recruitment and retention assessment survey report highlights · recruitment and retention...

newHunting Heritage Action Plan

Prepared for:

Wildlife Management Institute Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report

HIGHLIGHTS

Robert L. Byrne, Project Manager

D.J. Case & Associates 317 E. Jefferson Blvd. Mishawaka, IN 46545

www.djcase.com

March 20, 2009

Hunting Heritage Action Plan

Prepared for:

Wildlife Management Institute Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report

HIGHLIGHTS

Robert L. Byrne, Project Manager

D.J. Case & Associates 317 E. Jefferson Blvd. Mishawaka, IN 46545

www.djcase.com

March 20, 2009

This publication was partially funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (Grant DC M-59-R), a program supported with funds from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and jointly managed with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2007.

1 Recruitment and Retention Assessment Survey Report | HIGHLIGHTS

Recruitment and Retention Assessment Report Highlights In recent years, the awareness of declining trends in hunting license sales and hunting participation rates has spawned an increase in activities related to the recruitment of new hunters and retention of existing ones. However, details regarding the nature or geographic extent of these activities have not been fully documented. To date, no comprehensive assessment of recruitment and retention activities has been conducted. One of the many actions taken by the hunting community to address the national decline of hunters was to create a Hunting Heritage Steering Committee (Steering Committee). This committee provided national level oversight to a series of Governor's Symposia on Hunting Heritage (held on a two- to three-year cycle) that strove to identify a host of actions being conducted to reverse negative hunter participation trends while outlining additional actions needed. After several successful Symposia, the Steering Committee concluded that a National Hunting Heritage Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was needed. In 2005, WMI obtained an Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency/US Fish and Wildlife Service Multi-State Conservation Grant to begin an effort to develop a National Hunting Heritage Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) and conduct an assessment of recruitment and retention (R&R) programs. Funds from the grant were supplemented with contributions from the Steering Committee and other groups dedicated to support this effort. WMI retained the services of D. J. Case and Associates (DJ Case) to assist in this effort. An additional assessment of access programs is also being conducted by DJ Case for WMI. It is important to recognize that the future development of the Strategic Plan is only one of many efforts aimed to stabilize and reverse the trends in hunting participation. Recent examples of parallel efforts are the National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) Best Practices Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention, and Task Force 2020 efforts, and The Future of Hunting and Shooting Sports Report produced jointly by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Responsive Management. In order to obtain national-scale data on hunting R&R activities, an assessment survey was sent to all fifty state wildlife agencies, forty-two conservation organizations (NGOs) associated with hunting, and two federal agencies. All fifty state wildlife agencies, two federal agencies, and twenty NGOs completed the assessment survey from August 2008 to March 2009. The assessment survey was developed as a work-product from a R&R workshop held in conjunction with NSSF's Shooting Sports Summit in Colorado Springs, Colorado in June 2008. In addition, a literature review of the most pertinent research pertaining to or addressing hunting R&R was also conducted and published in a separate report to WMI. Individuals invited to participate were identified by WMI in a pre-assessment survey request for contacts. It is important to note that the assessment participants were identified by state agency directors, NGO Chief Executive Officers or senior staff as the people most knowledgeable in the agency or organization regarding R&R issues. Generally, the agency head or CEO did not complete the assessment survey.


The assessment survey consisted of several general questions on relative program importance and agency or organization involvement, as well as a series of questions regarding details on specific programs. The assessment survey was administered via an on-line survey application. Results are reported by either state agency or NGO group. Figure 1 reports the states’ and NGOs’ perceptions of the perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies' or organizations' missions. Twenty-seven states indicated that hunter R&R was very important to achieving the agencies' missions, while twenty-one states indicated that hunter R&R was very unimportant to achieving the agencies' missions. Ten NGOs indicated that hunter R&R was very important (7) or somewhat important (3), while nine NGOs indicated that hunter R&R was very unimportant. One NGO did not answer this question. Figure 1. Perceived importance of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies’ and NGOs’ missions

A speculative explanation for this bi-modal response is that some state wildlife agencies and NGOs may consider their missions primarily to conserve wildlife/habitat or provide member services. Though largely philosophical, this question does provide a framework for additional discussion within the hunting-conservation community on the relative importance of hunter recruitment and retention efforts. While there is some possibility that the question was misunderstood, it is unlikely since subsequent, similarly-worded questions did not elicit bi-modal responses. Figure 2 reports the states’ and NGOs’ opinions on the perceived integration of R&R efforts into the agencies’ missions. Ten states reported that the R&R efforts were very well integrated and an additional thirty-one states reported that the R&R efforts were somewhat integrated. Eight states reported that their R&R efforts were not integrated much, and one state answered “No opinion.” Eight NGOs reported that the R&R efforts were very well integrated and an additional eight NGOs reported that the R&R efforts were somewhat integrated into the NGO's mission. Two NGOs reported that their R&R efforts were either not integrated much (1) or not at all integrated (1), and one NGO did not answer this question.


