Conservation Corps 

Public Lands Service Coalition 

Partnership Impact Evaluation 

Final Report 

September 30, 2022 

Allie McCreary, Michael Edwards, Molly McKenna, Erin Seekamp 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Contents 

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................4 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................5 

Evaluation Procedures...................................................................................................................................8 

Sample Population ........................................................................................................................................9 

Sample population - 2019 .........................................................................................................................9 

Sample population - 2020 .......................................................................................................................10 

Sample population - 2021 .......................................................................................................................10 

Results .........................................................................................................................................................11 

Reported Partnerships.............................................................................................................................11 

Work Accomplished: Trails......................................................................................................................14 

Work Accomplished: Invasive Species..................................................................................................... 16 

Work Accomplished: Fuels ......................................................................................................................18 

Perceptions of Capacity Building and Impact..........................................................................................20 

Perceptions of Engagement, Enhancement, Efficiency (3 E’s) ............................................................20 

Three E’s..................................................................................................................................................20 

Perceptions of Partner Quality........................................................................................................... 23 

Perceptions of Effort...........................................................................................................................24 

Cost-Benefit Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 26 

“Undone Work” ..................................................................................................................................28 

Research Questions & Outcomes............................................................................................................30 

Engagement.........................................................................................................................................30 

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................................30 

Enhancement ......................................................................................................................................32 

Barriers to Corps Partnerships.................................................................................................................35 

Barriers ....................................................................................................................................................35 

Value Added from Corps Partnerships ....................................................................................................36 

Value Added ............................................................................................................................................36 

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................37 

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................38 

Appendix 1 – References.........................................................................................................................38 

Appendix 2 – Survey Instrument - 2019 .................................................................................................. 39 

Appendix 3 – Survey Instrument - 2020.................................................................................................. 50 

Appendix 4 – Survey Instrument - 2021.................................................................................................. 79 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Figures

Figure 1. The proportion of survey participants engaging with partners to complete work tasks over the 

prior 12 months 

Figure 2. Contributions to community engagement, resource enhancement, and agency efficiency by 

various partnership types. 

Figure 3. Average quality ratings of distinct partnership types. 

Figure 4. Land management personnel perceptions of effort association with various partnership types. 

Figure 5. Land management personnel perceptions of effort associated with Corps partnerships before, 

during, and after work is completed by Corps. 

Figure 6. Personnel perceptions of seven different partnership types, in terms of contributions to 

community engagement, resources enhancement, agency efficiency, and overall impact. 

Figure 7. Mean fuel acres managed by partners and non-partners agencies by year. 

Table of Tables 

Table 1. Sample population descriptive statistics for the Public Land Management Personnel survey. 

Table 2. Work completed by various types of partners, as reported by survey participants. 

Table 3. Trail work accomplishments reported by survey participants. 

Table 4. Fuel acre management accomplishments reported by survey participants. 

Table 5. Invasive species management accomplishments reported by survey participants. 

Table 6. Mean scores and standard deviations of perceived grade of agency capacity 

Table 7. COVID-19 mean impacts on engagement, enhancement, and efficiency (2020/21 only) 

Table 8. COVID-19 detailed impacts on engagement, enhancement, and efficiency (2020/21 only) 

Table 9. Mean scores and standard deviations of the importance of various program outcomes for public 

land management personnel. 

Table 10. Wave 1 (2019) land management personnel’s perceptions of who would replace personnel or 

partners if they were no longer available to complete previously assigned work. 

Table 11. Wave 2 (2020) & 3 (2021) land management personnel’s perceptions of who would replace 

personnel or partners if they were no longer available to complete previously assigned work. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12. Perceived level of community engagement by Corps partners and non-partners 

Table 13. Perceived level of resource commitment to trail/habitat work by partners and non-partners 

Table 14. Perceived quality of work by partners and non-partners 

Table 15. Planned and actual miles of trail managed by partners and non-partners 

Table 16. Planned and actual acres of habitat managed for invasive species by partners and non-partners 

Table 17. Planned and actual acres of habitat managed for forest fuels for partners and non-partners 

Acknowledgements 

Participating Public Lands Service Coalition corps and The Corps Network funded this evaluation, with 

leadership from Montana Conservation Corps. We also thank all corps and crew members for their time 

and dedicated efforts in developing, testing, refining, and implementing this evaluation. Finally, we 

thank Samantha Lockwood, MS for her contributions to the project and previous versions of reports. 

Cover photos Clockwise from left: 1. Manual tree removal, American YouthWorks, Texas Conservation Corps, 

Austin, TX. 2. Trail work, American YouthWorks, Texas Conservation Corps, Austin, TX. 3. Group work photo, 

American YouthWorks, Texas Conservation Corps, Austin, TX. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Working in a partnership model, conservation corps engage AmeriCorps members to provide land 

management agencies with resources to support community engagement [Engagement], a dependable 

workforce that balances high quality work with reduced agency costs [Efficiencies], and enhance the 

ability of public land agencies to provide for conservation and visitor recreation [Enhancement]. 

The overall aim of the proposed evaluation is to examine the impact of participating AmeriCorps 

conservation corps programs on hosting agencies’ capacity. The primary outcome-related goals are to 

determine, ultimately through quasi-experimental post-hoc comparison group design, whether there is 

evidence that conservation corps’ host partners demonstrate higher levels of engagement, efficiency, 

and environmental stewardship than similar non-hosting agencies. 

The AmeriCorps conservation corps programs contributing to this impact evaluation include: American 

Conservation Experience, Colorado Youth Corps Association, Conservation Corps of Minnesota and Iowa, 

Conservation Legacy, Delaware State Parks Veterans Conservation Corps, Kupu Hawaii, Montana 

Conservation Corps, Northwest Youth Corps, Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (NM), the SCA, American 

Youthworks (TXCC and LACC), Utah Conservation Corps and The Corps Network. 

The primary research questions and outcomes were: 

1. Do Conservation Corps increase partners’ capacity to engage communities compared to nonhost agencies as indicated by perceived levels of engagement? 

2. Do Conservation Corps increase partners’ efficiency compared to non-host agencies as 

indicated by fewer organizational resources committed to trail/habitat work and higher 

perceived quality of trail/habitat work? 

3. Do Conservation Corps increase partners’ natural resource enhancement compared to nonhost agencies as indicated by increased miles of trails improved/created and habitat acres 

improved? 

Partners surveys were distributed via Qualtrics in September-October, 2019 (Wave 1), SeptemberDecember, 2020 (Wave 2), and September-December, 2021 (Wave 3). Surveys were designed to 

examine the differences between USFS and State Parks and Land Management units that used 

conservation corps AmeriCorps programs to conduct trail and habitat work and those that use 

alternative methods (e.g., agency crews, volunteer groups, contractors) during the previous year and 

identify differences in relevant outcomes during the project period. Additionally, the repeated measure 

survey design enabled an examination of the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on work performance. 

A total of 493 respondents completed the surveys across all three waves. These respondents 

represented both USDA Forest Service (n=293, 59% of resulting sample population) and state 

parks/state land management units (n=200, 41%) across a representative distribution of the US. 67% of 

survey respondents were male (N=329), 67% had been with their current agency more than 10 years 

(N=333), and 52% had been in their current position more than 5 years (N=242). 

5 
6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Corps were among the most frequently reported partners among public land managers. 

Results suggested that conservation corps were important partners for land management agencies, 

primarily in tasks related to trail management. Land management agencies who reported partnering 

with conservation corps were able to accomplish significantly more trail management work than 

agencies who did not partner with corps. Overall, agencies working with partners were able to 

complete 61.5% miles of planned trail work compared to 50.4% of planned trail miles for agencies not 

partnering with corps. In general, work performed by Corps declined in 2020 (first year of the COVID-19 

pandemic and had variable rebounds in the 2021 season (second year of the COVID-19 pandemic). 

However, the trends were similar for most other types of partners. 

Land management personnel perceived corps partnerships make a substantial contribution to resource 

enhancement. Conservation corps’ contribution to resource enhancement was rated highest among all 

partner types. Conservation corps were also perceived to make considerable contributions to agency 

efficiency (ranked second among all partner types). 

Participants were also asked to rate the partners they had worked with over the last year in terms of 

overall quality. Quality was assessed on a 0.0-5.0 scale (similar to giving ‘star’ ratings on Amazon). Land 

managers perceived the quality of work performed by corps to be high (4 out of 5 stars), which was 

joint highest among all partner types. Managers suggested that corps required considerable resources 

from their host before they arrive, moderate resources once they are on-site, and few resources after 

their work is complete. Based on the effort, quality and impact analyses presented above, a cost-benefit 

analysis was computed to explore the relationships between these two concepts. Corps were perceived 

as highly contributing to their hosting agency’s goals, to perform high-quality work, and to require 

moderate resources or effort from agency hosts. 

Participants were asked who would complete the work of their existing personnel and partners if these 

entities were no longer available to accomplish their currently assigned tasks. In many cases, paid staff 

would be called upon to complete the work currently being performed by others. In other cases, this 

work would simply go ‘undone’ (i.e., the participant reported that the work being performed by that 

partner would or could not be replaced and so would not be completed). Across all waves of the survey, 

Corps were the most “irreplaceable” partner type identified by respondents with approximately 1/3 of 

the sample suggesting that work would not be completed if not performed by corps partners. 

Additionally, participants were able to provide comments about what they perceived to be the added 

value of working with Conservation Corps as well as barriers to engaging more fully with Corps. The 

comments generated by land management personnel in the sample population were analyzed and 

cataloged into general categories. Corps provide added value through (1) youth engagement, (2) 

relationships, (3) recruitment into the workforce, and (4) accomplishing tasks. Barriers included: (1) 

funding; (2) communication; (3) agreement processes; and (4) training. 

This report provides ongoing evidence of positive impacts to land management partners 

by Conservation Corps in relation to other types of partner organizations. Corps were 

particularly valuable in assisting partners with achieving trail management goals leading to 

higher levels of resource enhancement in comparison to other partner types. Conservation 

corps were also seen as an irreplaceable partner in terms of providing high quality work for 

the amount of agency resources required to manage. 
7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Procedures 

Previous evaluations have provided strong evidence of environmental corps programs’ impacts on 

members’ community and environmental engagement, leadership, communication skills and grit as well 

as enhanced recreational access, reduced fire risk, and improved ecological conditions for native 

species. The emerging focus of corps programs is their ability to increase organizational capacity and 

provide added value to public land agencies. Capacity building refers to activities that expand the scale, 

reach, efficiency, or effectiveness of organizations. 

Working in a partnership model, conservation corps provide land management agencies with resources 

that support community engagement [Engagement], a dependable workforce that balances high quality 

service (work) with reduced agency costs [Efficiencies], and enhance the ability of public land agencies 

to provide for conservation and visitor recreation [Enhancement]. 

Two important land management partners for conservation corps are the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) and state park systems. This evaluation will focus on the ability 

of conservation corps to enhance the capacity of these two organizations. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EVALUATION 

The overall aim of the proposed impact evaluation is to examine the outcomes of participating corps 

programs on hosting agencies’ capacity. The primary outcome-related goals are to determine, ultimately 

through quasi-experimental post-hoc comparison group design, whether there is evidence that 

conservation corps’ host partners demonstrate higher levels of engagement, efficiency, and 

environmental stewardship than similar non-hosting agencies. The primary research questions and 

outcomes are: 

1. Do Conservation Corps increase partners’ capacity to engage communities compared to non-host 

agencies as indicated by perceived levels of engagement? 

2. Do Conservation Corps increase partners’ efficiency compared to non-host agencies as indicated by 

fewer organizational resources committed to trail/habitat work and higher perceived quality of 

trail/habitat work? 

3. Do Conservation Corps increase partners’ natural resource enhancement compared to non-host 

agencies as indicated by increased miles of trails improved/created and acres of habitat improved? 

