i

A Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Employees 

Regarding Constraints to Connecting Children with 

Nature—Summary Report to Respondents

By Joan M. Ratz and Rudy M. Schuster

Open-File Report 2011-1025

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2011 

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested citation:

Ratz, J.M., and Schuster, R.M., 2011, A survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees regarding 

constraints to connecting children with nature—Summary report to respondents: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2011-1025, 40 p.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of this Report................................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose of the Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Conducting the Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Results........................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Response Rate .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Question Summaries.................................................................................................................................................. 4

Introductory Questions ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Questions Regarding Definition of Connection....................................................................................................... 9

Questions Regarding Success with Outreach Efforts........................................................................................... 12

Questions Regarding Barriers to Connecting Children with Nature...................................................................... 13

Questions Regarding Attitudes about Connecting Children with Nature............................................................... 27

Demographic Questions....................................................................................................................................... 27

General Comments .............................................................................................................................................. 29

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Introductory Questions............................................................................................................................................. 37

Questions Regarding Definition of Connection......................................................................................................... 37

Questions Regarding Success with Outreach Efforts............................................................................................... 37

Questions Regarding Barriers to Connecting Children with Nature.......................................................................... 38

Questions Regarding Attitudes about Connecting Children with Nature .................................................................. 38

Demographic Questions........................................................................................................................................... 39

Completion Report....................................................................................................................................................... 39

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................................ 39

Reference Cited........................................................................................................................................................... 39
A Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Employees 

Regarding Constraints to Connecting Children with 

Nature—Summary Report to Respondents

By Joan M. Ratz and Rudy M. Schuster

Executive Summary

This report provides a summary of responses to the questions included on a survey of U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) employees regarding constraints to connecting children with nature. The 

survey was sponsored by the Division of Education Outreach (DEO) at the National Conservation 

Training Center (NCTC) and conducted by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) personnel in the Policy 

Analysis and Science Assistance (PASA) branch. The data collection process started on February 25, 

2010 and ended on March 9, 2010. The dataset includes the responses from 320 individuals. The 

adjusted response rate for the survey was 55 percent. In this report, we provide the summary results for 

the survey questions in the order in which the questions were asked. The text of comments provided by 

respondents to open-ended questions is provided. 

Our preliminary conclusions are based only on frequencies and averages of responses to the 

survey questions. In-depth analyses will be reported in the completion report for this project. We asked 

respondents to rate nine statements on the basis of their relevance to the component of the FWS mission 

that addresses connecting people with nature. The statements described diverse possible outcomes of 

connecting people with nature. The pattern of responses indicated that all the statements were viewed as 

relevant. We asked about the more general issue of connecting people with nature when asking about 

the mission of the FWS because that is consistent with the language used by the FWS. The remainder of 

the questions on the survey focused on connecting a specific subpopulation—children—with nature. 

Respondents believed that their own and the FWS’ past efforts at connecting children with 

nature have been moderately successful and that future efforts will be successful. Respondents seem to 

be anticipating increased success in future efforts to connect children with nature. 

We provided 10 issues that may present problems in connecting children with nature. The ten 

issues were: 

• Children’s schedules (for example, school schedules, homework, other activities, lack of free time) 

• Parents’ fears (for example, of strangers or of wildlife)

• Parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of information about the outdoors 

• Practical issues (for example, parents’ work schedules, distance to natural areas from children’s 

residences, and lack of transportation options) 

• Children’s lack of interest and lack of comfort in the outdoors 

• Competition from technology and technology-based activities

• Lack of information about the most effective techniques to connect children with nature 

• State education standards and lack of an environmental education curriculum 
2

• Funding issues 

• Staffing issues

When asked to select the one that creates the biggest problem, the most frequently selected 

option was staffing issues. We asked respondents to rate the 10 issues on how big a problem each 

created in efforts to connect children with nature. Based on the frequency of responses and the average 

responses, children’s scheduling issues, parents’ fears, children’s lack of interest and comfort in the 

outdoors, and lack of information about effective techniques were viewed by survey respondents as only 

small problems. Parents’ attitudes, practical issues, state educational standards, and funding were 

viewed as problems. Competition from technology and staffing issues were most frequently identified 

as being big problems; however, the average rating for these issues put them at the next lower level on 

the scale: that of “problem” as opposed to “big problem”. 

When respondents indicated that a particular issue was a problem, they were asked a series of 

additional questions about that problem to measure perceived change and controllability and to 

determine whether the respondent believed the issue to be internal (originating within self) or external 

(originating outside of self) in origin. Respondents tended to believe that nine of the ten issues are likely 

to get worse. Only lack of information about the most effective techniques to connect children with 

nature was viewed as likely to improve. 

We assessed respondents’ perceptions of controllability by asking whether they (respondents) 

could directly or indirectly affect the issues. Based on the average responses, respondents perceived that 

they were slightly likely to be able to directly or indirectly affect children’s schedules, competition from 

technology, state educational standards, funding, and staffing. Respondents perceived that they were 

somewhat likely to be able to directly or indirectly affect parents’ fears, parents’ attitudes, children’s 

lack of interest and comfort in the outdoors, and lack of information about effective techniques. Finally, 

respondents indicated they were slightly likely to be able to affect practical issues directly and 

somewhat likely to be able to affect practical issues indirectly.

The results regarding perceived internality/externality of issues generally indicate that the 10 

issues are perceived as being predominantly external. On the basis of the most frequently selected 

responses, nine of the ten issues were perceived as “100% because of others.” The exception was the 

issue lack of information about effective techniques for connecting children with nature. The most 

frequent response for this issue was “50% me, 50% others.” However, the average response to the 

question of internality for each issue indicates that “100% because of others” was the average only for 

the issues of state educational standards and staffing issues. The eight other issues had an average 

response at the “25% me, 75% others” point on the response scale. 

We asked respondents seven questions regarding their attitudes about the importance of 

connecting children with nature and the priority of this issue to the FWS. Respondents strongly agreed 

that connecting children with nature is important to the mission and the future of the FWS and they 

generally agreed that the goal of connecting children with nature should be given higher priority within 

the FWS. Respondents strongly disagreed that connecting children with nature should not be a concern 

of the FWS. They generally disagreed that the FWS dedicates adequate resources (staffing, time, or 

materials) to efforts to connect children with nature and generally disagreed that connecting children 

with nature is inconsistent with the position of “wildlife first.” When asked to rate their agreement with 

a statement that the FWS recognizes and rewards efforts to connect children with nature, the most 

frequent response was “neither agree nor disagree” and there were responses at the agree and disagree 

sides of the scale.
3

The demographic questions on the survey indicated that the majority of respondents are 

employed as permanent federal employees in the FWS, 59 percent of respondents were female, and that 

all regions participated in the survey. 

Purpose of this Report

This is a report to survey respondents. The intent of this report is to provide those who 

responded to the survey with feedback regarding the overall responses to the survey questions. This 

report includes brief descriptions of the purpose of the survey and of the procedure followed to conduct 

the survey. The survey results that are described in this report include the response rate to the survey 

and the descriptive results for each survey question. The survey questions are listed in the order in 

which they appeared on the survey, and the frequencies with which the response options were chosen by 

survey respondents are provided. When appropriate based on question type, the average of the responses 

is provided. 

It would be inappropriate to draw conclusions or make recommendations based upon the level of 

analyses included in this report. Detailed results and conclusions will be included in the completion 

report for this study. 

Purpose of the Survey

The Children and Nature movement is focused on strengthening the connection between children 

and the natural environment. The effects of a weak relationship between children and nature are 

discussed in the popular, nontechnical book Last Child in the Woods

The FWS names “connecting people with nature” as one of its priorities in the online Service 

Employee Pocket Guide (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). In September 2006, the FWS hosted “A 

National Dialogue on Children and Nature” conference. In 2007, the National Conservation Training 

Center (NCTC), specifically the Division of Education Outreach (DEO), took the initiative to identify

issues that currently impede greater progress in addressing the barriers to connecting children with

nature. The DEO formed a working relationship with the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance 

(PASA) branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a study on these issues. The initial 

intention was to address issues faced by all conservation and environmental education professionals 

including those outside the FWS. For project expediency, the final decision was to limit the survey to 

FWS employees and to restrict the questions to those concerning issues affecting FWS employees’ 

efforts towards connecting children with nature. Although the FWS priority addresses connecting 

people with nature, we limited this study to issues regarding connecting children with nature because 

issues arising from connecting those in other age groups are likely to differ. To address all of the age 

groups in one survey would have resulted in a lengthy survey. The survey and its results are available to 

the public so that other agencies and organizations can conduct similar surveys with their own 

constituencies if they so desire. 

 by Richard Louv (2005). Barriers 

in getting children to connect with nature have been identified; however, the progress made toward 

addressing those barriers is unknown. The common perception seems to be that these potential barriers 

are significant impediments to connecting children with nature. The questions are: what keeps the 

conservation community within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) from experiencing greater 

success with connecting children with nature, and how significant are these issues? 
4

Conducting the Survey

A letter written by Janet Carrier Ady, the Chief of the DEO, to introduce the survey was sent to 

the individuals in the survey sample. Even though the letter was from the DEO Chief, it was sent by 

PASA personnel to maintain the privacy and protect the identity of those in the survey sample. No 

NCTC personnel know the names of those who responded to the survey. A few days after the 

introductory letter was sent, we sent a message that included a link to the survey to the FWS employees 

in the survey sample. The survey was administered online using KeySurvey© software. About one week 

after the initial survey distribution, we sent a reminder to those who had not yet completed the survey. 

On the last day survey data were being collected, a final reminder was sent to those who had not 

submitted a complete survey. The data collection period lasted from February 25, 2010 to March 9, 

2010. 

We determined a sample size for each region to maximize the likelihood of a representative 

sample. To identify specific employees to include in the sample, we first included all those who 

subscribe to the VOICES electronic distribution list. VOICES is a list targeted to those who are 

interested in environmental education; it is hosted by DEO. We expected that the list subscribers were 

individuals who would be knowledgeable and active in outreach activities targeted towards children and 

particularly attuned to issues regarding the FWS mission to connect people with the environment. To 

complete the survey sample, we had to add more FWS employees in each region. We selected 

employees from a list of FWS employees who had taken training through NCTC during the time period 

from October 1, 2007 to June 24, 2009. The sample for this survey included 604 FWS employees.

Results

Response Rate

Of the 604 surveys initially sent, 19 were undeliverable because the individuals were no longer 

with the FWS. Two individuals were out of the office for the duration of the data collection process. 

This left us with a potential sample size of 583. Three hundred fifteen individuals submitted a 

completed survey in the survey software. Partial responses were received from 13 individuals who 

started but did not complete the survey online. Five of those thirteen answered most of the questions 

before exiting the survey. We included responses from those five respondents in our data set. The eight 

other partial responses were from respondents who only answered the first few questions. We did not 

include those responses in the data. With the partial responses included, the survey results are based on 

the responses of a total of 320 respondents. Our adjusted response rate was 55 percent. Every region had 

a regional response rate of at least 47 percent. 

Question Summaries

The descriptive results for the survey questions are provided here in the order in which the 

questions were asked on the survey. Because this was an adaptive survey, not all questions were asked 

of all respondents. Because some respondents skipped questions or did not complete the survey, we 

provide a response n indicating the number of respondents who answered the question. We provide the 

percent of respondents that selected each response option. Percents are rounded to whole numbers and 

therefore may not always add to 100. There are a few instances in which so few individuals selected a 

particular response that the percent rounded down to zero. In those few situations, we use “<.05%” to 

indicate that the response was selected by at least one respondent. If a response option is left blank, no 
5

respondents selected that option. The responses selected most frequently are bolded. Averages are 

provided when appropriate and are also rounded to whole numbers. 

Introductory Questions

The questions in the introductory section were used to introduce the topic of the survey; this was 

done to focus the attention of the respondents on relevant information. The introductory questions were 

also used as a basis for the adaptability of the survey. The set of questions each individual was asked 

was based on their answers to questions in the introductory section. 

As part of your job, do you perform any conservation education, environmental education, or community outreach 

activities targeted toward children? (n = 320) 

Yes

No 33%

68%

If respondents answered “Yes” to this question, they received this follow-up question: 

In an average week, approximately what percentage of your time is spent doing these conservation 

education, environmental education, or community outreach activities? Please consider all aspects of 

accomplishing this task (including preparation time, report writing, travel, etc.) (n = 216) 

1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100%

69% 8% 13% 10%

Which of the following statements best describes your current situation? (n = 320) 

(a) Education and outreach activities are in my position description, and I perform education 

and outreach activities.

(b) Education and outreach activities are in my position description, but I do not perform education and 

outreach activities.

45%

1%

(c) Education and outreach activities are not in my position description, but I do perform education and 

outreach activities. 31%

(d) Education and outreach activities are not in my position description, and I do not perform education 

and outreach activities. 19%

(e) I do not remember what tasks are in my current position description document, but I do perform 

education and outreach activities. 3%

(f) I do not remember what tasks are in my current position description document, and I do not perform 

education and outreach activities. <.05%

If respondents selected option (b) or (c) for this question, they received a follow-up question. 