Figure 2. Perceived integration of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies’ and NGOs’ missions

Figure 3 reports the states’ and NGOs’ opinions on the perceived effectiveness of R&R efforts in achieving the agencies' missions. Two states reported that the R&R efforts were very effective and an additional thirty-three states reported that the R&R efforts were somewhat effective. Nine states reported that R&R efforts were somewhat ineffective, and one state reported that their R&R efforts were very ineffective. Two NGOs reported that the R&R efforts were very effective and an additional eight NGOs reported that the R&R efforts were somewhat effective in achieving their missions. Five NGOs reported that their R&R efforts were somewhat ineffective and four NGOs reported “No opinion” for this question. One NGO did not answer this question. Figure 3. Perceived effectiveness of hunter R&R to the future of the agencies’ and NGOs’ missions


Figure 4 reports the states’ and NGOs’ opinions on the perceived integration of hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts. One state reported that the R&R efforts were very well integrated, and nineteen states reported that the R&R efforts were somewhat integrated with their angler R&R efforts. Nineteen states reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not integrated much and seven states reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not at all integrated. Considering that all of the NGOs surveyed were largely hunting-focused organizations, it is not surprising that none of the NGOs reported that their R&R programs were very well integrated or somewhat integrated with angler R&R efforts. Eight NGOs reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not integrated much with their angler R&R efforts and eight NGOs reported that their hunter R&R efforts were not at all integrated. Three NGOs reported “No opinion” on this question and one NGO did not answer this question. Figure 4. Perceived integration of hunter R&R efforts with angler R&R efforts

Sixteen states indicated that they had an oversight group to guide their efforts and thirteen state agencies indicated that they had a separate R&R line-item in their budget. Seven of the sixteen states with oversight groups also had separate line-items in their budget. Six states with separate R&R budgets did not have oversight groups, and nine states with R&R oversight groups did not have separate R&R line-items in their budgets. Four NGOs reported that they had both an R&R oversight group and separate R&R line-items in their budget. Four NGOs with R&R oversight groups did not have separate R&R line-items in their budgets (Table 1).


Table 1. NGOs with oversight groups and/or budget line-items.

Non-Governmental Organization R&

R

Ove

rsig

ht G

roup

?

R&

R B

udge

t?

Archery Trade Association X

Delta Waterfowl X X

National Rifle Association X X

National Shooting Sports Foundation X X

National Wild Turkey Federation X X

Quality Deer Management Association – North X

SCI X

Texas Wildlife Association X

TOTALS 8 4

Staffing levels for R&R efforts varied by state and U.S. region (Table 2). States in the Southeast reported a total of more than ten full-time and more than four part-time staff specifically dedicated to hunter R&R efforts; states in the Midwest reported nine full-time and more than five part-time staff specifically dedicated to hunter R&R efforts; states in the West reported having six full-time and four part-time staff specifically dedicated to hunter R&R efforts; and states in the Northeast reported having two full-time R&R staff. Table 2. Numbers of types of hunter R&R staff (other than hunter education staff) in state agencies, by region. (FT = Full-time, PT= Part-time)