Partner surveys were distributed via Qualtrics in September-October, 2019 (Wave 1), SeptemberDecember, 2020 (Wave 2), and September-December, 2021 (Wave 3). Surveys were designed to 

examine the differences between USFS and State Parks units that used AmeriCorps conservation corps 

programs to conduct trail and habitat work and those that use alternative methods (e.g., agency crews, 

volunteer groups, contractors) during the previous year and identify differences in relevant outcomes 

during the project period. Outcome measures were to key organizational capacity variables identified in 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

partner interviews or adapted from Olsen, Cooper, and Viola’s (2016) CNCS-sponsored evaluation of 

Habitat for Humanity’s National Service Program. Primary measures include: 

● Perceptions of capacity (Three items measuring how well respondent believes agency is 

accomplishing goals related to engagement, enhancement, and efficiency); 

● Documentation of community engagement (One item requesting entry of agency hours worked 

with volunteers); 

● Documentation of resource enhancement (Three items requesting entry of the number of trail 

miles and habitat acres scheduled for maintenance and number actually maintained in the past 

12 months); 

● Documentation of partnership level (Three items to identify the percentage of miles/acres 

improved worked on by identified partners); 

● Perceptions of partners’ role in agency outcomes (Three items per identified partner to record 

perceptions of contributions of partners to outcomes); 

● Perceptions of work quality (11 items per identified partner adapted from SERVQUAL measures 

directly related to contracted services); and, 

● Resource commitment (One item per identified partner to document resources required for 

training/oversight for three project stages - pre-work, on-site work, post-work). 

Sample Population 

In total, 493 usable responses were collected via the electronic questionnaire over the three waves of 

sampling (e.g., 2019, 2020, and 2021). Respondents represented USDA Forest Service personnel (59%, 

n=293) and state park (or equivalent) personnel (41%, n=200). The majority of respondents, 84%, 

reported working with their current agency for more than 5 years. However, there was a 50% split 

between personnel who had been in their current position for more or less than 5 years. Overall, the 

majority of respondents were male (67%, n=329) and white (86%, n=424). For a review of respondents 

by wave, see the following narrative and Table 1 below. 

Sample population - 2019 

A total of 218 respondents completed the Wave 1 electronic survey. After removing those individuals 

who did not identify as either a current United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 

or a current state park employee (n=18), our resulting sample population consisted of 200 respondents. 

These respondents represented both USDA Forest Service (n=102, 51% of resulting sample population) 

and state parks units (n=98, 49%) in nearly equal proportions. The majority of respondents (84%) had 

been working within their current agency for more than five years while, overall, the time participants 

had spent in their current position was lower (56% had been in their current position five or fewer years, 

44% more than five years). About two-thirds (67%) of participants were male, about a third (29%) 

female. For a complete listing of the sample population descriptive statistics, see Table 1. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample population - 2020 

A total of 155 respondents completed the Wave 2 electronic survey. These respondents represented 

USDA Forest Service (n=59, 38% of sample population) and state park and land management units 

(n=96, 62%). The majority of respondents (90%) had been working within their current agency for more 

than five years while, overall, the time participants had spent in their current position was lower (38% 

had been in their current position five or fewer years, 62% more than five years). About two-thirds 

(67%) of participants were male, about a third (24%) female. For a complete listing of the sample 

population descriptive statistics, see Table 1. 

Sample population - 2021 

A total 138 respondents completed the Wave 3 electronic survey. These respondents represented USDA 

Forest Service (n=39, 28% of sample population) and state park and land management units (n=99, 

72%). The majority of respondents (88%) had been working within their current agency for more than 

five years while, overall, the time participants had spent in their current position was lower (45% had 

been in their current position five or fewer years, 56% more than five years). About two-thirds (67%) of 

participants were male, about a third (29%) female. For a complete listing of the sample population 

descriptive statistics, see Table 1. 

Table 1. Sample population descriptive statistics for Waves 1, 2, 3, and overall of the Public Land 

Management Personnel survey. 

Item 2019 % 

(n/200) 

2020 % 

(n/155) 

2021 % 

(n/138) 

Overall % 

(n/493) 

Unit: 

USDA Forest Service 47% (102) 38% (59) 28% (39) 59% (293) 

State parks 45% (98) 62% (96) 72% (99) 41% (200) 

Other*(removed from sample population) 8% (18) 

Years with current agency 

5 years or less 15% (33) 10% (13) 12% (18) 13% (64) 

6-10 years 13% (26) 18% (28) 21% (29) 17% (83) 

11-20 years 40% (79) 34% (52) 38% (53) 37% (184) 

More than 20 years 31% (61) 32% (50) 28% (38) 30% (149) 

Years in current position 

5 years or less 56% (94) 38% (60) 45% (61) 48% (230) 

6-10 years 21% (41) 27% (42) 25% (34) 24% (117) 

11-20 years 17% (33) 22% (34) 24% (33) 20% (100) 

More than 20 years 6% (11) 6% (9) 7% (9) 6% (29) 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 2019 % 

(n/200) 

2020 % 

(n/155) 

2021 % 

(n/138) 

Overall % 

(n/493) 

Gender: 

Male 67% (134) 67% (103) 67% (92) 67% (329) 

Female 29% (58) 24% (37) 29% (40) 27% (135) 

Prefer not to say 3% (7) 3% (4) 3% (4) 3% (15) 

Other 1% (2) 6% (12) 1% (2) 3% (16) 

*For these analyses I only selected those identifying as SP or USFS personnel (n=200). This results in 51% state park-affiliated 

and 49% USFS-affiliated respondents. 

Results 

Reported Partnerships 

Participants reported working with a diversity of partners over Wave 1 (2018-2019), with the highest 

proportion indicating partnerships with Corps, contractors, “Friends of...” groups, individual volunteers, 

and local groups (e.g., local civic organizations). Participants were also asked to specify the type of work 

performed by each partnership (see Table 2). Trail work was the most common task for, followed by 

invasive species management. Fuels management was the least common partnership task, although 

Corps, along with contractors, were the most likely partners to be contributing to fuels management 

tasks. 

Participants reported continued high levels of working with specific types of partners during Wave 2 

(2019-2020), with the highest proportion of partnerships with Corps, contractors, “Friends of...” groups, 

and individuals. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some differences were noted between 2019 and 2020. 

For many types of partners, the amount of partnership work decreased in 2020. While partnerships with 

corps decreased for trails and fuels, Corps remained the top partner for trail, invasive species, and fuel 

management among all participant agencies. It was noted that there were six instances where 

engagement with specific types of partners increased in 2020 for trails (“Friends of...” groups and 

outfitters/guides) and invasive species management (Religious/civic groups, contractors, “Friends of... 

groups, individuals, and local governments). 

Some ‘rebounds’ occurred in the partnerships reported by personnel during Wave 3 (2020-2021). For 

example, six types of partners that saw a decreased frequency of engagement with trail work in Wave 2 

–including Corps– saw an increase in frequency of trail work engagement in Wave 3. However, 

continued decline in engagement persisted more consistently in areas of invasive species and fuels 

management. Corps remained the most often engaged partner type for trail and invasive species 

management and for fuels management Corps were the most engaged partner type after only 

contractors. See Figure 1 for an illustrative deception of engagement of Corps across all three Waves of 

data collection and work areas. 

11 
 

Over the past 

year, these Invasive mgmt. % of sample Fuels mgmt. % of sample Trails %ofsample ‘yes’ (n) 

groups ‘yes’ (n) ‘yes’ (n) 

completed work 

related to... 

2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 

Paid employees 81% 78% 80% 66% 69% 49% 64% 35% 70% (14) (162) (121) (110) (102) (95)(98) (99) (48) 

Corps 60% 51% 65% 35% 31% 14% 11% 35% (70) 9% (13) (119) (80)(89) (54) (43) (28) (17) 

Religious & civic 14% 8% 9% 

groups 4% (8) 5% (7) 5% (7) --- 1% (1) 0 (28) (12) (12) 

Contractors 31% 29% 30% 35% 22% 17% 16% 15% 29% (57) (61) (45) (41) (54) (30) (33) (25) (20) 

Court ordered 7% 9% community 9% (18) 4% (7) 5% (7) 4% (6) 2% (4) 1% (2) 3% (4) (10) (12) service 

Friends of... 41% 42% 38% 19% 14% 15% (29) 2% (4) 3% (4) 1% (1) groups (81) (65) (53) (30) (21) 

Individuals 51% 46% 46% 27% 24% 26% (51) 3% (6) 3% (4) 6% (8) (101) (71)(63) (42) (33) 

Local/regional 57% 48% 44% 11% 11% 14% (28) 2% (3) 1% (2) 1% (2) groups (114) (75)(60) (17) (15) 

Local 10% 10% 11% 16% 12% 10% 13% (25) 4% (6) 5% (7) governments (20) (15) (15) (24) (16) (19) 

National groups 18% 12% 13% 9% (17) 5% (7) 2% (3) 3% (5) 2% (3) 3% (4) (36) (19) (18) 

Outfitters & 11% 13% 11% 2% (3) 3% (5) 0 1% (2) 1% (1) 1% (1) guides (21) (20) (15) 

Youth groups 32% 23% 28% 12% (23) 9% (14) 8% (11) 2% (3) 2% (3) 2% (3) (64) (36) (39) 

 

Table 2. Work completed by various types of partners, as reported by Wave 1 (2019), Wave 2 (2020), 

and Wave 3 (2021) survey participants. 

% Increased | % Decreased 

12 
 

 

 

 

Figure 1. The proportion of Wave 1, 2, & 3 survey participants engaging with Corps partners to 

complete work tasks over the prior 12 months. 

Corps were among the most frequently reported partnership types by public 

land management personnel. 

... 

Corps partnerships were also among the most likely to help agency partners 

complete tasks related to trails, invasive species, and fuels management. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Accomplished: Trails 

On average, participants reported that they had planned to manage 91 miles of trail during 2018-2019 

(range: 0-1,468 miles). Overall, 56 miles of trail (range: 0-600 miles) or 62% of the planned mileage was 

actually managed over the past year with 49 of those miles, on average (range: 0-600), managed in 

collaboration with one or more partners. On average, for respondents who reported working with a 

youth corps, 34 miles of trail were completed specifically with the assistance of a corps partner. Further, 

respondents who reported working with a conservation corps completed more (68%) of their planned 

work than those respondents who did not engage corps partners (38%). 

In 2019-2020, participants reported that they had planned to manage 95 miles of trail (range: 0-1,800 

miles). Overall, 59 miles of trail (range: 0-600 miles) or 62% of the planned mileage was actually 

managed over the year with 32 of those miles, on average (range: 0-600), managed in collaboration with 

one or more partners. The mean miles of trails managed with partners decreased 20 miles from 2019 to 

2020. On average, for respondents who reported working with a youth corps, 32 miles of trail were 

completed specifically with the assistance of a corps partner, suggesting that 100% of miles managed 

with partners were managed to some degree with corps. 

In 2020-2021, participants reported that they had planned to manage 94 miles of trail (range: 0-1,200 

miles) on average. Overall, 57 miles of trail (range: 0-600 miles) or 61% or the planned mileage was 

actually managed over the year with 31 of those miles, on average (range: 0-600 mail), managed in 

collaboration with partners. About 12 miles of trails on average (range: 0-85 miles) were managed with 

Corps partners specifically. While other numbers were similar to 2019-2020, fewer personnel reported 

engaging Corps as trail work partners in 2020-2021. Use of partners overall, did not rebound to 2019 

levels of engagement for trail work. 

14 
Item 2019 2020 2021 

Mean (Min.-Max.) Mean (Min.-Max.) Mean (Min.-Max.) 

Trail miles planned 

for management 91 (0-1,468) 95 (0-1,800) 94 (0-1,200) 

Trail miles 56 (0-600) 59 (0-1,100) 57 (0-600) 

managed 62% ofplanned trails are 62% ofplanned trails are 61% ofplanned trails are 

managed managed managed 

Trail miles 52 (0-600) 32 (0-600) 31 (0-600) 

managed with 92% oftrails managed are 54% oftrails managed are 54% oftrails managed are 

partners done so with partners. done so with partners. done so with partners 

32 (0-1,000) 12 (0-85) 

Trail miles 37 (0-1000*) 100% of miles managed 40% ofmiles managed with 

managed with 

Corps partners 

71% ofmiles managed with 

partners are managed by 

with partners are managed 

by Corps 

partners are managed by 

Corps 

Corps. 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Trail work accomplishments reported by survey participants. 

