This document summarizes a presentation by Scott Hutcheson on developing effective strategies for addressing public issues. The presentation explores factors that contribute to successful strategies, including having a network structure, using an asset-based framework, an iterative planning process, and decentralized implementation. Survey results of strategy participants showed a positive correlation between effectiveness and these factors, such as network structures and building on assets. The presentation provides recommendations for improving strategies, such as reframing issues as opportunities and accelerating collaborations.

1. Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Effective Strategy for Addressing
Public Issues
Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D.
IEEA Spring Conference
Nashville, IN – April 29, 2014

2. What to Expect From This Session
• Present insights from research on the effective development and
implementation of strategies to address community-based public
issues
• Explore how to incorporate findings into Extension community-based
public issues work

3. Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
The Great and the Near
Great in the White River
Country
by Z. M. Horton
The Baxter Bulletin
Dec 31, 1915
S. J. Hutcheson, a well known farmer and stockman of
Norfork, roping a calf

4. White River Ferry at Norfork, Arkansas, circa 1900

6. Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Norfork, Arka
nsas
(pop. 550)

7. Our communities, big and small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES

8. Our communities, big and small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES
✔
✔
✔
✔

9. Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Research
Question
Why are some strategies
for addressing public
issues successful and
others…not so much?

10. Answering the Question
A grounded theory exploration
using a sequential mixed method
approach beginning with a
qualitative phase in which semi-
structured interviews resulting were
conducted with a purposively
sampled panel of experts resulting
in data that was open coded using
the data spiral analysis method
followed by a quasi-experimental
quantitative phase in which two
contrasted groups of purposefully
sampled, randomly assigned
participants were
surveyed, resulting in data that was
analyzed using Spearman’s rho to
determine correlation coefficients.
1. Literature review
2. Interviews
3. Surveys

11. Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Problem
Statement
• Literature gap regarding factors
contributing to effective strategy in the
context of public issues like economic
development (Kwon, Berry, &
Feiock, 2009).
• Civic leaders face daunting tasks of
developing and implementing
strategies to address these public
issues (Markey, 2010).
• Very little research-based information
to guide decisions about effective
strategy-development processes.

12. • Evolution of public issues
• Institutionalization
• Locus of control
• Increasing complexity
• Tools for managing public issues
• Early tools
• Evolving tools
• Emerging tools
• Contributing theories
• Strategy formation
• Collaborative governance
• Social innovation
Insights from the Literature
Conducted as part of the grounded
theory data collection process
(McGhee, Marland, and
Atkinson, 2007).
Conducted to provide
contextualization (Dunne, 2011) and
orientation to the phenomenon
(Pozzebon, Petrini, de Mellow, and
Garreau, 2011).

13. Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Evolution of
How We
Deal with
Public Issues
Institutionalization
• Pre-institutional (Pre- WW2)
• Institutional (1950-1990)
• Multi-Institutional (1990 to today)
Locus of Control
• Control in the hands of the “elite” (Perrucci &
Pilisuk, 1970).
• Most economic & community development
issues are “Type 3 Public Problems” and
control is shared by a group of “nonexperts”
(Heifitz and Sinder, 1988).

14. Hierarchy of Complex Systems
•Social Organizations –
economics, education, politics
•Individual Human – language
capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and
use of tools
•Animal – mobility, information processing
•Plants – viability
•Open Systems – matter, energy
•Cybernetics – computers
•Clockworks – engines
•Frameworks – buildings, cells
14
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.

15. The Extension Economist Vs. The Rocket Scientist
15

16. Hierarchy of Complex Systems
•Social Organizations –
economics, education, politics
•Individual Human – language
capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and
use of tools
•Animal – mobility, information processing
•Plants – viability
•Open Systems – matter, energy
•Cybernetics – computers
•Clockworks – engines
•Frameworks – buildings, cells
16
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.

17. Hierarchy of Complex Systems
•Social Organizations –
economics, education, politics
•Individual Human – language
capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and
use of tools
•Animal – mobility, information processing
•Plants – viability
•Open Systems – matter, energy
•Cybernetics – computers
•Clockworks – engines
•Frameworks – buildings, cells
17
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.

