report on performance evaluation of the national fish habitat board
DESCRIPTION
Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board. Cecilia Lewis, FWS Ryan Roberts, NFHP March 9, 2014. Evaluation Overview. Survey sent to 196 individuals made up of Board, FHPs, Fish Chiefs & NFHP Committees 28% completed the survey (57 individuals). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Report on Performance Evaluation of the National Fish Habitat Board](https://reader036.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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.vdocument.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