Abstract
Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) program capacity within the 50 United States was derived through four indicator areas that included the state U&CF program coordinator, volunteer coordination, state U&CF council, and strategic plan. The agency and administrative unit where the program resides, year of program initiation, staffing levels and expertise area, additional non-U&CF responsibilities of staff, and coordination of U&CF within a state were further studied. Each state had an U&CF program coordinator (most were full-time), practiced varying volunteer coordination approaches, had a state U&CF council, and had a regularly updated strategic plan. Most states had additional regional U&CF staff with the majority of their time devoted to U&CF activities with a mean 4.2 (median, 3.2) full-time equivalents of total U&CF staff in a state. Occasionally, non-U&CF duties were conducted by U&CF staff with fire control, forest stewardship, special projects, and forest health most commonly given as other areas conducted by U&CF staff. Most state U&CF programs used a variety of approaches to support volunteer-based U&CF efforts in a state. All states now have a U&CF coordinator with 95% of their duties associated with U&CF activities. State U&CF councils vary in their membership and approaches for coordination of U&CF within a state.
- State Urban and Community Forestry programs
- urban and community forestry
- urban forestry
- urban forestry program capacity
State Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) programs were created with an important goal to increase local urban forestry activities and improve the urban forest at local levels (Casey and Miller 1988; USDA-FS 2002; USDA-FS U&CF 2004). The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) is the lead federal agency for the national U&CF assistance program in the United States and supports state U&CF programs through financial and technical assistance (USDA-FS 2002). The need for federal and state U&CF programs and collaboration arose from the belief that the general health and structure of some urban forests were declining and urban tree populations are important because they improve quality of life and enhance the value of urban landscapes (Biles and Deneke 1982). A goal to encourage tree planting and develop an ability or capacity within states and local government to undertake U&CF programs and management of urban tree populations was developed to reverse that trend (USDA-FS 2002). Thus, state and federal U&CF programs use their existing capacity to increase the ability or capacity to develop and expand local urban forestry programs and activities and, ideally, a sustainable local urban forest results (Clark et al. 1997; USDA-FS 2002; Dwyer et al. 2003; Elmendorf et al. 2003; Hauer 2006; Hauer and Johnson 2008; Hauer et al. 2008).
The Federal Farm Bill of 1990 (P.L. 101–513) substantially increased the federal role and U&CF funding for the Forest Service (Unsoeld 1978; Biles and Deneke 1982; Deneke 1983, 1992). Funding to state U&CF programs also increased greatly (Hauer and Johnson 2008). As a condition to receive funding, each state had to meet and maintain the following four requirements:
1) Have an urban and community forestry program coordinator;
2) Implement volunteer/partnership coordination;
3) Create an urban and community forestry council; and
4) Develop a state program strategic plan (5-year plan).
These four areas are believed to be important key components that state U&CF programs need as a basis for an effective U&CF program. The USFS national and regional offices provide U&CF program leadership through coordination and oversight of state programs with meeting the four key federal funding requirements. Program delivery occurs primarily at the state level through cooperation with state foresters and key partners. In some cases, involvement and granting goes directly to the local level through legislative earmarks.
The state U&CF coordinator provides leadership for the state program. Volunteer coordination is used to leverage support and obtain local citizen involvement. State and local partnerships contribute to a statewide linkage of diverse groups and programs (Hortscience & Aslan Group 2004). The state U&CF council furthers and plausibly serves as a mechanism to coordinate diverse groups and interests. State U&CF councils also advise the state forester on program direction and priorities. Other external partners, particularly community-based organizations and local governments, play an important role in expanding the public/private partnerships that promote understanding and management of urban and community forests and related natural resources. Finally, a state U&CF program strategic plan provides direction to accomplish programmatic goals and objectives. Updating is required at least once every 5 years. This article addresses state approaches taken with meeting the four federal requirements of state U&CF programs. The intent of this article is to describe these state approaches.
