Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board
-
Upload
yoshi-fuller -
Category
Documents
-
view
31 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board
![Page 1: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Report on Performance Evaluation of the National
Fish Habitat Board
Cecilia Lewis, FWSRyan Roberts, NFHP
March 9, 2014
![Page 2: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Evaluation Overview
• Survey sent to 196 individuals made up of Board, FHPs, Fish Chiefs & NFHP Committees
• 28% completed the survey (57 individuals)
![Page 3: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Evaluation Topic Areas
– General (information about respondent)– Leadership and Coordination– Support for FHPs– Delivering Funding– Measuring and Communicating Status and
Needs of Habitat– Board Operations– Board Leadership
![Page 4: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Evaluation Scale• Two-part questions
– Performance– Importance of the topic
• Scale of 1 to 10– 1 = Low performance– 10 = High performance– Option to choose zero (0), indicating “don’t
know” or “no opinion”
![Page 5: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
General Questions Overview
• Employer• Primary Role• Partnership Engagement• Board meeting Attendance
![Page 6: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Leadership and Coordination
Mobilizing National Support (Q2)– Performance – 44% (25)– Importance – 95% (54)
Selected comment(s) “We have made some progress here and have the right partners at the table. [What] has not been done is to provide a clear picture of what we want over a 5 year period.”
![Page 7: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Leadership and Coordination
Overseeing action and follow-through (Q4)– Performance – 51% (29) – Importance – 82% (40)
Selected comment(s) We have done okay in this important area but our criteria are so watered down that it does not take much effort to do so.
![Page 8: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Supporting FHPs
Improving Effectiveness of FHPs (Q8)– Performance – 58% (33) – Importance – 84% (48)
Selected comment(s) • “The meeting in Portland was an excellent idea.
Should be held annually.”• “Consider partnering with NCTC or other fed agency
ed centers.”
![Page 9: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Supporting FHPs
Developing Criteria for Allocating Funds (Q9)– Performance – 46% (26) – Importance – 84% (48)
Selected comment(s)
“It seems like FWS has more authority over where the funding is going than the national Board.”
![Page 10: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Delivering Funding
Developing expanded sources of funding (Q11)– Performance – 14% (8)– Importance – 95% (54)
Selected comment(s) – “This is one of the biggest failures of the Board.” – “I haven't seen much board success here, but am
aware the board is developing plans to become more active in this area…”
![Page 11: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Board Operations
Holding Effective Board Meetings (Q18)– Performance – 40% (23)– Importance – 81% (46)
Selected comment(s) – “Definite improvement since the first year period…”– “The Board meetings cover all of the essentials and
really require[s] improved engagement by some members of the Board…”
![Page 12: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Board Operations
Standing Committees (Q20 a-d)
Most respondents selected “Don’t know” or “No opinion”
– Science and Data – 21% (12)– Communications – 39% (22)– Partnership – 46% (26)– Funding – 46% (26)
![Page 13: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062408/568132bd550346895d997f18/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Next Steps
• Discuss evaluation results – Interpreting results– Determine which areas will require Board action
• Moving forward– Determine how to address action items– Formulate decision points for next Board meeting