282 Hauer and Johnson: State U&CF Program Funding, Technical Assistance, and Financial Assistance in the USDA-FS PMAS database (http://spfnic.fs.fed.us/ nicportal/default.cfm?actionLogin) was used to test for differ- ences between responding and nonresponding states using all variables, including the number of communities in the state, communities in each of five activity levels (inactive, project, formative, developmental, and sustained), level of technical as- sistance to communities by project level and in aggregate, finan- cial assistance provided by the federal government, state- supplied financial assistance, leveraged in-kind services, and project and outreach to culturally and economically diverse com- munities. A test for difference in population was further con- ducted using raw state population estimates and state rank for 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). RESULTS Responses Obtained Forty-two of 50 questionnaires were returned (84% response rate). All but one were useable questionnaires and included in the results (one state replied with no responses). Nonresponse error between responding and nonresponding states was absent for all PMAS data elements and for the 2002 state population. Thus, results from this study are representative of all 50 state U&CF programs. Nonitem response error (response to a question) was very low with 95% (n39) to 100% (n41) response to each question. Funding A variety of funding sources support state U&CF programs (n 41). These sources (and percent of states using a source) include the USDA-FS (100%), state government (61%), foundations and trust accounts (12.2%), U.S. Department of Transportation TEA21 funds (9.8%), and contracts and fees (2.4%). Other iden- tified sources of funding were state transportation funds, license plate fees, investor-owned utilities, local match, and Arbor Day sponsors. Two responding states noted (in an open-ended ques- tion) that the USDA-FS-consolidated payment system was used to attain a 100% match for all of the agency’s State & Private Forestry funding but not to fund the program. Consolidated pay- ments occur through using overmatch in other USDA-FS coop- erative programs (e.g., fire control, forest health, forest steward- ship) with states. An estimated $30.7 million (n41) was used to fund the 50 state U&CF programs in 2002 (Table 2). Of this, 60.2% ($18.5 million) came from federal USDA-FS funds and 33.1% ($10.2 million) from state funds. The remaining funding came from foundation/trust funds and Federal TEA21 funds each at 2.9% ($0.89 million for each), contracts/fees accounting for 0.3% ($0.10 million), and other sources for 0.6% ($0.18 million). Just over half (51.4%) of the $36 million federal allocation for U&CF in fiscal year 2002 was delivered to state U&CF programs. In addition to state U&CF support, federal U&CF monies are used for other programs and other areas (e.g., administration, confer- ence support, technology transfer, research, congressional ear- marks). In response to adequacy of funding for the state U&CF pro- gram (n 39), the majority of state U&CF coordinators be- lieved funding is either inadequate (53.8%) or very inadequate (5.1%) to support identified needs. Only 5.1% thought funding was very adequate and 35.9% believed it was adequate. Those that thought funding was less than adequate suggested an aver- age 60.9% (median, 40%; range, 20% to 400%) in additional funding above current levels was needed. Grants to local com- munities (13 states), staffing (eight states), and technical assis- tance (six states) were major items identified as affected by inadequate funding. Federal support to states was critical for state U&CF programs to continue at current levels. If federal funding was eliminated, none of the 41 respondents believed state programs would con- tinue at current levels. Nearly one-third (31.7%) thought the state U&CF program would end, 48.8% responded the program would continue at a severely reduced level, and 19.5% believed a slight or moderate reduction in the state U&CF program would occur. States (n 40) neither use state-level funding to finance state U&CF programs (40%) nor specifically earmark funding through legislation (35%). The states (25%) that had a specific state government funding earmark responded that it was contin- gent on annual or biannual reauthorization (17.5%), the baseline funding was not subject to periodic reauthorization (2.5%), or other (5%) means were used to earmark funding. Reduction in federal funding to the states would also affect local U&CF pro- grams (n 40). Fourteen states (35%) predicted a very high impact, 15 states (37.5%) a high impact, eight states (20%) a moderate impact, and the remaining three states (7.3%) a very low impact. Enabling Legislation for Technical and Financial Assistance Less than half of the state U&CF programs (41.5%) had enabling legislation that authorized technical and/or financial assistance (n41). Of these, 76.5% authorize financial and 82.4% autho- rize technical assistance. A combined 58.8% of states with en- Table 2. Sources of funding for 41 state urban and community forestry programs and extrapolated national estimate for funding sources. Range ($) Source of funding Federal State Contract/fee Foundation/trust fund Federal transportation Other Extrapolation for all 50 states from sample (n 41) in this study. Extrapolation calculated from: extrapolated value (mean value)*(% using source)*(50) (e.g., state extrapolation 334,091*0.61*50 $10,185,701). All sources z ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Mean ($) Median ($) 369,832 334,091 85,000 146,550 182,500 28,200 614,735 280,000 248,000 85,000 183,000 140,000 35,000 503,000 Low 179,500 44,251 85,000 8,250 100,000 2,500 179,500 High 1,081,898 1,330,000 85,000 295,000 350,000 60,000 2,230,000 National estimatez ($) 18,491,600 10,185,701 103,659 893,598 890,244 171,951 30,736,752 No. of states 41 25 1 5 4 5 Percent using source 100.0 61.0 2.4 12.2 9.8 12.2
September 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