METHODS
This investigation used data supplied by state U&CF program coordinators in the 50 United States through a self-administered questionnaire for program year 2002. Questions were structured according to USFS requirements for state U&CF programs as a condition of receiving federal funding (Hauer 2005). These four areas include the state U&CF program coordinator, volunteer/partnership coordination, state U&CF council, and strategic plan. State U&CF council questions focused on the activity of the council, council members and how appointed, administrative support, recommendations made by the council to state government, coordination of U&CF by the council within a state, and overall functional support toward achieving nine USFS goals for state councils. Questions pertaining to the state U&CF coordinator and volunteer/partnership coordination included education background, years in the position, total years of experience, and turnover of positions. Also, responsibilities of volunteer/partnership staff were ascertained along with mechanisms taken to fulfill this role. Information on strategic plan development and use was also ascertained. In addition, the administrative unit where the program resided, the year the program was initiated, staffing levels and expertise areas, additional non-U&CF responsibilities of staff, program support given by state government and the agency that houses the state program, and coordination of U&CF within a state were determined.
In brief, the questionnaire was sent to the entire population of 50 state U&CF coordinators using a mailing list maintained by the USFS; the questionnaire and compiled descriptive summary statistics are found in Hauer (2005). Delivery of the questionnaire used elements of the Tailored Design Method and seven total contacts, which resulted in an 84% response rate with 41 useable questionnaires (Dillman 2000). Data were entered in Microsoft Access 2002 with both Microsoft Excel 2002 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) and SPSS version 11.5 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) used to compile descriptive statistics. No nonresponse error was detected; thus, findings from this study are reflective of the entire population of 50 state U&CF programs (Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2008). Further, non-item response error was not a concern with 95% to 100% response to most questions (the isolated exceptions were noted in the results). A complete description of the questionnaire delivery is presented elsewhere (Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2008).
RESULTS
Program Background
State U&CF programs reside in a variety of agencies/entities within a state. From the questionnaire data and data compiled from an agency web site search of nonresponding states, 34% of state programs were housed within a Department of Natural Resources and/or Conservation. In addition, 10% have their U&CF program within an agency that includes natural resources within the agency title. In 18% of states, the U&CF program was housed within a Department of Forestry or Forestry Commission, within the State Agriculture Department in 12% of states, within a university system in 10% of states, the Department of Environment in 10% of states, and State Land Department in 6% of states.
Respondents provided insight into factors limiting the state U&CF program. A majority 57.5% believed their state U&CF program was not given adequate attention by the state agency and this could pose problems with satisfying a requirement of the U&CF program. Compared with other forestry programs in the agency, 48.8% believed their agency gave fair support and 26.8% rated it as good. The three most common factors written as limiting the U&CF program were budget/funding from state and federal government (17 states), staffing levels (13 states), and awareness or perception of importance of U&CF (nine states). Nearly 90% were optimistic about the long-term future of their U&CF program with 45.7% believing expansion and 42.9% indicating status quo will occur. Only 11.4% thought the program would either be eliminated or reduced in size with budgetary limitations given as a common reason for this response.
Coordination of U&CF among people and organizations involved in U&CF in the state appears promising. Exactly 50% of responding states reported a good and 32.5% indicated fair coordination among people and organizations involved in U&CF in the state. Only 17.5% suggested coordination was excellent and none thought coordination was either poor or not occurring within a state. States used a combination of informal and formal coordination methods with 78% using more than one. Informal (i.e., meetings, task forces, committees, conferences) and formal (i.e., state U&CF council, committee, or board) coordination mechanisms were used by 85.4% and 87.8% of states, respectively. A minority (19.5%) of states used memorandums of understanding (MOUs) for coordination and only one state indicated coordination occurred by directive from their state legislature. Formal mechanisms were the primary coordination method used by 63.6% of states with 27.3% using informal and 9.1% using MOUs. Non-item response was high for this question with only 53.7% of states responding.
State Urban and Community Forestry Council
The USFS requires an U&CF advisory council within a state to receive federal funds (Table 1). All states met this requirement and the council is active in 95% of states. Within states, 84.6% of state councils were formed between 1990 and 1992 and only three states (7.7%) initiated councils before the federal requirement resulting from the 1990 Farm Bill. Councils met a mean 4.6 times per year. States reported 45% of councils have incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and 56.1% of state councils have developed a strategic plan.