Midwest Region

State #FT R&R

Staff # PT R&R

Staff # R&R

Contractors # R&R

Volunteers # Other R&R

Staff

Colorado 1 1 0 >3 0

Illinois 2 0 0 >3 0

Indiana 1 1 0 0 0

Iowa 0 0 0 0 0

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0

Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0

Michigan 1 0 0 0 0

Minnesota 2 >3 0 0 0

Missouri 0 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 2 0 1 >3 0

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 0 0 0 0 0

South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 0

Region Totals 9 >5 1 >9 0


Northeast Region

State #FT R&R

Staff # PT R&R

Staff # R&R

Contractors # R&R


Staff

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0

Delaware 0 0 0 0 0

Maine 0 0 0 0 0

Maryland 2 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0

New York 0 0 0 0 >3

Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0

Vermont 0 0 0 0 0

West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0

Region Totals 2 0 0 0 >3

Southeast Region

State #FT R&R

Staff # PT R&R

Staff # R&R

Contractors # R&R


Staff

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0

Arkansas >3 0 0 >3 0

Florida 0 0 0 0 0

Georgia 0 >3 0 >3 0

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0

North Carolina 1 1 0 0 0

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 2 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 1 0 0 >3 0

Texas 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia >3 0 0 0 0

Region Totals >10 >4 0 >9 0


Western Region

State #FT R&R

Staff # PT R&R

Staff # R&R

Contractors # R&R


Staff

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0

Arizona 1 0 0 0 0

California 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 0 0 0

Nevada 1 0 0 0 0

New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0

Oregon 0 >3 0 >3 0

Utah >3 1 0 0 0

Washington 0 0 0 0 0

Wyoming 1 0 0 0 0

Region Totals >6 >4 0 >3 0

Four NGOs reported employing a total of five full-time and more than four part-time staff who are specifically dedicated to hunter recruitment and retention (Table 3). Table 3. Numbers of types of hunter R&R staff (other than hunter education staff) in NGOs. (FT = Full-time, PT= Part-time)

Organization

#FT R&R Staff

# PT R&R Staff

# R&R Contractors

# R&R Volunteers

# Other R&R Staff

Archery Trade Association 1 Delta Waterfowl 1 1

Texas Wildlife Association 2 National Shooting Sports Foundation 1 >3 >3

Total 5 >4 >3 The top four R&R administrative efforts undertaken by state agencies (Table 4) include: establish youth-only seasons (48); establish on-line license/permit sales (44); modify season structures to encourage youth or family hunting (42); and establish youth licenses (39). The top R&R efforts reported by NGOs include: created hunting awareness programs (8); developed specific information resources for recruitment of hunters (6); created outdoor TV/radio programs for recruitment or retention of hunters (5); established employee training/orientation programs (such as BOW, Step-Outside, etc.) (5); and marketed specific hunting opportunities (5).


Table 4. Top R&R administration efforts. Top four R&R administrative efforts by state agencies

establish youth-only seasons 48

establish on-line license/permit sales 44

modify season structures to encourage youth or family hunting 42

establish youth licenses 39

Top R&R administrative efforts by NGOs

created hunting awareness programs 8

developed specific information resources for recruitment of hunters 6

created outdoor TV/radio programs for recruitment or retention of hunters 5

established employee training/orientation programs (such as BOW, Step-Outside, etc.) 5

marketed specific hunting opportunities 5

State agencies are focusing their communications efforts on existing hunters and new hunters. In addition, 40% of the states are targeting lapsed hunters in their communications efforts and non-traditional participants are being targeted by 28%. Only 10% of the states are specifically targeting transient hunters (hunters that have moved into their state from another state). Figure 5. Audiences that state agencies and NGOs have developed specific communication efforts about hunting

Access programs were sponsored by twenty-six states. Of these, mentoring programs and family or adult/child programs appear to be the dominant program-types. Sponsorship of youth hunting and shooting clubs in their respective state was indicated by 44% of states.


A total of twenty-six state wildlife agencies reported that they sponsored access programs. Of these, twenty-one indicated that they were private lands access programs and five indicated that they sponsored corporate lands access programs. Access programs will be further addressed in a separate Access Assessment being developed in parallel to this report. Programmatic details can be found in Tables 5 and 6. Further detailed programmatic information can be found on the following pages. In addition to asking general questions regarding relative program importance, detailed information was collected regarding twelve different program-types. While there was considerable overlap across the program-types that the survey addressed, it appears that cumulative nation-wide recruitment and retention efforts are substantial. State wildlife agencies reported, in aggregate, that they were involved in 313 program-types. NGOs reported that they were involved in 102 program-types. Program-types are the cumulative number of programs of all types being conducted by either state agencies or NGOs. It should be noted that many of these program–types involve multiple partners so the realized total of program–types is less than the aggregate total of unique partners. State wildlife agencies reported having 247 partners, and NGOs reported having 84 partners, in aggregate, for these program types. Many of these are duplicate partners, but all are involved in some manner and add to the cumulative activity level. In addition, many of these programs have multiple-events associated with the program, so the cumulative activity appears to be even more substantial. Details and programmatic summaries are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5. State agencies within AFWA regions by program types.