% Increased | % Decreased 

Land management personnel utilized partners less for trail work, overall, in 

2020 & 2021 compared to 2019. While all Wave 2 participants who reported 

engaging partners for trail work, engaged Conservation Corps for at least 

part of that work, Wave 3 personnel engaged with Corps specifically, as trail 

partners, only 40% of the time. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Accomplished: Invasive Species 

In 2019, participants reported that they planned to manage an average of 2,270 acres for invasive plant 

species (range: 0-250,000 acres). The actual number of acres managed for invasive species was about 

57% of that which was planned (1,292 acres on average). Of the average acres managed, 45% were 

managed with the help of some partner. Agency personnel working with Corps had, on average, more 

acres of invasive species planned and accomplished than personnel not working with Corps. On average, 

agency partners reported managing 134 acres with the help of Corps (23% of the average acres). 

Personnel not engaging Corps accomplished less, overall, and relied more heavily on other partner types 

to accomplish invasive species management tasks. 

In 2020, participants reported that they planned to manage significantly more acres of invasive plant 

species than the previous year, with an average of 3,470 acres of invasive species management planned 

per respondent (range: 0-30,000 acres). The actual number of acres managed for invasive species was 

about 73% of that which was planned (2,540 acres on average), a significant increase from 2019. Of the 

average acres managed, 96% were managed with the help of some partner (an increase of over 100% 

from 2019). However, the proportion of acres managed in partnership with corps remained at 

approximately 1⁄4 of the total acres managed with partners. 

In 2021, participants reported that they planned to manage still fewer acres of invasive plant species 

than the previous year, with an average of 1,692 acres of invasive species management planned per 

respondent (range: 0-80,000 acres). The actual number of acres managed for invasive species was about 

81% of that which was planned (1,368 acres on average), an increase from 2019 and 2020. Of the 

average acres managed, 58% were managed with the help of some partner (a decrease from 2020, 

although still a larger proportion than in 2019). However, the proportion of acres managed in 

partnership with corps decreased to 3% of the total acres managed with partners. 

16 
Item 2019 2020 2021 

Mean (Min.-Max.) Mean (Min.-Max.) Mean (Min.-Max.) 

Invasive acres 

planned for 2,270 (0-250,000) 3,470 (0-30,000) 1,692 (0-80,000) 

management 

1,292 (0-10,000) 2,540 (0-30,000) 1,368 (0-80,000) 

Invasive acres 57% ofacres planned for 73% ofacres planned for 81% of acres planned for 

managed invasives mgmt. are invasives mgmt. are invasive species 

managed. managed. management aremanaged 

Invasive acres 584 (0-30,000*) 2,430 (0-30,000) 799 (0-60,000) 

managed with 45% ofmanaged acres are 96% ofmanaged acres are 58% ofmanaged acres are 

partners managed with partners. managed with partners managed with partners 

Invasive acres 

managed with 

Corps partners 

134 (0-8,200) 

23% ofacres managed with 

partners aremanaged with 

Corps. 

597 (1-1,000) 

25% ofacres managed with 

partners aremanaged with 

Corps. 

27 (0-1,000) 

3% of acres managed with 

partners aremanaged with 

Corps 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Invasive species management accomplishments reported by survey participants. 

% Increased | % Decreased 

Participating personnel reported larger, overall, invasive species 

management projects in 2020 but this decreased in 2021. There was an 

increase in invasive species management work completed and more 

emphasis on partners, including Corps in 2020 but a decrease in 2021. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Accomplished: Fuels 

In terms of fuel load management, in 2019 participants reported that, on average, they had planned to 

manage 4,273 acres (range: 0-90,000) over the last year. On average, about 61% of their planned work 

was accomplished and of that accomplished work, 28% of the acres managed were done so in tandem 

with the assistance of one or more partners. Agency personnel reported that 38% of acres managed 

with partners were done so with Corps. 

In 2020, agency personnel reported significantly fewer planned acres of fuel management in 2020, with 

an average of 2,280 (range 0-150,000). Additionally, the planned work accomplished remained at 61% of 

the planned work. However, the role of partners, and especially corps in partnerships focused on fuel 

load management increased significantly. The proportion of acres managed with partners increased to 

66%, with corps partnerships managing 82% of those acres. 

In 2021, agency personnel reported slightly more planned acres of fuel management than in 2020, while 

still a decrease from 2019, with an average of 2,986 acres (range 0-189,000 acres). The amount of 

planned work that was accomplished remained at increased in 2021 with 75% of the planned work 

being managed. However, the role of partners, and especially corps in partnerships focused on fuel load 

management decreased. The proportion of acres managed with partners decreased to 63%, with corps 

partnerships managing only 1% of those acres in 2021. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Fuel acre management accomplishments reported by survey participants. 

Item 2019 2020 2021 

Mean (Min.-Max.) Mean (Min.-Max.) Mean (Min.-Max.) 

Fuels acres planned 

for management 4,273 (0-90,000) 2,280 (0-150,000) 2,986 (0-189,000) 

Fuels acres 

managed 

2,594 (0-75,000) 

61% of acres planned for 

fuels mgmt. are managed. 

1,390 (0-125,000) 

61% of acres planned for 

fuels mgmt. are managed 

2,242 (0-115,714) 

75% of acres planned for 

fuels mgmt. are managed 

Fuels acres 

managed with 

partners 

737 (0-30,000) 

28% of managed acres are 

managed with partners. 

913 (0-10,000) 

66% of managed acres are 

managed with partners. 

1,406 (0-115,714) 

63% of managed acres are 

managed with partners 

Fuels acres 

managed with 

280 (0-10,000) 

38% of acres managed with 

partners are managed with 

Corps. 

746 (2-888) 

82% of acres managed with 

partners are managed with 

Corps 

7 (0-100) 

1% of acres managed with 

partners are managed with 

Corps 

% Increased | % Decreased 

While fuel project planned and managed increased or rebounded from 2020 

and 2019 respectively, fewer fuels projects were completed with partners, 

specifically Corps, in 2021. 

Findings reveal that Corps remain important partners for land management 

agencies, but that these relationships saw a decrease in COVID-19 

pandemic-impacted years 2020 and 2021. 

... 

It is likely the Corps, such as other highly-engaged partner types (i.e., local 

governments, outfitters, and contractors) were able to navigate some of the 

challenges presented by COVID-19 due to their organizational structure and 

enhanced autonomy in completing work safely in self-contained crews. 

However, there were decreases in partnership engagement, including Corps, 

in 2020 and 2021. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceptions of Capacity Building and Impact 

Perceptions of Engagement, Enhancement, Efficiency (3 E’s) 

Three E’s 

Participants were asked to ‘grade’ their agency in terms of how well their state park or Forest Service 

unit was performing in three areas: community engagement, natural, cultural, and/or recreation 

resource enhancement, and overall efficiency. On average, across all three surveys, participating 

personnel graded their agency/unit as a “D” average in all three areas (see Table 5). However, 

participants also reported that these elements (engagement, enhancement, and efficiency are very 

important functions of their agencies' partnerships (see Table 6). Respondents indicated that the 

COVID-19 pandemic had a weak to moderate negative impact on their agencies’ efforts at resource 

enhancement and efficiency and a stronger negative impact on their community engagement efforts 

(Tables 7 and 8). 

Table 6. Mean scores and standard deviations of perceived grade of agency capacity 

Engagement Grade Enhancement Grade Efficiency Grade 

Overall Mean* (SD) 2.04 (0.86) 1.98 (0.76) 1.93 (0.81) 

Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviations of the importance of partnerships in contributing to 

agency capacity outcomes for public land management personnel 

Item: Overall 

Mean (SD) 

Community engagement 4.08 (0.96) 

Agency efficiency 4.05 (0.96) 

Recreation and/or resource enhancement 4.21 (0.91) 

Scale: 1= not at all important; 2= slightly important; 3=moderately important; 4= very important; 5=extremely important 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. COVID-19 mean impacts on engagement, enhancement, and efficiency (2020/21 only) 

How has COVID-19 impacted your program or area of responsibility in terms of... 2020/2021 Mean* 

(SD) 

Community engagement -1.24 (1.72) 

Resource enhancement -0.86 (1.54) 

Efficiency -0.86 (1.60) 

*Scale: strong, positive = 3; moderate, positive = 2; weak, positive = 1; neither positive nor negative = 0; weak, negative = -1; 

moderate, negative = -2; strong, negative =-3 

In answering these questions, participants considered the following definitions: 

Weak/Strong - refers to how intensely you felt the impact of COVID-19 

Positive/Negative - refers to the direction of the COVID-19 impact 

Table 9. COVID-19 detailed impacts on engagement, enhancement, and efficiency (2020/21 only) 

How has COVID-19 

impacted... 

% Strong, 

negative 

% 

Moderate, 

negative 

% Weak, 

negative 

% 

Neither 

positive 

or 

negative 

% Weak, 

positive 

% 

Moderate, 

positive 

% 

Strong, 

positive 

Engagement 25% 34% 15% 9% 5% 10% 2% 

Enhancement 14% 27% 21% 22% 8% 6% 2% 

Efficiency 15% 24% 26% 16% 7% 9% 3% 

Agency personnel reported that partnerships were very important contributors to agency capacity 

outcomes (Table 6). Previous research (e.g., Duerden, Edwards & Lizzo, 2015) demonstrates that 

partners can be key in enhancing how well agencies are performing in these areas. When asked to rate 

their partners’ contributions to engagement, enhancement, and efficiency, personnel reported that 

many partnerships made moderate to substantial contributions (see Figure 2). For community 

engagement, local governments, local groups, youth groups, and “Friends of...” groups were among 

those partnership types to make the most substantial contribution. For resource enhancement, Corps 

were the only partner type top-rated, along with the agency’s own personnel. Corps, along with paid 

contractors, “Friends of...” groups, and local governments were also reported as highly contributing to 

agency efficiency. 

21 
 

 

 

 

Corps are perceived as a key partner in providing resource enhancement 

benefits to their hosting agency partners. Corps were also second among all 

types of partners that enhance agency efficiency for public land personnel. 

Figure 2. Contributions to community engagement, resource enhancement, and agency efficiency by 

various partnership types. 

Scaled used: 5 = Substantial Contribution, 4 = Considerable Contribution, 3 = Moderate Contribution, 2 = Little 

Contribution, 1 = No contribution 

22 
 

 

 

 

Corps are perceived as performing high quality work by their agency (state 

park and USDA Forest Service) hosts. 

Perceptions of Partner Quality 

Participants were also asked to rate the partners they had worked with in terms of overall quality. 

Quality was assessed on a 0.0-5.0 scale (similar to giving ‘star’ ratings on Amazon). Overall across all 

three year of the survey, personnel ranked Corps and contractors as groups providing the highest quality 

of work. Individuals, national groups, local/regional groups and “Friends of...” groups received the next 

highest, overall, rating followed by local governments, outfitters & guides, and youth groups. Religious 

groups and court-ordered community service were perceived, by the sample of survey participants, to 

offer the lowest quality work for the agency. 

Figure 3. Average quality ratings of distinct partnership types, as reported by participants 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceptions of Effort 

Public land management personnel participants were also asked to assess level of effort in coordinating 

the partnerships they engage. Effort was operationalized in three categories: the “pre” effort of 

recruiting, marketing, setting up, providing advanced training, or otherwise dealing with partners before 

they arrived on site to complete work; “on-site” effort including training on-site and leadership, 

management and oversight provided by the agency personnel on-site; and “post” effort including 

documentation, reporting, evaluation, and/or recognition that occurred after the partner had departed 

from completing on-site work. Personnel rated the effort they put forward on a five-point scale with 

options of: 1= No resources, 2= Few resources, 3= Moderate resources, 4= Considerable resources, or 5= 

Substantial resources required by the personnel in either the pre, on-site, or post partnership context. 

