III Periodic Review of Centers (Academic Policy 100.0)
Public Policy Research Institute
A. Written Report Summary:
1.
Purpose:
The Public Policy
Research Institute was created to examine social and economic issues related to
development. In 1990, the Board of Regents expanded the scope of the Institute
to include environmental issues, recognizing the growing importance of the
relationships among social, economic, and environmental issues. In political
and academic circles, these links are best captured today by the terms
"sustainable development" or "sustainability," often
defined as "Development that meets human needs while conserving earth's
life support system."
In the fall of
2002, faculty and deans from the School of
2.
Objectives:
The
Institute operates on the assumption that one of most effective ways to shape
public policy - and to develop and implement strategies to sustain communities
and landscapes - is to create opportunities for the right people to come
together with the best available information to address issues of common
concern. In this respect, we are not alone. Throughout the world, there is a
growing recognition that the most effective way to promote livable communities,
vibrant economies, and healthy landscapes is through public processes that are
inclusive, informed, and deliberative.
Based on this
assumption, the Institute serves as an impartial, non-partisan forum to
exchange ideas, develop and analyze policy options, and solve public problems.
We assist and equip people with diverse viewpoints to solve problems related to
the integration of social, economic, and environmental interests. Three over-arching principles guide our work.
Principle # 1 - Inclusive Participation: By inclusive participation, we
mean that an effort is made to meaningfully engage all viewpoints and
interests, including unaffiliated citizens and national interests. It also
suggests that participants are empowered by the presumption that their input
and advice will be considered by the decision makers and will influence the
outcome.
Principle
# 2 - An Informed Process: An informed process is one where there is an equal
opportunity to share views and information. The process fosters mutual
learning, common understanding, and consideration of a variety of options. It
enables participants to jointly develop and rely on the best available
information, regardless of the source.
Principle
# 3 - Deliberative Dialogue: A deliberative dialogue occurs when people listen to each
other, consider the rationale or reason for competing viewpoints (the interests
that underlie the positions), and seek solutions that integrate as many
interests as possible. Based on years of
experience, we believe that this principled approach to public policy will:
ź
Result
in decisions that receive broad public support;
ź
Save
time and money when compared to lobbying, litigation, and other ways of shaping
public policy or resolving public disputes;
ź
Provide
the most direct and meaningful form of public participation;
ź
Effectively
integrate social and political values with scientific and technical
considerations;
ź
Make
implementation easier because the major stakeholders have helped shape the
proposed policy; and
ź
Promote
sustainable communities and landscapes.
3. Activities:
The Institute’s activities include education, research, and public
service (in the form of assisting citizens and communities with public
deliberation and regional collaboration).
ź Natural
Resource Conflict Resolution Program (The University of Montana)
ź Bureau of
Land Management Capacity Building Program
ź State
Planning Directors in the West (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy)
ź Resolving
Land Use Disputes (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Consensus Building
Institute)
ź California
(November 2004)
ź Nevada
(March 2005)
ź LEO in the
West – Planning Fundamentals (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy)
ź Natural
Resource Dispute Resolution (School of
ź Public Land
Research
ź The Western
Confluence: A Guide to Governing Natural
Resources (Island Press, 2004).
ź The Value of
Community-based Collaboration: Some
Empirical Evidence (chapter in forthcoming
book on environmental policy and politics).
ź Mandating
Dispute Resolution in Environmental
ź Designing
Systems to Deal with Chronic Land Use Disputes (ongoing research and writing).
Public Deliberation
ź Montana on
the Move
ź
Inter-University Consortium on Federal Lands
ź
Regional Collaboration
ź San Luis
Valley, Colorado
ź Wasatch
Front, Utah
ź Five
Valleys, Montana
ź Columbia
River Gorge, Washington and Oregon
ź Southern
Florida
ź Regional
Collaboration: Learning to Think and Act
Like a Region (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy)
ź Regional
Collaboration Workbook (Kettering Foundation)
4. Other organizations involved:
|
University
of Montana |
Foundations |
|
Non-Government
Organizations |
|
|
Other
Academic Institutions |
|
5.
Reporting line:
The Director of the Institute reports to the Vice-President for Research and
Development.
6.