Midwest You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rel

ated

Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l CO X X X X X X 6

IL X X X X X X X X X 9

IN X X X X X X X X 8

IA X X X X X X 6

KS X X X X X X 6

KY X X X 3

MI X X X X 4

MN X X X X X X X X 8

MO X X X X X X X X X X X 11

NE X X X X X X X X X X X 11

ND X X X X X X X X 8

OH X X X X X X X 7

SD X X X X X X X 7

WI X X X X X X X X X 9

TOTALS 13 10 11 14 7 0 5 8 10 13 8 4 103


Northeast You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rel

ated

Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CT 0

DE X X X X X X 6

ME X X X X X X 6

MD X X X X X X X 7

MA X X X X 4

NH X X X X X 5

NJ X X X X X X X 7

NY X X X X X X X X 8

PA X X X X X X X 7

RI X X X 3

VT X X X X X X 6

WV X X X 3

TOTALS 10 9 8 11 3 0 1 5 5 4 6 0 62

Southeast You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rel

ated

Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AL X X 2

AR X X X X X X X X X 9

FL X X X X X X 6

GA X X X X X X 6

LA X X X X X X 6

MS X X X X 4

NC X X X X X 5

OK X X X X X X X X 8

SC X X X X X X X X X 9

TN X X X X 4

TX X X X X X X X X X X 10

VA X X X X X X X 7

TOTALS 12 7 11 10 6 1 3 7 2 8 7 2 76


Western You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rel

ated

Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AK X X X X X X X 7

AZ X X X X X X X X X 9

CA X X X X X 5

HI X X X X X X X X 8

ID X X X X X 5

MT X X X X 4

NV X X X X X 5

NM X X X X X X X 7

OR X X X X X X 6

UT X X X X 4

WA X X X X 4

WY X X X X X X X X 8

TOTALS 12 9 9 7 4 1 2 4 6 7 8 3 72

Overall Counts Y

outh

Hun

ts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp

Even

ts

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rel

ated

Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

47 35 39 42 20 2 11 24 23 32 29 9 313


Table 6. NGO program participation for all twelve types of hunting R&R programs.

NGOs You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g Se

min

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

& C

orp.

Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

Rel

ated

Ex

pos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

ls

ATA X X X X 4

Bear Trust Int’l 0

Resource Mgmt. X X 2

Cong. Sportsmen X 1

Delta Waterfowl X X X X X X X 7

Ducks Unlimited X X X X X X 6

IHEA X X 2

Mule Deer Fdn. X X X X X X X 7

NRA X X X X X X X X 8

NWTF X X X X X X X X X 9

NJ Fed Sptsmen X X X X 4

NA Bear Fdn X X 2

Pope & Young X X X X 4

QDMA-S X X X X X 5

QDMA-N X X X 3

RMEF X X X X X X X X X 9

SCI X X X X X X X X X 9

TX Wildlife X X X X X X X X X 9

Whitetails Unlimited X X X X X X 6

NSSF X X X X X 5

Totals 16 10 14 12 6 4 6 8 6 9 10 1 102

In view of the substantial number of nation-wide R&R programs and the considerable effort they represent, it is sobering to consider that hunting license sales continue to decline. This conclusion points to a continuing need to better understand what efforts the general hunting community is making to halt the decline in participation and how well those effort are working. This continuing need extends well beyond the scope of this assessment. Clearly, hunter recruitment activities and hunter retention activities are, by their application, different. One is designed to generate new participants while the other is designed to keep current participants. Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion between these terms and their associated activities. In some regards, the hunting community refers to recruitment and retention synonymously and has not yet recognized their unique natures and challenges. This confusion is, to some extent, documented in the responses to the question regarding the primary purpose of the program-types. Programs intended for both hunter recruitment and hunter retention were reported by 62% of state agencies and 48% of NGOs. States reported that 24% of their program-types were specifically for hunter recruitment and only 6% were specifically for hunter retention.