Those who indicated that education and outreach activities were part of their position but that they 

didn’t perform those activities (option b) were asked the following question: 

What is the primary reason you do not perform education and outreach activities? (n

Time

 = 4) 

Limited contact in my position with the general public

Lack of funding

50%

Lack of supervisor support

Education and outreach activities do not have any effect

I do not enjoy conducting educational or outreach activities

Other: [open-ended response] 50%
6

All comments provided in the open-ended response to this question indicated that the respondent 

supervised individuals who performed education and outreach activities. 

Those who indicated that education and outreach activities were not part of their position but 

that they did perform those activities (option c) were asked the following question: 

What is the primary reason you perform education and outreach activities even though they are not required 

by your job? (n

No one else is available to do these activities

= 99) 

10%

I enjoy these activities 11%

I think these activities are important

I have been told to perform these activities by my supervisor

56%

2%

Other: [open-ended response] 21%

We grouped the comments provided in the open-ended response into categories. The categories 

were based on the topic of the comment. The seven comment categories included the following topics:

multiple reasons motivate the performance of education and outreach activities, the individual was 

asked to perform the activity by another (non-supervisor), staffing shortages are the reason they perform 

outreach activities, they have the necessary skill set to perform these activities, they provide support to 

others who are doing outreach activities, respondents’ descriptions of the specific education and 

outreach activities in which they participate, and a miscellaneous category for comments not obviously 

fitting into any of the other categories. The comments are provided in their entirety.

I enjoy the activities AND KNOW they are important

Multiple reasons:

Both enjoy and think they are important

My supervisor encourages it and I enjoy it

Multiple reasons.

I enjoy these activities; these activities are important, have been told my supervisor to perform these activities

I've been asked to perform these activities

Asked by other:

I was asked to help with a project by a refuge biologist

No position at station to perform these duties

Staffing shortage:

I do very little and with young children only when no one else is available

Sometimes short on staff

I had previously worked in environmental education and have some expertise

Necessary skill set:

No one else available with particular skill set

I support the work of others

Support role:

Providing guidance and assistance to those performing ed/out activities

Library maintains literature to support ed and outreach

Only activities consist of presenting during classes; providing technical assistance

Specific activities:

Part of work with partners that is in my performance standard.

I interact with the public during the CCP planning process and at public meetings.

I volunteer with a hatchery 'Open House' designed to acquaint children and fishing.

No net loss of my time for other duties

Miscellaneous:

It’s what I do outside of work. I am a scout leader, and a mother. 
7

As part of your job, do you make decisions about the following aspects of conservation or environmental education 

or outreach programming? (n varies by option) 

Yes No

Allocation of funding (n = 313) 37%

Allocation of staff time (

63%

n =314 ) 44%

Content of programming (

56%

n = 318) 64% 37%

Implementation of programming (n = 318) 64% 36%

Other: I make decisions about [open-ended response] (n = 47)

Forty-seven respondents provided comments in the open-ended response option when asked 

about what decisions they make about conservation or environmental education or outreach 

programming. Their responses have been sorted into topical categories for easier reading. The 

comments are provided in their entirety. The alterations made to the comments include correction of 

spelling and grammar. In some comments, respondents addressed several different topics—in these 

cases, we split the comments into segments so that each addressed only one topic. The presence of 

ellipses (...) indicates that the comment was separated from another part of a single response. 

The comments addressed allocation of resources (time and funding), grant administration and 

seeking, how lack of funding impedes outreach, personnel support, supporting others, program planning 

and administration, partnerships, presentations, and other external activities. Comments that did not 

clearly fit into other categories were grouped together in a miscellaneous category.

...How much money, if any, can be spent on supplies and materials needed for the individual programs.

Allocation of resources:

Deciding whether my employees participate in volunteer activities targeted toward children in nature.

How often I participate in environmental education and outreach programming

When to give impromptu lab tours or describe my job to visitors when I'm in the field.

...assigning staff to planning projects that result in public outreach efforts.

Priority Setting: Although I get many requests, it is not always evident whether EE or Outreach should take priority over 

other duties. Sometimes I make these decisions, sometimes not. 

Which groups requesting programs I have time and knowledge to help...

Helping provide conservation and outdoor activity information to parents of children.

Allowability of grant-related activities.

Grant administration and seeking:

Grants 

Whether proposed conservation and environmental education or outreach programming is approvable under a national grant 

program.

...grants to seek...

I do not make decisions about base funding, but I have input into our base budget needs. I can get extra $ for EE through 

Challenge Cost Share and other grants, and I'm encouraged to do this by my supervisor.

There is no funding and the only staff time allocated besides my own is through volunteers....

Lack of funding impedes outreach:

I am a supervisor in a Field Office. We have no budget to develop an outreach program. Wish we did, but do not even have 

adequate funds to accomplish our regulatory obligations.

...(FWS needs more funding in this area - funds that go directly to O&E and CPWN activities; not just discretionary Project 

Leader discretion with year end money and all line supervisors must support the cause and believe it is equally or more 

important to protecting species, research, monitoring, restoration, etc.!). How can we accomplish our mission without the 

support of our publics? People will ultimately decide and research indicates children are where we need to direct our 

priorities. But this has always been the back burner or lower priority for FWS offices in the field. 

Attending training that would involve outreach/ environmental ed

Personnel support:

Training

Distance learning options
8

Staff recruitment/hiring

Hiring and training of staff

Training needs 

Professional development for staff ...

Teaching staff how to create content and implementing their programming.

Supporting others:

...I guide and review graduate students in preparation of conservation plans for rare nonlisted plants

I supervise regional staff that provide guidance and assistance to field station ed/out staff

Regional Programming

Program planning and administration:

Regional policy and guidance

Initiation of new programming - I decide what is needed and I drum up new outreach 'business' on my own and through 

partnerships and collaborative planning with other environmental educators throughout the state.

On and off site program coordination

Setting themes and general direction the PROGRAM takes.

Program focus

Coordinating volunteers for environmental education programs.

We have not started an actual EE program at the refuge, but I coordinate outdoor education programs provided by one of my 

volunteers.

Monitoring and evaluation, a.k.a. adaptive management in terms of implementation. Also, I make decisions about strategy 

and objectives.

What to include in our O&E program; delivery methods, target audiences, partners, materials, evaluation, cost,...

1. What items an individual can receive for the Suitcase for Survival wildlife kit located in my office. 2. How long that 

individual can take the kit.

...building partnerships in EE.

Partnerships:

Methodology, education partnerships

Decisions regarding who to partner with and how.

...Most of the time, I work with other USFWS employees outside of my own Program;...

Exhibit design and fabrication

Presentations:

Put together and give presentations to students.

Presenting material

...Attend public hearings and make presentations. 

...If I am asked to present a talk, I prepare it and do it. I am occasionally asked to provide display tables, career orientation or 

environmental presentations.

I try to plan general overall exhibits like Earth Day and school activities locally. Since I'm in Administration, I rely on 

Biologists to give me the information that I disseminate for them.

Internet content...

...although I do personally create the content of my own Fisheries booth/display and I do personally decide how to interact 

with the particular type of audience(s) (kids, Scouts, students, adults, fishermen, etc.)

Participation as a volunteer to staff booths or science fairs, etc....

External activities:

I help with judging a poster contest for Keep ND Clean.

As a former Girl Scout leader I do participate in Earth Day activities and other outreach programs with the Scouts.

Which high school science fair student projects to give a recognition award to....

Environmental education and outreach can be two very different things. If you're looking for information on educating 

children or getting people in nature, you need to be clear. The outreach included in my PD and daily activities targets news 

media and elected officials and is rarely targeted to environmental education or getting people in nature. 

Miscellaneous:

I act independently of my office in much of my outreach activities....

Currently, I am a staff of one - so no one to delegate or help with these programs.
9

Do you supervise one or more employees or volunteers who perform conservation or environmental education 

or outreach programming? (n

Yes, FWS employees only

= 320) 

23%

Yes, volunteers only 13%

Yes, FWS employees and volunteers 12%

No 53%

Outside of your job with the FWS, do you volunteer in conservation or environmental education related activities? 

(n = 320) 

Yes

No 40%

60%

Questions Regarding Definition of Connection

All survey respondents were asked about their interpretation of what the FWS is trying to 

achieve through its mission to connect people with the environment. 

Please rate how relevant each of the following items are to the FWS’ mission to connect people with nature. 

(n varies by statement and is included in the table below) 

Not 

relevant 

(1)

Slightly 

relevant 

(2)

Moderately 

relevant 

(3)

Relevant

(4)

Very 

relevant 

(5)

Completely 

relevant 

(6)

The FWS wants young people to be interested in 

conservation and wildlife management careers. 

(n

1%

= 318, average = 5)

3% 4% 17% 23%

The FWS wants more people to participate in outdoor 

recreation activities such as fishing and hiking. 

(

53%

n

1%

= 317, average = 5)

2% 8% 17% 27%

The FWS wants people to have a feeling of 

appreciation for public lands. (

45%

n = 317, average = 5) 1% 3% 11% 23%

The FWS wants people to be concerned about the 

preservation of public lands. (

62%

n = 317, average = 5) 1% 4% 11% 23%

The FWS wants more people to participate in agencysponsored outdoor education programming - for 

example, higher participation rates in fishing derbies. 

(

61%

n

2%

= 317, average = 4)

9% 13% 27% 23%

The FWS wants more people to politically support, 

through voting and lobbying, issues of importance to 

public lands. (

27%

n

3%

= 317, average = 5)

4% 8% 26% 23%

The FWS wants more people to be knowledgeable 

about the environment, including about issues such as 

climate change and about specific plant and animal 

species. (

37%

n

1%

= 317, average = 5)

1% 5% 15% 21%

The FWS wants people to have more health benefits, 

such as physical fitness, from outdoor activities. 

(

57%

n

3%

= 318, average = 4) 

13% 18% 25% 17% 24%

The FWS wants to provide more educational support 

to schools to improve environmental education. 

(n

2%

= 317, average = 5) 

6% 11% 21% 24% 36%
10

Optional question: What other (if any) outcome or goal is relevant to the Service mission regarding connecting 

people and the environment? [open-ended response] (n

Fifty-two respondents commented in the open-ended response option when asked about what 

outcome or goal is relevant to the Service mission regarding connecting people and the environment. 

Their responses have been sorted into topical categories for easier reading. The comments are provided 

in their entirety. The alterations made to the comments include correction of spelling and grammar and 

removal of identifying information when necessary. If respondents addressed several different topics in 

one comment, then we split the comments into segments. Ellipses indicate that the comment was 

separated from another part of a single response.

= 52) 

The comments included the following topics: benefits of nature, the need for people to have 

comfort and excitement in the outdoors, the intended outcomes of science literacy, understanding the 

human role in the ecosystem, the development of an environmental/land ethic, and wise use of the land. 

Other comments regarded either a focus on children or a wider focus on nontraditional visitors to public 

lands. Comments were made regarding how the FWS has supported in the past or should currently 

support this initiative and it was suggested that the FWS should focus on being a resource for 

environmental education. Another set of comments addressed career opportunities in the FWS. A few 

comments were made regarding the survey. A number of comments did not seem to fit into any of these 

categories and those are grouped into a category of miscellaneous statements.

The FWS wants people to understand the mental and physical impacts of reduced time outdoors, especially in children

Benefits of nature:

The FWS wants more people to spend relaxed time outdoors in nature, simply to rekindle and recognize the connection 

between a person and nature.

The Service wants people to recognize and appreciate the contribution of environmental amenities (birds, insects, plants, 

water) in their daily existence (urban or rural)....

The FWS wants to provide outdoor education that not only improves physical fitness, but also mental wellness. The FWS 

wants to establish environmental education partnerships with other agencies to maximize benefits to communities.

Kids need to HAVE FUN and BE COMFORTABLE outdoors.

Comfort in nature:

The FWS wants young people to believe that it is safe to be in nature.

...Third, to finally really answer this optional question, I think the most relevant goal is not only getting people outside, but 

once they are there, make sure they have the comfort/confidence and possibly 'tools' to enjoy it such as observation skills and 

wildlife and habitat to observe and appreciate. This is applicable for all ages.

Giving people (young and old) the opportunity to develop an excitement about outdoor activities. 

Excitement about environment:

The FWS wants people to have the opportunity to create a 'Sense of Wonder' about the environment.

Gain an appreciation of how an understanding of scientific information can help the public make better decisions concerning 

a sustainable lifestyle (e.g. long-term vs. short term eco-economics)

Science literacy:

The FWS wants to foster greater understanding and appreciation for the sciences, including: ecology, biology, zoology, etc

There is a need to increase scientific literacy about the biological sciences and ecology...

The FWS wants more people to understand the connection between the availability of quality habitat and healthy wildlife 

populations. The FWS wants more people to understand the health benefits or detriments of eating wild foods (fish and 

game)

The Service wants the public to be more aware of the impact of their actions on fish and wildlife, and what actions they can 

take to benefit fish and wildlife.

