Capturing the Ripples from Community-Driven Business Retention and Expansion Programs

Introduction

Describing the impacts of community-engaged Extension programs is essential for better programming, larger audiences, and public funding (Rennekamp & Arnold, 2009; Diem, 2003). It is also important to maximize community engagement by involving communities in evaluation methods that inform and motivate them (Patton, 2006).

University of Minnesota Extension's three-step Business Retention & Expansion (BR&E) model (Figure 1) represents a strategic planning approach developed by Morse (1990), with a number of revisions adapted due to feedback from local leaders (Loveridge & Morse, 1997; Bosma, 2007). Many states have adopted this model, and in Minnesota alone over 65 communities have completed the BR&E Strategies Program—investing substantial local time and program fees (University of Minnesota Extension, 2013). Extension also makes a substantial investment of educator time in each community BR&E. To justify these high investments, the evaluation results need to demonstrate a relatively high return.

Since 1990, the effectiveness of this BR&E approach has been studied extensively (Loveridge, Smith, & Morse, 1991; Loveridge & Smith, 1992; Smith, Morse, & Lobao, 1992; Loveridge, Smith, & Morse, 1995; Morse & Ha, 1997; Blaine, Hudkins, & Taylor, 1999; Morse & Lazarus, 2000; Bosma, 2007). Although these were valuable studies, they did not provide an evaluation technique that benefits both Extension and participating communities. A better way was needed.

We wanted a new evaluation technique for a legacy program—one that would display BR&E outcomes and impacts in a useful and easily digestible format for both the community and Extension staff. The new technique also needed to be easy to implement and help motivate communities. Until recently, such a method had not been identified.

However, in 2011 Ripple Effect Mapping (REM) emerged as a technique that fits these parameters (Kollock, Flage, Chazdon, Paine, & Higgins, 2012). REM features data gathering via focus groups with program participants. Using REM in the BR&E process is relatively inexpensive and conveys complex concepts in an understandable way. This practice also motivates community members to continue their efforts.

Figure 1.
Minnesota's Three-Step BR&E Approach

Testing in Communities

After receiving training in Ripple Effect Mapping, the Extension BR&E program team tested the REM approach with four Minnesota communities that participated in the BR&E Strategies Program between 2009 and 2012: Hugo, Monticello, and Lyon County (including the city of Marshall), and Forest Lake. Focus groups were convened in each community over a breakfast or lunch setting, with groups ranging from four to 11 individuals. The overall BR&E leader in each community recruited focus group participants from the BR&E Task Force that sponsored the BR&E program. Although indirect beneficiaries of each community's BR&E effort were also invited, very few attended.

The focus group interviews were conducted in 90-minute sessions, using questions such as those in the Lyon County/Marshall script in Table 1. The Extension educator who worked closely with the community BR&E team usually conducted the interview, while the BR&E Program director captured the comments with mind-mapping software.

After the two Extension professionals edited the first draft of the ripple map, it was submitted to each community's overall BR&E leader. The overall leader's role here was to ensure that the draft REM document accurately captured the focus group's discussion. If additional edits or interviews were deemed necessary, this was done iteratively until a mutually acceptable REM was finalized.

Results

Extension professionals analyzed the results using the Community Capitals Framework (Emery & Flora, 2006) to count various community capitals that were affected by BR&E efforts in each community. Emery and Flora (2006) identified seven community capitals (human, social, built, financial, natural, cultural, and civic). The casual observer would say that community BR&E programming is most likely to produce the greatest number of observed effects in either the financial or built capital categories. In fact, these are valid economic development goals in many situations.

However, when analyzing the four communities' BR&E ripple effect maps for observed effects, by far the most observed effect was in human capital—with an average of 64% of the total reported effects observed. Social capital (39%) and civic capital (36%) were the next highest reported effects. Note that some effects were categorized in more than one capital category—thus, the percentages add to more than 100%.

These results (Table 2) did not surprise BR&E program staff because the program recruits a broad-based group of individuals in community BR&E efforts. Involving nonexpert volunteers naturally increases attainment of skills and connections (i.e., human and social capital). Although some increases in financial and built capital were observed, these effects are more likely to occur over time as economic development efforts deepen and come to fruition.

