Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(5): September 2008 abling legislation authorize both assistance forms, 23.5% enable technical assistance only, and 17.6% enable financial assistance only. The earliest reported legislation enabling a state U&CF program was the California Urban Forest Act of 1978. On av- erage, legislation authorizing financial assistance was passed in 1992 (median 1993) and technical assistance passed in 1988 (median 1989). Of the 58.5% of states that did not have enabling legislation, approximately equal numbers suggested that either general forestry enabling legislation (11 states) or the federal U&CF program (13 states) were used to justify the state U&CF program and assistance provided locally. The 41 responding programs provided a mean average of 356 (median, 240; range, 35 to 1509) technical and financial assists annually within a state. A mean average 166 (median, 110; range, 16 to 650) communities received one or more technical assists annually. Financial assistance using state and federal funding was delivered to a mean average 31 (median, 29; range, 0 to 95) communities annually. Financial Assistance Grants to communities and others to conduct U&CF projects were one use of state U&CF program funds (n 41). Federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Challenge Grants were pro- vided by 82.9% of states with a mean average $160,568 (median, $125,000; range, $9000 to $535,000) offered by states (Table 3). Extrapolated nationally, $6,657,693 in grant funding was dis- pensed, which was approximately 36% (median, 34.4%; range, 0% to 100%) of the federal U&CF funding allocated to states. State funds were also allocated locally through grants in 39% of states (n 41). Of this, a mean average $251,574 (median, $166,000; range, $0 to $1,125,000) was spent with a national extrapolation of $4,908,761 by states with grants. Nationally, grants from state money were 48.2% (median, 43.9%; range, 0% to 88%) of total state funds allocated to the U&CF program. Recipient matching through money and in-kind services ex- ceeded grant amounts by approximately 20%. National leverage of grants (i.e., match by nonfederal sources) was $8 million for Federal Cooperative Assistance money and $5.7 million for state money. Overall, 95.1% of states (n 41) reported that they provided financial assistance through grants with national esti- mates of $11.8 million for total money and $14.6 million with leveraged money. State funding for grants rely on a variety of sources, including dedicated allocations (50% of states), state government general fund (35.7%), foundation/trust fund (28.6%), and other sources (28.6%). Other identified sources were public-owned utilities, dedicated sales tax, Federal DOT TEA21 funds, and air pollution fines. 283 Technical Assistance State U&CF programs vary in the frequency of providing 27 forms of technical assistance (Table 4). The most frequently provided types of technical assistance included Arbor Day ac- tivities (84.2%), species selection (78.9%), information on fund- ing sources (75.7%), and Tree City USA programming (70.3%). A moderate number of states frequently provide outreach through a newsletter (62.2%) or training programs for profes- sionals (55.3%), staff (47.4%), and volunteers (42.1%). Activi- ties that were least likely to be frequently provided include as- sistance for establishing nursery facilities (0%), developing di- saster preparedness response plans (5.4%), wood utilization assistance (8.1%), providing nursery stock (13.9%), comprehensive natural resource planning (14.3%), and woodland conservation/ protection planning (16.7%). Assistance was also provided fre- quently at a low level with master street tree planning (23.7%), tree risk management (26.3%), shade tree ordinances (28.9%), compre- hensive U&CF program planning (31.6%), developing mainte- nance programs (36.8%), and tree inventories (39.4%). The lead U&CF agency in a state was not the only entity to offer U&CF technical assistance (Table 5). Others include the Cooperative Extension Service (CES), Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), State Agricultural Departments (DOA), State Departments of Transportation (DOT), State Natu- ral Resources and Conservation Departments (NR), Professional Urban Forestry Organizations (PRO), nonprofit organizations (NPO), State Land Grant Universities (SLG), Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), and Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RCD). The level of assistance varied by agency or entity with the CES cited as most likely to provide frequent assistance (52.6%). Almost 90% indicated some level of frequent or occasional assistance was provided by CES. In contrast, the state DOA or DOT was less likely to provide U&CF assistance with 69.7% of DOAs and 57.1% of DOTs identified as rarely or never involved. However, a frequent level of tech- nical assistance was typically provided by a DOA (which was similar to findings with a NR agency) if it administered the state U&CF program. Over two-thirds of PRO (76.5%), NPO (73%), and SLG (68.8%) provided occasional or frequent U&CF tech- nical assistance. Agencies including NRCS, SWCD, and RCD were occasional to frequent contributors to U&CF programs in approximately 50% of states. A few states indicated that RCDs were readily used to deliver financial assistance programs. DISCUSSION State U&CF forestry programs continue to be perceived as un- derfunded. Results from this study and past programmatic needs Table 3. Financial assistance within state urban and community forestry programs in the 50 United States and extrapolated national estimate for various financial assistance sources. Range ($) Assistance source and leverage Mean ($) Median ($) Federal money Federal leverage State money State leverage Total money Total leverage Extrapolation for all 50 states from sample (n 38) in this study. Extrapolation calculated from: extrapolated value (mean value)*(% using source)*(50) (e.g., state extrapolation 251,574*0.39*50 $4,908,761). z ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture 160,568 193,932 251,574 295,257 247,833 306,930 125,037 150,000 166,500 153,945 189,713 237,014 Low High 9,000 15,000 535,000 738,927 0 1,125,000 0 1,175,000 National estimatez ($) No. of states Percent using source 6,657,693 34 8,041,097 4,908,761 5,761,109 9,000 1,464,000 11,772,091 15,000 1,175,000 14,579,175 16 38 82.9 39.0 95.0
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