Human role in ecosystem:

The FWS wants people to be knowledgeable about ecological processes so they can make educated decisions about how 

their actions impact the environment.
11

There is a need to increase scientific literacy about the biological sciences and ecology and their relevance to all of our lives. 

What I mean by this is an effort that goes beyond 'traditional' environmental education to develop a realization that we 

humans are also part of the problems and the solutions. Perhaps we should engage in community sustainability issues 

including education, energy, and food security.

Public understanding that our energy use has a direct impact on habitat, wildlife and the environment in general, regardless 

of climate change impacts.

Development of a land ethic

Environmental/Land ethic:

FWS wants people to care enough about wildlife, habitat and the environment to care for it.

FWS wants youth to develop an environmental ethic such that they appreciate and want to protect land and wildlife.

An understanding of why they should want to protect the land, the habitat, and the species.

A better understanding of cherished lands, species and health.

Protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on both public and private lands

I would think the FWS would want the public to be concerned about the conservation of resources on public lands, not the 

preservation (unless you meant preservation to mean keeping public lands public)....

The FWS wants to teach an appreciation of nature and the environment and how to protect these factors.

First, it is more relevant for the Service to support smarter and better quality visitor use, not more and more and more of it. 

Doing more EE and having more public access, for example, those aren't the answers. Second, what is meant in the last 

statement by 'improve EE?' ...

Wise use of the land:

...Many of our sister agencies have multiple use missions, we should be working with them and the public to promote wise 

use of public land as well as private/local gov't open space.

We are on the cusp of losing future generations that have an interest and care about our natural resources. Most kids don't 

even know where their food comes from, much less have knowledge about the outdoors, wildlife, habitat, wild places.

Focus on children:

Get kids away from computers and books and out in the environment.

Connecting non-traditional visitors/stakeholders with public lands use and recreation

Connecting nontraditional visitors:

Invest more time and effort into regularly conducting outreach to minority communities, groups and organizations. Identify 

nontraditional sources for increasing public support for FWS mission.

Connecting groups which are not otherwise nature oriented. Stop spending what little time and resources we have serving 

'scouting' programs, who are already participating anyway, and reach out to untapped groups: inner city youth, at-risk 

families, elderly, etc...

Social networking and connecting with like minded people; providing free or low cost opportunities to people regardless of 

age, race, religious, or other backgrounds.

Breaking the Color Barrier was a recent event that was geared toward ALL the above mentioned concerns and should be 

widely supported. [Identifying information deleted]

To increase environmental awareness among minority populations.

Connecting People with Nature should be a major priority of the Service. We should have more designated staff positions 

and funding dedicated to these issues.

FWS support:

Provide monetary support and additional employees to accomplish goals. We have been asked to do MORE, but do not 

receive funding to accomplish the goals. We're already overworked.

Provide expertise in the field of EE to others

FWS as a resource:

FWS also needs to get a curriculum together that begins in the middle school age group and endures up through college!

Reaching out to job seekers and educating them about career opportunities within the Service, core curriculum standards, 

how to apply, and the importance of the federal government's world class benefits program.

Career opportunities:

Young conservationists, biologists, etc. can continue to work in the environment, therefore, jobs in those fields are 

continuous. 
12

Creating pathways for young adults to become scientists, ecologists, and pursue a career in natural resources. We can hire 

more STEP and SCEP employees...

How about 'The FWS wants more young people to become interested in any aspect of science as a career'

I can't believe you included a question asking FWS staff if they support lobbying activities. I hope staff are aware of the 

limits placed on gov. employees and are not motivated to lobby.

Survey:

...For the survey: 'Wants to' = nice and 'committed to' = funded. They're not the same. 

Connecting ADULTS is more important and would directly contribute more to the FWS 'mission' than connecting 

CHILDREN.

Miscellaneous:

Has outdoor education programming made a difference in the life of child?

I honestly don't care

This would be the items we plan to share with the children when we do begin an EE program. At least, that are my current 

thoughts.

The FWS wants its employees to be involved in all the above.

The FWS should promote the idea that one person can make great changes and that one person can make a difference (e.g., 

TR Roosevelt, Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, etc.)

Measuring outcomes of outreach/education efforts is vital, NONE should be done without measured outcomes. This rarely

done for children's programs—it's just assumed to be good.

The FWS wants more people to politically support, through voting, lobbying, and personal involvement issues of importance 

to environmental health and conservation of wildlife and their habitats.

Increase awareness and appreciation for what the agency does.

The FWS wants more people to sign up as volunteers to assist staff and other volunteers on public lands.

For participants to become active stewards for their local watershed habitats.

Facilitate enduring relationships with outdoor places, wildlife and other natural resources (as opposed to brief recreational 

encounters)

At this point in the survey, respondents were directed to different question sets depending upon 

responses to the introductory section of the survey. The survey software directed respondents to the 

section of questions on attitudes regarding the FWS and connecting children with nature if the 

respondents indicated that they do not perform any conservation education or outreach activities 

targeted toward children, that outreach activities are not part of their job and that they do not do them, 

and that they do not supervise anyone who performs conservation education or outreach programming. 

All other respondents were directed to the questions on success with outreach and then to questions on 

barriers to achieving greater success with connecting children with nature.

Questions Regarding Success with Outreach Efforts

Respondents were asked about their perceptions of the success of past and future efforts to 

connect children with nature. 

Please indicate how successful you believe each of the following efforts has been or will be. (n = 227) 

Not at all

(1)

Barely 

successful 

(2)

Moderately 

successful 

(3)

Successful 

(4)

Very 

successful 

(5)

Extremely 

successful 

(6)

How successful have your past efforts been at 

connecting children with nature? (average = 4) <.05% 6% 29% 27% 21% 16%

How successful do you believe your future efforts at 

connecting children with nature will be? 

(average = 4)

1% 3% 24% 29% 27% 16%
13

How successfully has the Service performed as an 

agency in their past efforts to connect children with 

nature? (average = 3)

2% 19% 42% 26% 10% 1%

How successful do you believe the agency’s future 

efforts at connecting children with nature will be? 

(average = 4)

<.05% 7% 28% 34% 24% 6%

Questions Regarding Barriers to Connecting Children with Nature

This section of the survey asked respondents about the things that prevent them from achieving 

greater success with connecting children with nature. We used several types of questions. First, we 

asked respondents to select from a list which issue created the biggest problem in connecting children 

with nature. 

Which of the following creates the biggest problem in trying to connect children with nature? (select one) (n

Children’s schedules (for example, school schedules, homework, other activities, lack of 

free time)

= 229) 

6%

Parents’ fears (for example, of strangers, or of wildlife) 1%

Parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of information about the outdoors 9%

Practical issues (for example, parents’ work schedules, distance to natural areas from 

children’s residences, and lack of transportation options) 16%

Children’s lack of interest and lack of comfort in the outdoors 6%

Competition from technology and technology-based activities 13%

Lack of information about the most effective techniques to connect children with nature 4%

State educational standards and lack of an environmental education curriculum 9%

Funding issues 10%

Staffing issues

Other: [open-ended response] (

18%

n = 26) 11%

Twenty-six respondents selected the “other” response option and provided their answer to the 

question of what creates the biggest problem in trying to connect children with nature in a text box. 

Their responses have been sorted into topical categories for easier reading. The comments are provided 

in their entirety. The largest category of comments addresses the concern that multiple issues create 

problems. Other categories address the lack of support to work towards connecting children with nature 

and the lack of resources to do so. Other comments addressed a general disconnect with nature, time 

issues, and practical issues that affect connecting children with nature. Two comments did not seem 

sufficiently related to other comments and were grouped together to form a miscellaneous category. 

The last two are connected: funding and staffing to have an adequate program. Not all offices have the resources of refuges 

to promote these programs, but it is these offices that are in the urban areas that could reach the most people. Refuges aren't 

necessarily convenient to reach, or do not allow public access. Urban offices have a greater potential to reach a lot of without 

them having to travel far.

Multiple options:

All of the above—they all contribute though not strictly equal

Must combine: school funding of field trips and state education standards and lack of EE curricula.

Combo—parent's attitudes and lack of information AND competition from technology-based activities

ALL of the above

Schedules (children's, parents, school, staff members); parent's fears and attitudes; funding issues

No Child Left Behind, technology, parent fear, and homework

There is no simple answer to this complex issue. All of the above are contributing factors that vary from station to station.

Practical issues as well as growing cost/sports take priority in most families.

All of the above are factors
14

Various above apply depending on age group.

Lack of support from FWS managers to engage in additional outreach opportunities

Lack of support from others:

Lack of support and respect from fellow coworkers

Management

Non interest of teachers

Lack of interesting, local, organized programs.

Lack of resources:

Lack of staff/volunteers who are themselves comfortable in the outdoors.

FWS lack of staff to give more time to children’s programs

The overall attitude of culture which factors out all connections, needs and desires for nature. Nature used to be a part of our 

lives. Now it is a hobby.

General disconnect with nature:

Lack of parents as outdoor 'role models' - parents themselves not connecting with nature

A general disconnect of both parents and children to nature.

Time

Time:

Time

Getting kids to the refuge due to transportation costs.

Practical issues:

No problem in Alaska. Children here are already connected with nature.

Miscellaneous:

When it becomes my primary job I will be successful in connecting children in my area to nature.

Next, we asked a specific question about how big a problem each issue on the list created. 

Depending on the answer to that question, respondents may have been asked more specific questions 

about that issue. The questions addressed the likelihood of change in the issue, ability to personally 

influence the issue, and whether the source of the issue was internal or external. The internal/external 

question was scaled as a measure of internality, so when someone selected the option that an issue was 

“100% because of others” it reflects a response of “0” on a scale of internality.

How big a problem do children’s scheduling issues (homework, other activities, lack of free time) create in your 

efforts to connect children with nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 229, average = 1) 

Only a small problem 

(1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem (3)

Stops me from doing my 

job (4)

14% 39% 33% 14%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem do parents’ fears create in your efforts to connect children with nature” question. If 

respondents selected values 2 (It’s a problem) through 4 (Stops me from doing my job), they were 

directed to this series of follow-up questions: 

How will children’s scheduling issues change over the next 5 years? (n

Will 

definitely 

get worse

= 109, average = -2) 

Likely to 

get worse Not at all

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve

(-4) (-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (1) (3) (4)

15% 6% 50% 16% 13% 2%
15

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change children’s schedules? 

(n = 109, average = 1) 

(0)

Not at all Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

42% 36% 15% 3% 5%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence the state of children’s schedules? (n

Not at all 

= 108, average = 1) 

(0) (1)

Slightly likely Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

27% 46% 20% 4% 3%

How much of children’s scheduling issues is because of you (internal) or because of others (external)? 

In other words, is the source of children’s scheduling issues internal (a characteristic of you) or external 

(a characteristic of others)? (n

100% because of me

= 108, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

1% 2% 19% 38% 41%

How big a problem do parents’ fears create in your efforts to connect children with nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 229, average = 1) 

Only a small problem 

(1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem (3)

Stops me from doing my 

job (4)

28% 36% 26% 10%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem do parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of information about the outdoors 

create in your efforts to connect children with nature” question. If respondents selected values 2 (It’s a 

problem) through 4 (Stops me from doing my job), they were directed to this series of follow-up 

questions: 

How will parents’ fears change over the next 5 years? (n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 80, average = -1) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

8% 8% 43% 15% 11% 8% 8% 1%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change parents’ fears? 

(n

Not at all 

= 81, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely Likely 

(2) (3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

10% 20% 44% 21% 3% 3%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence the state of parents’ fears? (n

Not at all 

= 80, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely Likely 

(2) (3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

10% 19% 41% 24% 4% 3%
16

How much of parents’ fears is because of you (internal) or because of others (external)? In other words, is 

the source of parents’ fears internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic of others)? 

(n

100% because of me

= 79, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

1% 10% 27% 62%

How big a problem do parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of information about the outdoors create in your 

efforts to connect children with nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 229, average = 2) 

Only a small problem (1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem (3) Stops me from doing my 

job (4)

14% 30% 38% 17% 1%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem do practical issues (for example, parents’ work schedules, distance to natural areas 

from children’s residences, and lack of transportation options) create in your efforts to connect children 

with nature” question. If respondents selected values 2 (It’s a problem) through 4 (Stops me from doing 

my job), they were directed to this series of follow-up questions: 

How will parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of information change over the next 5 years? 

(n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 125, average = -1) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

6% 4% 37% 9% 13% 15% 16% 1%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change parents’ attitudes (non-fear 

related) and lack of information? (n

Not at all 

= 124, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely Likely 

(2) (3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

7% 25% 33% 23% 7% 6%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence the state of parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of 

information? (n

Not at all 

= 125, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely Likely 

(2) (3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

5% 24% 34% 24% 7% 6%

How much of parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of information is because of you (internal) or 

because of others (external)? In other words, is the source of parents’ attitudes (non-fear related) and lack of 

information internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic of others)? (n

100% because of me

= 124, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

1% 1% 17% 38% 44%
17

How big a problem do practical issues (for example, parents’ work schedules, distance to natural areas from 

children’s residences, and lack of transportation options) create in your efforts to connect children with nature? 