The combined, average perceived effort personnel associate with various types of partners are 

illustrated in Figure 4. Overall, Corps and contractors –two partners perceived as highest quality– are 

perceived as requiring the most overall effort to engage with on enhancement or engagement tasks. 

Youth groups also emerged as a partner type requiring increased effort from personnel to engage, likely 

due to the need to provide increased oversight and supervision for youth participants. The breakdown 

of perceived effort score for Corps partnerships are illustrated in Figure 5. Corps require moderate 

resources from their agency host before they arrive (mean=3.45) and once they are on-site 

(mean=3.56), and fewer resources from personnel after their work is complete (mean =2.61). 

Corps require: moderate resources from their agency host before they arrive 

& once they are on-site, and fewer resources after their work is complete. 

Figure 4. Land management personnel perceptions of effort associated with various partnership types 

24 
 

 

Figure 5. Land management personnel perceptions of effort associated with Corps partnerships 

before, during, and after work is completed by Corps 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Based on the impacts, effort, and quality analyses presented above, a cost-benefit analysis was 

computed to explore the relationships between these concepts. The total impact score (i.e., partners’ 

contributions to engagement, enhancement and efficiency) was multiplied by the mean quality score, 

this product was then divided by the total effort metric to produce a final “cost-benefit” quotient. Costbenefit values could range in value from 0 (low benefit for the cost) to 5 (high benefit for the cost). As 

illustrated in Figure 6 below, partner types exemplifying a valuable cost-benefit ratio (all ranked above a 

4.0) included national groups, individuals, local and regional groups, ‘Friends of...” groups, Conservation 

Corps, and local governments. Court-ordered community service groups and youth groups were 

perceived to have the poorest cost-benefit relationship. 

While the rank order of overall ‘cost-benefit’ within the bottom two and top 

five partner types varied between years, membership within the top and 

bottom groups did not change. Corps remain a very impactful partner type 

for agency personnel. 

26 
 

 

 

Benefits 

greater National Groups 

(mean=4.7) 

Costs 

greater 

Individuals 

(mean=4.5) 

Local & regional 

(mean=4.5) 

“Friends of...” 

(mean=4.4) 

Corps 

(mean=4.3) 

Local government 

(mean=4.1) 

Contractors 

(mean=3.8) 

Outfitters & Guides 

(mean=3.3) 

Religious/civic 

(mean=2.9) 

Court-ordered 

(mean=2.8) 

Youth Groups 

(mean=2.6) 

Figure 6. Personnel perceptions of different partnership types, in terms of contributions to community 

engagement, resources enhancement, agency efficiency, quality, and effort 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Undone Work” 

Participants were asked who would complete the work of existing personnel and partners if these 

entities were no longer available to accomplish currently assigned tasks. In many cases, paid staff would 

be called upon to complete the work currently being performed by others. In other cases this work 

would simply go ‘undone’ (i.e., the participant reported that the work being performed by that partner 

would or could not be replaced and so would not be completed). It was reported that either paid 

personnel would be used to replace other paid personnel, Corps, contractors, individual volunteers, and 

the work of local groups or that the work of these groups would be left ‘undone’ through their absence. 

Table 10. Wave 1 (2019) land management personnel’s perceptions of who would replace personnel 

or partners if they were no longer available to complete previously assigned work 

If the entities below did not exist, the 

work they do would be completed by: 

Paid Staff 

% of sample (n) 

Another Partner 

% of sample (n) 

Would not be 

completed 

% of sample (n) 

Paid employees 35% (69) 11% (21) 58% (115) 

Corps 35% (70) 23% (45) 33% (66) 

Religious & civic groups 5% (10) 5% (9) 8% (16) 

Contractors 30% (60) 12% (23) 28% (55) 

Court ordered community service 4% (8) 4% (7) 6% (12) 

Friends of... groups 18% (36) 7% (14) 27% (53) 

Individuals 32% (63) 11% (22) 29% (57) 

Local/regional groups 27% (54) 14% (27) 32% (64) 

Local governments 9% (18) 8% (15) 9% (17) 

National groups 5% (10) 9% (17) 14% (28) 

Outfitters & guides 2% (3) 1% (2) 9% (18) 

Youth groups 13% (26) 12% (23) 17% (34) 

Note: respondents only reported how a partner would be replaced if they worked with that partner type over the past 12 

months (so rows may not add to 100%) and respondents could select more than one option (i.e., would be replaced by paid 

employees AND other partners) therefore row totals may exceed 100%. 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11. Wave 2 (2020) and Wave 3 (2021) land management personnel’s perceptions of who would 

replace personnel or partners if they were no longer available to complete previously assigned work 

If the entities below did 

not exist, the work they 

do would be completed 

by: 

Paid Staff % of sample 

‘yes’ (n) 

Another Partner % of 

sample ‘yes’ (n) 

Would not be completed% 

of sample ‘yes’ (n) 

2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 

Paid employees 30% (46) 30% (42) 7% (11) 8% (11) 52% (80) 51% (71) 

Corps 22% (34) 25% (35) 10% (16) 11% (15) 29% (45) 32% (44) 

Religious & civic 3% (4) 7% (10) 3% (5) 2% (3) 5% (7) 2% (3) 

Contractors 22% (34) 17% (24) 12% (19) 8% (11) 21% (32) 22% (30) 

Court ordered 5% (7) 5% (7) 1% (1) 6% (8) 3% (4) 11% (15) 

Friends of... groups 16% (24) 19% (26) 8% (13) 7% (10) 21% (33) 16% (22) 

Individuals 25% (39) 22% (30) 6% (9) 8% (11) 18% (28) 24% (33) 

Local/regional groups 16% (24) 11% (15) 10% (16) 10% (14) 21% (32) 26% (36) 

Local governments 10% (15) 7% (10) 7% (11) 3% (4) 8% (12) 9% (13) 

National groups 3% (5) 4% (6) 6% (9) 6% (8) 5% (7) 5% (7) 

Outfitters & guides 3% (4) 2% (3) 4% (6) 1% (2) 7% (10) 7% (9) 

Youth groups 12% (18) 8% (11) 5% (7) 9% (12) 10% (15) 15% (21) 

Corps were the most “irreplaceable” partner type identified by respondents 

with about a third of the participants in each wave suggesting that work 

would not be completed if not performed by Corps partners. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Questions & Outcomes 

To answer the overall research questions of the evaluation, a sub-sample of 88 matched pairs (N=176) of 

respondents working for an agency that either partners or does not partner with Corps were identified 

for further analysis. The matched pairs were selected based on comparable proxy measures for agency 

capacity, including miles of planned trail maintenance and planned acres of habitat management, 

agency type, years in current position, and years with current agency for the respondent. Pairs were 

matched within (not across) survey waves. 

Engagement 

Research Question 1 asked: Do Conservation Corps increase host partners’ capacity to engage 

communities compared to non-host agencies as indicated by perceived levels of engagement? Mean 

scores and standard deviations for perceived engagement are presented in Table 12. 

Table 12. Perceived level of community engagement by Corps partners and non-partners 

Mean (SD) 

Corps Partners 2.15 (0.81) 

Non-Partners 2.00 (0.84) 

There was no significant effect for corps partnership on engagement, t(174) = 1.21, p = .23,d = .18 

despite partners reporting slightly higher perceived engagement scores than non-partners. 

Efficiency 

Research Question 3 asked: Do Conservation Corps increase host partners’ efficiency compared to nonpartners as indicated by fewer organizational resources committed to trail and habitat work and higher 

perceived quality of trail and habitat work? 

Resources 

Perceived level of resource commitment to trail/habitat work was measured relative to three periods in 

the work process: Prior to projects commencing (Pre-Work Phase), while projects were underway (Work 

Phase), and following the completion of the scheduled project (Post-Work Phase). The means and 

standard deviations of perceived level of resource commitment by partnership status are presented in 

Table 13. 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Perceived level of resource commitment to trail/habitat work by partners and non-partners 

Pre-Work 

Phase 

Mean (SD) 

Work 

Phase 

Mean (SD) 

Post-Work 

Phase 

Mean (SD) 

Corps Partner 3.15 (0.64) 3.11 (0.71) 2.45 (0.69) 

Non-Partner 3.02 (0.85) 3.21 (0.95) 2.57 (0.92) 

Non-partners reported committing slightly fewer resources to trail/habitat work than partners prior to 

work commencing. However, non-partners reported committing slightly more resources to trail/habitat 

work while projects were underway and post-work compared to partners. However, MANOVA for 

resource commitment indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in resource 

commitment based on Corps partnership status, F = 2.03, p =.111; Wilk's Λ = .965, partial η2 = .04.

Quality of Work 

An overall measure of quality of work was calculated based on the mean perceived quality of work 

measure for all partners. The mean perceived quality of work for trail/habitat work based on 

partnership status are presented in Table 14. 

Table 14. Perceived quality of work by partners and non-partners 

Quality of Work 

Mean (SD) 

Corps Partner 3.51 (0.72) 

Non-Partner 3.40 (0.79) 

There was no significant effect for corps partnership quality of work, t(174) = .694, p = .39,d = .14 

despite partners reporting slightly higher perceived quality scores than non-partners. 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhancement 

Research Question 2 asked: Do Conservation Corps increase host partners’ natural resource 

enhancement compared to non-partners as indicated by increased miles of trails improved/created and 

acres of habitat improved? 

Trails 

Table 15 presents miles of trail planned for management and the total miles managed by partnership 

status. 

Table 15. Planned and actual miles of trail managed by partners and non-partners 

Corps Partners 

Mean (SD) 

Non-Partners 

Mean (SD) 

Miles of Trail Planned for Management 89.22 (193.8) 73.94 (215.1) 

Actual Miles of Trail Managed 54.95 (135.9) 36.89 (122.3) 

Corps partners reported higher mileage of trails maintained, repaired, or constructed than nonpartners. There was also an overall increase of trail work conducted in year 2 (2020) and year 3 (2021) of 

the survey during the peak of the COVID 19 pandemic. Controlling for year, linear models indicated that 

there was a statistically significant difference in miles of trails improved or created based on Corps 

partnership status, F = 28.42, p =.011. This difference had a large effect size (partial η2 = .90).

Overall, corps partners in the match sample improved or created 1,534 

more miles of trail than agencies not collaborating with conservation corps. 

Partner agencies were able to complete 61.5% of scheduled trail work 

compared to 50.4% of scheduled work completed by non-partners. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invasive Species 

The mean acres of habitat planned for invasive species management and the total acres managed for 

invasive species by partnership status are presented in Table 16. 

Table 16. Planned and actual acres of habitat managed for invasive species by partners and nonpartners 

Corps Partners 

Mean (SD) 

Non-Partners 

Mean (SD) 

Acres of Habitat Planned for Invasive Species Management 467.6 (926.9) 477.1 (1138.6) 

Actual Acres of Habitat Managed for Invasive Species 272.4 (503.2) 354.0 (1024.6) 

Examining acres of invasive species management, ANOVA models indicated that there was no 

statistically significant difference in acres managed for invasive species based on Corps partnership 

status, F = .192, p =.704, partial η2 = .09.

Forest Fuels Management 

The mean acres of habitat planned for forest fuels management and the total acres managed for forest 

fuels by partnership status are presented in Table 17. 

