276 O'Herrin and Shields: Assessing Municipal Forestry Activity in Texas, U.S. 1974 and never modified. Researchers found 53% of Texas cities met or exceeded this measure. However, if this 1974 rate is adjusted for inflation, it rises to $9.31 in 2012 dollars; only about 13% of respondents from Texas met or exceeded this adjusted value. Getting an accurate assessment of spending in Texas compared to other states is not cur- rently possible. The national benchmarks are now over 20 years old, and comparing spend- ing in one state against one other state does little to increase understanding of how a state com- pares nationally on spending on urban forestry because of countless variations between states, including population, area, density, and method of service delivery. On the other hand, compar- ing one state against the 49 other states would increase understanding of how a state com- pares nationally on spending on urban forestry, and the need for national benchmarks is clear. Assistance from the Texas A&M For- est Service Urban Forestry Program The strategy of the Texas A&M Forest Service is to put the vast majority of their funding into staff positions—staff who can advise, assist, and educate (Johnson 2014) as represented by the levels of tech- nical and educational assistance received, which are much higher than levels of financial assistance received. This is consistent with the state program’s mission to “to help build self-sustaining urban for- estry and tree care programs. . .” (emphasis added). Texas does offer some financial assistance, and 14% of cities indicated they had received some. However, the Texas A&M Forest Service has to be very strategic with their limited budget for this type of assistance, which currently includes schol- arships to annual conferences and the Society of Municipal Arborist’s Municipal Forestry Institute. The state program has also funded ISA certifica- tion in the past. Texas has not offered cost-share Financial assistance City size Small (pop. 5,000–29,999) Medium (pop. 30,000–99,999) Large (pop. 100,000–499,999) Respondents Percent Assists 25 13 9 Mega (pop 500,000 and greater) 3 Overall 50 8% 8% 33% 33% 14% per year 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.2 grants to communities for projects (e.g., conduct- ing inventories) since about 2008 (Johnson 2014). Considering the size of Texas, the state pro- gram is small with about 11 FTE employees and a total annual budget of about $900,000, or only about 4% of the total spending on urban forestry of all cities responding to this survey. So, increas- ing financial assistance in the form of grants or scholarships by reducing the number of state FTE employees would not significantly increase spending on urban forestry at the local level. Ries et al. (2007) found 47% of communities in Oregon reported receiving financial assistance, whereas the Texas results found 14% had received financial assistance (Table 7). The study by Ries et al. (2007) was conducted in 2004 when the State of Oregon was receiving almost 50% more funding than they did in 2014 from the Federal Urban and Community Forestry Program (Ries 2014). Oregon is currently conducting a ten-year follow-up survey to Ries et al. (2007), and the expectation is that the amount of financial assistance received by commu- nities will have declined significantly (Ries 2014). Technical assistance refers to advice received by locals from state employees, such as on implement- ing an ordinance. Educational assistance includes attendance at conferences or seminars and read- ing publications or outreach materials. Oregon communities reported receiving more technical assistance (67%) than Texas communities (52%). Educational assistance was very similar between the two states (Oregon 54%; Texas 49%). Both states maintain a website with valuable information on arboriculture and urban forestry, a newsletter, and host/contribute significantly to a state-level annual conference on arboriculture and urban forestry issues. Oregon has 1.4 million residents per one state FTE employee, while Texas has 2.4 million resi- dents per one state FTE employee. Therefore, state community forestry program employees in Table 7. Percent of cities receiving assistance at least once in 2012, and the average number of times assistance was received from the state by city size class. Technical assistance Respondents Percent Assists 27 17 10 4 58 33% 53% 90% 75% 52% per year 1.1 1.5 4.0 3.8 1.9 Educational assistance Respondents Percent Assists 25 18 11 3 57 32% 56% 73% 67% 49% per year 0.7 1.4 2.2 3.7 1.4 ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture
July 2016
| 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