18. Hierarchy of Complex Systems
•Social Organizations –
economics, education, politics
•Individual Human – language
capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and
use of tools
•Animal – mobility, information processing
•Plants – viability
•Open Systems – matter, energy
•Cybernetics – computers
•Clockworks – engines
•Frameworks – buildings, cells
18
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.

19. Dealing with the Complexity
19
Early Models
• 1960s in universities, schools, municipalities (Hamilton, 2007)
• Late 1980s/Early 1990s first economic development strategic plans
(Blackerby & Blackerby, 1995)
• Borrowed from industry models (Blair,2004)
Evolving Models
• Recognition that corporate models are less effective (Bryson and
Roering, 1987).
• U.S. Economic Development Administration’s CEDS; Cooperative
Extension Service’s Take Charge (Hein, Cole, & Ayres, 1990); Asset-Based
Community Development, (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996; Community
Capitals, Flora, 1992)
Emerging Models
• Effectiveness of strategic planning in business questioned
(Mintzberg, 1994).
• Effectiveness of strategic planning in economic & community development
questioned ( Blair, 2004; Robichau, 2010; Morrison, 2012)
• Organic Strategic Planning (McNamara, 2010, Open Source Economic
Development (Merkel, 2010), Strategic Doing (Hutcheson, 2008;

20. Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Complexity =
Messes
Public issues
are complex
Institutions
emerged to
deal with the
complexity
There are lots
of
institutions
No single
institution is
“in charge” of
most public
issues
Complex
environment

21. Contributing Theories
•Social Innovation
•Strategy Formation
•Collaborative Governance
21

22. Social Innovation
Social innovations…
• are best designed and implemented in networks
• emerge from heterogeneousness (diversity)
• are framed using existing assets
• are products of co-creation
• are the result of collective action
• should have decentralized implementation
• ,when implemented should focus on tangible results
Bland, Bruk, Kim, and Lee (2010); Bouchard (2012); Mulgan, Ali, Tucker and Sanders (2007);
Neumeier (2012); Oliveira and Breda-Vazquez (2012)

23. Strategy Formation
Strategies…
• are formed intuitively
• are iterative
• must be designed to account for unanticipated variables
• must take into account contextual
values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations
• must be flexible
• should be designed collaboratively
• and best developed as an intra-organizational activity
Feser, 2012; Johanson, 2009; Lindblom, 1959; Mintzberg, 1978; Parnell, 2008; Rindova, Dalpiaz, and
Ravasi, 2011; Sminia, 2012; Tapinos, Dyson, and Meadows, 2011

24. Collaborative Governance
Collaborative governance…
• takes advantage of network structures
• connects existing assets
• focuses first on small wins
• Requires decision making to be made by consensus
• works when there is trust among participants
• is efficient
• involves successful management of both internal and external
stakeholders
Ansell and Gash, 2008; Chiclana et al., 2013; Clarke, Huxley, Mountford, 2010; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh, 2012;
Gibson, 2011; Johnston, Hicks, Nan, and Auer, 2011; Kwon, Berry, and Feiock, 2009; Merkle , 2010; Olberding, 2009;
Ospina and Saz-Carranza, 2010; Pammer, 1998; Poister, 2010

25. Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
These Things
Matter
• Organizational Structure
(hierarchy, network, etc.)
• Framework (asset-based, deficit-
based)
• Processes (planning and
Implementation separate and
distinct, planning and implementation
integrated and iterative, etc.)
• Timeframe (focused on longer-term
goals, focused on shorter-term
goals, etc.)
• Implementation (tasks centralized with
one organization, tasked disseminated
among multiple organizations)

26. Insights from the Panel of Experts
The Qualitative Data
• Population of scholars and practitioners who design
curricula, teach, and/or practice strategy development for
addressing public issues (economic
development, community development, community
health, etc.)
• Sample: N=12
• Semi-structured interviews (IRB-approved, anonymity)
• Verbatim transcripts, data spiral analysis with three levels
of coding: open, axial, selective using qualitative analysis
software
• 56 single-spaced pages/over 31,000 words of data

