1 / 38

National Estuary Program (NEP) Development Activities and Leveraging

National Estuary Program (NEP) Development Activities and Leveraging. Tim Jones, US Environmental Protection Agency Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP) Conference Manhattan, NY November 18, 2008. Outline. Leveraging Results and Analysis EPA Resources to Advance Leveraging

cece
Télécharger la présentation

National Estuary Program (NEP) Development Activities and Leveraging

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. National Estuary Program (NEP) Development Activities and Leveraging Tim Jones, US Environmental Protection Agency Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP) Conference Manhattan, NY November 18, 2008

  2. Outline • Leveraging Results and Analysis • EPA Resources to Advance Leveraging • Discussion • NEP funding sources • Level of effort required • Return on investment

  3. Summary of 2003-2008 leveraging results • 2008 marks 6th year of data collection • In 2008 NEPs collectively leveraged $12.70 for every EPA dollar received (primary role only) • Since 2003 NEPs have used $99 million in EPA funds to leverage $1.5 billion in resources – a leveraging ratio of 14.9:1 (primary role only) • States remain the major source of leveraging • Land acquisition dominated uses of leveraged resources (40% in 2008 and 47% since 2005) followed by habitat restoration

  4. All Roles: $1.14 billion Significant $738 mm Support Primary $237 mm Section 320 $160 mm $13 mm 2008 Leveraging by Role* • Primary leveraging ratio of 12.7:1 • Typical (median) NEP primary leveraging ratio of 4.7:1 • NEPs played at least some role in leveraging $1.14 billion in 2008 *2008 data excludes Puget Sound

  5. State 64% Local 16% Federal Private 15% 5% Shares of $160 million in primary leveraging Sources of Primary Leveraging in 2008 • States again provided the majority of leveraged resources • Local $ and share declined significantly

  6. $70 40.0% Millions $60 $50 Uses of $160 million in 2008 primary leveraging $40 21.4% $30 $20 9.6% 7.2% 6.5% 6.2% 5.0% $10 3.2% 0.9% $0 Other Outreach Stormwater Restoration Wastewater Administration Land Acquisition Nonpoint Source Monitoring/Rsrch. Land Acquisitions Again Dominate Leveraging Investments in 2008

  7. Significant Role* Support Role* $2.05 billion $1.50 billion EPA Section 320 Primary Role* and Earmarks $1.48 billion $99.3 million 2003-2008 Leveraging Results • Over the last 6 years, NEPs received $99 million in EPA funding and… • Played the lead role in generating $1.5 billion • Played some role in generating more than $5 billion Cumulative Leveraging: $5.02 billion

  8. $1,600 Millions $1,400 Cumulative Primary Leveraging $1,200 Cumulative Section $1,000 320 Funding $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Cumulative Primary Leveraging At $1.5 Billion Primary leveraging since 2003

  9. 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.0 2.6 2.0 1.0 - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Primary Leveraging Ratio for the Typical (Median) NEP

  10. $7 $7 $5 $5 $10 $8 100% $28 $20 $15 $19 $19 90% $24 $119 $17 $19 80% $28 $25 $69 70% 60% Private 50% Federal 40% $146 $443 Local $103 30% State $110 $126 $106 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Most Primary Leveraging Dollars from States, Then Local Governments

  11. $600 47% $500 $400 Millions $300 15% $200 8.7% 7.4% 7.2% $100 4.7% 4.4% 3.7% 2.0% $0 Other Outreach Stormwater Operations Wastewater Restoration Land Acquisition Nonpoint Sources Monitoring/Research Cumulative Primary Leveraging Investments: 2005 - 2008

  12. Analysis of Factors Affecting Leveraging 2003-2007

  13. Factors Evaluated • Area of NEP • Population of NEP • Age (years since CCMP signed) • Institutional setting of CCMP • Could not evaluate budget factor (no data)

  14. Basis for Evaluation • Cumulative primary leveraging dollars and ratios reported for the five years beginning in 2003 and ending in 2007 • Ratios provide a better indication of leveraging “success” since they adjust for variation in 320 grants and earmarks • Significant and support leveraging are less reliable because fewer NEPs report them

  15. Area - Summary • Leveraged dollars and ratios tend to be higher in larger NEPs • The largest 1/3 of NEPs account for 70% of primary leveraging • Area is the most consistent predictor of leveraging success among factors evaluated, but it is only one of many

  16. 1,000 70% Millions 900 800 700 600 5 Year Cumulative Primary $ 500 400 22% 300 200 8% 100 - Small (<900 sq.mi) Mid (900-4500 sq.mi) Large (>4500 sq mi) Largest 1/3 of NEPs (by area) = 70% of Primary Dollars