Indicators of state urban and community councils in the 50 United States.
State councils can take the form of an executive level only organization, a general membership only organization, or may use both forms. Most states (71.8%) have both executive and general members, 20.5% have only general membership, and 7.7% have only executive level members. The general membership ranged from zero to 310 with a mean of 62.5 (median, 20) in a state council. The number of executive members were lower, ranging from zero to 40 within a state and a mean of 9.4 (median, 6.5) members. Of states with an executive committee, 57.1% elect the members, 20% appoint members, and 22.9% use both elections and appointments.
State councils rely greatly on administrative support from the state agency administering the U&CF program through the state coordinator in 85.4% of states. In 39% of states, significant support from other state employees within the agency is provided with the state coordinator still providing significant council support in 93.8% of these states. Organization administration through paid staff is not common with 17.1% of state U&CF councils using a paid executive director and 7.3% using paid administrative support. Less than 5% rely on volunteers or council members to undertake a significant role in council administration.
One role councils undertake is providing advice to the state legislature on issues affecting the state U&CF resource. However, few U&CF councils do such with 24.4% either rarely and 39% never making recommendations. Nearly one-third of state councils provide recommendations as needed and 4.9% of state councils form annual recommendations. The low percentage providing annual advice to the legislature is likely a reflection that only 5% of state councils were enacted by state legislature and 17.5% were formed at the request of the lead agency for U&CF. In contrast, 77.5% of councils were formed in response to the federal requirement for a council and presumably provide advice directly to the lead U&CF agency, which provides advice to the state legislature.
Council representatives came from constituent groups within government, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and volunteers (data not shown). Officials from either the governor’s office or state legislatures were rarely members of state councils. None served on an executive committee and only 8.3% of states reported the state legislature and 2.8% reported the governor’s office were general members. State forestry agencies, municipal government, tree care companies, nonprofit organizations, universities, and citizen members were most likely to be part of a state council as general members in 60% or more of states. State agricultural and transportation agencies, USDA Forest Service, utility foresters, arboricultural trade organizations, the landscape industry, and the business community were also members but less frequently in 25% to 50% of states.
The USFS developed nine areas in which it believes state councils would help foster U&CF development in a state (Table 2). These areas involve advisory and program evaluation roles, developing partnerships among groups interested in U&CF, facilitating networking and technology transfer, promoting outreach equally to all communities reflective of cultural diversity, and other activities that advance U&CF development. Respondents provided their beliefs of how councils foster U&CF development in these nine areas with rankings of excellent, good, fair, poor, or no effect. Councils were best at assisting the state forester with development of the state U&CF strategic plan with 73.2% of councils rated as good or excellent. This was reflected in that in 34.1% of states, the council led development of the strategic plan and 48.4% of state councils had a moderate to major role in plan development. In contrast, councils were least effective (overall rated as fair) at promoting outreach to all communities that assures program implementation reflective of cultural diversity. Nationally, state councils were intermediate, rated between fair and good, at advising the state forester on program emphasis and priorities, on the effectiveness of statewide and local U&CF implementation efforts, and with building partnerships. State councils were rated as slightly above fair with developing networking and technology transfer along with developing cost-share proposal criteria. Approximately 75% of the respondents indicated that state councils were fair (26.8%) or good (48.8%) with the overall coordination of U&CF programs and activities within a state.
Ability of state urban and community forestry councils to address USDA-Forest Service prescribed responsibility areas of councils within the United States.
State Urban and Community Forestry Program Strategic Plan
The USFS requires state U&CF programs to develop and regularly update a strategic plan (or plan that provides program direction) at least once every 5 years (Table 3). All states had a strategic plan that was recently updated within the past 3 years and these were historically updated on average every 5 years. They were used to guide U&CF program direction yearly or more frequently (constantly, daily, monthly, quarterly) by 85.4% of states. The remaining 14.6% responded they rarely use the strategic plan. In 82.5% of states, the state U&CF council either gave moderate or major input to the agency or the council solely developed the plan. The vast majority of plans (90.2%) were developed as documents separate from state forestry agency plans.
