Considering all categories of questions, Resource Reviewers and Managers were more positive towards transportation agencies with regards to working and collaborating on NEPA projects than Transportation Reviewers and Managers were towards resource agencies &151; a consistent finding from the 2003 survey. Themes running throughout open-ended responses dealt with the need for better communication to improve inter-agency relationships as well as a need for better trained personnel to help streamline and improve internal processes.
Gallup created a composite measure for measuring streamlining changes over time. The streamlining metric used a set of questions about streamlining the NEPA process to compare scores received in 2003 to those in 2006. Resource and Transportation Reviewers were each given their own composite measure and scores were compared by region as well as overall. The measure consisted of the following four questions which were deemed key to the streamlining process (all questions were rated on a five-point Liekert scale with &147;1&148; being strongly disagree and &147;5&148; being strongly agree):
1. [Other Agency] helped to move this project forward.
2. [Other Agency] made efforts to improve the process during this project.
3. The entire process took a reasonable amount of time.
4. The process was the shortest it could have been without compromising NEPA.*
*Note: This item was reverse coded for the 2003 data as the wording changed. The original 2003 wording was: &147;The process could have been shortened without compromising the intent of NEPA&148;.
To construct this composite measure, Gallup used both the mean and median scores for these items. Using both the mean and median comparison demonstrates improvement or not as well as any change in distribution of scores that may have occurred. For example, a shift in the median score would indicate that the entire group improved. And indeed, that is what happened; the overall measure showed not only substantial improvement in the mean score 3.51 to 3.72 (2003 to 2006) for Resource but also with the median score from 3.50 to 4.00. A similar increase for Transportation Reviewers was noted with the mean increasing from 3.11 to 3.29 and the median from 3.25 to 3.38.
The following charts show the overall measure results for each of the ten regions. Region 5 in 2003 was used as a pilot program and some of these questions were not asked during the pilot. Therefore, only 2006 data is provided for Region 5.
Chart 1: Resource Reviewer Overall Mean Change in Streamlining From 2003 to 2006
|
|
Overall Mean 2003 |
Overall Mean 2006 |
|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
3.71 |
3.64 |
|
Region 2 |
3.42 |
4.16 |
|
Region 3 |
3.82 |
3.93 |
|
Region 4 |
3.41 |
3.85 |
|
Region 5 |
3.61 |
|
|
Region 6 |
3.38 |
3.64 |
|
Region 7 |
3.63 |
3.74 |
|
Region 8 |
3.58 |
3.87 |
|
Region 9 |
3.39 |
3.21 |
|
Region 10 |
3.37 |
3.71 |
|
Overall |
3.51 |
3.72 |
Chart 1a: Transportation Reviewer Overall Mean Change in Streamlining From 2003 to 2006
|
|
Overall Mean 2003 |
Overall Mean 2006 |
|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
3.55 |
2.97 |
|
Region 2 |
2.93 |
3.27 |
|
Region 3 |
2.84 |
3.32 |
|
Region 4 |
3.39 |
3.44 |
|
Region 5 |
3.74 |
|
|
Region 6 |
3.51 |
3.74 |
|
Region 7 |
2.87 |
3.04 |
|
Region 8 |
2.99 |
3.47 |
|
Region 9 |
2.87 |
2.71 |
|
Region 10 |
3.00 |
3.03 |
|
Overall |
3.11 |
3.29 |
Region 1:
The overall measure showed a slight mean decline from for Resource Reviewers from 3.71 in 2003 to 3.64 in 2006. However, there was a substantial increase noted in the overall distribution with the median score increasing from 3.63 to 4.00 in 2006. Among Transportation Reviewers, the overall mean decreased from 3.55 in 2003 to 2.97 in 2006 and a corresponding drop was seen in the median score of 3.75 in 2003 to 3.00 in 2006.
Region 2:
The overall measure showed substantial improvement for Resource Reviewers with an increase in mean score from 3.42 to 4.16. A corresponding increase was also seen in the median score of 3.25 in 2003 to 4.25 in 2006. Resource Reviewers had the highest mean score in this region for 2006. Among Transportation Reviewers, the mean score increased from 2.93 in 2003 to 3.27 in 2006; there was no change in median score noted over time.
Region 3:
Among Resource Reviewers, the overall mean score improved substantially from 3.82 in 2003 to 3.93 in 2006; no change was noted in the median score. Resource Reviewers had the second highest score for 2006 in this region. Similarly, among Transportation Reviewers, the overall measure showed substantial improvement with the overall mean score increasing from 2.84 to 3.32; correspondingly, there was a substantial increase in median score from 2.63 to 3.50.
Region 4:
The overall measure showed substantial improvement for Resource Reviewers with an increase in mean score from 3.41 in 2003 to 3.85 in 2006; a corresponding increase in median score occurred as well -- from 3.50 to 3.88 in 2006. Among Transportation Reviewers, the mean score increased from 3.39 in 2003 to 3.44 in 2006; however, a decreasing median score was noted from 3.50 in 2003 to 3.38 in 2006.
Region 5:
Resource Reviewers had a mean score of 3.61 and a median score of 3.75 while Transportation Reviewers means score was 3.74 and median score 4.00. Among Resource Reviewers overall, the mean score is about average with the rest of the regions while the Transportation Reviewer score is the highest mean score among regions.
