Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

NatureServe Network Member Program Survey

155 views

Published on

Results of a survey of NatureServe Network member programs to assess the housing, funding, staffing capacity, guiding statutes, unique assets, and critical challenges faced by individual programs with the goal of strengthening the network and leveraging network assets.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NatureServe Network Member Program Survey

  1. 1. Powered by NatureServe Network Member Program Survey January 2016 NatureServe Leadership Training Attendees A survey designed to assess the housing, funding, staffing capacity, guiding statutes, unique assets, and critical challenges faced by individual programs with the goal of strengthening the network and leveraging network assets.
  2. 2. Powered by
  3. 3. Responded = 70 (90%) Response on the Way = 4 (5%) No Response = 4 (5%) *Non responders were emailed several times Responses to 27 Question Survey
  4. 4. 27 (35%) 16 (21%) 8 (10%) 12 (15%) 15 (19%) Institutional Housing
  5. 5. Guiding Statutes? Yes = 42 (54%) No = 28 (36%)
  6. 6. Directly Involved with Land Acquisition or Management? Yes = 28 (36%) No = 42 (54%)
  7. 7. Number of Full Time Staff Network Summary Statistics Mean = 11.3 Median = 7 Range = 0 - 58 6 programs have no full time staff 15 programs have only 1-4 full time staff Total of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff
  8. 8. Number of Full Time Staff Network Summary Statistics Mean = 11.3 Median = 7 Range = 0 - 58 6 programs have no full time staff 15 programs have only 1-4 full time staff Total of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff
  9. 9. • 57 of 78 programs responded to some extent • Mean annual funding for 54 programs = $1,296,214 • Median annual funding for 54 = $712,500 • Range in annual funding (N = 54) = $4,000 to $9,500,000 • Total annual funding for 54 programs = $69,995,594
  10. 10. Percentages State/ Provincial funding for core functions Federal funding for core functions Private funding for core functions Federal, state, or private funding for projects NatureServe (FESTF, MJD, or other) Fees charged for individual data requests Subscrip- tions for data renewed at intervals Other N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 Mean 47.6 12.6 3.6 25.1 2.4 0.9 1.7 6.2 Median 47.5 0.5 0 11 0 0 0 0 Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 100 90 100 96 99 12 32 100 Dollars N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 Mean $392,267 $178,320 $31,261 $409,027 $6,419 $10,449 $14,071 $171,069 Median $237,500 $4,330 $0 $98,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Minimum $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maximum $1,893,009 $2,850,000 $811,290 $2,379,784 $90,000 $133,800 $203,000 $4,719,448 Total $21,182,419 $9,629,277 $1,688,090 $22,087,446 $346,610 $564,219 $759,819 $9,237,714
  11. 11. N = 58
  12. 12. N = 54
  13. 13. Total Funding % Funding from State/ Prov/Nat for Core Functions
  14. 14. Total Funding % Funding from Federal for Core Functions
  15. 15. Total Funding % Funding for Projects
  16. 16. Percentage of Programs Reporting the Following as Funders N = 66
  17. 17. Regular Partner/Stakeholder Meetings? Yes = 19 (24%) No = 50 (64%) Programs with Regular Partner Meetings Number of Partner Attendees Colorado Natural Heritage Program 140 Montana Natural Heritage Program 35 Natural Heritage New Mexico 25 Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre 20 Minnesota NH and Nongame Research Program 15 Idaho Natural Heritage Program 12 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 10 Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 5 New York Natural Heritage Program 4 Rhode Island Natural History Survey 4 Connecticut Natural Diversity Database 3 Yukon Conservation Data Centre 2 Northwest Territory Conservation Data Center 1 Tennessee Division of Natural Areas 1 Manitoba Conservation Data Centre ?