Table 17. Planned and actual acres of habitat managed for forest fuels for partners and non-partners 

Corps Partners 

Mean (SD) 

Non-Partners 

Mean (SD) 

Acres of Habitat Planned for Forest Fuels 2,499.4 (9,938.9) 1,364.64 (6,580.4) 

Actual Acres of Habitat Managed for Forest Fuels 272.4 (503.2) 354.0 (1024.6) 

Examining acres of forest fuel management, ANOVA models indicated that there was no statistically 

significant difference in acres managed for forest fuels based on Corps partnership status, F = .668, p 

=.492, partial η2 = .23. However, it was interesting to note that the interaction effect between partner 

status and year approached significance (F = 2.54, p = .082) that suggested more acres of forest fuels 

were managed by corps partner agencies in 2019 than in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to non-partner 

agencies. The interaction effect of mean fuel acres managed by year and partnership status is illustrated 

in Figure 7. This result indicates that partner agencies managed more fuel acres in 2019 in comparison 

to non-partner agencies. By 2021, non-partner agencies were managing more fuel acres than partner 

agencies. 

33 
Figure 7. Mean fuel acres managed by partners and non-partners agencies by year 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Barriers to Corps Partnerships 

Barriers 

Participants were able to provide comments about what they perceived to be barriers to engaging more 

fully with Corps partners. The comments generated by land management personnel in the sample 

population were analyzed and cataloged into four general categories: (1) funding; (2) communication; 

(3) agreement processes; and (4) training. The funding barrier was commonly described as a deficit from 

the agency/host side of the partnership. Personnel stated that using the corps “costs much more than 

the work actually accomplished, and the cost continues to rise to use conservation corps groups” and 

that their “projects are often limited by what [they] are able to finance from [their] budget.” 

Communication barriers included challenges in agency-corps communication and in agency-member 

recruitment. One participant stated that “better communication between both parties [Corps and 

agency] related to expectations, training, and resources sharing” was needed. Another commented that, 

“there is always room for improving communication and outreach efforts to get more youth interested 

and engaged.” Related to barriers to agency-corps communication, was a perceived barrier related to 

the agreements process, specifically, agency partners found the agreement process to be difficult to 

navigate and inefficient. Personnel stated that “the Grants and Agreements portion of working with 

conservation corps has been a stumbling block” and a need for “increased efficiency in [the] agreement 

process.” In terms of training barriers, personnel felt that the Corps themselves lacked the necessary 

training, for example: “conservation corps lack sufficient training,” and that there needed to be 

“improvements to training regimen so Corps come in with the skills they need” and, that they as agency 

hosts needed better training, specifically “more training or information on how to hire a crew.” 

Communication about how to set up agreements and recruit Corps 

members could be effective in overcoming perceived barriers to forming 

successful Corps partnerships in state parks and national forests. 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Added from Corps Partnerships 

Value Added 

Participants were offered a space to share about their experiences of how value is added to their work 

from partnering with the corps. From the responses, it seems that the corps brings value that can be 

categorized in four general themes: 1) recruiting; 2) relationships; 3) youth engagement; and 4) 

accomplishing tasks. These categories are aspects of partnerships that seem to contribute to a positive 

experience, according to respondents. 

The first of these themes was related to recruiting. Many of the respondents noted that they hope to 

use the corps as a hiring pool for the future, and that corps members tend to be really great candidates 

for working within the agencies because they already know the name of the game and can be further 

trained pretty easily. Personnel shared that they “find that the conservation corps contain a strong 

candidate pool for such future leaders” and “Conservation Corps produces some of the best young, welltrained and motivated individuals for employment in state parks.” 

The second theme that emerged from the responses was the idea that the agencies are highly 

appreciative of the relationships built through working with the corps, and the sense of community that 

comes along with that. It seems like there’s a great deal of community building surrounding the agencies 

and corps members, and the responses highlighted that. For example, respondents stated that they 

want to “work and mentor, side by side, every work day with corps to achieve this goal to protect natural 

and cultural resources” and that corps members are “easier to work with than state agency employees.” 

The third theme emerged as many of the respondents noted that youth engagement was a key value 

gained from working with the corps, stating the importance they felt of teaching today’s youth and 

engaging them in environmentalism and conservation. They felt that part of the value added from the 

corps was the “intrinsic value of working with youth and help them develop a land/habitat/wildlife 

conservation and work ethic.” Additionally, agencies discussed the value of “working with young people 

and working to foster an interest in conservation,” noting that fostering that sense of responsibility to 

the environment and conservation in youth was something that was highly valued. Lastly, the fourth 

theme that came from the responses was that the corps could accomplish things that would not get 

done without them or their assistance. Personnel noted that without the corps, things wouldn’t get 

done: “The work they accomplish would simply go undone due to a lack of time/staffing if we did not 

have access to the crews.” 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions 

Conservation Corps were among the most frequently reported partners among public land managers. 

Results suggested that Corps were important partners for land management agencies, primarily in tasks 

related to trail management. Land management agencies who reported partnering with Corps were 

able to accomplish significantly more trail management work than agencies who did not partner with 

Corps. 

In terms of contributions to partners’ organizational capacity, land management personnel perceived 

Corps partnerships make a substantial contribution to resource enhancement. Conservation corps’ 

contribution to resource enhancement was rated the highest among all partner types. Corps were also 

perceived to make a considerable contribution to agency efficiency (ranked second among all partner 

types). 

Land managers perceived the quality of work performed by Corps to be joint highest among all 

partner types. In terms of agency resources required to manage partnerships, managers suggested that 

Corps required considerable resources from their host before they arrive, moderate resources once they 

are on-site, and few resources after their work is complete. Corps were perceived as highly contributing 

to their hosting agency’s goals, to perform high-quality work, and to require moderate resources or 

effort from agency hosts. 

Across all waves of the survey, Corps were the most “irreplaceable” partner type identified by 

respondents with approximately 1/3 of the sample suggesting that work would not be completed if not 

performed by Corps partners. 

Additionally, repsondents were able to provide comments about what they perceived to be the added 

value of working with Corps as well as barriers to engaging more fully with Corps. Corps provide added 

value through (1) youth engagement, (2) relationships, (3) recruitment into the workforce, and (4) 

accomplishing tasks. Barriers included: (1) funding; (2) communication; (3) agreement processes; and (4) 

training. 

This report provides ongoing evidence of positive impacts to land management partners by 

Conservation Corps in relation to other types of partner organizations. Corps were particularly valuable 

in assisting partners with achieving trail management goals leading to higher levels of resource 

enhancement in comparison to other partner types. Corps were also seen as an irreplaceable partner in 

terms of providing high quality work for the amount of agency resources required to manage. 

37 
 

 

Appendices 

Appendix 1 – References 

Duerden, M. D., Edwards, M. B., Lizzo, R. (2015). Participant impact of the conservation corps 

experience. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 7(1), 35-47. 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2 – Survey Instrument - 2019 

Public Lands & Partnerships - Personnel Perceptions 

Start of Block: Intro 

Public Lands & Partnerships - Survey of Personnel Perceptions 

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. The intent of this survey is to understand the 

perceptions of agency personnel who work to varying degrees (or not at all) with agency partners, such 

as Youth Corps, volunteers, and contractors, to complete trail and habitat tasks. As a public agency 

employee, your participation in this study will help improve the knowledge of how partnerships 

influence public land management agencies’ ability to engage with nearby communities, complete 

resource & recreation management tasks, and run as efficiently as possible. 

Your participation is voluntary and you may choose to exit the survey at any time. All data will be 

confidential; any potentially identifying information (agency name or location, or position title) will not 

be reported with your responses. There are no known risks for participating. An optional incentive ($15 

electronic Amazon gift card) is offered for those who complete the survey that will take you to a 

separate form (to protect anonymity of survey responses). If you elect to accept this incentive you will 

do so through a prompt at the end of the survey where you can provide an e-mail address to which the 

gift card will be delivered. Participation will take approximately 15-20 minutes. 

For more information or questions please contact: 

Mike Edwards, Assoc. Professor 

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management 

North Carolina State University 

mbedwards@ncsu.edu 

Q1 In your current position, do you work for: 

a State Park system (1) 

a National Forest system (2) 

Some other agency (not a state park or national forest) (3) 

Q2 What is your official position title? 

(e.g., Partnership coordinator, Recreation Technician, Park Manager, etc.) 

Page Break 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Throughout this survey we would like you to consider each question in relation to your current position 

and the primary tasks you are involved with on a day-to-day basis. Your ratings should reflect your 

feelings towards the scope of activities for which you are responsible. 

Perceptions of Capacity 

In this section we'd like you to consider, and rate, your capacity to achieve organizational goals related 

to community engagement, agency efficiency, and resource or recreation management and estimate 

your program's capacity (the scope for which you are responsible) to complete work targets. Specifically, 

we would like you to "grade" the extent to which you perceive you are able to accomplish programmatic 

goals related to (i) community engagement, (ii) resource enhancement, and (iii) the efficiency of your 

program or area of responsibility. 

Q3 Based on your experience, how well are you able to accomplish goals related to community 

engagement within your program area or area of responsibility? (for example, connecting with 

community members, educating the public, or raising awareness about the agency) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: 

A: you are accomplishing the right amount of community engagement currently 

B: you are accomplishing almost the right amount of community engagement 

C: while your doing some community engagement, you believe there is room for improvement D: 

community engagement efforts are limited, there is great room for improvement 

F: you do not currently feel that you are meeting your goals for community engagement 

*Grade slider* 

Q54 Based on your experience, how well are you able to accomplish goals related to resource 

enhancement within your program area or area of responsibility? (for example, building and 

maintaining trails or managing for invasive species or forest fuels) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: 

A: you are accomplishing the right amount of resource enhancement currently 

B: you are accomplishing almost the right amount of resource enhancement 

C: while your doing some resource enhancement, you believe there is room for improvement 

D: resource enhancement efforts are limited, there is great room for improvement 

F: you do not currently feel that you are meeting your goals for resource enhancement 

*Grade slider* 

Q5 How efficient is your program or area of responsibility? (for example, at reducing the cost of getting 

work done or effectively accomplishing goals with fewer resources) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: 

A: Extremely efficient 

B: Very efficient 

C: Moderately efficient 

D: Slightly efficient 

F: Not at all efficient 

*Grade slider* 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page Break 

Q6 Over the past 12 months, how many miles (best estimate) of trail managed by your program or 

area of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Scheduled for repair, maintenance, or creation (i.e., new trails) 

Actually repaired, improved, or created 

Repaired, maintained, or created with the help of partners 

Q7 Over the past 12 months, how many acres (best estimate) of land managed by your program or 

area of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Scheduled for invasive species maintenance/management 

Actually maintained/managed for invasive species 

Maintained/managed for invasive species with the help of partners 

Q8 Over the past 12 months, how many acres (best estimate) of land managed by your program area 

or area of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Scheduled for maintenance/management for forest fuels 

Actually maintained/managed for forest fuels 

Maintained/managed for forest fuels with the help of partners 

End of Block: Intro 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start of Block: Benefits & Quality 

Perceptions of Roles, Benefits & Quality 

In this section, we would like you to consider who is completing work in your program area and their 

roles, how they benefit your program/agency, and the quality of work they deliver. 

Q9 Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your program area or area of responsibility 

related to: 

Check all that apply. 

TRAILS (1) INVASIVE SPECIES FUELS MGMT. (3) 

MGMT. (2) 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth Conservation Corps, Job Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups (churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid contractors/concessionaires 

Court-ordered community service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups (hiking, equestrian, biking, hunting clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, etc.) 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply.” 

Q10 Below are categories of individuals, groups, and organizations that you identified as completing trail 

and habitat work for your program area. Please respond to the following sets of questions related to 

your perceptions of these individuals, groups, and organizations. 

To what extent have the partners you work with contributed to these three outcomes over the past 

12 months? 

Community Engagement: connecting with community members, educating the public, raising awareness 

Agency Efficiency: reducing cost of getting work done, effectively accomplishing goals with fewer 

resources 

Resource/Recreation Enhancement: effectively managing and maintaining habitats and trails, providing 

opportunities to visit, addressing maintenance backlogs 

5 = Substantial Contribution, 4 = Considerable Contribution, 3 = Moderate Contribution, 2 = Little 

Contribution, 1 = No contribution 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community Agency Recreation/resource 

engagement efficiency enhancement 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth Conservation Corps, Job Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups (churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid contractors/concessionaires 

Court-ordered community service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups (hiking, equestrian, biking, hunting clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, etc.) 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q11 Using the stars below, how would you rate the quality of work provided by the following entities 

over the past 12 months? 

