, it is still an area that will need to be revitalized in the future. It is important to note that the two counties to the west of Cleveland reported growth, which could indicate a lack of investment in the city itself, as opposed to the whole metro area.

Columbus and central Ohio continue to be growing at record pace. An estimated 25,000 people moved into the Columbus metro area over the last year, and of that 25,000, 15,000 moved into the city of Columbus¹. Columbus has been the largest city in the state since 1990, and currently has 822,000 people, and continues to rise.²

The other region that reported notable growth was the Cincinnati region. While Cincinnati has declined in similar fashion of Cleveland, they were not hit nearly as hard with de-industrialization. The population of Cincinnati proper has almost come to a halt, with a small amount of growth being reported. The counties around Cincinnati are growing quickly, which is causing growth in the region.

Below is a map representing the changes in population over the last year in Ohio’s counties.

population change

A lot can be inferred from population shifts, and while in depth, specific data is more useful in assisting Extension programs, this information can still positively impact existing programs.

Being aware of what is going on within urban counties can be difficult, given the enormity of the population. By following growth trends in cities, you can determine what to do with the influx in potential clients, or what ways you can better serve the population that is staying in an area that people aren’t staying in. Many of these situations are very unique, and relative, but in subsequent posts, we will explain potential issues and options for people working in cities that are growing, shrinking, or staying the same!

 

Written by: James Stiving

Peer Reviewed by: Julie Fox

 

 

References

1. U.S. Census Bureau; generated by James Stiving; using American FactFinder; <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39049.html>; (28 March 2015).

2. Evans, Walker. “Columbus Region Grows by Over 25,000 in Past Year.” ColumbusUndergroundcom. Columbus Underground, 26 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.

3. “All Columbus, Ohio Data.” All Columbus Ohio Data. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2015.

OSU Extension in the City Timeline

The history of OSU Extension goes back to the inception of the university as a whole. The presence of Extension within Ohio’s cities has been constant, but at times, has struggled to break from its rural roots. Recently there has been a focus on urban extension programming. See the timeline created here:

http://cityextension.osu.edu/node/88