  17. 30 25 Mean Median 20 5 Year Cumulatiive Primary Leveraging Ratios 15 10 5 - Small (<900 sq.mi) Mid (900-4500 sq.mi) Large (>4500 sq mi) Primary Leveraging Ratios Also Higher for Larger NEPs

  18. 50 40 30 Primary Leveraging Ratio (5-Year Cumulative) 20 2 R = 0.04 10 - - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Area in Square Miles Data Plot and Regression Line Excludes data point at 4,600 sq.mi and ratio of 169 • Correlation between area and primary ratio positive but weak for all NEPs; stronger if outliers excluded

  19. Population - Summary • More populous NEPs tend to have more leveraging, but the relationship is weak • The most populous 1/3 of NEPs account for 46% of cumulative primary leveraging • Ratios increase only slightly with population increases

  20. $700 48% Millions 45% $600 $500 $400 5 Year Cumulative Primary Leveraging $ $300 $200 7% $100 $0 Small (<750K pop) Mid (750K-3MM pop) Large (>3MM pop) Share of Primary Leveraging Dollars by Population Category

  21. 30 25 20 Mean Median 5 Year Cumulative Primary Leveraging Ratios 15 10 5 - Small (<750K pop) Mid (750K-3MM pop) Large (>3MM pop) Median Ratios Increase With Population, But Means Are Skewed by Outliers

  22. 50 40 30 Cumulative Primary Leveraging Ratio 2 R = 0.14 20 10 - - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Millions NEP Population Data Plot and Regression Line Excludes data point at 1.7 million population and ratio of 169 • Ratios increase slightly with population, excluding one outlier

  23. Age - Summary • Time since CCMP adoption is not a useful indicator of leveraging success • The least and most mature NEPs account for a disproportionate share of total dollars • Leveraging ratios trend slightly lower as age increases

  24. $700 Millions 44% $600 36% $500 $400 5 Year Cumulative Primary $ $300 $200 12% 8% $100 $0 6-8 Yrs Ago 9-12 Yrs Ago 12-13 Yrs Ago 13-17 Yrs Ago The Oldest ¼ of NEPs = 44% of Cumulative Primary Leveraging

  25. 30 25 20 Average Median 5 Year Cumulative Primary Ratio 15 10 5 - 6-8 Yrs Ago 9-12 Yrs Ago 12-13 Yrs Ago 13-17 Yrs Ago Neither Mean Nor Median Ratios Follow a Pattern With Age

  26. 50 40 30 5 Year Cumulative Primary Ratio 2 R = 0.13 20 10 - 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Years Since CCMP Signed Data Plot and Regression Line • Age has a slightly positive correlation with primary ratios, excluding one outlier Excludes data point at 7.2 years and ratio of 169

  27. Institutional Setting - Summary • Small sample sizes limit conclusions from this data • Ratios trend higher at NEPs in government settings (EPA region, states, local governments) (n=18) • Lower ratios are found at NEPs in nonprofit, university, or other settings (n=10)

  28. $700 Millions 44% $600 $500 $400 26% 22% $300 $200 6% $100 2% 1% $0 EPA Region State Local NFP University Other Share of Primary Dollars by Setting

  29. Plot of Primary Ratios by Setting University State Other NFP Local 169 EPA Region - 10 20 30 40 50 5 Year Cumulative Primary Ratio

  30. “Elevator Speech” Exercise • Turn to the person next to you and explain to them in sixty seconds why they should donate to your organization.

  31. A good “elevator speech” should include: • Who your organization is • What the mission is • 1-3 of your current, top priorities • How you plan to achieve those priorities • What you would use additional funds for But how do you figure all of this out?

  32. EPA Resources to Advance Leveraging

  33. But really… what can these EPA watershed finance tools do for me? • Set priorities • Incorporate fundraisers into your organization's current activities • Capitalize on the strengths of your organization (save time and resources) • Target resources that are sustainable and likely to be obtained • Generate buy-in from your board, staff, and volunteers • Limit crisis fundraising

  34. Funding “Lessons Learned” • Incorporate fundraisers into your organization's current activities • Capitalize on the strengths of your organization • Target a diversity of resources that are sustainable and likely to be obtained • Create a finance plan that can be used year after year to guide efforts • Diffuse fundraising efforts throughout your organization

  35. In case you need more inspiration… “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.” –Wayne Gretsky “Think little goals and expect little achievements. Think big goals and win big success.” –David J. Schwartz

  36. Discussion • NEP funding sources • Level of effort required • Return on investment • “Behind the scenes” of our hottest funding sources

  37. Thank You! • Tim Jones jones.tim@epa.gov 202-566-1245 Many thanks to River Network, The Foundation Center, and many other organizations for use of their materials! epa.gov/owow/funding.html

More Related