For example, 5 stars indicates the highest level of quality. Please note that you may assign half stars. 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth Conservation Corps, Job Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups (churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid contractors/concessionaires 

Court-ordered community service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups (hiking, equestrian, biking, hunting clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, etc.) 

Page Break 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q12 Now, we would like you to consider: if, within the next year, the following individuals, groups, or 

organizations did not exist, who would complete those tasks they are currently performing? 

Think about this generally, such as who is most likely to or who would the majority of the time. Choose 

the response(s) that best describes how the work these partnerships complete would be replaced. 

Be completed by Be completed by Not be completed 

paid staff (1) another partner (3) 

(2) 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth Conservation Corps, Job Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups (churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid contractors/concessionaires 

Court-ordered community service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups (hiking, equestrian, biking, hunting clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, etc.) 

Page Break 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q13 Over the past 12 months, how much agency resources (consider financial, human, and time 

resources) were required to provide training and/or oversight for the following individuals, groups, or 

organizations? 

"Pre" work consists of completing preliminary paperwork, identifying work projects, and securing 

personnel/partners. 

On-site work consists of the actual on-the-ground management of programs/services. 

"Post" work consists of reporting requirements, evaluations, etc. that must be completed after the work 

is finished and/or on a regular (e.g., annual) basis. 

5 = Substantial Resources, 4 = Considerable Resources, 3 = Moderate Resources, 2 = Few Resources, 1 = 

No Resources 

"Pre" work On-site work "Post" work 

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 

 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

Paid agency employees (x13) 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth Conservation Corps, Job Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups (churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid contractors/concessionaires 

Court-ordered community service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups (hiking, equestrian, biking, hunting clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, etc.) 

Page Break 

End of Block: Benefits & Quality 

Start of Block: Effort & Recognition 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q14 In your opinion, how important are partnerships in providing the following benefits to your 

agency? 

Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all Not 

important important important important important sure (6) 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

Community engagement - connecting the agency to the community, serving as a type of PR, or raising 

awareness about the agency 

Agency efficiency - increasing capacity and reducing the costs of getting work done 

Recreation and/or resource enhancement - providing services that improve the recreation 

infrastructure and ecological integrity of the public land 

Q15 To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your administrative unit's 

(state park, ranger district) partnership approach? 

Strongly Agree (14) Neutral (15) Disagree (16) Strongly 

agree (13) disagree (17) 

We have more projects to do than our current available partners can handle. 

We do not have enough partners to meet the work we need to accomplish. 

We have access to many potential partners, but don’t have time to solicit them. 

We would benefit if there were one coordinating group who could facilitate our work with all other 

partners. 

We find it more efficient to work with organized groups who bring more resources and skills to the table 

than individual volunteers or informal groups. 

Q16 Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. 

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 

agree disagree 

I work with partners to further my natural resource conservation efforts. 

I work with partners to build trust and enhance community support of agency decisions. 

The emphasis that agency leaders have placed on partnerships has influenced me to work with partners 

more. 

I work with partners primarily to obtain the synergy (i.e., combination of skills and resources) needed to 

accomplish specific program tasks and projects. 

Working with partners is an expected job responsibility. 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page Break 

End of Block: Effort & Recognition 

Start of Block: CorpsSpecificQs 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q17 You indicated that you work with conservation corps, which corps specifically have you engaged 

with in relation to trails management in the past 12 months? 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q18 Which corps specifically have you engaged with in relation to habitat management in the past 12 

months? 

Q53 Earlier we asked you to report your best estimate of trail mileage and acres maintained for 

invasive species or forest fuels. Now, we would like you to consider how much (miles, acres) of this 

work was done with the help of the Conservation Corps that you have worked with over the past 

year. 

Mileage/Acres estimate (1) 

Miles of trail repaired, maintained, or created with the help of Conservation Corps specifically 

Acres maintained/managed for invasive species with the help of Conservation Corps specifically 

Acres maintained/managed for forest fuels with the help of Conservation Corps specifically 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q19 Is there anything you'd like to add about the “value added” your agency gets by working with 

conservation corps? 

By "value added" we want you to think about all aspects of work, including but not limited to your ability 

to meet programmatic goals and targets, as well as your aspects of job satisfaction. 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q52 Is there anything you'd like to add about potential improvements that could be made between 

your agency and the conservation corps? 

Potential improvements could be communication, training, resources in-print or on-line, etc. 

End of Block: CorpsSpecificQs 

Start of Block: Demographics 

Q21 

Demographic Items 

Your responses to the following items will allows us to make comparisons based on spatial, temporal, 

and demographic items. 

Q22 Gender: 

Male 

Female 

Non-binary 

Prefer not to say 

Q56 In what ethnicity and race would you place yourself (check all that apply)? 

Ethnicity: 

Hispanic or Latino 

Not Hispanic or Latino 

Q23 Race: 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Black or African American 

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 

White 

Hispanic 

Some other race, ethnicity, or origin 

Prefer not to say 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q24 Years with current agency: 

▼Less than 1 year (1) ... More than 20 years (9) 

Q55 Years in current position: 

▼Less than 1 year (1) ... More than 20 years (9) 

Q25 Postal code of work station: 

Of the park, district, or forest office you typically work out of in your current position. 

Page Break 

Lastly, if you know of anyone else working in trail and habitat management at any state park or USDA 

Forest Service unit that may also want to participate in this survey opportunity please provide their 

email addresses below and we will follow up with them individually. 

Thank you! 

We appreciate you taking the time to complete this survey. As a thank you, we are offering $15 Amazon 

gift cards (electronic gifts cards with a redemption code sent directly to your email). If you are interested 

in receiving this incentive for your thoughts & time, answer yes below. You will be directed to a separate 

form for submitting your e-mail address (so that it is collected separately from your responses here). 

oYes (4) 

o No (5) 

End of Block: Demographics 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3 – Survey Instrument - 2020 

Public Lands & Partnerships - WAVE 2 - 2020 

Start of Block: Qualifier 

Public Lands & Partnerships - Survey of Personnel Perceptions 

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. The intent of this survey is to understand the 

perceptions of agency personnel who work to varying degrees (or not at all) with agency partners, such 

as Youth Corps, volunteers, and contractors, to complete trail and habitat tasks. As a public agency 

employee, your participation in this study will help improve the knowledge of how partnerships 

influence public land management agencies’ ability to engage with nearby communities, complete 

resource & recreation management tasks, and run as efficiently as possible. 

This is the the final year (Year 3) of a multi-year study examining how public land personnel complete 

work. You may have participated in the first past of the study last year. If so, we thank you for your 

continued involvement with this project. For a summary of findings from the Wave 2 assessment, you 

can download a PDF here: Wave 2 results summary report 

Your participation is voluntary and you may choose to exit the survey at any time. All data will be 

confidential; any potentially identifying information (agency name or location, or position title) will not 

be reported with your responses. There are no known risks for participating. An optional incentive ($15 

electronic Amazon gift card) is offered for those who complete the survey that will take you to a 

separate form (to protect anonymity of survey responses). If you elect to accept this incentive you will 

do so through a prompt at the end of the survey where you can provide an e-mail address to which the 

gift card will be delivered. Participation will take approximately 15-20 minutes. 

For more information or questions please contact: 

Mike Edwards, Assoc. Professor 

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management 

North Carolina State University 

mbedwards@ncsu.edu 

50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q2 First, we are exploring how work is accomplished by national forest and state park/state land 

management units specifically. In your current position, do you work for: 

oa State Park system or State land management agency 

oa National Forest system 

oSome other agency (not a state park/land agency or national forest) 

Q3 What is your official position title? 

(e.g., Partnership coordinator, Recreation Technician, Park Manager, etc.) 

Q4 Throughout this survey we would like you to consider each question in relation to your current 

position and the primary tasks you are involved with on a day-to-day basis. Your ratings should reflect 

your feelings towards the scope of activities for which you are responsible. 

Q5 

Perceptions of Capacity 

In this section we'd like you to consider, and rate, your capacity to achieve organizational goals related 

to community engagement, agency efficiency, and resource or recreation management and estimate 

your program's capacity (the scope for which you are responsible) to complete work targets. Specifically, 

we would like you to "grade" the extent to which you perceive you are able to accomplish programmatic 

goals related to (i) community engagement, (ii) resource enhancement, and (iii) the efficiency of your 

program or area of responsibility over the past year. 

Q6 Based on your experience over the past 12 months, how well are you able to accomplish goals 

related to community engagement within your program area or area of responsibility? (for example, 

connecting with community members, educating the public, or raising awareness about the agency) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: A: you are 

accomplishing the right amount of community engagement currently B: you are accomplishing almost 

the right amount of community engagement C: while your doing some community 

engagement, you believe there is room for improvement D: community engagement efforts are 

limited, there is great room for improvement F: you do not currently feel that you are meeting 

your goals for community engagement 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q7 Based on your experience over the past 12 months, how well are you able to accomplish goals 

related to resource enhancement within your program area or area of responsibility? (for example, 

building and maintaining trails or managing for invasive species or forest fuels) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: A: you are 

accomplishing the right amount of resource enhancement currently B: you are accomplishing almost the 

right amount of resource enhancement C: while your doing some resource enhancement, you believe 

there is room for improvement D: resource enhancement efforts are limited, there is great room for 

improvement F: you do not currently feel that you are meeting your goals for resource enhancement 

Q8 Based on your experience over the past 12 months, how efficient is your program or area of 

responsibility? (for example, at reducing the cost of getting work done or effectively accomplishing 

goals with fewer resources) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: A: Extremely efficient B: 

Very efficient C: Moderately efficient D: Slightly efficient F: Not at all efficient 

Q9 How has COVID-19 impacted your program or area of responsibility in terms of community 

engagement, resource enhancement, and efficiency? 

In answering these questions, please considering the following definitions: 

Weak/Strong - refers to how intensely you felt the impact of COVID-19 

Positive/Negative - refers to the direction of the COVID-19 impact 

Strong, Moderate, Weak, Neither Weak, Moderate, Strong, 

ositive positive positive positive negative negative negative 

impact impact impact nor impact impact impact 

negativ 

e 

p

Community 

engagement 

Resource 

enhancemen 

t 

52 

 
 

 

 

Efficiency o o o o o o o 

Page Break 

Q10 Over the past 12 months, how many miles (best estimate) of trail managed by your program or 

area of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Mileage 

Scheduled for repair, maintenance, or 

creation (i.e., new trails) 

53 
 

 

Actually repaired, improved, or created 

Repaired, maintained, or created with the 

help of partners 

Q11 Over the past 12 months, how many acres (best estimate) of land managed by your program or 

area of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Acreage 

Scheduled for invasive species 

maintenance/management 

54 
 

 

Actually maintained/managed for invasive 

species 

Maintained/managed for invasive species 

with the help of partners 

Q12 Over the past 12 months, how many acres (best estimate) of land managed by your program area 

or area of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Acreage 

Scheduled for maintenance/management for 

forest fuels 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

Actually maintained/managed for forest fuels 

Maintained/managed for forest fuels with the 

help of partners 

Q13 

Perceptions of Roles, Benefits & Quality 

In this section, we would like you to consider who is completing work in your program area and their 

roles, how they benefit your program/agency, and the quality of work they deliver. 

Q14 Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your program area or area of 

responsibility related to: 

Check all that apply. 

TRAILS INVASIVE FUELS MGMT. 

SPECIES MGMT. 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., 

SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth 

Conservation Corps, Job 

Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups 

(churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/concessionaire 

s 

Court-ordered community 

service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground 

hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups 

(hiking, equestrian, biking, 

hunting clubs) 

Local governments 

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

57 
 

 

 

▢ ▢ ▢ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National groups (IMBA, ▢ ▢ ▢

Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, ▢ ▢ ▢

etc.) 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q15 Below are categories of individuals, groups, and organizations that you identified as completing trail 

and habitat work for your program area. Please respond to the following sets of questions related to 

your perceptions of these individuals, groups, and organizations. 

