2010 Communication evaluation survey: Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network

Gostomski, Ted

There are relatively few good examples within the National Park Service of how to evaluate the efficacy and appropriateness of environmental education. Yet for education to be done well, we must evaluate what we do and how we do it, and then use that feedback to continually update and improve our products. This report summarizes the results of a communications evaluation survey conducted by the Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network during the Fall of 2010. A one-page, six-question survey was e-mailed to all employees with government e-mail addresses in the nine Great Lakes Network parks. The purpose of this evaluation was to learn (a) if park staff are aware of the monitoring programs conducted by Network staff in their parks, and if they are aware, (b) how they hear about the Network and its monitoring programs. Third, the evaluation was conducted to determine the usefulness of the Network’s current suite of printed products to interpreters and other internal audiences in the nine Network parks. Seventy-three of 596 employees contacted returned a completed survey form (return rate = 12.25%). Just under one-quarter (22%) of respondents were unaware of the Network monitoring programs being conducted in their parks. Those who were unaware of the I&M program were primarily from maintenance and protection divisions. All natural resource management staff were familiar with Network programs. Most employees hear about the Network through e-mail, but the products being used by park staff varied depending on which division they work for. Across all divisions, the Network newsletter (The Current) and Resource Briefs for the individual monitoring programs were used most often. Technical reports were universally used by Resource Management staff, were used a little less by staff in the Administration and Protection/LE divisions, but were seldom used by employees in Interpretation and Maintenance divisions. However, these results need to be viewed with some caution because circulation within a park, and hence availability of these products, is not necessarily equal. No suggestions were made to drop any of the communication products currently being used. Suggestions to send e-mail to parks’ “All Employee” lists instead of just Resource Management or Interpretation staff will be considered. Interest in specific resource issues such as fire will be addressed through the development of specialized Resource Briefs. Break-downs in communication between the Network and front-line and seasonal employees will be addressed collaboratively with park contacts and by making the web site more prominently known and relied on.

2010 Communication evaluation survey: Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network

Series

Collections