An Evaluation of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Environmental Indicator Report Series May 26, 2004 Developed at the request of ANR Deputy Secretary, Canute Dalmasse In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Vermont Department of Personnels Public Manager Program Sheila Duranleau Scott Shafer Ken Valentine

... We will use this year to evaluate the effectiveness of the publication, how it is valued by its audience, and what we can do to improve the report in future years...

Phase I: Survey report recipients to determine the recognition level and perceived value of the report. Phase II: Document the ANR report production process, research similar efforts of other State Agencies, and compare the outcomes, processes, and associated investments to identify opportunities for improvement.

Phase I: 1086 surveys mailed to external report recipients 436 surveys mailed to internal recipients --- ANR staff

External Results – 11% return rate

Some Comments from Outside... It's great! Don't discontinue It's beautiful but, I'm sure, costly I think it must be cost prohibitive Save $, put it on the web Not the best use of limited state dollars Could be less fancy I have been in office since 2001 and have not seen one

Internal Results (ANR staff) – 11% return rate

The printed report is beautifully done. Intent of report needs to be defined I've never understood why we do this... Not enough substance; too much fluff and bragging Needs to be succinct... Waste of paper for those not interested. More people would see it on a website Too much paper for an environmental report - walk the walk Some Comments from ANR staff...

Phase II: Comparison with other state agency reports Your ANR report is much more polished (and has a more external focus) The labor involved is similar Total costs are relatively high, but unit costs are low Much of the cost is in production, rather than printing (reducing numbers wont lower costs very much) Time and costs to produce this report are reasonable

Strengths The report is beautiful and well written It goes to the right people (mostly) It is read and used Its production is fairly efficient

Gaps Changing message conveys a lack of focus Many perceive it as an extravagance Distribution, Distribution, Distribution

Recommendations Focus and standardize the message Ensure that the product supports the message --- Efficiency !!! Reinvent the distribution –Biennial production –Fewer hard copies with increased on-line availability –Develop and maintain a recipient database

Questions, Comments, Thoughts... ?