NGO responses indicate a similar pattern: 29% indicated that their program–types were specifically for hunter recruitment and 7% indicated that their program-types were specifically for hunter retention. (Note: These totals do not add up to 100% because not all respondents answered these questions.) The authors caution readers not to become too focused on these precise numbers. While it is clear that some program-types may be applied to both recruitment and retention processes, it is equally clear that many programs would likely benefit from a more targeted approach to achieve specific goals. The entire hunting community would likely benefit from well thought out and clearly articulated goals and objectives for each program in which they invest. While developing clearly articulated goals and objectives is not easy, it appears to be a critical near-term step in addressing long-term hunting license sales decline. Applying a more targeted approach to these various program-types logically leads to an examination of the planning process used to develop these program-types. The NSSF's Best Practices Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention is an excellent resource for developing a more targeted approach to achieve specific goals. In addition, it appears that little focused effort is being devoted to retention programs. In the earlier discussion it was noted that hunter retention was the primary purpose of only 6% of state program-types and 7% of NGO program–types. Many strategists working in this area believe that efforts aimed specifically at retaining existing hunters are critical to stem the near-term loss of licensed hunters that serve to fund agency programs and mentor the next generation of hunters. It is recommended (by the authors and others) that specific programs be developed that target the inherent difficulties that each of these issues (recruitment and retention of hunters) have in order to successfully overcome them. Clear thinking about the nature of the problems that are faced is a vital precursor to successful solutions. Overall, approximately 25% of the state program-types and 36% of the NGO program-types were guided by program manuals. Of the 313 state program-types that submitted information, eighty had program manuals and five were in the process of developing manuals. Of the 102 NGO program-types that submitted information, thirty-nine had program manuals and another was in the process of developing a manual. See Tables 7 and 8 for details on the frequency of state and NGO program manuals by program-type. Several states and NGOs are notable in their development of program manuals, in particular Missouri (8 manuals), Texas (7), and Arizona (7); and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (8 manuals) and National Rifle Association (7).


Table 7. State agencies within AFWA regions by program manuals for program types.

Midwest You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CO X X X 3

IL X X X 3

IN X X X X 4

IA X X X 3

KS 0

KY 0

MI X 1

MN X1 X X X1 X 5

MO X X X X X X X X 8

NE X X X 3

ND X X 2

OH X X 2

SD 0

WI X X 2

TOTALS 5 2 4 6 1 0 1 2 5 9 1 0 36

Northeast You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Spor

ts

Prog

ram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CT 0

DE 0

ME 0

MD 0

MA X X 2

NH X 1

NJ 0

NY X1 X 2

PA X X 2

RI X 1

VT X X X 3

WV 0

TOTALS 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 11


Southeast You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tr

aini

ng S

emin

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AL 0

AR X 1

FL X X X 3

GA X 1

LA 0

MS 0

NC X 1

OK X 1

SC X X X X X 5

TN X 1

TX X X X X X X X 7

VA 0

TOTALS 3 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 6 1 0 20

Western You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tr

aini

ng S

emin

ars

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AK X X X X 4

AZ X1 X1 X X X X X 7

CA X 1

HI X X X 3

ID 0

MT 0

NV 0

NM 0

OR 0

UT X 1

WA 0

WY X X 2

TOTALS 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 2 0 18


Overall Counts Y

outh

Hun

ts

Adv

. Tr

aini

ng

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

10 8 7 10 4 1 2 9 6 19 4 0 80

Table 8. NGOs by program manuals for program types.

NGOs You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

Expo

s

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

ls

ATA X 1

Bear Trust Int’l 0 Resource

Mgmt. 0

Cong. Sportsmen 0

Delta Waterfowl X X X 3

Ducks Unlimited 0

IHEA X 1

Mule Deer Fdn 0

NRA X X X X X X X 7

NWTF X11 X X X X 5 NJ Fed

Sptsmen 0

NA Bear Fdn X 1

Pope & Young 0

QDMA-S X X 2

QDMA-N X X 2

RMEF X X X X X X X X 8

SCI 0

TX Wildlife X X X X X 5 Whitetails Unlimited X 1

NSSF X X 2

Totals 5 7 5 3 2 0 3 4 3 4 2 0 38

1=Expected date of completion of March 2009.