(n

No problem (0)

= 228, average = 2) 

Only a small problem (1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem (3)

Stops me from doing my 

job (4)

9% 18% 39% 33% 1%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem do children’s lack of interest and lack of comfort create in your efforts to connect 

children with nature” question. If respondents selected values 2 (It’s a problem) through 4 (Stops me 

from doing my job), they were directed to this series of follow-up questions: 

How will practical issues change over the next 5 years? (n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 164, average = -1) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

7% 6% 42% 14% 15% 8% 8% 1%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change practical issues? 

(n

Not at all 

= 164, average = 1) 

(0) (1)

Slightly likely Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

27% 34% 23% 8% 6% 2%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence these practical issues? (n

Not at all 

= 165, average = 2) 

(0) (1)

Slightly likely Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

19% 34% 29% 11% 5% 2%

How much of these practical issues is because of you (internal) or because of others (external)? In other 

words, is the source of these practical issues internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic of 

others)? (n

100% because of me

= 162, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

1% 1% 11% 38% 49%

How big a problem do children’s lack of interest and lack of comfort create in your efforts to connect children with 

nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 228, average = 1) 

Only a small problem

(1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem (3)

Stops me from doing my 

job (4)

16% 40% 24% 19% 1%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem does competition from technology and technology-based activities create in your 

efforts to connect children with nature” question. If respondents selected values 2 (It’s a problem) 

through 4 (Stops me from doing my job), they were directed to this series of follow-up questions: 
18

How will children’s lack of interest and comfort change over the next 5 years? (n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 99, average = -1) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

11% 5% 50% 10% 4% 12% 8%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change children’s lack of interest and 

comfort? (n

Not at all 

= 99, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely Likely 

(2) (3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

7% 25% 35% 19% 9% 4%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence the state of children’s lack of interest and comfort? 

(n

Not at all 

= 99, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely Likely 

(2) (3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

9% 25% 32% 20% 9% 4%

How much of children’s lack of interest and comfort is because of you (internal) or because of others 

(external)? In other words, is the source of children’s lack of interest and comfort internal (a characteristic 

of you) or external (a characteristic of others)? (n

100% because of me

= 98, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

13% 39% 48%

How big a problem does competition from technology and technology-based activities create in your efforts to 

connect children with nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 228, average = 2) 

Only a small problem (1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem

Stops me from doing my 

(3) job (4)

9% 22% 31% 37% 2%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem does lack of information about the most effective techniques to connect children 

with nature create in your efforts to connect children with nature” question. If respondents selected 

values 2 (It’s a problem) through 4 (Stops me from doing my job), they were directed to this series of 

follow-up questions: 

How will competition from technology and technology-based activities change over the next 5 years? 

(n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 159, average = -2) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

31% 10% 45% 6% 4% 2% 2%
19

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change competition from technology and 

technology-based activities? (n

Not at all 

= 157, average = 1) 

(0) (1)

Slightly likely Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

22% 46% 19% 12% 1%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence competition from technology and technology-based 

activities? (n

Not at all 

= 157, average = 1) 

(0) (1)

Slightly likely Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

14% 48% 22% 13% 2% 1%

How much of competition from technology and technology-based activities is because of you (internal) or 

because of others (external)? In other words, is the source of competition from technology and technologybased activities internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic of others)? 

(n

100% because of me

= 156, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

2% 11% 30% 58%

How big a problem does lack of information about the most effective techniques to connect children with nature

create in your efforts to connect children with nature? (n = 228, average = 1) 

No problem (0)

Only a small problem

(1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem (3)

Stops me from doing my 

job (4)

31% 31% 29% 8% 1%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem state education standards and lack of environmental education curriculum create in 

your efforts to connect children with nature” question. If respondents selected values 2 (It’s a problem) 

through 4 (Stops me from doing my job), they were directed to this series of follow-up questions: 

How will lack of information about the most effective techniques change over the next 5 years? 

(n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 86, average = 1) 

Likely to 

get worse 

(-2)

Not at all 

(0) (2)

Likely to 

improve 

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

2% 4% 17% 7% 8% 14% 40% 4% 5%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change the lack of information about the 

most effective techniques? (n

Not at all 

= 85, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely

(2) (3)

Likely Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

9% 21% 26% 26% 14% 4%
20

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence the lack of information about the most effective techniques? 

(n

Not at all 

= 86, average = 2) 

(0)

Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely Likely 

(2) (3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

8% 24% 30% 26% 6% 6%

How much of lack of information about the most effective techniques is because of you (internal) or because 

of others (external)? In other words, is the source of lack of information about the most effective techniques 

internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic of others)? (n

100% because of me

= 85, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3) (2)

50% me, 50% others 25% me, 75% others

(1)

100% because of 

others

(0)

4% 6% 35% 31% 25%

How big a problem do state education standards and lack of environmental education curriculum create in your 

efforts to connect children with nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 227, average = 2) 

Only a small problem (1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem (3)

Stops me from doing my 

job (4)

19% 27% 32% 19% 3%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem does the current level of funding for programs create in your efforts to connect 

children with nature” question. If respondents selected values 2 (It’s a problem) through 4 (Stops me 

from doing my job), they were directed to this series of follow-up questions: 

How will state education standards and lack of environmental education curriculum change over the next 5 

years? (n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 121, average = -1) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

5% 6% 31% 6% 21% 14% 17% 1%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change state education standards and 

lack of environmental education curriculum? (n = 121, average = 1) 

(0)

Not at all Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

39% 34% 13% 9% 5%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence state education standards and lack of environmental 

education curriculum? (n

Not at all 

= 121, average = 1) 

(0) (1)

Slightly likely Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

27% 46% 13% 10% 3% 1%
21

How much of state education standards and lack of environmental education curriculum is because of you 

(internal) or because of others (external)? In other words, is the source of state education standards and 

lack of environmental education curriculum internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic of 

others)? (n

100% because of me

= 119, average = 0) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

1% 7% 29% 63%

How big a problem does the current level of funding for programs create in your efforts to connect children with 

nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 227, average = 2) 

Only a small problem (1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem

Stops me from doing my 

(3) job (4)

9% 22% 32% 32% 6%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

“How big a problem does lack of staffing create in your efforts to connect children with nature” 

question. If respondents selected values 2 (It’s a problem) through 4 (Stops me from doing my job), they 

were directed to this series of follow-up questions: 

How will funding for programs change over the next 5 years? (n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 157, average = -1) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

10% 7% 41% 8% 15% 13% 5% 1%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change funding for programs? 

(n = 156, average = 1) 

(0)

Not at all Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

35% 34% 16% 12% 1% 2%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence funding for programs? (n

Not at all 

= 156, average = 1) 

(0) (1)

Slightly likely Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

26% 44% 17% 10% 2% 2%

How much of funding for programs is because of you (internal) or because of others (external)? In other 

words, is the source of funding for programs internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic 

of others)? (n

100% because of me

= 156, average = 1) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

4% 9% 33% 55%
22

How big a problem does lack of staffing create in your efforts to connect children with nature? (n

No problem (0)

= 227, average = 2) 

Only a small problem (1) It’s a problem (2) It’s a big problem

Stops me from doing my 

(3) job (4)

10% 21% 30% 32% 8%

If they selected values 0 (No problem) or 1 (Only a small problem), they were directed to the 

optional question which asked respondents to identify other major factors not addressed in this survey 

that have a large effect on preventing greater success at connecting children with nature. If respondents 

selected values 2 (It’s a problem) through 4 (Stops me from doing my job), they were directed to this 

series of follow-up questions: 

How will lack of staffing change over the next 5 years? (n

Will 

definitely 

get worse 

= 156, average = -1) 

(-2)

Likely to 

get worse Not at all 

(0)

Likely to 

improve 

(2)

Will 

definitely 

improve 

(-4) (-3) (-1) (1) (3) (4)

8% 9% 37% 12% 22% 7% 5% 1% 1%

How likely is it that you personally could do something to actually change lack of staffing? 

(n = 154, average = 1) 

(0)

Not at all Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

49% 33% 10% 5% 2% 1%

How likely is it that you can indirectly influence the lack of staffing? (n = 154, average = 1) 

(0)

Not at all Slightly likely 

(1)

Somewhat likely 

(2)

Likely 

(3)

Very likely

(4)

Definitely 

(5)

42% 38% 12% 6% 1% 1%

How much of lack of staffing is because of you (internal) or because of others (external)? In other words, is 

the source the lack of staffing internal (a characteristic of you) or external (a characteristic of others)? 

(n

100% because of me

= 153, average = 0) 

(4)

75% me, 25% others

(3)

50% me, 50% others

(2)

25% me, 75% others

(1) (0)

100% because of 

others

1% 5% 23% 71%

The 73 respondents who answered this optional question provided comments covering a wide 

array of topics. As with other open-ended questions on this survey, we sorted the responses into topical 

categories for easier reading. The comments are provided in their entirety. The alterations made to the 

comments include correction of spelling and grammar and removal of identifying information when 

necessary. If respondents addressed several different topics in one comment, then we split the comments 

into segments. Ellipses indicate that the comment was separated from another part of a single response. 

Optional question: If there are other major factors not addressed in this survey that have a large effect on preventing 

greater success at connecting children with nature, please name them in the text box below. (n = 73) 

The topics address issues internal to the FWS, such as the need for dedicated staff and workload 

issues, as well as external issues. Some comments address environmental education in general or 

suggest specific ideas. Others suggested an expansion of groups on which outreach efforts are focused 
23

to include groups that are nontraditional refuge visitors. The school system, transportation, and cultural 

issues were identified as concerns. Comments were made regarding the survey and other miscellaneous 

topics that did not seem to fit into other topic categories.

Need a staff person at the local level whose time is exclusively dedicated to this issue to have a significant impact.

Dedicated staff:

The most effective way to have a quality, comprehensive program is to have a staffer dedicated to it. The service is currently 

understaffed, especially in the education division.

Because of contractual work responsibilities, I can not spend as much time connecting children with nature as I would like. 

Dedicated funding for connecting children with nature would help to solve this problem. 

I think to be really effective at the refuge I work at a full time staff person should go around to the 45 schools to connect

children with nature. Most schools are over 30 miles from the refuge which prevents children from coming to the refuge 

through the school system.

VSS have too many hats to do this job properly.

Lack of staff that are really comfortable w/ kids in the outdoors. Lack of enthusiasm of the outdoors by staff - many staff 

members never get out - it's a 'do as I say, not as I do' kind of thing 

Employees running the ee programs do not have a passion for it and don't do a dynamic job of spreading messages. They 

work because of the pay check!

... I strongly believe there needs to be one FTE for each of the Big 6 on the national level AND whose major purpose is to 

pull us together on each of the Big 6 and show us the way....

Part of the issue is lack of staff dedicated to outreach that (1) could keep current with best techniques & share with others, (2) 

identify priority audiences; and (3) develop programs and materials that others could use.

There should be training for refuge staff in how to interest children in nature. At this time there appears to be no training 

available. Some staff say they know what to do on their own, but others would like training in managing groups and how to 

reach out to children. 

Training:

Training Opportunities of Staff and Volunteers

...We need to be educated on the best ways to connect with these under-represented cultures so that we may be more 

effective in our jobs. 

...3. Inadequate or non-existent training in place-based education -- we do alot of interpretation and call it EE and we do alot 

of traditional 'cook book' EE instead of focusing on getting outside in our own local ecosystems. Let's put the field back in

field trips! 4. Non-existent training in education theory and methodology (brain-based theory, constructivism, inquiry-based 

learning, etc.) We need to put the education back in EE....7. We need not only training but details or job shadowing to see on 

the ground in action just how other stations are doing good EE. I know there are stations willing to host, but it seems like 

pulling teeth to get employees to do it because either they think they already know it all (they don't) or because their 

managers don't get it.

Lack of support from local FWS managers for staff (beyond certain designated staff) to engage in such activities, leading to 

missed opportunities.

Lack of management support:

...5. Refuge managers who actually get it, who understand the value of EE in visitor services as a resource management tool. 

Most managers have to make decisions about visitor services but are completely untrained in it, including in EE. We need 

them to understand and support our profession -- it is a legitimate profession which can create fantastic public support for 

field stations when maintained with consistency and continuity, not based upon trendy directives or personal whims. We also 

need them to understand that every station doesn't have to do all Big 6 to the extreme but should focus on what's most natural 

and successful for that station....

Workload is an issue. The CPWN Initiative relies heavily on FWS employees using 8 or more hours annually to help with 

activities that connect children with nature. Unfortunately, the vast majority of FWS biologists I have talked with feel that

they do not have enough time to complete their required duties, so taking extra time for this initiative is difficult. There are 

very few FWS positions that have education/outreach as part of their position description. 

Time/workload:

Time- we have a full plate, something is going to have to fall off or not get done

Time to do activities with people (children) in Nature is limited by 'higher priorities.'

Too heavy workload overall, relegating outreach and connecting opportunities to a back burner.

...lack of time in employee's schedules...