Indicators of state urban and community strategic plans in the 50 United States.
Urban and Community Forestry Program Coordinator
Currently, all responding states have a U&CF coordinator (Table 4). Seventy-eight percent of coordinators were assigned fulltime to the position with the remaining 22% assigned from 25% to 95% of full-time. Overall, a mean 95.4% full-time equivalent (FTE) level was reported nationally. Only 26.8% of states believe they would have established a full-time U&CF coordinator if federal assistance to states had not been expanded in 1991 and all of these states had a full-time coordinator before 1990. Of the 73.2% of states that responded a full-time U&CF coordinator would not exist, they indicated the U&CF coordinator would exist at a mean 27.1% FTE level.
Indicators of the state urban and community coordinator position in the 50 United States.
Most state U&CF coordinators have advanced training and experience. The majority of state U&CF coordinators have a Bachelor’s (52.5%) or Master’s (37.5%) degree with the remaining 10% having college experience that was not defined by a level of advancement by respondents. Most degrees were in forestry, natural resources, or a related field. Total experience of U&CF coordinators ranged from 1 to 31 years with a mean of 11.9 years of practical U&CF experience. The coordinator has also been in their current job a mean 6 years. Finally, over the past 10 years, states have employed a mean of 2.4 people in the U&CF coordinator position.
Volunteer and Partnership Coordination
Volunteer and partnership coordination is required of states if USFS funding is granted. However, flexibility is given to states on how best to reach this condition (Table 5). Respondents indicated 73.2% of states have one or more staff serving the role of volunteer/partnership coordinator. Of the remaining states who specified they did not have a dedicated volunteer/partnership coordinator position, regional U&CF staff or the state coordinator still performs this role as part of their duties within 78.3% of the states. The remaining states contracted with an outside source for volunteer/partnership coordination.
Indicators of state urban and community volunteer coordination in the 50 United States.
Volunteer and partnership coordinators served 77.7% of fulltime in this role. Other duties in addition to volunteer/partnership coordination are regional U&CF work in (46.2% of states), traditional forest management (23.1%), fire (15.4%), geographic information system (GIS) mapping, education center coordination, conservation education, and rural cooperative forestry each in 7.7% of states (data not shown). The volunteer/partnership coordinator executes a variety of tasks with most providing outreach, training volunteers or citizens, organizational assistance, technical assistance to communities, and Arbor Day assistance (Table 5).
The volunteer/partnership coordinators, similar to state U&CF coordinators, have advanced U&CF training and experience. Most have a Bachelor’s degree or Master’s degree with most degrees in forestry, natural resources, or a related field (Table 5). Volunteer coordinators have been in their position a mean of 5.3 (median, 4) years, ranging from 1 to 13 years. Total experience in volunteer/partnership activities ranged from 1 to 40 years with a mean of 11 years. Frequent turnover defined as three or more people in the last 10 years in this position has been a suggested concern; however, 72.4% of states report this was not the case. The other respondents who indicated frequent turnover had occurred gave varying and no overall reasons, including low pay, lack of opportunities for advancement, relationship (poor implied) with the coordinator, and career change.
Staffing
Along with each state maintaining a U&CF coordinator, 73.2% of states use regionally assigned staff (Table 6). Fifty percent of these states reported they used trained U&CF specialists, 23.3% used general forestry specialists, and 26.7% of states used both types. Nearly 70% of regional staff report directly to a regional office rather than the state program coordinator. The U&CF staff duties range from 10% to 100% of full-time with a mean of 95.4% for U&CF coordinators, 85.4% for full-time staff, and 51.2% for part-time staff. Fire, forest stewardship, special projects, and forest health were most commonly given as other duties conducted by U&CF staff. Collectively, a mean 4.2 FTEs (median, 3.2; range, 1 to 11.5) were allocated for U&CF staff within a state.
Staffing of the state urban and community forestry program in the 50 United States.