In the absence of clearly stated goals and objects, evaluation of program outcomes becomes difficult. Of the 313 state program-types that submitted information, 99 reported having an evaluation process and twenty-six were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. Overall, approximately 41% of state program-types are evaluated in some manner or are in the process of developing an evaluation process. NGO program-types appear to be less likely to have evaluation processes. Approximately 18% reported having an evaluation process. Of the 102 NGO program-types that submitted information, fifteen had evaluations in place and another five were in the process of developing an evaluation program. Tables 9 and 10 contain details on the frequency of state and NGO program evaluations by program-type. Several states and NGOs are notable in their development of program evaluations, in particular Texas (9 processes), Arizona (7), and South Carolina (7); and National Rifle Association (6 processes) and Texas Wildlife Association (4). Table 9. State agencies within AFWA regions by evaluations for program types.

Midwest You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CO X X 2

IL 0

IN X X X X1 4

IA X 1

KS 0

KY 0

MI X X 2

MN X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 6

MO X X X X X 5

NE X1 X X X X1 X 6

ND X X X X 4

OH X 1

SD X X 2

WI X X 2

TOTALS 3 2 5 7 4 0 0 1 4 4 3 2 35


Northeast You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

CT 0

DE X 1

ME X 1

MD X X X X 4

MA X1 X X X 4

NH X 1

NJ X 1

NY X X X 3

PA X 1

RI X1 X 2

VT X X X X X 5

WV X 1

TOTALS 5 5 1 6 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 24

Southeast You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AL 0

AR X1 X 2

FL X X X 3

GA X X X X 4

LA X X X1 3

MS 0

NC X 1

OK X1 X X1 3

SC X1 X1 X X1 X X1 X 7

TN 0

TX X X X X X X X X X 9

VA X 1

TOTALS 4 1 3 7 2 0 0 4 1 5 4 2 33


Western You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

AK X X X X X X 6

AZ X X X X X1 X1 X 7

CA X X 2

HI X X X X X X 6

ID X 1

MT X 1

NV X 1

NM X 1

OR X1 X1 X X1 X1 X 6

UT 0

WA X 1

WY X 1

TOTALS 4 4 3 3 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 2 33

Overall Counts Y

outh

Hun

ts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

16 12 12 23 9 1 3 13 8 12 10 6 125

A 1 indicates that the program manual or formal evaluation is in progress and is not yet competed.


Table 10. NGOs by evaluations for program types.

NGOs You

th H

unts

Adv

. Tra

inin

g

Sem

inar

s

You

th E

vent

s

Wom

en’s

Eve

nts

Fam

ily E

vent

s

Indu

stry

&

Cor

p Ev

ents

Non

-tra

ditio

nal

Rec

ruit

Cam

p Pr

ogra

ms

Men

tor

Prog

ram

s

Shoo

ting

Sp

orts

Pro

gram

s

Hun

ting

R

elat

ed E

xpos

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Tota

l

ATA X X X14 3

Bear Trust Int’l 0 Resource

Mgmt. X 1

Cong. Sportsmen 0

Delta Waterfowl X11 X12 2

Ducks Unlimited 0

IHEA 0 Mule Deer

Fdn 0

NRA X X X X X X 6

NWTF X X 2 NJ Fed

Sptsmen 0

NA Bear Fdn 0

Pope & Young 0

QDMA-S X13 1

QDMA-N 0

RMEF 0

SCI 0

TX Wildlife X X X X 4 Whitetails Unlimited 0

NSSF X12 1

Totals 2 2 4 3 1 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 20

A 1 indicates that the program manual or formal evaluation is in progress and is not yet competed. 1= expected completion of summer 2009, 2=no date given, 3=expected completion in 2009 4= we’ll always be evaluating Details on the program evaluation metrics were also collected. Most of the metrics employed measure program outputs rather than program outcomes. These types of measures are valuable in monitoring participation and response rates, but do not capture behaviors or after-event participation. As a result, it will likely be difficult to determine which programs are successful in actually recruiting new hunters or retaining existing hunters. In addition to the need for improved program planning and evaluation, it appears that additional effort toward developing programs for non-traditional participant recruitment programs and mentoring may be needed. As the ethnic and racial demographics of the United States increasingly diversify, the development of programs that connect these groups to natural resources


and outdoor recreational opportunities will be critical to mid- and long-term strategies aimed at increasing hunter participation. Encouraging and developing programs that provide mentoring opportunities for new hunters, regardless of their age, are also critical near-term strategies that need additional emphasis. The need to exchange information regarding which agencies and organizations are conducting programs, the partners involved with each, and how well the programs are working also remains critical. Conclusions

• There is considerable effort being directed toward hunter recruitment and retention issues. The effectiveness of all this activity is another matter and cannot be determined in most cases.