To what extent have the partners you work with contributed to these three outcomes over the past 

12 months? Community Engagement: connecting with community members, educating the public, 

raising awareness Agency Efficiency: reducing cost of getting work done, effectively accomplishing 

goals with fewer resources Resource/Recreation Enhancement: effectively managing and 

maintaining habitats and trails, providing opportunities to visit, addressing maintenance backlogs 

5 = Substantial Contribution, 4 = Considerable Contribution, 3 = Moderate Contribution, 2 = Little 

Contribution, 1 = No contribution 

58 
Community Agency efficiency Recreation/resource 

engagement enhancement 

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 

Paid agency 

employees 

Conservation 

corps (e.g., 

SCA, 

AmeriCorps, 

Youth 

Conservation 

Corps, Job 

Corps, etc.) 

Religious or 

civic groups 

(churches, 

Rotary, Elks, 

etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/c 

oncessionaire 

s 

Court-ordered 

community 

service/priso 

ners 

59 
"Friends of..." 

group 

Individuals (campground 

hosts, 

volunteers) 

Local/regiona 

l groups (hiking, 

equestrian, 

biking, hunting 

clubs) Local 

governments National 

groups (IMBA, 

Sierra Club, 

etc.) 

Outfitters/gui 

des 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q16 Using the stars below, how would you rate the quality of work provided by the following entities 

over the past 12 months? 

For example, 5 stars indicates the highest level of quality. Please note that you may assign half stars. 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., 

SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth 

Conservation Corps, Job 

Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups 

(churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/concessionair 

es 

Court-ordered community 

service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground 

hosts, volunteers) 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Local/regional groups 

(hiking, equestrian, biking, 

hunting clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, 

Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

Page Break 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q17 Now, we would like you to consider: if, within the next year, the following individuals, groups, or 

organizations did not exist, who would complete those tasks they are currently performing? 

Think about this generally, such as who is most likely to or who would the majority of the time. Choose 

the response(s) that best describes how the work these partnerships complete would be replaced. 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be completed Be completed by Not be 

by paid staff another partner completed 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., 

SCA, AmeriCorps, Youth 

Conservation Corps, Job 

Corps, etc.) 

Religious or civic groups 

(churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/concessionaire 

s 

Court-ordered community 

service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground 

hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups 

(hiking, equestrian, biking, 

hunting clubs) 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, 

Sierra Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

Page Break 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q18 Over the past 12 months, how much agency resources (consider financial, human, and time 

resources) were required to provide training and/or oversight for the following individuals, groups, or 

organizations? "Pre" work consists of completing preliminary paperwork, identifying work 

projects, and securing personnel/partners. On-site work consists of the actual on-the-ground 

management of programs/services. "Post" work consists of reporting requirements, evaluations, etc. 

that must be completed after the work is finished and/or on a regular (e.g., annual) basis. 5 = 

Substantial Resources, 4 = Considerable Resources, 3 = Moderate Resources, 2 = Few Resources, 1 = No 

Resources 

64 
"Pre" work On-site work "Post" work 

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 

Paid agency 

employees 

Conservation 

corps (e.g., 

SCA, 

AmeriCorps, 

Youth 

Conservation 

Corps, Job 

Corps, etc.) 

Religious or 

civic groups 

(churches, 

Rotary, Elks, 

etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/c 

oncessionaire 

s 

Court-ordered 

community 

service/priso 

ners 

65 
"Friends of..." 

group 

Individuals 

(campground 

hosts, 

volunteers) 

Local/regiona 

l groups 

(hiking, 

equestrian, 

biking, hunting 

clubs) Local 

governments National 

groups (IMBA, 

Sierra Club, 

etc.) 

Outfitters/gui 

des 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

66 
 

 

 

Page Break 

End of Block: Benefits & Quality 

Start of Block: Effort & Recognition 

Q19 In your opinion, how important are partnerships in providing the following benefits to your 

agency? 

Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all Not 

important important important important important sure 

Community 

engagement -

connecting 

the agency to 

the 

community, 

serving as a 

type of PR, or 

raising 

awareness 

about the 

agency 

67 

o o o o o o 
 

 

 

 

Agency o o o o o o 

efficiency -

increasing 

capacity and 

reducing the 

costs of 

getting work 

done 

Recreation 

and/or 

resource 

enhancemen 

t - providing 

services that 

improve the 

recreation 

infrastructure 

and ecological 

integrity of 

the public 

land 

o o o o o o 

Q20 To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your administrative unit's 

(state park, ranger district) partnership approach? 

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 

agree disagree 

68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have more o o o o o 

projects to do 

than our 

current 

available 

partners can 

handle. 

We do not 

have enough 

partners to 

meet the work 

we need to 

accomplish. 

We have 

access to 

many 

potential 

partners, but 

don’t have 

time to solicit 

them. 

We would 

benefit if there 

were one 

coordinating 

group who 

could facilitate 

our work with 

all other 

partners. 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

69 
 

 

 

 

We find it 

more efficient 

to work with 

organized 

groups who 

bring more 

resources and 

skills to the 

table than 

individual 

volunteers or 

informal 

groups. 

o o o o o 

Q21 Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. 

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 

agree disagree 

I work with o o o o o

partners to 

further my 

natural 

resource 

conservation 

efforts. 

70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I work with o o o o o 

partners to 

build trust and 

enhance 

community 

support of 

agency 

decisions. 

The emphasis 

that agency 

leaders have 

placed on 

partnerships 

has influenced 

me to work 

with partners 

more. 

I work with 

partners 

primarily to 

obtain the 

synergy (i.e., 

combination of 

skills and 

resources) 

needed to 

accomplish 

specific 

program tasks 

and projects. 

Working with 

partners is an 

expected job 

responsibility. 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

71 
 

 

 

 

 

Page Break 

End of Block: Effort & Recognition 

Start of Block: CorpsSpecificQs 

Q22 Earlier we asked you to report your best estimate of trail mileage and acres maintained for 

invasive species or forest fuels. Now, we would like you to consider how much of this work (what 

percentage of the miles, acres managed) was done with the help of the Conservation Corps that you 

have worked with over the past year. 

% of Mileage/Acres managed with the help 

of Corps (best estimate) 

Miles of trail repaired, maintained, or created 

with the help of Conservation Corps 

specifically 

72 
 

 

 

Acres maintained/managed for invasive 

species with the help of Conservation Corps 

specifically 

Acres maintained/managed for forest fuels 

with the help of Conservation Corps 

specifically 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q23 Is there anything you'd like to add about the “value added” your agency gets by working with 

conservation corps? 

By "value added" we want you to think about all aspects of work, including but not limited to your ability 

to meet programmatic goals and targets, as well as your aspects of job satisfaction. 

73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Q24 Is there anything you'd like to add about potential improvements that could be made between 

your agency and the conservation corps? 

Potential improvements could be communication, training, resources in-print or on-line, etc. 

End of Block: CorpsSpecificQs 

Start of Block: Demographics 

Q25 

Demographic Items 

Your responses to the following items will allows us to make comparisons based on spatial, temporal, 

and demographic items. 

Q26 Gender: 

o Male 

oFemale 

74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o Non-binary 

oPrefer not to say 

Q27 In what ethnicity and race would you place yourself (check all that apply)? 

Ethnicity: 

▢ Hispanic or Latino 

▢ Not Hispanic or Latino 

Q28 Race: 

▢ American Indian or Alaska Native 

▢ Asian 

▢ Black or African American 

▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 

▢ White 

75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

▢ Hispanic 

▢ Some other race, ethnicity, or origin 

▢ Prefer not to say 

Q29 Years with current agency: 

▼Less than 1 year ... More than 20 years 

Q30 Years in current position: 

▼Less than 1 year ... More than 20 years 

Q31 Postal code of work station: 

Of the park, district, or forest office you typically work out of in your current position. 

Page Break 

76 
 

 

 

 

 

Q32 Lastly, if you know of anyone else working in trail and habitat management at any state park or 

USDA Forest Service unit that may also want to participate in this survey opportunity please provide 

their email addresses below and we will follow up with them individually. 

Thank you! 

Q33 We appreciate you taking the time to complete this survey. As a thank you, we are offering $15 

Amazon gift cards (electronic gifts cards with a redemption code sent directly to your email). If you are 

interested in receiving this incentive for your thoughts & time, answer yes below. You will be directed to 

a separate form for submitting your e-mail address (so that it is collected separately from your 

responses here). 

oYes 

o No 

End of Block: Demographics 

77 
78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4 – Survey Instrument - 2021 

Public Lands & Partnerships - WAVE 3 - 2021 

Start of Block: Qualifier 

Public Lands & Partnerships - Survey of Personnel Perceptions 

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. The intent of this survey is to understand the 

perceptions of agency personnel who work to varying degrees (or not at all) with agency partners, such 

as Youth Corps, volunteers, and contractors, to complete trail and habitat tasks. As a public agency 

employee, your participation in this study will help improve the knowledge of how partnerships 

influence public land management agencies’ ability to engage with nearby communities, complete 

resource & recreation management tasks, and run as efficiently as possible. 

This is the the final year (Year 3) of a multi-year study examining how public land personnel complete 

work. You may have participated in the first past of the study last year. If so, we thank you for your 

continued involvement with this project. For a summary of findings from the first year assessment, you 

can download a PDF here: Wave 2 Summary Report 

Your participation is voluntary and you may choose to exit the survey at any time. All data will be 

confidential; any potentially identifying information (agency name or location, or position title) will not 

be reported with your responses. There are no known risks for participating. An optional incentive ($15 

electronic Amazon gift card) is offered for those who complete the survey that will take you to a 

separate form (to protect anonymity of survey responses). If you elect to accept this incentive you will 

do so through a prompt at the end of the survey where you can provide an e-mail address to which the 

gift card will be delivered. Participation will take approximately 15-20 minutes. 

79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information or questions please contact: 

Mike Edwards, Assoc. Professor 

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management 

North Carolina State University 

mbedwards@ncsu.edu 

First, we are exploring how work is accomplished by national forest and state park/state land 

management units specifically. In your current position, do you work for: 

oa State Park system or State land management agency 

oa National Forest system 

oSome other agency (not a state park/land agency or national forest) 

Page Break 

End of Block: Qualifier 

Start of Block: Intro 

What is your official position title? 

(e.g., Partnership coordinator, Recreation Technician, Park Manager, etc.) 

80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page Break 

Throughout this survey we would like you to consider each question in relation to your current position 

and the primary tasks you are involved with on a day-to-day basis. Your ratings should reflect your 

feelings towards the scope of activities for which you are responsible. 

Perceptions of Capacity 

In this section we'd like you to consider, and rate, your capacity to achieve organizational goals related 

to community engagement, agency efficiency, and resource or recreation management and estimate 

your program's capacity (the scope for which you are responsible) to complete work targets. Specifically, 

we would like you to "grade" the extent to which you perceive you are able to accomplish programmatic 

goals related to (i) community engagement, (ii) resource enhancement, and (iii) the efficiency of your 

program or area of responsibility over the past year. 

Based on your experience over the past 12 months, how well are you able to accomplish goals related 

to community engagement within your program area or area of responsibility? (for example, connecting 

with community members, educating the public, or raising awareness about the agency) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: 

81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o A: you are accomplishing the right amount of community engagement currently 

o B: you are accomplishing almost the right amount of community engagement 

o C: while your doing some community engagement, you believe there is room for improvement 

o D: community engagement efforts are limited, there is great room for improvement 

oF: you do not currently feel that you are meeting your goals for community engagement 

Based on your experience over the past 12 months, how well are you able to accomplish goals related 

to resource enhancement within your program area or area of responsibility? (for example, building and 

maintaining trails or managing for invasive species or forest fuels) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: 

o A: you are accomplishing the right amount of resource enhancement currently 

o B: you are accomplishing almost the right amount of resource enhancement 

o C: while your doing some resource enhancement, you believe there is room for improvement 

o D: resource enhancement efforts are limited, there is great room for improvement 

oF: you do not currently feel that you are meeting your goals for resource enhancement 

82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on your experience over the past 12 months, how efficient is your program or area of 

responsibility? (for example, at reducing the cost of getting work done or effectively accomplishing 

goals with fewer resources) 

In answering these questions, please considering the following grading scale: 

o A: Extremely efficient 

o B: Very efficient 

o C: Moderately efficient 

oD: Slightly efficient 

oF: Not at all efficient 

How has COVID-19 impacted your program or area of responsibility in terms of community engagement, 

resource enhancement, and efficiency? 