DISCUSSION
The results from this study describe state-level U&CF program capacity through indicators of four federal requirements (state U&CF coordinator, volunteer coordination, strategic plan, and state U&CF council) of state U&CF programs. Although many quantitative statewide assessments of local U&CF programs have been conducted (Ottman and Kielbaso 1976; Miller and Bates 1978; Reeder and Gerhold 1993; Ricard 1994; Tschantz and Sacamano 1994; Kuhns 1998; Thompson and Ahern 2000; Elmendorf et al. 2003; Schroeder et al. 2003; Kuhns et al. 2005) and comprehensive qualitative reviews historically depict state and federal U&CF programs (Johnston 1996; McPherson 2003; Wolf 2003), few studies have quantitatively documented the capacity of state U&CF programs (Andresen 1978; Casey and Miller 1988; NASF 1988; Reichenbach 1988; Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; U.S. House of Representatives 2004).
Each state now has a state U&CF coordinator. This is an important step toward developing sustained state-level U&CF programs because the coordinator provides program administration and direction. Before the 1990 Federal Farm Bill, most states did not have a full-time U&CF coordinator (Andresen 1978; Casey and Miller 1988; NASF 1988). Insufficient funding along with state-level forest resource priorities are two factors that explained the lack of a coordinator. The federal U&CF assistance to states has coincided with increased staffing levels in the coordinator position. Without federal support, the coordinators suggested their position would be staffed at a level similar to that before the 1990 Federal Farm Bill (Casey and Miller 1988; NASF 1988; Reichenbach 1988). For example, without federal U&CF support of the state program, nearly three-fourths of respondents who reside in states that lacked a full-time coordinator before 1990 believe a full-time coordinator would not exist; rather, a one-fourth FTE position was most likely in these states. Coordinators from all states collectively suggested a 46.6% FTE level within the coordinator position would exist nationally without federal support in the present. All state coordinators in this study who suggested their state would have a full-time coordinator without federal assistance were from states that had full-time U&CF coordinators before 1990.
State U&CF programs use a strategic plan to guide program priorities and activities. The plan is updated regularly at least every 5 years and over 85% of state U&CF programs use it annually or more frequently. The planning process generally prods the states to determine their resources and their goals, develop a strategy to reach their goals, and design an effective evaluation mechanism (Kilgore et al. 2006). Strategic plans provide multiyear direction for the state U&CF program and, in general, forest resource planners believe this is the most important reason for developing comprehensive plans (Kilgore et al. 2005). Achieving a positive end result of an enhanced urban forest is more likely because state U&CF programs are regularly developing, updating, and using strategic plans.
Forest resource planning, natural resource planning, and U&CF planning crosses many agencies and entities and coordination is a critical means to increase participation and avoid conflict (Ellefson et al. 2002; Thompson et al. 2005; Kilgore et al. 2006; Hauer and Johnson 2008). From this study, a lack of integration of urban forestry planning within state forestry planning documents was found. This creates difficulties with integration of the urban forest resource with the rural forest resource and the overall state and national development of policies, planning, and monitoring for sustainable forest resources regardless of location. This study also found that state U&CF programs reside in a variety of departments nationally, which may create challenges for coordination (Kilgore et al. 2005).
State forestry councils are used to foster coordination and development of forestry policies, goals, and objectives within a state. Nearly 60% of councils were rated as good or excellent with overall state-level U&CF coordination. The federal requirement for councils coincides with the increase from approximately 10% of states before 1990 to 100% now having one. This suggests that the Federal Farm Bill of 1990 was an important part that led to the vast development of councils. Ideally, councils meet regularly, provide a means for participatory input with U&CF programming and direction within a state, and provide strategic advice for the direction of U&CF programs within the state. We found that state councils were active in providing advice to the state forester for state U&CF program implementation, met regularly, and include a broad representation of constituents as part of the state council. One area that respondents felt improvement could be made was addressing diverse populations through U&CF efforts. National strategic plans and materials have been formulated to address this issue (McDonough et al. 2003; USDA-FS 2003). State U&CF councils are one way but not the only way to address U&CF coordination needs. The approaches taken are varied and future research on the effectiveness of different approaches is needed.