Region 6:
Among Resource Reviewers, the overall mean score improved substantially from 3.38 in 2003 to 3.64 in 2006; a corresponding increase in median score occurred moving from 3.63 in 2003 to 3.75 in 2006. For Transportation Reviewers, the overall measure also showed a mean improvement from 2003 to 2006 with the overall mean score increasing from 3.51 in 2003 to 3.74 in 2006; the median increased from 3.50 in 2003 to 4.00 in 2006. Transportation Reviewers had the highest scores for 2006 in this region.
Region 7:
The overall measure showed substantial improvement from 2003 to 2006 for Resource Reviewers with the mean score increasing from 3.63 to 3.74; a corresponding increase occurred for the median score from 3.75 to 4.00 in 2006. Among Transportation Reviewers, the mean score increased from 2.87 in 2003 to 3.04 in 2006 with a corresponding increase in median score 2.75 in 2003 to 3.00 in 2006.
Region 8:
The overall measure showed substantial improvement for Resource Reviewers in their overall mean score from 3.58 to 3.87 and an increase in median score from 3.75 in 2003 to a median score of 4.00 in 2006. The overall measure also showed substantial improvement among Transportation Reviewers with an overall mean score of 2.99 in 2003 to 3.47 in 2006 and an increase in median score from of 2.88 in 2003 to of 3.50 in 2006.
Region 9:
The overall measure showed substantial decrease for Resource Reviewers in their overall mean score from 3.39 to 3.21 in 2006 as well as a decrease in median score from 3.50 to 3.00 in 2006. For Transportation Reviewers, the overall measure also showed substantial declines with the overall mean score of 2.87 dropping to 2.71 in 2006 and for the median, decreasing from 3.00 to 2.50 in 2006.
Region 10:
The overall mean showed substantial increase for Resource Reviewers from 3.37 in 2003 to 3.71 in 2006; a corresponding increase in the median score was also seen from 3.25 to 3.75. For Transportation Reviewers, the overall measure also showed slight mean increases from 3.00 to 3.03; a decrease in median score occurred from 3.25 in 2003 to 3.13 in 2006.
· A 4% increase in problems was reported by Resource Reviewers while a 1% decrease was reported by Transportation Reviewers from 2003 to 2006.
· Considering both Resource and Transportation NEPA Reviewers from a single region, Region 2 had the greatest improvement from 2003 to 2006 in problem occurrence &151; a 20% decrease reported by Resource Reviewers and a 13% decrease reported by Transportation Reviewers from 2003 to 2006.
· Region 3 Transportation Reviewers increased their amount of problems noted by 22% to 55% from 2003 to 2006.
· In 2006, Resource Reviewers in all regions except one (Region 6 where the difference was one percentage point) rated &147;provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed&148; higher than did Transportation Reviewers.
· Among Resource Reviewers, Regions 4, 5, and 8, rated the perception of the relationships between agencies highest; among Transportation Reviewers, Regions 4, 5, and 6 rated the perception of the relationships between agencies highest.
· Among Resource Reviewers, the changes seen over time were less pronounced than among Transportation Reviewers. The largest change over time occurred in Region 2 among Resource Reviewers who, in 2003 had a top two box response of 36% agreement and in 2006 jumped to 63% for the question&147;[Transportation Agency] provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed.&148;
· Overall, among Resource Reviewers, Regions 1, 5, and 7 rated the perception of communication between agencies highest; among Transportation Reviewers, Region 5 rated the perception of the communication between agencies highest.
· Among Resource Reviewers, the changes seen over time were less pronounced than amongst Transportation Reviewers.
· Among Resource Reviewers, Region 3, overall, rated the perception of timeliness between agencies highest.
· Transportation Reviewers in Regions 5 and 8, overall, rated the perception of the timeliness between agencies higher than other regions of Transportation Reviewers.
· Among Resource Reviewers, Regions 2, 3, and 8 overall, rated the perception of the performance between agencies higher than other regions of Resource Reviewers. Region 2 showed the most improvement in ratings from 2003 to 2006 for Transportation Reviewers.
· Transportation Reviewers in Region 5 rated the perception of performance between agencies higher than other regions of Transportation Reviewers and had the most improvement in ratings from 2003 to 2006 for Resource Reviewers.
· Transportation Reviewers in Regions 5 rated the general perception between agencies highest.
· The largest change noted by Transportation Reviewers was in Region 3 and asked whether or not their sister agency cared about their agency&146;s mission (from 15% to 51% top two box, a 36 percentage point increase).
· The largest change noted by Resource Reviewers was in Region 2 and asked whether or not their sister agency had competent staff (from 36% to 93% top two box, a 57 percentage point increase).
· Transportation Reviewers in Regions 5 rated the general perception between agencies higher than other regions of Transportation Reviewers.
· The largest change noted by Transportation Reviewers was in Region 3 and the question of whether their sister agency cared about their agency&146;s mission (from 15% to 51% top two box, a 36 percentage point increase).
· The largest change noted by Resource Reviewers occurred in Region 2 and asked whether or not their sister agency had competent staff (from 36% to 93% top two box, a 57 percentage point increase).
Chapter VIII: Summary Verbatim Analysis__________________________________
Overall, Resource Reviewers indicated more problems with alternative analysis, disagreements/differences of opinion, and environmental/biological issues than with other categories of problem occurrence. Most of these issues deal with the relationship between agencies; while Transportation Reviewers indicated substantially more problems with lack of timely response than with other categories of problem occurrence which is a part of the timeliness between agencies. Themes running throughout open-ended responses provided by respondents dealt with better communication to improve inter-agency relationships and better trained personnel to help streamline and improve internal processes. These solutions and themes are agreed upon by both Resource and Transportation Reviewers.