Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(2): March 2008 according to USFS requirements for state U&CF programs as a condition of receiving federal funding (Hauer 2005). These four areas include the state U&CF program coordinator, volun- teer/partnership coordination, state U&CF council, and strategic plan. State U&CF council questions focused on the activity of the council, council members and how appointed, administrative support, recommendations made by the council to state govern- ment, coordination of U&CF by the council within a state, and overall functional support toward achieving nine USFS goals for state councils. Questions pertaining to the state U&CF coordi- nator and volunteer/partnership coordination included educa- tion background, years in the position, total years of experience, and turnover of positions. Also, responsibilities of volunteer/ partnership staff were ascertained along with mechanisms taken to fulfill this role. Information on strategic plan development and use was also ascertained. In addition, the administrative unit where the program resided, the year the program was initiated, staffing levels and expertise areas, additional non-U&CF respon- sibilities of staff, program support given by state government and the agency that houses the state program, and coordination of U&CF within a state were determined. In brief, the questionnaire was sent to the entire population of 50 state U&CF coordinators using a mailing list maintained by the USFS; the questionnaire and compiled descriptive summary statistics are found in Hauer (2005). Delivery of the question- naire used elements of the Tailored Design Method and seven total contacts, which resulted in an 84% response rate with 41 useable questionnaires (Dillman 2000). Data were entered in Microsoft Access 2002 with both Microsoft Excel 2002 (Micro- soft, Redmond, WA) and SPSS version 11.5 (SPSS Inc., Chi- cago, IL) used to compile descriptive statistics. No nonresponse error was detected; thus, findings from this study are reflective of the entire population of 50 state U&CF programs (Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2008). Further, non-item response error was not a concern with 95% to 100% response to most questions (the isolated exceptions were noted in the results). A complete de- scription of the questionnaire delivery is presented elsewhere (Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2008). RESULTS Program Background State U&CF programs reside in a variety of agencies/entities within a state. From the questionnaire data and data compiled from an agency web site search of nonresponding states, 34% of state programs were housed within a Department of Natural Re- sources and/or Conservation. In addition, 10% have their U&CF program within an agency that includes natural resources within the agency title. In 18% of states, the U&CF program was housed within a Department of Forestry or Forestry Commission, within the State Agriculture Department in 12% of states, within a uni- versity system in 10% of states, the Department of Environment in 10% of states, and State Land Department in 6% of states. Respondents provided insight into factors limiting the state U&CF program. A majority 57.5% believed their state U&CF program was not given adequate attention by the state agency and this could pose problems with satisfying a requirement of the U&CF program. Compared with other forestry programs in the agency, 48.8% believed their agency gave fair support and 26.8% rated it as good. The three most common factors written as limiting the U&CF program were budget/funding from state 75 and federal government (17 states), staffing levels (13 states), and awareness or perception of importance of U&CF (nine states). Nearly 90% were optimistic about the long-term future of their U&CF program with 45.7% believing expansion and 42.9% indicating status quo will occur. Only 11.4% thought the pro- gram would either be eliminated or reduced in size with budget- ary limitations given as a common reason for this response. Coordination of U&CF among people and organizations in- volved in U&CF in the state appears promising. Exactly 50% of responding states reported a good and 32.5% indicated fair co- ordination among people and organizations involved in U&CF in the state. Only 17.5% suggested coordination was excellent and none thought coordination was either poor or not occurring within a state. States used a combination of informal and formal coordination methods with 78% using more than one. Informal (i.e., meetings, task forces, committees, conferences) and formal (i.e., state U&CF council, committee, or board) coordination mechanisms were used by 85.4% and 87.8% of states, respec- tively. A minority (19.5%) of states used memorandums of understanding (MOUs) for coordination and only one state indi- cated coordination occurred by directive from their state legisla- ture. Formal mechanisms were the primary coordination method used by 63.6% of states with 27.3% using informal and 9.1% using MOUs. Non-item response was high for this question with only 53.7% of states responding. State Urban and Community Forestry Council The USFS requires an U&CF advisory council within a state to receive federal funds (Table 1). All states met this requirement and the council is active in 95% of states. Within states, 84.6% of state councils were formed between 1990 and 1992 and only three states (7.7%) initiated councils before the federal require- ment resulting from the 1990 Farm Bill. Councils met a mean 4.6 times per year. States reported 45% of councils have incorpo- rated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and 56.1% of state councils have developed a strategic plan. State councils can take the form of an executive level only organization, a general membership only organization, or may use both forms. Most states (71.8%) have both executive and general members, 20.5% have only general membership, and 7.7% have only executive level members. The general member- ship ranged from zero to 310 with a mean of 62.5 (median, 20) in a state council. The number of executive members were lower, ranging from zero to 40 within a state and a mean of 9.4 (median, 6.5) members. Of states with an executive committee, 57.1% elect the members, 20% appoint members, and 22.9% use both elections and appointments. State councils rely greatly on administrative support from the state agency administering the U&CF program through the state coordinator in 85.4% of states. In 39% of states, significant support from other state employees within the agency is pro- vided with the state coordinator still providing significant coun- cil support in 93.8% of these states. Organization administra- tion through paid staff is not common with 17.1% of state U&CF councils using a paid executive director and 7.3% using paid administrative support. Less than 5% rely on volunteers or council members to undertake a significant role in council administration. One role councils undertake is providing advice to the state legislature on issues affecting the state U&CF resource. However, few U&CF councils do such with 24.4% either rarely ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture
March 2008
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