Lip service/lack of support:
24

Need Connecting People with Nature to be a critical element on Performance, otherwise this is blown off as 'others duties as 

assigned' and is not a priority as far as the supervisor is concerned.

Connecting People with Nature is not always considered an appropriate use of USFWS staff or money. It is undervalued in 

this agency. Until we change the mindset of people in the agency, and give this a higher level of priority, funding and staff, 

things will not change. This needs to be a fundamental change at the upper levels of the agency and the gov....

There is a lot of lip service given to connecting children with nature initiative, [text deleted to protect identity]. Staff 

considers any contribution to VS activities to be a burden and something to avoid as much as possible. Willingness to fund 

VS needs is the last on the list. Until FWS employees understand the importance of the public side of the conservation 

equation, we will ultimately fail our mission.

There is a lot of talk about the importance of environmental education and connecting children with nature but the leadership 

is unwilling to make it a reality with more staff and funding. We have 1 ORP for all of ND (has the most NWRs) and 0 in 

SD. Folks that work part time on environmental education are not supported and in fact they told to spend less and less time 

on EE and outreach.

The lack of support by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Environmental Education and Visitor Services in general due 

to lack of funding for staff, transportation for groups, and materials.

It is not recognized at field office levels as important. It needs to be emphasized from the WO all the way to the field offices. 

Many field supervisors do not consider it a priority. There are not dedicated positions either full or part-time to connecting 

kids with nature in general. Attitudes in the FWS are that connecting kids with nature is not as important as the other work 

we do. 

Not considered a priority by staff

CCWN takes time, man power, money, and interest. I think the interest is growing but there is not enough financial support 

to make it grow. We have to choose between doing our field station mission vs. doing outreach.

FWS/DOI regularly identifies new priorities without dropping previous priorities. People in Nature was identified as a 

priority, but never even made it through an earnest budget cycle before being overwhelmed by Climate Change, then LCC, 

then???

Are we 'connecting people with nature' -or 'connecting children with nature'? Who was responsible for taking Richard Louv's 

elegant concept of 'children and nature' and morphing it into some sort of generalized, dumbed-down idea of 'connecting 

people with nature' and 'going outside'. This program needs to keep its focus on the central premise of Mr. Louv's book --

getting the next generation involved with nature and the out-of-doors. If we spread ourselves all over the waterfront in some 

sort of amorphous, generalized 'campaign' among everyone it's not going to go very far, nor be very sustainable over the 

long-run. Let's keep our focus on the most appealing, definable, and specific audience possible - the 'key' audience of the 

next generation, instead of 'the world'. 

Organizational disconnect:

CPWN Program Administration. The program feels like it has little direction, even after the national workshop produced a 

random list of recommendations, with no plans for implementation or defined links to the related Youth in Nature Careers 

program. Revising the CPWN Strategic Plan was put off limits for the CPWN Team to comment on or offer suggestions, 

even though there was agreement the Plan needs to be updated. Thus, the produced list of CPWN recommendation does not 

move the program in a direction guided by a current and relevant CPWN Strategic Plan. Recommendation. The FWS CPWN 

program needs a manager who is highly organized and managerially effective to maximize the contribution from the regional 

and program CPWN representatives who mostly contribute work time to the CPWN program. 

A major disconnect between what actually occurs on refuges and what is perceived by regional offices. No one knows what I 

actually do, but how much I get in support and funding is directly the result of decisions made by others. We are all groping

along, hoping to make a change with huge initiatives but with little cooperative planning within the service.

Lack of interest from other program areas that are still looking at refuges from a 'wildlife first' mentality. Lack of positive 

interaction with program areas on refuges. Lack of understanding how important connecting children (and adults) with nature 

really is for the health of the whole refuge system by other program areas.

...6. Lack of a clear, strong, progressive voice on a national level in the FWS directing the EE ship we're all sailing on, but 

without obvious leadership, we're all scattered about, haphazard, unorganized, not moving forward together doing the best 

kind of EE we can do for kids and our future....

We should be partnering with other agencies (FS, NPS) that have the same agenda and provide a united front. At this time, 

each agency (State and Federal) is advertising to come to their property and get outdoors. We should be focusing on getting 

outdoors regardless of where it is done.
25

There are too many people thinking and discussing how to and ways to connect children with nature and not actually doing it 

on the ground, i.e., bringing kids outdoors and/or bringing the information directly to them. Most of these Bureaucrats have 

never interacted with kids besides their own. It is more important to get kids outdoors and interested in the outdoors than to 

argue about which Programs should deliver the message, what kinds of curricula are used, what colors should be the 

brochures, what shape should be the displays, etc. etc. Go out there and get your hands dirty!! 

Funding and action on the ground:

Too much of the funding that is coming is staying in headquarters (Region 9) and not getting out to the field stations, visitors 

centers, refuges, etc. where we can best connect children with nature. Sometimes it doesn't take much funding to make a 

huge difference, if it can get out to the field. 

It's important that we actually get out and do things with our young people. There are many competitors for their interests 

and time. 

Inefficient use of limited resources

Need FWS grants to help fund friends or partners that want to initiate and or improve EE. 

Friends groups/partnerships:

Our Fishery Friends groups could be very instrumental in helping us connect children with nature. It would be helpful if they 

were given more recognition and tools to help us (FWS) and our communities. 

There are lots of different kinds on kids, natural history resources, opportunities, venues, etc. We need to encourage all staff 

to experiment and report what works for whom at what level where and run with that for a time. Large uniform 'plans' kill 

enthusiasm of staff.

Diversity of approaches:

...inability to try outside-the-box efforts, because of group-think. 

I think what has happened is this initiative has created a plethora of huge events that occur once a year. I feel that having the 

studies available that show that working with the same group of students, girl scouts, 'such and such group', etc. connects 

children with nature more effectively than a one-time event. I feel we in the service need to promote the philosophy of 'adopt 

a group' (any group of children' and reward the employees that create the multiple visits into the out-of-doors. It seems we 

think bigger events are better. We should create our own 'Big Brother/Big Sister' type association within the agency so that 

'mentoring' a child or a group of children could create a successful program of connecting children with nature. We should 

also have a mechanism for capturing what is already occurring within our agency....

Build ongoing relationships:

Historic USFWS methods (i.e. one day visit to by school to refuge or hatchery, give a one time talk in the classroom) to 

deliver EE to children are not as effective as repeat visits using the environment as the integrating context for traditional 

subject matter. 

Making environmental education a priority

Environmental education:

Why so little emphasis on interpretation? Interpretation is A mission-based communication process that forges emotional and 

intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and meanings inherent in the resource. What is keeping us from

using interpretation to connect children with nature? Interpretation is not the same as EE.

...In addition, it seems we keep blending environmental education with connecting children with nature. I think the two are 

exclusive of each other. I think we need to be very clear on what Connecting Children with nature really means - is it 

'walking in the woods - just for the fun of it' or is it 'walking in the woods this child will be able to identify three kinds of 

trees when they are finished'? Environmental education has goals and objectives that I think are fundamentally different than 

the CCwithNature initiative is striving to achieve. 

An overarching marketing plan is needed for all DOI or all federal government to achieve the CPWN goals.

Marketing/advertising:

Just making the connection is huge. Once you get a school group out here it's almost always repeat business. Getting the 

word out to schools that we're available is huge. We need to spend more time advertising.

Need central, funded location to use as a clearing house for sharing of information.

Ideas:

When there is evidence that practical circumstances restrict connecting children at refuge sites, we should be more willing to 

go to their location, i.e. school, community center, etc to make that connection. I realize this will take a level of creativity 

that might be challenging, but this is a component of the challenge we face as a product of down-turned economy requires 

more parents to work longer hours, limit funds for visitation, as well as time restrictions. I see great potential in developing 

mobile interpretive centers that can take needed information, samples, activities, etc to those that are restricted or never have 

had the opportunity to get outdoors such as in large urban environments or economically depressed areas.
26

...Focus on outdoors and nature certain times of the year. DOI and EOE work together on something. The time is coming.

Extremely 'buggy' weather prohibits the amount of programs we provide in the summer. I use this time to educate off site.

Working in an Ecological Services office, I do not have any public Service lands here. For example, I cannot have a school 

field trip visit me at my office. I have to leave the office and 'search out' opportunities to connect people to nature in other 

outdoor places. It would be wonderful, if my office could have a backyard habitat display area with a short walking trail and 

interpretive/informational signage.

I feel we as a conservation agency can only do so much with kids and their education. I think a major obstacle in reaching 

our kids is a lack of parental involvement. So, this lends itself to the question, should we also be have a two pronged 

approach to environmental education? One toward kids and one toward adults/parents. In some ways, getting parents 

'reconnected' to nature may assist in reaching our youth.

Focus on parents/adults:

Parenting is a HUGE factor starting at an early age. Parents should model healthy behaviors that involve moving your body 

outside versus sitting in front of a computer or TV 90% of their free time.

We seem to put greater focus on these efforts in rural areas but it should be in urban/suburban areas as more people live in 

cites, need to connections to green spaces and have more health environment issues. Would reach a different constituency to 

support our mission.

Nontraditional groups:

Of course, DIVERSITY. It's no secret that these activities have been geared more toward one race of people, but that is 

slowing changing. More exposure is needed for those in lower income areas.

Service employees have been given little guidance as to how we should approach work with diverse groups, particularly 

children of color, to get them more interested in the out of doors. Demographics are changing but our efforts are not keeping

up with the times. ...

School budgets

School system:

Schools themselves are constrained by funding and time to allow for more field trips and hands-on experiences. That is the 

biggest problem.

...Also, Education standards (federally and by state) have to change. We need to move away from putting so much stress on 

standardized testing. Teachers are often not allowed to 'go outside of the box' and do experiential learning and teaching. 

Schools can't afford bus transportation. Mandatory testing in schools monopolizes students’ time.

One question that I'm not sure hit the point was about school standards. It's less an issue with lack of EE components as it is 

an emphasis on state standards and testing, that prioritizes classroom work far above field trips.

Difficulty making teachers understand children need to run and play safely, and not always be 'controlled'

School funding and transportation resources

1. No Child Left Behind: testing, teaching to the test, teaching to standards -- this REALLY competes with time for teachers 

to take kids outside. ...

I have suggested year-round school time to incorporate the environmental lessons as well as the three R's....

There needs to be an environmental education course (nature, wildlife, etc) taught to every grade level and be at the same 

importance level as reading, math and writing. Needs to be one hour everyday kindergarten-college. Otherwise, the trend of 

people losing touch with nature will get worse and worse. 

Environmental education in schools:

...2. Lack of EE standards in education -- for example, in WI, along with math, science, language arts, and social studies, 

there are EE standards -- this is very unusual but helps! I think it would help if the national education standards that states 

and districts draw from included EE....

There is little motivation for the schools to improve their outdoor or environmental programs, there are no monies to support 

programs and transportation funding is the major issue for me. Visitor centers cost millions and then need to be funded for 

upkeep of heat and cooling along with the need to divide my time doing paperwork grant writing and other non-student 

activities and the kids are inside again! Give support to transport kids to the outdoors for hands-on outdoor experiences.

Transportation:

Transportation to natural areas

Transportation 

General economy and fears of future unknowns prohibit much of the public from trying something 'new'; even if getting 

outdoors and involved in nature education, learning, recreation and family activities is low to no cost, most are still not 

willing to try something different from the norm, even if it means spending money to enjoy nature.

Cultural/economy issues:
27

Media and legislators need to get on board to promote healthier lifestyles for Americans - including improved nutrition and 

outdoor exercise, etc. 

The illusion that other fields or career choices could be more rewarding because of the potential to make more money.

I think this survey hits the main ones: parents’ attitudes, transportation, funding, and staffing.

Survey: 

I think you need to offer a 'not applicable' option in answer to your questions.

I believe they've all been addressed in this survey.

I hope you are surveying the public because my perspective is limited and may not really reflect key challenges.

Miscellaneous:

How many children, parents and teachers know what the FWS is? Answer 5% Let's start with this reality!

FWS rules and policies (for example, using a government vehicle or boat to access a part of the NWR)...

Questions Regarding Attitudes about Connecting Children with Nature

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following statements 

regarding the FWS and connecting children with nature. The number of respondents providing an 

answer for each statement differs. The n is provided with each statement below.

Strongly 

disagree (1)

Slightly 

disagree (2)

Neither 

agree nor 

disagree (3)

Slightly 

agree (4)

Strongly 

agree (5)

Connecting children with nature is important to 

the future of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(n

<.05%

= 314, average = 5)

1% 4% 8%

Conservation and environmental education 

outreach activities are important to achieving the 

overall mission of the FWS. 

87%

n

<.05%

= 313, average = 5) 

1% 4% 13%

Emphasis on connecting children with nature is 

not consistent with the position of “Wildlife first.” 

(

82%

n = 311, average = 2) 

50% 25% 12% 8% 5%

The goal of connecting children with nature 

should be given higher priority within the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. (n

3%

= 312, average = 4)

6% 20% 26%

The Fish and Wildlife Service dedicates 

adequate resources (staffing, time, materials) to 

efforts to connect children with nature. 

