Effectiveness Framework State Wildlife Grant Projects

1. Effectiveness FrameworkState Wildlife Grant Projects Mark Humpert, Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Nick Salafsky, Foundations of Success

2. State Wildlife Grants Millions of $’s Fiscal Year

3. Wildlife Action Plans

4. Conserving at-risk fish and wildlife in Ohio SWG Successes Lake Erie Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) Status: Federally threatened and state endangered Project Description: Establish permanent conservation easements on priority habitats, conduct research, determine population status and educate the public to minimize human-induced mortality. Cost= $250,995 Outcome: Population increase to >8,000 (Recovery Plan Goal 5,555). Proposed for de-listing by FWS Partners: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Black Swamp Conservancy—Lake Erie Island Chapter, Western Reserve Land Conservancy, Northern Illinois University, Ohio State University Stone Laboratory, Lake Erie Island private property owners

5. Outputs vs Impacts

6. Two Questions Effectiveness ? Status ?

7. The Need for EM • Improve Conservation Work • link measures & actions • Improve Accountability to Administration & Congress • show success • Maintain/Enhance Public Support • tell a story

8. Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation CMP Open Standards • Developed by leading organizations & agencies • Draws on many fields • Open source/common language • Used around the world • Great Lakes • TNC Preserves • Swedish National Parks • Donor Funding Programs • Academic Training

9. Adaptive Mgmt

10. Bat Cave Results Chain

11. Bat Cave Results Chain

12. Bat Cave Results Chain i # breaches i # bats i # juveniles i # distinct cat tracks

13. Plover Results Chain i # breaches i # eggs i # juveniles i # disturbed nests

14. Generic Results Chain

15. Mockup of Report

16. Bat Cave Results Chain White Nose Pathogen i # breaches i # bats i # juveniles i # distinct cat tracks

17. Work Group Charge Develop and test a measures framework for assessing the effectiveness of State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, conservation actions more broadly, and potentially Wildlife Action Plans themselves.

18. CONSERVATION PARTNERS Karl Hess (USFWS) Ron Essig (USFWS) Connie Young-Dubovsky (USFWS) Amielle DeWan (DOW) Tess Present (NAS) Shelley Green (TNC) Mary Klein (NatureServe) Mathew Birnbaum (NFWF) Terra Rentz (TWS) STATES Dana Baxley (KDFWR) Faith Balch (MNDNR) Tara Bergeson (WIDNR) Chris Burkett (VDGIF) Wendy Connally (TPWD) Jenny Dickson (CDEP) Mike Harris (GDNR) Eric Rickerson (ODFW) Tracey Tomajer (NYDEC) Work Group • AFWA • Mark Humpert • Priya Nanjappa • FOUNDATIONS OF SUCCESS • Nick Salafsky • Caroline Stem

19. Timeline • Sept ’09-Working Group Formed • Dec’09-Workshop 1 • Jan’10-Subcommittees Formed • Mar’10-Interim Report to TWW Committee • Apr’10-Workshop 2 • June’10-Pilot Testing • July’10-Workshop 3 • Sept’10-Phase I Report to TWW Committee • Dec ‘10-Workshop 4 • Jan ’11-SWAP Coordinators Review • Mar ‘11-Final Report to TWW Committee • Apr ‘11-Print Final Report/Implement

20. Framework Steps • Define Generic Conservation Actions • Use Results Chains to Describe the Theory of Change • ID a Limited set of Effectiveness Measures • Develop & Test Data Collection Questionnaires • Collect & Analyze Data & Adapt

21. 11 Common Actions 11 Common Conservation Actions Funded through SWG

22. Criteria for Measures • Linked-to key factors in results chain • Measurable-both qualitative & quantitative • Precise-defined the same by all • Consistent-unlikely to change over time • Sensitive-can measure change • Overarching-can be measured at diff. stages • Achievable-not onerous to collect

23. Info for One Action Definition of Action Examples “Generic” Results Chain

24. Species Restoration “Good” restoration plan completed Species Restoration Source population identified

25. Species Restoration Species initially restored to site (short-term) Species breeding at sites : o )

26. Species Restoration No breeding at sites : o (

27. Species Restoration Key stakeholders buy into plan “Good” overall restoration plan for species

28. Species Restoration

29. Species Restoration Obj SP RST 2 – “Good” Plan Before implementation work starts, a "good" restoration plan has been developed for the specific project site(s). "Good" = … Obj SP RST 6a – Sp Breeding Within xx years of introduction, the restored population is successfully breeding within the restoration site(s). Obj SP RST 5 – Sp Initially Restored By specified target date, the target number of units* have been introduced to Area(s) YYYY.

30. Species Restoration Ind SP RST 6 – Species Breeding Evidence of ongoing self reproduction of species within the site; Total units of species at the site Ind SP RST 2 – Quality of Plan Presence of plan; assessment of plan against a priori quality criteria

31. Species Restoration

32. Info for One Action Definition of Action Examples “Generic” Results Chain

33. Crosswalk Table Result Questions Measures Objective

34. Questionaire Questionnaire This is all most folks would see for performance reporting purposes!!

35. Roll Up Measures Similar Projects Generating Similar Data • % of projects that answered research questions • % of projects where data reaching target audiences • % of projects leading to other management actions Demonstrate That These are More Than “Counting” Projects

36. Report

37. IT Systems • ConPro • Conservation Registry • HabITS • Miradi • Wildlife TRACS • Biotics 4 • DataBasin • NatureServe Explorer Web Service

38. Wildlife TRACS

39. Using OS to Evaluate Wildlife Action Plans

40. Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife GrantsFinal Report An approved framework Measures for 11 common conservation actions Wildlife TRACS as the IT System Grant Streamlining Next steps for SWAP Final Report www.fishwildlife.org/files/Effectiveness-Measures-Report_2011.pdf April 2011

41. Questions “Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things.” -Peter Drucker