Use of Ripple Effect Maps

All four communities subsequently used the ripple effect maps to document and communicate impacts of their BR&E efforts to the community and beyond. Two communities won international awards for their programs after drawing on the comprehensive outcome data captured by the REM to substantiate the breadth and depth of their accomplishments. Unsurprisingly, winning the awards helped inspire and re-energize program participants to continue BR&E projects. This helps community leaders sustain enthusiasm and continued progress on their priority projects.

Application of Ripple Effect Mapping to the BR&E process also proved beneficial to Extension staff. For example, REM results contributed qualitative and quantitative data for the Extension annual report to state and federal funders. The maps also opened doors to deeper anecdotal and case study analysis.

Conclusion

Ripple Effect Mapping is not designed to replace periodic comprehensive evaluation across a statewide program (Davis, 2012). However, REM provides a high-quality, hands-on evaluation tool for community BR&E projects, as well as other community engagement efforts. What's more, REM allows follow-up mapping opportunities with communities that sustain their BR&E initiatives. Potentially a series of maps could sequence results over time, while simultaneously contributing to sustained or increased involvement by community participants. It is hoped that periodic check-ins with BR&E communities will increase opportunities to both record their successes and encourage more.

References

Blaine, T. W., Hudkins, S. A., & Taylor, C. R. (1999). Taking R&E to the next level. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(6) Article 6FEA2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999december/a2.php

Bosma, L. (2007). From BR&E theory to practice in Minnesota: Lessons learned from local community modifications in implementation. Unpublished professional evaluation of the Business Retention and Expansion (BR&E) process in nine Minnesota communities, Extension Center for Community Vitality, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

Davis, G. (2012). The value in evaluating and communicating program impact: The Ohio BR&E program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 50(3) Article 3RIB1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2012june/rb1.php

Diem, K. G. (2003). Program development in a political world—It's all about impact! Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(1) Article 1FEA6. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/a6.php 

Emery, M., & Flora, C. B. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, 37(1), 19-35.

Kollock, D., Flage, L., Chazdon, S., Paine, N., & Higgins, L. (2012). Ripple effect mapping: A "radiant" way to capture program impacts. Journal of Extension [On-line], 50(5) Article 5TOT6. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2012october/tt6.php 

Loveridge, S., & Smith, T. R. (1992). Factors related to success in business retention and expansion programs. Journal of the Community Development Society, 23(2), 66-78.

Loveridge, S., & Morse, G. W. (1997). Implementing local business retention and expansion visitation programs (NERCRD No. 72). University Park, PA: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.

Loveridge, S., Smith, T., & Morse, G. W. (1991). What does it take to run a local business retention and expansion program? A six-state study. Economic Development Review, Winter, 12-15.

Loveridge, S., Smith, T. R., & Morse, G. W. (1995). Volunteer visitor business retention and expansion programs. In D. W. Sears & J. N. Reid (Eds.), Chapter 8: Rural development strategies. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Inc.

Morse, G., & Ha, I. (1997). How successful are business retention and expansion implementation efforts? Economic Development Review, 15(1), 8-13.

Morse, G. W., & Lazarus, W. F. (2000). Failures lead to success in dairy business retention and enhancement programs. In P.V. Schaeffer & S. Loveridge (Eds.), Small town and rural economic development. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Patton, M. (2006). Deepening Extension's knowledge base: Best practices and high quality lessons learned. Presentation at the University of Minnesota Extension annual conference, Brooklyn Center, MN.

Rennekamp, R. A., & Arnold, M. E. (2009). What progress, program evaluation? Reflections on a quarter-century of Extension evaluation practice. Journal of Extension [On-line], 47(3) Article 3COM1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/comm1.php

Smith, T. R., Morse, G. W., & Lobao, L. (1992). Measuring impacts of business retention and expansion visitation programs. Journal of the Community Development Society, 23(1).

University of Minnesota Extension. (2013). Business retention and expansion: Helping Minnesota communities retain and expand their businesses. Retrieved from: www.extension.umn.edu/community/business-retention/