Relationships with academic units: The Institute’s full-time Director
also serves as a Senior Lecturer at the
The Institute’s primary contribution to academic life at UM is its leadership
to create the new Natural Resource Conflict Resolution Program, which is
the only graduate-level program in the Rocky Mountain West specifically
designed to provide students an in-depth knowledge of the theory and practice
to:
ź Foster meaningful citizen participation
ź Promote
deliberation dialogue
ź Negotiate
effective agreements
ź Resolve
multi-party disputes
ź Design and
manage effective collaborative processes
The institute serves as a focal point for scholarship, continuing education,
and public service on issues related to federal lands management through
three different programs. The Institute
recently received a multi-year contract to service, along with the Consensus
Building Institute, as the primary advisor on alternative dispute resolution
and collaborative problem solving to the U.S. Bureau of Land management. The Institute is responsible for providing a
series of training programs for BLM officials, preparing at least two
handbooks, and creating a “learning laboratory’ at the University whereby
students and faculty can interact with BLM officials and others involved in
federal land management. Several
research, internship and other academic opportunities are anticipated for
students and faculty.
In cooperation with the Center for the Rocky Mountain West, the Institute serves
as the secretariat for the Inter-university Consortium on Federal Lands. The intent of the consortium is to work with
Congress and the Administration to (1) conduct impartial research on issues
identified by Congress, agencies, or others; 92) generate and analyze
alternative solutions; (3)convene multi-party policy dialogues to identify
which options may be feasible and practical; and (4) report to policymakers in
a timely fashion through reports and briefings.
As the consortium continues to take shape, it is anticipated that there
will be opportunities for students and faculty to engage in research,
education, and public service activities.
The Institute, in cooperation with the School of
In addition the Institute’s staff recently published a book and frequently
publishes articles in periodicals, newsletters, and academic journals. In some cases, students are involved in conducting
research for these publications. See report for specifics.
7.
Similar programs:
The Institute works with a number of similar programs and organizations in
8. Budget:
a.
1. Current faculty and percentage of time:
Director/Lecturer,
School of
Current staff: Senior Associate 50%
2. Need and cost for new faculty
(next five years): none anticipated
3. Need for other personnel: none
b. Use and anticipated needs (next five years) of University Resources:
Adequate, no change anticipated.
c. Source of Funding (Provide figures for the last fiscal year):
Baseline Budget per Office of the
Vice President of Research and Development (VPRD):
|
General
Funds |
$0 |
0% |
Personnel |
$99,560 |
86.85% |
|
Grants |
$57,320 |
50% |
Operations |
$15,080 |
13.15% |
|
Other |
$57,320 |
50% |
Other |
$0 |
0% |
|
Total |
$114,640 |
100% |
Total |
$114,640 |
100% |
In fiscal year 2005, the budget will actually be as high as
$172,186. This is due in part to an additional
$80,000 brought in through a grant with BLM.
(The Director thought half of the 172,186 would be paid by the VPRD, but
the VPRD says it is only $57,320.)
Anticipated source of funding for the
next five years: The current funding
arrangement will continue into the future. (The funds for the baseline budget
are guaranteed through
B. Review and Approval Process
2. The Faculty Senate through its Chair,
Review
in terms of Scope as stated in academic policy 100.0
To provide instruction, scholarship, or service to the University, state or
world by: (1) focusing attention on an
area of strength and/or addressing a critical issue, or (2) facilitating
collaborative, multi-disciplinary endeavors to combine resources from several
programs or institutions to address issues of common interest.
Concept of the Institute is not controversial,
but the topics it addresses may be.
This center
exists to examine issues related to economic development. It considers social, economic and
environmental factors. It promotes the
presentation of different points of view and facilitates discussions of issues
among the various constituencies. The
Institute itself does not represent a particular point of view.
Beneficial relationship with
academic unit
The primary
academic activity provided by the center is the creation of the Natural Resource
Conflict Resolution Program. This
graduate-level program is co-sponsored by law, forestry and conservation, and
environmental studies. This is an
18-credit certificate program.
Currently consuming more resources
than it generates
The
Institute has one fulltime Director and a halftime Senior Associate. Half of the total budget is paid for by a
grant; the rest is paid for by UM (implied source is the
Making progress toward objectives: Yes.
Appears to have a strong presence in the Northwest with many programs
and meetings planned.
Recommendation: Maintain center as is.
Justification:
This
Institute appears to be well established and provides a critical non-partisan
forum for discussing potentially explosive issues related to development in the
state.