(

46%

n = 314, average = 2)

33% 30% 19% 14% 6%

The Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes and 

rewards efforts to connect children with nature. 

(n

11%

= 314, average = 3)

20% 31% 27% 11%

Demographic Questions

Our demographic questions help us understand to what extent the participants in this survey are 

representative of employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

What is your employment status with the Fish and Wildlife Service? (n = 315) 

Permanent Federal Employee 

Term/Temporary Federal Employee 3% 

96%

Other 1% 
28

What is your gender? (n

Male 41% 

= 312) 

Female 59% 

How long have you worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (n

Less than 1 year

= 315) 

1–3 years 4–8 years 9–13 years 14–17 years 18 or more years

10% 16% 28% 13% 33%

How long have you worked at your current duty station? (n

Less than 1 year

= 311) 

1–3 years 4–8 years 9–13 years 14–17 years 18 or more years

5% 23% 27% 24% 11% 10%

How long have you worked in your current position? (n

Less than 1 year

= 314) 

1–3 years 4–8 years 9–13 years 14–17 years 18 or more years

7% 26% 30% 21% 7% 9%

In which region is your duty station? (n

1 10% 

= 320) 

2 9% 

3 13% 

4 

5 11% 

16% 

6 11% 

7 5% 

8 9% 

9 17%

What is your WG/GS/GM level? (n

4 <.05% 

= 310) 

5 1% 

6 3% 

7 6% 

8 <.05% 

9 11% 

11 23% 

12

13 21% 

26%

14 8% 

15 2% 

Do you subscribe to the VOICES listserv? (n

Yes 44% 

= 304) 

No 56% 
29

We formatted this question as an open-ended response because providing all possible options on 

a checklist would have made a lengthy response drop list. Responses were provided by 295 survey 

respondents. However, a few of them provided responses such as question marks or the words “don’t 

know” that were not indicative of a job series. There were 47 different job series codes provided. The 

eleven most frequent responses were:

What is the numerical code for your Job Series? (examples: 401, 023, 1713)

0401 (General Biological Science) 24% 

0025 (Park Ranger) 15% 

0485 (Wildlife Refuge Management) 14% 

0486 (Wildlife Biology) 5% 

0023 (Outdoor Recreation Planning) 4% 

0303 (Miscellaneous Clerk and Assistant) 4% 

0482 (Fishery Biology) 4% 

2210 (Information Technology Management) 2% 

1701 (General Education and Training) 2% 

1001 (General Arts and Information) 2% 

1035 (Public Affairs) 2% 

General Comments 

Survey respondents were provided with the opportunity to comment as they wished at the end of 

the survey. Their responses have been sorted into topical categories. We excluded the few comments in 

which people indicated they had no comments or simply typed “n/a.” The comments are provided in 

their entirety. The alterations made to the comments include correction of spelling and grammar and 

removal of respondent names and contact information (to protect respondent identity since this is a 

publicly available document). In some comments, respondents addressed several different topics. We 

split the comments into segments so that each addressed only one topic. The presence of ellipses 

indicates that the comment was separated from another part of a single response.

If you have any thoughts or comments about issues regarding connecting children with nature OR comments about 

this survey, please leave them here. We value your feedback. (n

The comments provided to this last open-ended question cover a variety of topics, many of 

which were also addressed in earlier open-ended questions. Many comments address concerns specific 

to the FWS such as the priority placed on connecting children with nature, how resources are allocated 

to this initiative, and suggestions for what the FWS should do to accomplish the goal of connecting 

children with nature. Other comments address the need to define “connecting” children with nature 

more concretely; finally, some comments address which groups—children, parents, or other 

nontraditional visitor groups—should be the focus of outreach efforts. There were comments on the 

survey, both positive and negative. Some comments did not align with other topics and are grouped 

together as miscellaneous comments.

= 103) 

Outreach/education (e.g., connecting children with nature) should be a part of any professional biologist job component 

(e.g.., 401, 480, 482, 485, 486, etc.) whether they be in the WO, ROs, or Field Stations. It should be mandatory at field 

stations (e.g.., NWRS & NFHS) where the Service has lands, buildings, and other assets (e.g., ponds) that can be dedicated to

outreach/education activities. Besides annual volunteer numbers, every Region should collect this outreach/education 

information for the Service. 

FWS priority:

If the FWS is serious about connecting children with nature, it needs to be serious about funding the program. 

If it is a priority it should be a GPRA/performance goal and it should be funded.
30

Connecting children with nature is an important mission of the FWS; however, it needs to be in balance with the many other 

important missions of the Service. It should not be left behind nor should it displace our other important missions.

I think we need Regional positions to address Youth/CPwN Initiatives. Most folks are participating in this effort as time 

permits, which minimizes the effectiveness of implementing this initiative. 

The FWS is poised to be the leading federal agency to connect people, especially children, to the natural world. Emphasis on 

this aspect should come from the top executives right down to the employee in the field, and everyone in between. An 

attitude of including children in our work should be a standard operating procedure, and new and creative ways of reaching 

this goal will not only strengthen our future constituents, but will enliven and revive our workforce to produce even higher 

results.

I feel that the FWS makes the CPWN Initiative a priority in that it was mentioned often by our former director Dale Hall. I 

think it was a creative idea of the FWS to encourage all FWS employees to use 8 hours or more to help these other entities 

with existing projects. That way the FWS is not re-inventing the wheel and rather is assisting ongoing efforts by others. 

However, the vast majority of FWS employees do not participate because they feel that they don’t have enough time....

The FWS needs to actually decide what its priorities are and then support them adequately. I think connecting people with 

nature is important, but we have not clearly defined what that means, what success looks like and how we reach that success.

I really cannot at this time see any great value to this effort. It seems like there are too many people in FWS sitting at desks 

and computers. This also seems like a very top heavy organization. At my station I see much of the work at the NWR done 

by volunteers and even foreign contract labor. I don't really see the value of expending effort to connect kids with nature

when they may wind up wanting to work with nature. There are a lot of smart hard working young people that come thru 

where I work - but no permanent jobs appear. 

I am glad there is a push happening within the FWS - CPWN I do for my job on a daily basis. The Give 8 outdoors for AK is 

the only tracking tool I know right now but it doesn't really fall under an 'award'

If we seek to pursue this in a substantial way, I believe perhaps we should ratchet up the target/goals; for example, not 

piecemeal, but systemic: e.g., what proportion of U.S. schools can we get to implement a FWS generated curricula; and e.g., 

lobby at all levels, as appropriate, to have ecology as a fundamental part of the general curriculum (for ALL students 

throughout USA)

...the questions posed brought forth a strong and purposeful response as to me, connecting children and nature is a key and 

elemental component of our mission.

...This is an initiative that we should not let fall by the wayside when administrations change and new buzz words come into 

vogue....

Environmental Education or connecting people with nature, whatever you wish to call it has always been a low priority to the 

FWS in general due to lack of funding.

I thought the initiative was 'Connecting PEOPLE with Nature' so I'm a bit confused as to why this survey is so narrow. Did 

the initiative change and we are not informed in Region 3? Also, I don't think there is a clear plan on what the Regions are 

supposed to be doing to support the Connecting People with Nature or the Connecting Children with Nature....

National Wetlands Inventory had a kids and educators page (that I developed) but no longer has one. I don't have the time to 

develop content or keep the links current. We also don't have the staff time to participate in or resources to pay for handouts 

for kids events or to give out at Refuges. I target my outreach to other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. If we were able to 

hire a web person this year, kids would be my second priority (after our 50 million customers) and we would put up a page 

on the wonders of wetlands.

Lack of resources:

It is wonderful that one of the priorities of the FWS is becoming Connecting People to Nature because the future of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service depends on it. However, it would be great if more Visitor Services positions could be added at the field 

level. So many Refuges do not even have 1 person dedicated to Visitor Services and they will have a hard time achieving 

these goals.

Every station should have a person dedicated to connecting children with nature since schools and parents are not filling the 

void. Environmental education should not be a collateral duty which it is on many stations.

Funding for Connecting People with Nature needs to be equally distributed among ALL offices - make it a required WAG. 

Don't just fund Refuges, ES would like to participate.

If FWS wants connecting children/people with nature to be a priority, then the agency needs to provide dedicated funding to 

the program. Otherwise, it just becomes another duty as assigned, and we all have enough of those to do.

We turn school groups away every year because we do not have the staff or facilities to accommodate them all. It is heartbreaking.

See my comments earlier in the survey. We are constantly asked to do MORE with less funding and insufficient staff. We 

could do such wonderful things if this situation was improved.
31

I'm located at a mid-size Refuge Complex, consisting of 3 NWRs, and in my opinion it is a disgrace that we do not have one 

visitor services position on staff, especially considering the large visitor use programs we offer at our refuges. In order to 

promote these priorities within the Service, we need the staff to do it. Long gone are the days when we can expect our 

Managers to do it all, Visitor Services included. I manage these programs on my complex because I have no one else to do it, 

but mostly because I value them and understand their importance to wildlife conservation in the long term. If I had someone 

on my staff dedicated to Visitor Services we could do so much more outreach, involving the community in what we do, 

maintaining a volunteer program, and connecting children with nature. 

Having standard portable tabletop or popup floor displays and banners, with associated literature, handouts on the program, 

available from state FWO or ES offices for field station to 'check-out' on loan would be very helpful for supporting outreach 

efforts on this directive. We need the products to help get the word/message out to public but with no station funds, it needs 

to come from a higher level if we are expected to promote the LGO and other programs.

The FWS does not have enough resources to be effective at connecting children with nature on a national scale. Even with 

training and changes in priorities, large scale success is unlikely. We can be a partner in such efforts and should be.

$$ is very tough, and will be for years... We just have so much ES regulatory work (listing, consultation, lawsuits, etc) that I 

could not ask my employees to develop and implement and participate in outreach at this time....

...We have not received very much support from our Regional Office due to the serious lack of funding. We do what we can 

at this station. We work nights weekends with our volunteers because we believe that Environmental Education is important, 

not because we are told to do these programs by our Regional Office. We lost two Visitor Services positions in our state and 

currently have no permanent or term staff in SD to assist with any Education Outreach efforts. This is due to lack of funding 

for all positions, and the first positions not to be filled after a vacancy are entry level management positions and Visitor 

Services positions. Due to the economy I see this very unlikely to change in the near future, which is a shame.

I would love to participate in Connecting Children w/Nature (or any other) outreach activities, but am not given the 

opportunity. In general, the Refuges that we manage do not run many programs, which I think is a shame.

I think that the Service's commitment to connecting children with nature is good, but I think leaving it as a job for all of us as 

a collateral duty with 8 hours a time is not the best approach. These activities should be planned and conducted by trained 

professionals. There is little unity and strategy behind the current efforts.

Specialized staff:

...The key is to get engaging individuals in environmental education roles.

People who are hired to specifically to do outreach and education should have a visible passion, if not they need to move on. 

It is frustrating to have to collaborate with someone you don't believe should have their position let alone believe they are

inspiring the youth!

Stations without a position to Connect Children with Nature are very limited to what can be accomplished. The larger 

stations have several positions, however some have none. It falls on other staff to connect children to nature.

I believe connecting Children with Nature is very important and I enjoy the opportunities that I have while in my current 

position. However, there is an expectation within the Service to provide these opportunities, and without the specialized staff, 

opportunities are probably not as numerous as they could be; especially given the amount of requests we have.

...I support EE programs, but FWS should invest in hiring more staff with those specific qualifications, freeing up staff 

biologists to do the work they were originally hired to do.

An employee who is expected to do public outreach to children and the public as any part of their job should have training 

available to them from experts in programs to interest children especially, and the public in general, in nature.

Training:

...I hope that this new emphasis also leads to greater appreciation for and emphasis on professionalism in the field of EE and 

interpretation in FWS. I would like to see more training courses offered for employees in these fields.

Before there was an FWS initiative to do this, it was what we were doing anyway at this station. It is a good thing, though, to 

see it receive extra emphasis and support, because some in the agency have regarded it as a 'frill', and not really necessary....

Lack of support within FWS:

The project leader or other station lead ultimately determines the amount of outreach conducted at a field station. 

Lack of support from the biological community within the service
32

...This program is a great one and the WO leadership has to be commended in trying to implement, which is passed down to 

the RO. At the local level there appears to be resistance within my office when people are seeking out ways to be involved 

with this great program. When ever it is brought up Mgmt is always thinking of someone goofing off for the day. Never an 

atta boy go out and do great things, encouragement, or here are some ways to get involved etc, but always questioning if it is 

the best use of time. After awhile just give up because it is unproductive! No vision within the office, which is hard to break. 

Can understand in a way, with all the administrivia that keeps being pushed down to the field such as contracts, etc that have 

to be done, these new programs just don't fit into an 10 or 12 hour days and 40-50 hr work weeks. Extra time spent on just 

getting the things done that are required are not recognized or appreciated. 

...Many of us do a lot of individual outreach without much support from our respective offices because we have a passion 

and vision for the importance of teaching the youth about the environment. I am very active outside my work in a variety of 

environmental programs in the evenings and weekends.