  18. 18. Percentage of U.S. and Canadian Programs Reporting the Following as Stakeholders N = 60
  19. 19. Percentage of Programs with Position Filled (Yes)
  20. 20. N = 67
  21. 21. Director Yes = 58 (74%) No = 12 (15%)
  22. 22. Finance & Grants Administrator Yes = 7 (9%) No = 63 (81%)
  23. 23. Office Manager Yes = 18 (23%) No = 52 (67%)
  24. 24. Database Manager Yes = 52 (67%) No = 18 (23%)
  25. 25. Data Assistant Yes = 30 (38%) No = 40 (51%)
  26. 26. Web Programmer Yes = 10 (13%) No = 60 (77%)
  27. 27. Botanist with Vascular Plant Expertise Yes = 52 (67%) No = 18 (23%)
  28. 28. Botanist with Nonvascular Plant Expertise Yes = 14 (18%) No = 56 (72%)
  29. 29. Botanist with Mycology Expertise Yes = 2 (3%) No = 68 (87%)
  30. 30. Terrestrial Vertebrate Zoology Expertise Yes = 50 (64%) No = 20 (26%)
  31. 31. Aquatic Vertebrate Zoology Expertise Yes = 21 (27%) No = 49 (63%)
  32. 32. Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoology Expertise Yes = 28 (36%) No = 42 (54%)
  33. 33. Aquatic Invertebrate Zoology Expertise Yes = 23 (29%) No = 47 (61%)
  34. 34. Wetland or Aquatic Plant Community Ecologist Yes = 20 (26%) No = 50 (64%)
  35. 35. Terrestrial Plant Community Ecologist Yes = 38 (49%) No = 32 (41%)
  36. 36. Terrestrial Plant Community Ecologist Yes = 38 (49%) No = 32 (41%)
  37. 37. Environmental Review Coordinator Yes = 27 (35%) No = 43 (55%)
  38. 38. Wetland Mapper Yes = 7 (9%) No = 63 (81%)
  39. 39. GIS Analyst with Photogrammetric Experience Yes = 20 (26%) No = 50 (64%)
  40. 40. GIS Analyst with Predictive Modeling Experience Yes = 20 (26%) No = 50 (64%)
  41. 41. Natural Areas Coordinator Yes = 12 (15%) No = 58 (74%)
  42. 42. Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator Yes = 11 (14%) No = 59 (76%)
  43. 43. Management of Element Occurrence Data Biotics 5 = 42 (54%) Biotics 5 and Self Constructed = 5 (6%) Self Constructed = 18 (23%) Other 3rd Party Software = 5 (6%)
  44. 44. Percentage of Programs Managing Information (Yes)
  45. 45. Manage Plant Observations Yes = 37 (47%) No = 33 (43%)
  46. 46. Manage Plant Element Occurrences Yes = 56 (72%) No = 14 (18%)
  47. 47. Manage Plant Surveys Yes = 43 (55%) No = 27 (35%)
  48. 48. Produce Plant Models Yes = 25 (32%) No = 45 (58%)
  49. 49. Manage Animal Observations Yes = 42 (54%) No = 28 (36%)
  50. 50. Manage Animal Element Occurrences Yes = 52 (67%) No = 19 (23%)
  51. 51. Manage Animal Surveys Yes = 38 (49%) No = 32 (41%)
  52. 52. Produce Animal Models Yes = 25 (32%) No = 45 (58%)
  53. 53. Manage Community Element Occurrences Yes = 47 (60%) No = 23 (30%)
  54. 54. Manage Wetland Mapping Information Yes = 21 (27%) No = 49 (63%)
  55. 55. Manage Riparian Mapping Information Yes = 9 (12%) No = 61 (78%)
  56. 56. Manage Land Cover Mapping Information Yes = 24 (31%) No = 46 (59%)
  57. 57. Manage Land Management Information Yes = 36 (46%) No = 34 (44%)
  58. 58. Manage Species Information for Field Guide Yes = 29 (37%) No = 41 (53%)
  59. 59. Manage Information on Conservation Sites Yes = 37 (48%) No = 33 (42%)
  60. 60. Interest in Predictive Distribution Modeling? Yes, currently involved = 36 (46%) Yes, not currently involved = 27 (35%) No = 5 (6%)
  61. 61. Interest in Regional Cross Border Displays of Information Yes, currently involved = 22 (28%) Yes, not currently involved = 39 (50%) No = 7 (9%)
  62. 62. Percent of Element Ranks Reviewed in Last 5 Years N Mean Median Plant Elements 57 50 50 Animal Elements 54 51 38 Community Elements 53 25 1 Characterization of Backlog in Processing EOs Number of Programs Backlog in Processing Plant Elements Animal Elements Community Elements 0-10 9 8 17 11-100 9 5 13 101-1000 20 16 10 1001-10000 13 13 4 >10000 1 7 0 Total N 52 49 44
