Report on Performance Evaluation of the National

Fish Habitat Board

Cecilia Lewis, FWSRyan 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)

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

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”

General Questions Overview

• Employer• Primary Role• Partnership Engagement• Board meeting Attendance

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

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…”

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…”

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)

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