What is ACI?

ACI Directory

aci-net egroup

ACI Awards

Newsletters

Conferences

Join ACI

Job Board

Committees

Websites & Agency listing

ACI Home Page

The Balance Wheel: Spring 2003

Part II - Public Opinion Surveys
Cost-effective Friend or Financial Foe?

Beth Brown of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) writes Part II of our series on the usefulness of public opinion survey information. Her agency used Mark Duda’s company, Responsive Management, which authored Part I appearing in the Winter issue of The Balance Wheel. We hope you enjoy this follow-up piece detailing how the GADNR put this information to use in developing a 10-year strategic plan.

Also included in this Spring issue of TBW is an article covering several options for gathering survey information, including the big firm approach taken by the state of Georgia. This article is called “Public Eye on Playas.” These two stories combined offer great insight in gathering public opinion – the basis for any successful marketing plan.

Using the Science to Formulate Policy - Where Do We Go From Here?

By Beth Brown, Public Affairs Program Manager, GA DNR

In some ways, Mark Duda and the folks at Responsive Management had the easy part. They live in a world consisting of focus group outlines, survey development, number crunching, and graphs of results. Determining what to do with the human dimensions information they uncover is much more of a challenge, and is the focus of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division’s new strategic planning project coined the “Direction for the Decade” or “Direction," for short.

Using science to dictate policy seems like an easy road when you are setting deer bag limits or determining which beaches should be restricted for access during the shorebird nesting season. It becomes much more challenging when you are using scientific information on public opinion to guide the agency’s actions for the next 10 years. Using the “inside out” and “outside in” process described in the last issue of the Balance Wheel gave the agency a checks and balances approach to evaluate program areas and responsibilities from the perspective of agency staff, stakeholders (primarily conservation groups) and the general public. Like most states, Georgia is facing a budget crisis. The state fish and wildlife agency must responsibly allocate personnel and financial resources not only to conserve and protect the state’s wildlife resources but also to meet the needs of the state’s citizens.

At the start of the Direction process, the director and section chiefs designated seven program areas for evaluation and listed broad responsibilities under each for evaluation. These program areas included resource management, enforcement, land acquisition, education, recreation, outreach and communications, and internal administration. Responsibilities were identified using broad definitions (i.e. managing statewide fish populations as opposed to operating fish hatcheries or sampling streams). Still, more than 75 responsibilities were identified for evaluation. Responsive Management took these program areas and responsibilities and developed survey instruments to determine the importance and performance of each one.

Public opinion surveys don’t always provide easy answers. Not only did the order of importance of the program areas vary among agency associates, stakeholders, and the public, but the degree to which certain program areas were supported also varied greatly.

The range in program importance is wide for both agency associates and stakeholders, with resource management and land acquisition at the top of the list. The range in program importance from the public’s perspective was much less significant. The public rated highly visible and service-oriented program areas as more important than management-oriented program areas. Similar comparisons were made for each of the three groups for the responsibilities under each program area.

In order to extract the priority responsibilities for the next decade from the survey data and to consider input from all of the groups surveyed, the agency began by listing the top three responsibilities under each program area based on respondents rating them as extremely important. Then the responsibilities were compared based on their performance. By comparing both the importance and performance ratings from associates, stakeholders and the public, the agency was able to identify the responsibilities of high importance that needed more attention (low performance) as well as those of high importance that the agency is already doing well (high performance).

For example, in resource management, responsibilities such as managing statewide game and sport fish populations and protecting threatened and endangered species were rated as high importance and high performance. Responsibilities identified as important but with low performance included managing and restoring habitat on state-owned lands and reviewing development projects for impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Resource management responsibilities such as providing technical assistance to landowners and conducting biological research did not make the priority list. This is not to say that these functions are not important. The agency likely will continue to provide these services at some level. This process simply helps the agency to put things into perspective when looking at personnel and financial resource allocation for the coming decade.

The agency selected a group of 40 field associates to serve as the Direction Working Group. The group spent two days in facilitated discussions brainstorming action items for the priority responsibilities identified through the Responsive Management survey findings. Associates were encouraged to “think outside the box” and not limit their recommendations based on the current budget and staffing conditions. These recommendations currently are under review and will be available in a final report later this spring. The agency will not be able to implement every recommended action item; however, the Direction will serve as a guide to focus future efforts.

Human dimensions are an important element of natural resource management and should not be overlooked in the strategic planning process. Comparing the attitudes of agency associates to stakeholders and the public not only helps to ensure that the agency is in touch with its constituents, but also generates support for programs.