  63. 63. Percentage of Programs with Web Delivery (Yes)
  64. 64. Web-based Basic Program Information Yes = 64 (82%) No = 6 (8%)
  65. 65. Web-based Enviro Review Tool Yes = 19 (24%) No = 51 (65%)
  66. 66. Field Guide for Species of Concern Yes = 16 (21%) No = 54 (69%)
  67. 67. Field Guide for All Species Yes = 3 (4%) No = 67 (86%)
  68. 68. Interactive Mapping Application for Animal Data Yes = 21 (27%) No = 49 (63%)
  69. 69. Interactive Mapping Application for Plant Data Yes = 19 (25%) No = 51 (65%)
  70. 70. Interactive Mapping Application for Community Data Yes = 14 (18%) No = 56 (72%)
  71. 71. Web-based Species of Concern List Yes = 58 (75%) No = 12 (15%)
  72. 72. Ability to Generate Customized Field Guide Yes = 2 (3%) No = 68 (87%)
  73. 73. Web-based Wetland & Riparian Mapping Yes = 8 (10%) No = 62 (80%)
  74. 74. Web-based Land Cover Mapping Yes = 15 (19%) No = 55 (71%)
  75. 75. Web-based Program Reports Yes = 42 (54%) No = 28 (36%)
  76. 76. Web-based Delivery of other Spatial Data Yes = 28 (36%) No = 42 (54%)
  77. 77. Program’s Unique Assets • Staff Expertise (taxonomic & technical) • Staff Experience (taxonomic & technical) • Staff Dedication • Collaborations/partnerships • Botanical Expertise • We have the data that no one else has • Fish and Game then involvement with SWAPs • University/Library then viewed as neutral non-regulatory source of information • General craziness!
  78. 78. Program’s Greatest Needs • Funding for core data processing • Filling staff vacancies • Web delivery of data / Web Programmer • Address data backlogs with technical expertise and more staff time • Nonvascular plant and invertebrate animal expertise • Younger staff
  79. 79. Cross walking Greatest Assets & Needs • NatureServe funding campaign • Share code for data processing • Share code for website development • Share web programming expertise/staffing • Share nonvascular plant expertise/staffing • Share invertebrate expertise staffing • Provide webinars on unique assets/products
  80. 80. Suggestions for Improving Survey • What are top two strengths and top two weaknesses of the NatureServe Network of Programs? • Number of Plant Species, Animal Species, and Communities in database, number of each that are of State/Provincial Conservation Concern, and number of observations and element occurrences for each • Is program primary or sole source of plant, animal, or community information in jurisdiction? • Examples of collaboration with NatureServe or other programs • Years of experience of staff…longevity/aging • Does program map reference/exemplary natural communities? • Does program map rare community occurrences? • Comment fields for all questions
  81. 81. Notes of Interest • Utah’s funding declined from $426,000 to $173,200 per year in the last 5 years • North Carolina’s funding declined from $1.5 million to $675,000 in 2015/2016 • Rhode Island, Venezuela, and a few others question there involvement in the network
  82. 82. Recommendations 1. Refine the survey and follow up on certain topics like funding, programmatic needs, species tracked 2. Link program needs to Network funding campaign 3. Make this survey a repeating 5 year survey with automated report generation…or add some questions to the health status survey…show results spatially regardless 4. Post results in ArcGIS online and downloadable Excel formats for ready access
  83. 83. Number of Plant Elements Tracked Question was misinterpreted by a variety of respondents!
  84. 84. Number of Animal Elements Tracked Question was misinterpreted by a variety of respondents!
  85. 85. Number of Community Elements Tracked Question was misinterpreted by a variety of respondents!

×