Coordination is important considering that programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests are found in many agencies among states nationally (Konijnendijk et al. 2000; Ellefson et al. 2002). Coordination is used by organizations to achieve shared goals and objectives through methods that arrange, match, or harmonize policies and programs (Kilgore and Ellefson 1992). Coordination further serves to facilitate management across a regional context and jurisdiction with the different owners and managers of the urban forest (Dwyer et al. 2003). The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Committee (NUCFAC) serves as a national U&CF coordination mechanism (USDA-FS 2002). The NUCFAC functions to develop a national U&CF action plan; evaluate the implementation of that plan; and develop criteria for and submit recommendations with respect to the U&CF challenge cost-share program under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (NUCFAC 1998). Likewise, state U&CF councils serve as a coordination mechanism for state-level U&CF needs and most commonly in over 70% of states have both executive level and general member level organization. General U&CF council membership is largest with a mean of 62 members (range, 0 to 310). More formal executive U&CF council membership varies between zero and 40 members with a mean of nine members. This is consistent with Kilgore and Ellefson (1992) who found formal forestry coordinating mechanisms averaged 11 members (range, 5 to 30 members). They further suggest defining what coordination needs exist, developing membership in formal mechanisms to a workable number of members (e.g., 10) with individual and organization interests, and defining the authority of a formal group to make recommendations.
States use a variety of U&CF coordinator mechanisms that vary from a dedicated person, to regional U&CF staff conducting the role, or contracting volunteer coordination to outside sources such as nonprofit organizations. Volunteer partnerships are used to entice and involve local citizens in the development and management of urban forests (Nichnadowicz 2000; Ricard 2005). Volunteer partnerships, if done right, can lead to sustainable urban forest projects (Jones et al. 2005). At a minimum, they can raise public awareness and appreciation for the urban forest (Van Herzele et al. 2005). They have also been found to foster change in local urban forests and urban forestry programs (Vitosh and Thompson 2000). Whether any of the different formats taken by volunteer programs vary in effectiveness and efficiency was not addressed in this study. From this study and anecdotal reports from state and federal U&CF personnel, it is speculated that allowing states latitude in development of volunteer coordination mechanisms has fostered creative and program appropriate strategies.
With the apparent success with developing state U&CF programs since the 1990 Federal Farm Bill, several suggestions were provided by coordinators on areas that are less than positive. In many instances, this study found increases in the capacity of state U&CF programs to provide local U&CF assistance. Not all states were as successful, and those in general who had less state financial support had lower relative U&CF capacity (Hauer et al. 2008; Hauer and Johnson 2008). In these states, assistance to local urban forestry programs and staffing are lower. In general, the U&CF program was perceived as receiving less agency attention support than more traditional forestry efforts such as rural forestry management and fire control. This study also supports this perception with staff time of dedicated U&CF personnel being partially allocated to these traditional forestry practices. Likely the allocation of time in these areas is beneficial to rural forest management; however, it reduces the capacity to support identified urban forestry needs. Formal incorporation of urban forestry into the statewide forestry planning is important for holistic forest management. This study suggests most urban forestry planning is developed independent of the statewide forest planning process. The increasing migration of people and built environments within rural forests necessitates inclusion of urban forestry planning as part of the statewide planning process (Dwyer and Childs 2004). Coordination among urban forestry stakeholders is occurring nicely. Coordination among urban and rural forestry planning where lacking should increase linking the forest resource regardless of geography or population density.
CONCLUSION
This article reports on responses taken by state U&CF programs to meet four USFS program capacity areas that included the state U&CF program coordinator, volunteer coordination, state U&CF council, and program strategic plan. State U&CF programs are meeting USFS requirements set for receiving Cooperative Forestry Assistance. Each state now has a U&CF program coordinator, they used varying volunteer coordination approaches, involve a state U&CF council for program guidance, and regularly update the strategic plan as needed. State U&CF programs were found to vary in ways taken to meet USFS guidelines. Federal and state U&CF program managers can use these findings to continue building state and federal U&CF programs to meet the goal of increasing local urban forestry programs and the urban forest.
Acknowledgments
We thank the University of Minnesota Graduate School for a Thesis Research Grant and the Department of Forest Resources for partial financial support with this study. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive improvement of this paper.
- © 2008, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.