In answering these questions, please considering the following definitions: 

Weak/Strong - refers to how intensely you felt the impact of COVID-19 

Positive/Negative - refers to the direction of the COVID-19 impact 

Strong, Moderate, Weak, Neither Weak, Moderate, Strong, 

positive positive positive positive negative negative negative 

impact impact impact nor impact impact impact 

negative 

Community 

engagement 

83 
 

 

 

 

Resource o o o o o o o 

enhancement 

Efficiency o o o o o o o 

Page Break 

Over the past 12 months, how many miles (best estimate) of trail managed by your program or area 

of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Mileage 

Scheduled for repair, maintenance, or creation 

(i.e., new trails) 

84 
 

 

Actually repaired, improved, or created 

Repaired, maintained, or created with the help 

of partners 

Over the past 12 months, how many acres (best estimate) of land managed by your program or area 

of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Acreage 

Scheduled for invasive species 

maintenance/management 

85 
 

 

Actually maintained/managed for invasive 

species 

Maintained/managed for invasive species with 

the help of partners 

Over the past 12 months, how many acres (best estimate) of land managed by your program area or 

area of responsibility were: 

Please enter a number in each block below. If none, enter "0" 

Acreage 

Scheduled for maintenance/management for 

forest fuels 

86 
 

 

 

 

 

Actually maintained/managed for forest fuels 

Maintained/managed for forest fuels with the 

help of partners 

End of Block: Intro 

Start of Block: Benefits & Quality 

Perceptions of Roles, Benefits & Quality 

In this section, we would like you to consider who is completing work in your program area and their 

roles, how they benefit your program/agency, and the quality of work they deliver. 

87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your program area or area of responsibility 

related to: 

Check all that apply. 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, 

AmeriCorps, Youth 

Conservation Corps, Job Corps, 

etc.) 

Religious or civic groups 

(churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/concessionaires 

Court-ordered community 

service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground 

hosts, volunteers) 

TRAILS INVASIVE SPECIES 

MGMT. 

▢ ▢

▢ ▢

▢ ▢

▢ ▢

▢ ▢

▢ ▢

▢ ▢

FUELS MGMT. 

▢

▢

▢

▢

▢

▢

▢

88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local/regional groups (hiking, 

equestrian, biking, hunting 

clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra 

Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

▢ ▢ ▢

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Below are categories of individuals, groups, and organizations that you identified as completing trail and 

habitat work for your program area. Please respond to the following sets of questions related to your 

perceptions of these individuals, groups, and organizations. 

89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To what extent have the partners you work with contributed to these three outcomes over the past 

12 months? Community Engagement: connecting with community members, educating the public, 

raising awareness Agency Efficiency: reducing cost of getting work done, effectively accomplishing 

goals with fewer resources Resource/Recreation Enhancement: effectively managing and 

maintaining habitats and trails, providing opportunities to visit, addressing maintenance backlogs 

5 = Substantial Contribution, 4 = Considerable Contribution, 3 = Moderate Contribution, 2 = Little 

Contribution, 1 = No contribution 

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 

Paid agency 

employees 

Conservation 

corps (e.g., SCA, 

AmeriCorps, 

Youth 

Conservation 

Corps, Job 

Corps, etc.) 

Religious or 

civic groups 

(churches, 

Rotary, Elks, 

etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/con 

cessionaires 

Community engagement Agency efficiency Recreation/resource 

enhancement 

90 
Court

-ordered 

community 

service/prisone 

rs 

"Friends of..." 

group 

Individuals 

(campground 

hosts, 

volunteers) 

Local/regional 

groups (hiking, 

equestrian, 

biking, hunting 

clubs) 

Local 

governments 

National groups 

(IMBA, Sierra 

Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guid 

es 

91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth groups 

(4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Using the stars below, how would you rate the quality of work provided by the following entities over 

the past 12 months? 

For example, 5 stars indicates the highest level of quality. Please note that you may assign half stars. 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, 

AmeriCorps, Youth 

Conservation Corps, Job Corps, 

etc.) 

Religious or civic groups 

(churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/concessionaires 

92 
 

 

 

 

Court-ordered community 

service/prisoners 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground 

hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups (hiking, 

equestrian, biking, hunting 

clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra 

Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

Page Break 

93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Now, we would like you to consider: if, within the next year, the following individuals, groups, or 

organizations did not exist, who would complete those tasks they are currently performing? 

Think about this generally, such as who is most likely to or who would the majority of the time. Choose 

the response(s) that best describes how the work these partnerships complete would be replaced. 

Be completed Be completed by Not be 

by paid staff another partner completed 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

Paid agency employees 

Conservation corps (e.g., SCA, 

AmeriCorps, Youth 

Conservation Corps, Job Corps, 

etc.) 

Religious or civic groups 

(churches, Rotary, Elks, etc.) 

Paid 

contractors/concessionaires 

Court-ordered community 

service/prisoners 

94 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Friends of..." group 

Individuals (campground 

hosts, volunteers) 

Local/regional groups (hiking, 

equestrian, biking, hunting 

clubs) 

Local governments 

National groups (IMBA, Sierra 

Club, etc.) 

Outfitters/guides 

Youth groups (4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

Page Break 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

Carry Forward Selected Choices from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

95 
 

 

 

 

Over the past 12 months, how much agency resources (consider financial, human, and time resources) 

were required to provide training and/or oversight for the following individuals, groups, or 

organizations? "Pre" work consists of completing preliminary paperwork, identifying work 

projects, and securing personnel/partners. On-site work consists of the actual on-the-ground 

management of programs/services. "Post" work consists of reporting requirements, evaluations, etc. 

that must be completed after the work is finished and/or on a regular (e.g., annual) basis. 5 = 

Substantial Resources, 4 = Considerable Resources, 3 = Moderate Resources, 2 = Few Resources, 1 = No 

Resources 

"Pre" work On-site work "Post" work 

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 

Paid agency 

employees 

Conservation 

corps (e.g., SCA, 

AmeriCorps, 

Youth 

Conservation 

Corps, Job 

Corps, etc.) 

Religious or 

civic groups 

(churches, 

Rotary, Elks, 

etc.) 

96 
Paid 

contractors/con 

cessionaires 

Court-ordered 

community 

service/prisone 

rs 

"Friends of..." 

group 

Individuals 

(campground 

hosts, 

volunteers) 

Local/regional 

groups (hiking, 

equestrian, 

biking, hunting 

clubs) 

Local 

governments 

National groups 

(IMBA, Sierra 

Club, etc.) 

97 
 

 

 

Outfitters/guid 

es 

Youth groups 

(4-H, Scouts, 

etc.) 

Page Break 

End of Block: Benefits & Quality 

Start of Block: Effort & Recognition 

In your opinion, how important are partnerships in providing the following benefits to your agency? 

Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all Not 

important important important important important sure 

98 
 

 

 

 

 

Community o o o o o o 

engagement -

connecting the 

agency to the 

community, 

serving as a 

type of PR, or 

raising 

awareness 

about the 

agency 

Agency 

efficiency -

increasing 

capacity and 

reducing the 

costs of 

getting work 

done 

Recreation 

and/or 

resource 

enhancement 

- providing 

services that 

improve the 

recreation 

infrastructure 

and ecological 

integrity of the 

public land 

o o o o o o 

o o o o o o 

99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your administrative unit's (state 

park, ranger district) partnership approach? 

Strongly 

agree 

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 

disagree 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

We have more 

projects to do 

than our 

current 

available 

partners can 

handle. 

We do not 

have enough 

partners to 

meet the work 

we need to 

accomplish. 

We have access 

to many 

potential 

partners, but 

don’t have 

time to solicit 

them. 

100 
 

 

 

 

 

We would o o o o o 

benefit if there 

were one 

coordinating 

group who 

could facilitate 

our work with 

all other 

partners. 

We find it more 

efficient to 

work with 

organized 

groups who 

bring more 

resources and 

skills to the 

table than 

individual 

volunteers or 

informal 

groups. 

o o o o o 

Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. 

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 

agree disagree 

101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I work with o o o o o 

partners to 

further my 

natural resource 

conservation 

efforts. 

I work with 

partners to build 

trust and 

enhance 

community 

support of 

agency 

decisions. 

The emphasis 

that agency 

leaders have 

placed on 

partnerships has 

influenced me 

to work with 

partners more. 

I work with 

partners 

primarily to 

obtain the 

synergy (i.e., 

combination of 

skills and 

resources) 

needed to 

accomplish 

specific program 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

tasks and 

projects. 

Working with o o o o o 

partners is an 

expected job 

responsibility. 

Page Break 

End of Block: Effort & Recognition 

Start of Block: CorpsSpecificQs 

Earlier we asked you to report your best estimate of trail mileage and acres maintained for invasive 

species or forest fuels. Now, we would like you to consider how much of this work (what percentage 

of the miles, acres managed) was done with the help of the Conservation Corps that you have worked 

with over the past year. 

103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Mileage/Acres managed with the help of 

Corps (best estimate) 

Miles of trail repaired, maintained, or created 

with the help of Conservation Corps specifically 

Acres maintained/managed for invasive 

species with the help of Conservation Corps 

specifically 

Acres maintained/managed for forest fuels 

with the help of Conservation Corps specifically 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

104 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there anything you'd like to add about the “value added” your agency gets by working with 

conservation corps? 

By "value added" we want you to think about all aspects of work, including but not limited to your ability 

to meet programmatic goals and targets, as well as your aspects of job satisfaction. 

Carry Forward Selected Answers from "Over the past 12 months, who has completed work for your 

program area or area of responsibility related to: Check all that apply. " 

Is there anything you'd like to add about potential improvements that could be made between your 

agency and the conservation corps? 

Potential improvements could be communication, training, resources in-print or on-line, etc. 

End of Block: CorpsSpecificQs 

Start of Block: Demographics 

Demographic Items 

105 
 

 

 

 

 

Your responses to the following items will allows us to make comparisons based on spatial, temporal, 

and demographic items. 

Gender: 

o Male 

oFemale 

oNon-binary 

oPrefer not to say 

In what ethnicity and race would you place yourself (check all that apply)? 

Ethnicity: 

▢ Hispanic or Latino 

▢ Not Hispanic or Latino 

Race: 

106 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

▢ American Indian or Alaska Native 

▢ Asian 

▢ Black or African American 

▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 

▢ White 

▢ Hispanic 

▢ Some other race, ethnicity, or origin 

▢ Prefer not to say 

Years with current agency: 

▼Less than 1 year ... More than 20 years 

Years in current position: 

▼Less than 1 year ... More than 20 years 

107 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Postal code of work station: 

Of the park, district, or forest office you typically work out of in your current position. 

Page Break 

Lastly, if you know of anyone else working in trail and habitat management at any state park or USDA 

Forest Service unit that may also want to participate in this survey opportunity please provide their 

email addresses below and we will follow up with them individually. 

Thank you! 

We appreciate you taking the time to complete this survey. As a thank you, we are offering $15 Amazon 

gift cards (electronic gifts cards with a redemption code sent directly to your email). If you are interested 

in receiving this incentive for your thoughts & time, answer yes below. You will be directed to a separate 

form for submitting your e-mail address (so that it is collected separately from your responses here). 

108 
 

oYes 

o No 

End of Block: Demographics 

109