1 / 10

Recipient Site Rapid Process Improvement March 7-11, 2011

Recipient Site Rapid Process Improvement March 7-11, 2011. Issue. Process for obtaining a recipient site permit was lengthy Criteria for becoming a recipient site was not clear for applicants FWC customer service Financial assurances and conservation easement review was inefficient.

meghan-marshall
Download Presentation

Recipient Site Rapid Process Improvement March 7-11, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recipient Site Rapid Process Improvement March 7-11, 2011

  2. Issue • Process for obtaining a recipient site permit was lengthy • Criteria for becoming a recipient site was not clear for applicants • FWC customer service • Financial assurances and conservation easement review was inefficient

  3. Rapid process improvement (RPI) • Week-long event • Looks at a process from beginning to end • Map process and identify barriers • Identify solutions to address barriers • Implement solutions

  4. RPI team • Gopher tortoise staff (permitting and management plan) • Legal • LAP Coordinator • Conservation Incentives Coordinator • Regional Director • FWC Leadership (“Champion team”)

  5. Stakeholder input • Phone interviews – Feb 2011 • 5 Landowners • 2 Authorized Agents • Questions asked: • What’s good? Where can it be improved? • Online application, conservation easement & financial assurances process, habitat management plan and monitoring requirement • Field visit and general customer service • Suggestions on streamlining the process

  6. Barriers • Inconsistent integration among FWC programs and staff • No clear expectation up front for the applicant • GT biologists have different levels of knowledge • Lack of standard pre-application meeting process and format • No FWC legal expert on financial assurances • Slow response on RAIs

  7. Results • Clear guidance up front in the process • Pre-application opportunity for landowners • Better coordination with other incentive-based programs • Development of a financial assurance standard for the agency • Standardized site visit checklist • Consistent communication among FWC staff • Method to evaluate staff performance & process

  8. Results • Improved communication between the landowner, the AA and FWC • 45-day follow-up with applicant if RAI response isn’t received (within 60 day policy) • Including the landowner and the AA on all FWC communications • Provide the best customer service throughout the process from initial contact through post-permit issuance

  9. Implementation • New process map and step-by-step playbook implemented by June 2011 • All staff have been trained on new process • Current coordination with other incentive-based programs • Development of new information handouts and website

  10. End result • Clear and consistent process for landowners and FWC staff • Increase in recipient sites in the future • Permits processed and issued in an acceptable timeframe • Happy landowners, happy gopher tortoises

More Related