I've long held the belief that we need to foster a love of nature in our youth if our public lands are to survive in the future and 

have based all my contacts with the public on this premise. I'm glad to see this becoming a tenet of the government.

Impact on future:

Connecting children to nature IS our future!!

I believe how well we connect children to nature today will have a direct impact on the USFWS tomorrow. These are the 

people that will either determine Refuges are places to treasure or some disconnected place that is not needed anymore.

Yes, the future of FWS relies on connecting children with nature. They are our future leaders and voters. If they are not 

taught how to appreciate nature, they surely won't support it in adulthood.

...We just have so much ES regulatory work (listing, consultation, lawsuits, etc) that I could not ask my employees to 

develop and implement and participate in outreach at this time. That said, I agree that this sort of outreach is absolutely 

essential and critical to recovery of species, as our country becomes more and more urbanized - living 'on' the land, rather 

than 'off' the land.

...The future of wildlife depends on a strong and on-going effort to get young people connected with nature.

Too often we invest our time and efforts in short-term returns. Connecting children with nature is a long-term but very vital 

investment. We need to push back the knee-jerk policies and really really focus on what will be beneficial for the future of 

our resources

Attitudes, beliefs and values pertaining to connecting children with nature tend to change with the prevailing wind. 

Changing priorities:

Feel once we have a direction and we embark on it - it changes. Again.

We need to get moving on this initiative. My fear is that if the administration changes during the next election, we will lose 

support for youth initiatives. If that is the case, all the extra positions and staffing (highly graded positions) we are currently 

working to fill could be a drain on our Service budget. This is a Secretary Salazar project, and a change of administration or 

change of Secretary could mean the funding dissolves. We will be left with many unfunded staff in the education and 

outreach field. I hope this does not happen, but it is something I envision might happen.

Need for focused effort:

...We have done a good job of identifying a challenge and laying the foundation for solving it. Let's continue concerted 

action and get down the road to success. 

CCWN is very valuable for children, and for adults as well.

Existing program:

The Give 8 program has allowed us to have more opportunities to reach out to the public and provide educational 

opportunities for children. We need to make this more of a focus and allow staff to do these activities more often....

The Connecting Children with Nature Program allows me to volunteer in the schools with my kids. I love this opportunity 

and am helping my daughter's preschool teacher set up a 2-week summer camp: 'Nature Enthusiast: No Child Left Inside'. 

Before this program became an FWS priority, I did not have supervisory support to spend time on outreach. Now, not only 

do I have the 'go-ahead' because of the policy, there are also GREAT resources available for kids of all ages. THANK YOU 

VERY MUCH!

Connecting children with nature must be done on local and individual levels. I feel that agencies can do the greatest good by

providing small grants or 'seed money' to help LOCAL efforts. For example, bus money for a field trip.

Support local efforts:

The fish and wildlife service needs to promote local employee work groups that promote local children and nature programs. 

Once these local support groups have successes they need a way to share their ideas with other employees on a national 

level. Then maybe a national convention for the most outstanding local groups could be recognized and rewarded for their 

successes. This could inspire employees to promote their kids in nature ideas!
33

...FWS could support local efforts by attending outreach efforts by others (e.g., school programs, summer camps, 4H, local 

hiking grps). We could also help $$ these efforts, provide grants so that state or private sector could do most of the work, 

FWS employees could participate as time allows....

...We need more methods for measuring success and our short falls. This data is critical to make constructive and productive 

decisions that ultimately can get more kids OUTSIDE.

Need for evaluation:

...Little proof that our efforts with children make future changes happen when they grow up - it's assumed and it's a huge 

money sink. Sure there are benefits to going outside, but will this change our funding or staffing needs anytime soon - no! 

This is a very unpopular opinion but NOAA Estuaries programs did it 10 yrs ago and look at their voter support base.

My experience has been that digital photography is a popular and successful way of connecting people with nature. I 

recommend additional educational opportunities in this regard for children as well as adults.

What FWS should do...:

I strongly urge the FWS to give Fishery Friends groups the same recognition that Refuge Friends groups receive. Our 

Fishery Friends group is critical to connecting children and nature. We have been working on several major projects that 

wouldn't have been completed without Friends. They provide not only funding for our projects, but also time, labor, and 

advice. The Refuge system seems to have more funding for outreach with children than the Fisheries offices from my 

experience so Friends are critical to connecting kids with nature.

We need to establish more EE programs around NWRs modeled after the Prairie Wetlands Learning Center - Fergus Falls 

WMD. 

Children (along with the rest of us) learn best by doing. Give them a volunteer job or a project to do, anything useful, and 

they'll learn more than you hoped they would learn.

Connecting 'Children with Nature' needs a more prominent role at this hatchery. Perhaps a 1 or 2 hour, weekly 

educational/training role for young high school age students seeking a future role as a fishery/wildlife biologist, a 

maintenance worker position, or an administrative position.

...I feel that FWS could help environmental education entities more by providing funding. As I work with NGOs and 

government agencies who are also working to connect children with nature, the biggest obstacle is almost always lack of 

funding. I have long advocated that the FWS narrow our focus and find a niche in the environmental education community 

and fill a gap. Right now we are so varied with the schoolyard habitat program, encouraging staff to spend 8 hours a year on 

the CPWN initiative, National Wildlife Refuge programs etc., that FWS is not very successful in any of our attempts. For 

example, one gap we could fill is providing transportation for schoolchildren to open space areas. I hear many environmental 

education folks and teachers mention that transportation for school children is always an issue. FWS could start a grant 

program that specifically provides funds to schools to help pay for buses. There are many other gaps we could fill as well, 

the transportation gap is just one example. 

We should also be educating children about the impacts of climate change on nature, to complete the loop. Let them know 

that this wonderful outdoors is threatened at the system level. 

... We also need to be strategic in how we work to connect people with nature to protect our natural resources.

There seems to be a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what environmental education is and isn't. I think 

focused efforts to establish a connection for children with nature through well thought out plans and curriculum will do far 

more to advance the cause then having staff with no EE background traveling to local schools for impromptu classroom 

spiels about wildlife. The leadership of FWS would be well served to educate its own employees about what makes a 

meaningful EE program and how to prepare one for their local areas. I get inundated with staff requests for brochures and 

coloring books they can take to a local school (usually attended by one of their kids), but they have no idea how their 

presentation would link to curriculum standards, etc....

...I think we need to focus more on getting children out and the unstructured activities. Also, we need to start hiring younger 

people!!

...2. Resist the temptation to convert a good concept into a bureaucracy (org charts, endless meeting, acronyms, etc.). Keep 

the Louv vision. 3. There needs to be a 'cultural shift' throughout the Fish and Wildlife Service, a completely new way of 

thinking about sustainability of our mission in an era of generational 'tune-out' on the environment. If 'Children and Nature' 

becomes a pigeonholed office deep down in some obscure division, we have lost the battle.

Within reasonable sideboards, the Service should be doing everything it can to make our facilities, whether refuges or 

hatcheries, more inviting to children. 

I think participating in the 'Connecting Children with Nature' should be entirely VOLUNTARY, and definitely not a primary 

focus of our duties. We have an entire Outreach division that can provide such information.
34

We need to get kids and their parents OUTSIDE. Fancy web sites w/ cool games, lots of $$$, and cumbersome plans don't do 

the job. We need to get off our backsides, oil our boots and take kids backpacking, hiking, rafting, playing on a river bank,

building tree houses, mucking in tidepools, jumping in piles of leaves, flying kites - you get the idea.

...FWS could have ROs develop education/outreach materials for each FO....

FWS should target actual decisionmakers to make change - high school and up (license buyers, voters, planners, 

councilmembers, etc.) should be our first target....

...Let's do better visitor services and EE not more.

We need to promote staff using their volunteer efforts to work toward this goal and recognize those efforts.

...We need to develop programs such as Community Corps, where we have a focused effort to be visible in the community 

providing environmental outreach and programs at schools and local events....

...I already commented earlier about my thoughts about how to be successful by focusing on repeat visits with the same 

people/children rather then one-time events. We need to change the philosophy within. I believe there are so many offices 

involved now that don't understand the 'science' behind 'connecting people with nature'. I think they think, 'Oh boy, look how 

great we are we just had 250 people show up to watch us talk about fish and mussels' I think we would be so much better off 

if we gave credit to the folks that are truly helping a child or adults connect with nature more often than a one-time event.

Connecting children with nature is NOT teaching children about nature. Providing a place and an opportunity for children to 

experience nature on their own terms will allow their connection to develop and grow. 

Defining “connection”:

I imagine that most USFWS consider connecting children with nature to be mainly on refuges. That is NOT the nature they 

can learn and get close to. Show them how to look at their back yard and school yards.

Many persons who have connected with nature did so as children who had opportunity near their homes or in their back 

yards. Need that opportunity in every child and they can graduate to larger landscapes and wilder country. Logistics!

l. Keep your focus on the 'children' in 'children and nature' (i.e., the next generation, rather than existing generations). ...

Focus on children:

I don't really know what is happening with this issue. I have little understanding of the efforts in the field or the efforts of 

NCTC. I also think that we tend to focus on kids in 4th grade and up. This is when you can teach science. But if we want to 

touch their hearts then environment needs to be integrated into the arts as well. It is also the preschoolers that are naturally 

curious and open so if we want to get their attention when they are open we can't start too soon.

I think child-based programs are important....

I believe a big push should be made to encourage children to partake in conservation activities and conservation education. 

These children will make up the future work force of the FWS. The more inclined a child is to look toward preservation as a 

strategy, the likelihood of making sweeping environmental improvements in the future are much greater. Education should 

always be #1. 

I think this a great idea and much needed. Please let me know what I can do to help. It's very important, this is their future. 

As adults we should be very concerned about the state of affairs that we are leaving for our children. We have to keep the 

CIRCLE OF LIFE rotating.

I do not think that management truly understands the goal of connecting children with nature. This is evidenced in that the 

phrase 'children and nature' has been replaced in many instances with 'people and the environment'. I have worked in EE for 

over 20 years and my experience has taught me that we really do need to focus on children and make the connection early. 

Young children are very receptive to nature. A strong connection at an early age will help kids to balance their indoor and 

outdoor interests as they grow older. It's very difficult to get a teenager to unplug and appreciate the outdoors if they do not 

have any previous experience....

In my previous position in Alaska I spent 1/2 my time working with children and in EE programs. Alaska put a much higher 

priority on EE programs than Region 6. Education is the key to our success. Education includes both within the service and 

outside the service but especially needs to target the next generation.

I prefer the term Connecting People with Nature, not just children. If we don't target the parents as well, how will we get 

parents to bring their children to our refuges or to strike out on their own to local parks, National Forests, National Parks, 

etc.?

Focus on parents/families:

In addition to EE efforts by refuges, we must also provide significant visitor opportunities on refuges in the form of hiking, 

canoeing, bicycling, photography, etc. to get families with kids out more than one school field trip per year. Too often we 

close areas on refuges to the public without sound biological reasons to do so.

In order to get children outdoors we have to get families outdoors.
35

I would like to see more attention paid to 'connecting' adults and children from different cultural/social groups, and 

particularly from the many subgroups of the rapidly growing Latino population.

Nontraditional groups:

We need to take a serious look at reality. In 20 years, children will be more urban, more tied to technology and more people 

of color. If our approach to environmental education is still focused on white suburban middle class kids whose parents hunt 

and fish, we are kidding ourselves. If the Service employees delivering our message to these kids are 95% white middle 

class, over 40 years old, who grew up hunting and fishing, we are also kidding ourselves!

Ensure that children with disabilities are factored into whatever plans and actions that result from this survey or other 

endeavors to connect children with nature.

Try to work outside the box to bring in underserved communities! Enviro-ed classes and Scout groups will go to the refuges 

anyway, we need more converts to outdoor and environmental interests; preaching to the choir is an inefficient way to grow 

support.

I wonder why we limit it to children - maybe that's a big enough task! But every single person, no matter what age, deserves 

opportunities to connect with nature. I think our field station programs reach all ages, which is great....

I think it's important to see the outcome of this study -- the results, recommendations, actions taken by management at all 

levels of the FWS. Thank you so much. 

Survey:

Some of the survey questions should have been given an 'I don't know question.' On a few questions this option should have 

been given.

Survey way too long and detailed. 

Good survey, although the 'internal/external' evaluation questions were a bit confusing to rate since I wasn't sure if I should 

be speaking for myself as an individual in my job or for the Service efforts in general.

I know surveys are difficult to design, having done several. In this one, some questions are difficult to answer because what I 

think about my personal situation is different than what I think globally. Also, be careful of providing examples, as they may 

influence how someone responds. For instance, whatever the question was that had fishing derbies as an example: the 

question had merit, but I don't consider fishing derbies to have much to do with the values we are trying to impart to future

generations.

Nice work on the survey questions and format. I'd be interested in seeing the results.

The internal/external questions were confusing and difficult to answer. It is nearly impossible to separate personal and 

professional life when considering those questions. That section would benefit from some more instructions and a brief 

explanation of what it is you are trying to measure.

I'm very glad you are doing the survey. I hope the results will be shared with senior management.

