8 Hauer et al.: State Government Involvement in Forestry funding to partially support the state U&CF program was not significantly different between 1986 and 2002. Slightly more than 60% of states used state money in 1986 (63.3%) and 2002 (61.0%). Overall 39% of states funded their program in both 1986 and 2002 with state funds, 22% had no state funding in either time period, 22% used state funding in only 2002, and 17% used state funding in 1986 only. States that use state gov- ernment funding to support the U&CF programs, however, had significantly greater funding (adjusted by CPI) in 2002 (mean, $204,000; range, $0 to $1,330,000) than in 1986 (mean, $96,000; range, $0 to $756,000). Total money (adjusted by CPI) per state used by the U&CF program was also different between the two dates. The 1986 total mean of $139,000 (range, $0 to $805,000) increased to a mean of $574,000 (range, $180,000 to $2,223,000) in 2002. Figure 1. State urban and community forestry (U&CF) pro- gram technical assistance to local U&CF programs in 1986 and 2002 within the 50 United States. commissions, tree inventories, and information on funding sources. No technical assistance area had 100% of states provid- ing it in 1986. Arbor Day activities, public information and education, and insect and disease assistance were commonly provided in 1986 and also in 2002 with significant, albeit small, increases from 11% to 17%. Species selection, special projects, training, establishing tree commissions, tree inventories, infor- mation on funding sources, and shade tree ordinances were of- fered by states in 1986 with 32% to 75% increases to the present in states offering these assistance forms. Comprehensive pro- gram planning, master street tree planning, wood utilization, landscaping, providing nursery stock, and establishing nursery facilities were offered in a minority of states in 1986 but were offered by the majority of states in 2002. The significant increase for these ranged from 61% to 355%. Other agencies besides the lead agency for U&CF in a state provide assistance to local programs. Similar to 1986, both co- operative extension and the state agriculture agency provided a significantly similar level of assistance in 2002 within a state. However, a trend suggests both of these two were increasing the assistance offered with cooperative extension increasing from 78.3% of states in 1986 to 89.5% in 2002 and state agriculture agency increasing from 21.7% of states in 1986 to 30.3% in 2002. However, caution is needed with interpreting this statisti- cal difference because the 1986 study did not explicitly ask for agencies beyond extension and agriculture and the 2002 study specified additional choices (e.g., resource conservation and de- velopment council, soil and water conservation districts, non- profit organizations, state land grant university, state department of transportation). These explicitly stated choices in 2002 were regarded as “other” in comparison to 1986 study findings. Funding Sources Most states (85.7%) received federal funding in 1986 (Table 1). Now, all states receive federal assistance, which was signifi- cantly greater than in 1986. The level of federal funding received (nonadjusted and adjusted by CPI) by states was also signifi- cantly greater in 2002 (mean, $370,000; range, $180,000 to $1,082,000) than 1986 (mean, $31,000; range, $0 to $164,000). Federal funding of state U&CF programs increased greatly after 1990 (Figure 2). The number of states that use state government ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Figure 2. Nominal and real funding of the USDA–Forest Ser- vice (USDA-FS) urban and community forestry program (U&CF) in 1978 to 2006, National Association of State Forest- ers (NASF)-proposed U&CF funding, and National Alliance for Community Trees (NACT)-proposed U&CF funding. Real funding inflationary adjustment used Consumer Price Index for base year 2002. Program Background State U&CF programs receive enabling legislation from the leg- islative and executive branches of state government (Table 1). This was not significantly different in 1986 (32.6%) and 2002 (41.5%). Although a minority of states had enabling legislation specifically authorizing U&CF assistance, all states in 2002 pro- vided assistance mechanisms to local urban forestry programs. We found a significant increase in the number of hours spent providing assistance between 1986 (mean, 4600; range, 80 to 35,000) and 2002 (mean, 8723; range, 2080 to 23,920). All states now have a state U&CF coordinator, which was not surprising considering this is a requirement of receiving federal funding. This was significantly greater than the 71.7% of states in 1986. In states with a state U&CF coordinator, the percentage staffing level significantly increased from 69.9% in 1986 to 95.4% of full-time in 2002. In comparison, if all states were considered, the coordinator position was only 45.7% full-time in 1986. State programs with district/regional urban foresters also nearly doubled, increasing from 37.5% of states in 1986 to 73.2% in 2002. The percentage of time allocated for U&CF duties by full-time U&CF staff also significantly increased from
January 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