27. Findings from the Interviews
27
1. Network organization structures
2. Asset-based Frameworks
3. Iterative planning/implementation process
4. Inclusion of shorter-term goals
5. Decentralized implementation
6. Metrics to learn what is working
7. High levels of trust among participants
8. Readiness for change in community

28. Variables
28
1. Network organization structures
2. Asset-based Frameworks
3. Iterative planning/implementation process
4. Inclusion of shorter-term goals
5. Decentralized implementation
6. Metrics to learn what is working
7. High levels of trust among participants
8. Readiness for change in community
Independent
Variables
Dependent Variable = Effectiveness

29. Effectiveness
For the effective strategy initiative you have in mind, how
would you describe its level of effectiveness:
• Completely effective
• Significantly effective
• Somewhat effective
Ineffectiveness
For the ineffective strategy initiative you have in mind, how
would you describe its level of ineffectiveness:
• Somewhat ineffective
• Significantly ineffective
• Completely ineffective
Organizational Structure, etc.
Measuring
the Variables
Hierarchical, with a clear top
and bottom
Network, with a hub and
spokes

30. Insights from Participants
The Quantitative Data
• Population of individuals who have participated in
community-based strategy initiatives to address public
issues (economic development, community
development, community health, etc.)
• Sample of 300 (plus those reached by use of snowball
sample) participants were randomly selected from PCRD
contact database (N=209). Assured that Indiana was not
over represented
• IRB-approved survey constructed using the factors
identified in phase 1, participants randomly assigned to two
contrasting groups

31. Findings from the Surveys
31
Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
Effective & Ineffective Strategy Initiatives – Mean Responses

32. Completely
Effective
Completely
Ineffective
Significantly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Significantly
Ineffective
Findings from the Survey
Effectiveness Continuum
DependentVariables
Correlation

33. Findings from the Surveys
33
Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
Correlation Between Strategy Initiative Effectiveness and the Eight Independent Variables

34. Recipe for EFFECTIVE Strategies
• Have a network organizational structure
• Frame strategies primarily around
building on existing assets
• Have a planning and implementation
processes that is iterative
• Include short-term, easy-win goals
• Decentralize responsibilities for
implementation among multiple
organization
• Use metrics to learn what is working and
to make adjustments along the way
• Build high levels of trust among
participants
• Assure that participants are ready to
change

35. Recipe for INEFFECTIVE Strategies
• Have a hierarchical organizational
structure
• Frame strategies primarily around
addressing problems or deficits
• Have a planning and implementation
process that is linear and sequential
• Include only long-term, transformational
goals
• Centralized responsibilities for
implementation with one organization
• Uses metrics primarily for
accountability
• Proceed even though there are low
levels of trust among participants
• Proceed although participants are not
ready for change

36. Improving Our Practice

37. • Think about public issues differently
• Accelerate the collaborations needed to
address them
• Develop and implement agile, asset-based
strategies to meet a progressive series of
clearly defined strategic objectives
Addressing
Public Issues

38. Framing
Community
Conversations

39. Exercise One: Reframing Public Issues
39
Choose one of the following problem-centered
statements about public issues and reframe it as an
opportunity-centered question.
1. Somebody needs to do something about the graffiti on our
downtown buildings
2. We can’t keep our smartest kids here. We’re suffering from “brain
drain.”
3. In the good old days we had great manufacturing jobs that paid a
great wage.
4. People are not eating enough fruits and vegetables.
5. Our kids are not getting the math and science skills they need.

40. The Collaboration Continuum
Turf
Trust
TIME
Sharing
Resources
Sharing
Information
Mutual
Awareness
Co-Execution
Co-Creation
Acknowledgment Exploration Cooperation Collaboration Innovation
Adapted from Collaboration Continuum from ACT for Youth

41. Exercise Two:
Accelerating
Collaboration
1. Consider a collaboration that
is important to your work
2. Ask yourself what stage on
the continuum is that
collaboration in now?
3. Think of specific steps you
could take to move the
collaboration to the next
level

42. Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D.
765-479-7704
hutcheson@purdue.edu
www.linkedin.com/in/scotthutcheson/
www.twitter.com/jshutch64
www.facebook.com/scott.hutcheson
Thank You
Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.