• The exact nature of this effort needs greater examination. Planning is underway to

capture this level of program detail.

• In order to improve the effectiveness of these programs, clearer thinking and improved program planning will likely be needed. Specific programs will need to be developed that target the inherent challenges that hunter recruitment and hunter retention individually present in order to successfully overcome them.

• The hunting community will likely need to adopt a more strategic approach to

determining desired program outcomes and how to measure the success of those outcomes. To accomplish this, the community will likely need to change its approach to the entire concept of recruitment and retention. This will also likely mean that the community can no longer afford to conduct programs just for the sake of “doing something”.

• Overall, only 25% of state program-types and 36% of NGO program-types have program

manuals to guide their activity, and only 40% of state program-types and 18% of NGO program-types have evaluation processes in place that measure their effectiveness. Significant improvements in both of these areas will likely improve program effectiveness.

• Most programs would likely benefit from incorporating the NSSF's Best Practices

Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention as a resource for developing a more targeted approach to achieve specific program goals.


Recommendations ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS Systematically implement a process within agencies to identify and reduce the barriers to R&R of hunters. This effort should involve both agency staff and external partners in the NGO community. This should be a perpetual effort rather than a one-time review. Assign a specific individual (staff, partner, or contractor) to coordinate the many R&R efforts that may be ongoing within the agency or organization. It is critical that someone have this specific responsibility. Improve efforts to communicate with new, existing, and recently lapsed hunters. Enhancing efforts to communicate to lapsed hunters is particularly important. These efforts should be carefully monitored to evaluate their effectiveness. As baby-boomers age, encouraging existing hunters NOT to lapse will become increasingly important. Some states are researching predictive models to identify hunters most likely to lapse, and then marketing to them specifically. Allow a reasonable amount of time for programs to incorporate what they have learned from their evaluations into their future programs so that each succeeding program-cycle can be more effective than the last program-cycle. Communications and marketing programs often require multiple years to become successful. A key to programmatic success is to establish the internal feedback loop that consciously designs and uses the results of the program evaluation to improve the program. Programs that do not show a reasonable return on investment should be considered for elimination. Improve efforts to communicate with transient hunters. Society’s increasing mobility will likely make these efforts even more important in the future. Develop additional programs to enhance the social support networks that are critical to advance a new "recruit" through the “awareness/trial” stage of initiation through the “continuation without support” stage. Establish state-level R&R oversight groups. Ideally, these groups would include a broad cross-section of agency staff in addition to non-agency staff. Additional program development is also needed for mentoring programs and programs to attract non-traditional participants. Develop line-items within agency/organization budgets to specifically address R&R efforts. These budgets should be tracked and R&R programs should be evaluated against budget expenditures as measures of their successes. Pose specific questions to program sponsors regarding the goals, objectives, program planning processes, and means of evaluation as part of the process to determine whether to sign-on as a partner or participant. Improve integration and coordination between hunter and angler R&R programs. Examination of license sales data has shown that there is considerable participation overlap between these two groups. This recommendation is not limited to state agencies. Improving integration between the


two participant groups may present opportunities to expand the reach of the hunting NGO community as well. Continue to develop the Strategic Plan. An element of this plan should be the creation of a national Web site where details regarding specific programs can be posted and shared. PROGRAMMATIC PECOMMENDATIONS Develop specific, separate goals and objectives for hunter recruitment and hunter retention programs. The more specific these goals and objectives, the easier it will be to measure the success of the program. Improve the planning of recruitment and retention programs by using resources such as NSSF’s Best Practices Workbook for Hunting and Shooting Recruitment and Retention as a planning guide. Plans should be reviewed, updated and improved on an annual basis. Develop improved, easy-to-use evaluation processes for existing programs. Measure both outputs and outcomes to determine program effectiveness. Effective evaluations are best designed during the planning process by setting measurable objectives. Coordinate and integrate hunting and fishing R&R efforts as much as possible. It is likely that coordinated messages will be more cost-effective and will achieve a greater market penetration. Improve the hunting community’s ability to share information regarding R&R program efforts and effectiveness.

recruitment and retention assessment survey report highlights · recruitment and retention...

Documents