My position is one of team leadership in which I direct/encourage other Service personnel, but without having the 

'supervisory' role and responsibilities. I would suggest taking this into account for future surveys as other Service employees 

might be in the same situation that I am and any questions dealing with 'supervision' in the strictest sense of the word would 

immediately cause us to have to answer no.

Thank You for the opportunity to comment

Repeated questionnaires are not necessary. Also, clear up the security issues. Having to indicate that I want to see all the 

secure and non-secure info on every screen is a pain. Also, quit sending so many reminders. If you have a deadline, give 

people the time to complete the survey w/o sending more and more emails

I'm not a fan of children, don't have any, and don't want to deal with any. These surveys are a waste of time. If I don't answer 

the first time, don't send me more unnecessary emails

Would love to share this survey and results with our state Get Outdoors Florida! organization.

Select only one on the issues section was not a good question; they were all valid issues.

Glad this survey was done. We need to know where the needs are in order to move the FWS forward in conservation and 

environmental education....

Thank you for hosting this survey....

... Thanks for the opportunity for input.

I cannot thank you enough for asking for field input....

Fix the survey so the secure box doesn't pop up each time you go to the next screen....

I did not feel comfortable (guessing in many cases) answering the questions about issues preventing kids from connecting 

with nature; my answers may not reflect reality about the challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to this 

serious issue - who will be tomorrow's conservationist?...

Very important survey and difficult for me not to either strongly agree or strongly disagree where appropriate ...
36

The Service might want to consider its mission and the 'Connecting People to Nature' challenge as a 'Wicked Problem.' The 

concept of 'wicked problems' was originally proposed by H. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber in their 1973 publication, 

“Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”. The term is used to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve 

because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing information and requirements that are often difficult to recognize. Rittel 

and Webber pointed out that in solving a wicked problem, the solution of one aspect may reveal another, more complex 

problem. Rittel and Webber suggested that the following rules define the form of a wicked problem: There is no definitive 

formulation of a wicked problem; Wicked problems have no stopping rule; Solutions to wicked problems are not true-orfalse, but good-or-bad; There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem; Every solution to a 

wicked problem is a 'one-shot operation'; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts 

significantly; Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions; Every 

wicked problem is essentially unique; and Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. 

“Wicked Problems” are multidimensional, and may include some, or all of the following components: Economics, ideology, 

politics, religion, morals, ethics, culture, institutions, social issues, equity, education, and environment. A few examples? 

Climate change, energy supplies, loss of biodiversity, population growth, emerging resource scarcities, ecosystem 

degradation, invasive species, national security, and several other emerging threats. While we can readily identify roles for 

our agency in the conservation of biological resources there is a need to begin defining the relationship of our mission to a

much larger conservation challenge - Ourselves. Why? Our collective behaviors are simply not sustainable. Sustainability: a 

process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. The term, in its environmental usage, refers to the 

potential of vital ecological support systems, such as the planet's climatic system, and the ecosystem services provided by 

biodiversity to persist over time. It also includes the long-term viability of human activities such as agriculture, industry, 

forestry, and fisheries. Sustainability is the capacity of human communities and the various systems on which they depend to 

endure together over time. Addressing the issue of the sustainability of human communities as part of our FWS mission will 

require thinking about that mission within the framework of “Wicked Problems.” Why do we need to do this? Convergence. 

Convergence: an adjective meaning the tendency of objects or events to move toward one point, or to approach one another. 

Remember those “Wicked Problems?” If they converge, even if only a few of them do, and there is an increasing probability 

that they will, then humanity may be looking at a “Perfect Ecological Storm.” Without sustainability, the future will be one 

of degraded environments, destructive economics, dysfunctional societies, and no collective capacity to endure. Endangered 

species may become so commonplace that our program will become irrelevant in an increasingly complex array of crises. 

“The most important thing we have to realize, if we really do want to save the planet for our great-grandchildren with a 

quality of life not too different from what we have today is that we've got to stop leaving the decisions up to the decision 

makers. We've got to become the decision makers. We've got to realize that what we do each day really does impact the 

world.”—Attribution: Jane Goodall. All “Wicked Problems” have one thing in common. Homo sapiens. We are creating an 

[response truncated due to data field limit]

Miscellaneous:

Encourage Service to use distance learning as a delivery method for connecting children with nature message

I chose not to put the correct region for the sake of anonymity.

...Also, I hope we'll be careful with our language. For instance, I'd rather hear us talk about 'nature' more often, rather than 

'natural resources.' Nature is the fabric and lifeblood of the planet, of which we are a part. I think it's wise that we avoid 

talking and writing about nature and the outdoors as merely a bundle of resources for humans to use. It's good to talk about 

human use but also go beyond that. Louv talks about the importance of time in nature for a person's spiritual growth. When 

talking about all life, a bit of humility, along with respect and joy, is appropriate. Hope we'll always keep that in mind.

Parents and kids are busy! Nature activities must become a priority for their time somehow. It has to be desirable enough to 

be put closer to the top of their 'to do' list.

Until parents and all schools recognize the value and importance of EE and allow teachers to participate in EE events and 

workshops AND provide funds to do EE and go on field trips; it will be a downhill battle.

Never heard of the Voices listserv? If someone in the agency has knowledge of this they have not passed down the info....

We try to work some programs with the public to keep our mission in their eyes. I rely on others in my office for the 

presentations. I just relay the information to the public.
37

Summary 

This report includes only descriptions of the responses to the questions asked on the survey. 

Until the main data analyses are complete, we can only offer preliminary summaries based on these 

statistics.

Introductory Questions

Most of the survey respondents indicated that they do perform conservation education, 

environmental education, or community outreach activities directed toward children. Of those who do 

engage in these activities, most of them are engaged in these activities for 1–25 percent of the time in an 

average week. Most frequently, respondents indicated that education and outreach activities are in their 

position descriptions and that they perform these activities. Some respondents indicated that education 

and outreach activities are not in their position description but that they perform these activities anyway. 

When asked why they do these activities when they are not required, the most frequent response was 

that respondents think these activities are important. 

When asked about decisions they made regarding aspects of conservation/environmental 

education or outreach programming, respondents indicated most frequently that they do not make 

decisions about the allocation of funding or of staff time. Most respondents indicated they do make 

decisions about content and implementation of programming. While some respondents do supervise 

employees or volunteers who perform environmental education and outreach, most do not. More than 

half of the respondents volunteer in activities related to conservation or environmental education. 

Questions Regarding Definition of Connection

We asked respondents to rate nine statements on the basis of their relevance to the FWS mission 

to connect people with nature. The statements described various possible outcomes of connecting people 

with nature and are listed in this report in the “Question Summaries” section. The most frequent 

response to seven of the nine statements was “Completely relevant” (rated 6 on a 6-point scale) with an 

average response of “Very relevant” (5 on a 6-point scale). A statement regarding increased 

participation in agency-sponsored outdoor programming received the same number of responses at two 

points on the scale—”Relevant” (4 on a 6-point scale) and “Completely relevant”—with an average 

rating of 4. A statement about health benefits such as physical fitness was most frequently rated 

“Relevant”, also with an average rating of 4. The statements were diverse and the pattern of responses, 

which indicated that all the statements were viewed as relevant, could indicate that the respondents view 

the mission of connecting people with nature as encompassing a wide range of outcomes. However, the 

degree to which survey respondents are in agreement that the statements are relevant to the FWS 

mission cannot be determined without further analyses. 

Questions Regarding Success with Outreach Efforts

Respondents were asked about their perceptions of the success of both their own and the FWS’ 

past and future efforts to connect children with nature. Most frequently, they judged both their own and 

the FWS’ past efforts as being moderately successful (3 points on a 6-point scale). When asked how 

successful they believed their and the agency’s future efforts would be, the most frequently selected 

response for both questions was “Successful”—4 points on a 6-point scale. Respondents seem to be 

anticipating increased success in future efforts to connect children with nature. 
38

Questions Regarding Barriers to Connecting Children with Nature

We provided 10 issues that may present problems in connecting children with nature. When 

asked to select the one that creates the biggest problem, the most frequently selected option was staffing 

issues. We asked respondents to rate the 10 issues on how big a problem each created in efforts to 

connect children with nature. Based on the frequency of responses and the average responses, children’s 

scheduling issues, parents’ fears, children’s lack of interest and comfort in the outdoors, and lack of 

information about effective techniques were viewed by survey respondents as only small problems. 

Parents’ attitudes, practical issues, state educational standards, and funding were viewed as problems. 

Competition from technology and staffing issues were most frequently identified as being big problems; 

however, the average rating for these issues put them at the next lower level on the scale—that of 

“problem” as opposed to “big problem”. 

When respondents indicated that a particular issue was a problem, they were asked a series of 

additional questions about that problem to measure perceived change and controllability and to 

determine whether the respondent believed the issue to be internal or external in origin. Based on the 

frequencies and averages for the question on change in the next five years for these issues, respondents 

tend to believe that nine of the ten issues are likely to get worse. Only lack of information about the 

most effective techniques to connect children with nature was viewed as likely to improve. 

We asked questions regarding direct and indirect effects on the issues to assess perceptions of 

controllability. Based on average responses, respondents perceived that they were slightly likely to be 

able to directly or indirectly affect children’s schedules, competition from technology, state educational 

standards, funding, and staffing. Respondents perceived that they were somewhat likely to be able to 

directly or indirectly affect parents’ fears, parents’ attitudes, children’s lack of interest and comfort in 

the outdoors, and lack of information about effective techniques. Respondents indicated they were 

slightly likely to be able to affect practical issues directly and somewhat likely to be able to affect 

practical issues indirectly.

The results regarding perceived internality/externality of issues generally indicates that the ten 

issues are perceived as being predominantly external. On the basis of the most frequently selected 

responses, nine of the ten issues were perceived as “100% because of others.” The exception was the 

issue lack of information about effective techniques for connecting children with nature. The most 

frequent response for this issue was “50% me, 50% others.” However, the average response to the 

question of internality for each issue indicates that “100% because of others” was the average only for 

the issues of state educational standards and staffing issues. The eight other issues had an average 

response at the “25% me, 75% others” point on the response scale. 

Questions Regarding Attitudes about Connecting Children with Nature

We asked respondents seven questions regarding their attitudes about the importance of 

connecting children with nature and the priority of this issue in the FWS. Respondents strongly agreed 

that connecting children with nature is important to the mission and the future of the FWS and they 

generally agreed—the most frequent response was “strongly agree” but the average response was

“slightly agree”—that the goal of connecting children with nature should be given higher priority within 

FWS. Respondents strongly disagreed that connecting children with nature should not be a concern of 

the FWS. They generally disagreed—the most frequent response was “strongly disagree” but the 

average response was “slightly disagree”—that the FWS dedicates adequate resources (staffing, time, or 

materials) to efforts to connect children with nature and that connecting children with nature is 

inconsistent with the position of “wildlife first.” When asked their agreement with a statement that the 
39

FWS recognizes and rewards efforts to connect children with nature, the most frequent response was 

“neither agree nor disagree” but there were responses at each option on the response scale. 

Demographic Questions

The demographic questions on the survey indicated that the majority of respondents are 

employed as permanent federal employees in the FWS, 59% of respondents were female, and all regions 

participated in the survey. We asked three types of tenure questions: tenure with the FWS, tenure at 

current duty station, and tenure in current position. Respondents represented a wide range of tenure with 

the FWS. All respondents had been with the FWS for at least one year. The most frequent responses to 

each tenure question were that respondents had worked for the FWS for 18 or more years, been at their 

current duty station for 4–8 years, and had worked in their current position for 4–8 years. Respondents 

were from grade levels 4 to 15, and from 47 different job series. Fifty-six percent of the respondents 

reported that they participated in the VOICES electronic distribution list. While the individuals who 

were included in the survey sample and who responded to the survey are likely to be overrepresentative 

of those who participate in environmental education and outreach in comparison to the FWS as a whole, 

they are not limited in geographic or demographic representation. 

Completion Report

This report to respondents provides a preliminary summary of the results of the survey regarding 

connecting children with nature. Although the frequencies of responses and the average response for the 

questions are useful information, these summary statistics do not constitute the final analyses of the 

survey data. A thorough description of the survey and the complete data analyses will be provided in the 

completion report. The completion report will be made available as an U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report. 

Acknowledgments

This study was requested and funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National 

Conservation Training Center, Division of Education Outreach. We appreciate the opportunity to 

conduct this timely research. We thank the FWS employees who took the time to respond to our survey. 

Two reviewers provided helpful feedback on a draft of this report: we thank Margaret Tudor, the 

Executive Director of the Pacific Education Institute and the Education Lead at the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Nancy Herron, the Manager of Outdoor Learning Programs for 

the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, for their time and effort.

References Cited

Louv, Richard, 2005, Last child in the woods—Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder: Chapel 

Hill, N.C., Algonquin Books, 334 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, Service employee pocket guide: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

unpaged, accessed Nov. 23, 2009, at http://www.fws.gov/info/pocketguide/fundamentals.htm. 
40

Publishing support provided by: 

Denver Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

(970)226-9398

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at:

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/