Advancing the Fifty States Initiative 

FINAL VERSION 

Measuring Progress of 

the Fifty States Initiative 

Report 

September 2009 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 September 2009 

Contract Information 

This document was produced under contract to the Federal Geographic Data Committee 

(FGDC): 

Contract Number: 08HQCN0024 

Prime Contractor:

Subcontractors: 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 2 

Table of Contents 

1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 4

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

2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.3 Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.4 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 5 

3 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Fifty States CAP Grant Category............................................................................................... 9 

3.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 9 

3.3 NSGIC State Summaries Survey and Nine Criteria .................................................................. 9 

3.4 Analytical Context .................................................................................................................... 10 

4 Coordination Approaches ................................................................................................................. 11

4.1 Coordination Measurement Approaches ................................................................................. 11 

4.1.3 Two Levels of Coordination Measurement .............................................................................. 11 

5 Assessment of Nine Criteria .............................................................................................................. 12

5.1 Nine Criteria Approach & Methods .......................................................................................... 12 

5.2 Nine Criteria Measurement ...................................................................................................... 13 

5.3 Nine Criteria Results ................................................................................................................ 15 

6 Assessment of the “Five Questions” ............................................................................................... 17

6.1 Five Questions Approach & Methods ...................................................................................... 17

6.2 Five Questions Measurement.................................................................................................. 18 

6.3 Five Questions Results ............................................................................................................ 18 

7 Federal Employee Survey .................................................................................................................. 20

7.1 Federal Employee Survey Approach & Methods .................................................................... 20 

7.2 Federal Employee Survey Measurement ................................................................................ 21 

7.3 Survey Responses .................................................................................................................. 22 

7.4 Federal Employee Survey Results .......................................................................................... 27 

8 Assessment of State Case Studies................................................................................................... 28

8.1 Case Study Approach & Methods ........................................................................................... 28 

8.2 The Case Studies .................................................................................................................... 28 

8.3 Case Study Results ................................................................................................................. 38 

9 Analytical Challenges ........................................................................................................................ 39

9.1 Analytical Challenges & Limits of Quantitative Analysis for Geospatial Coordination ............ 39 

10 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 41

Appendix A: NSGIC State Summaries Survey ....................................................................................... 43

Appendix B: Federal Employee Survey .................................................................................................. 55

B. 1 Background Information .......................................................................................................... 55 

B. 2 Selected federal agency state and/or regional staff survey questions .................................... 56 

Appendix C: Open-ended Responses to Federal Employee Survey from Question 9 ...................... 58
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 3 

List of Tables and Figures 

Table 5-1. Nine Criteria Scorecard ......................................................................................................................... 13

Table 5-2. Nine Criteria – 2006 State Means ....................................................................................................... 14

Table 5-3. Nine Criteria – 2007 State Means ....................................................................................................... 14

Table 5-4. Nine Criteria – 2008 State Means ....................................................................................................... 14

Table 5-5. Nine Criteria - Green Means (Recipients and Non-Recipients of Fifty States CAP grants) ....... 15

Table 5-6. Nine Criteria - Red Means (Recipients and Non-Recipients of Fifty States CAP grants) ........... 16

Table 6-1. Five Questions - State Means (Recipients and Non-Recipients of Fifty States CAP grants) ..... 18

Figure 7-1. Fifty States Strategic and Business Plan Templates ...................................................................... 22

Figure 7-2. Contribution to the NSDI ...................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 7-3. Active Participation in Strategic and/or Business Planning ............................................................ 23

Figure 7-4. Need of Fifty States Initiative Grants ................................................................................................. 24

Figure 7-5. Improved Geospatial Coordination with Grants ............................................................................... 24

Figure 7-6. Effective Statewide Coordination ....................................................................................................... 25

Figure 7-7. Fifty States Initiative Grants Enable Geospatial Coordination ....................................................... 25

Figure 7-8. Contribution Improvement ................................................................................................................... 26
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 4 

1 Abstract 

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) administers the Cooperative Assistance Program (CAP) to advance the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). To provide insight into 

how the Fifty States CAP grant category has improved intrastate and interstate coordination on 

geospatial matters, and thereby impacted the growth of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

(NSDI), this report analyzes quantitatively and qualitatively how these grants benefited state 

government geospatial activities. Four analyses applied in this report are: 1) analyses of the 

nine criteria for successful geospatial coordination from the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) Survey, 2) analyses of five questions from the NSGIC Survey selected 

by the analysis team based on those question being indicators of the level of success in coordination, 3) survey responses from federal employees concerning the effectiveness of Fifty States 

Initiative grants in improving state geospatial coordination, and 4) a qualitative assessment of 

changes in the effectiveness of state coordination efforts based on five case studies of states that 

have received grants. The Federal Employee Survey and qualitative assessment provided 

strong evidence that grants have been effective and useful for states. 

Reliable quantitative analysis is currently problematic due to the limitations of existing information resources and data that were created for different purposes. Significant measurement 

challenges also exist due to the relative “newness” of the grants (three years), and the expectation that there will be a lag time between receiving funding and when one might reasonably 

expect to be able to detect the external results of that funding. 

The report offers conclusions and recommendations for the future of this grant program and 

how to effectively measure and monitor progress in the future. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 5 

2 Executive Summary 

2.1 Overview 

Since the National Research Council coined the phrase National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

(NSDI) in 1993, there has been a great deal of thought and considerable effort made to advance 

what is still an incompletely defined concept. The Fifty States Initiative aims to encourage the 

creation of NSDI by pursuing the notion that the NSDI can best be achieved through active intergovernmental cooperation and coordination built on a sound strategic and business planning 

process. 

2.2 Purpose 

The purpose of this document is to provide insight into how the Fifty States CAP grant category 

may have enhanced geospatial coordination and thereby indirectly advanced the development 

of the NSDI through the enhancement of state government geospatial capacities. Coordination 

may produce benefits, both internally within a state and externally with a state’s neighbors or 

federal government partners. 

2.3 Scope 

The scope of this analysis is a multi-faceted examination of the limited data available from several sources. It provides both quantitative and meaningful qualitative information that are individually and collectively suggestive of the success of the Fifty States Initiative in improving 

geospatial coordination. 

2.4 Results 

There are strong indications that the Fifty States CAP grants have improved state geospatial 

coordination and, by extension, state contributions to the NSDI. These indications are particularly evident in the results of a survey of Federal stakeholders in the Fifty States Initiative, as 

well as case studies of active states who were grant recipients. At the same time, there are significant data limitations that presently make it difficult to confidently analyze quantitative information on state geospatial progress. Going forward, measures to ensure that specific data on 

grant outcomes is captured by grant recipients in a consistent manner would be helpful for 

measuring overall progress on geospatial coordination and the effectiveness of the program. 

The important findings that this study provides concerning the effectiveness of the Fifty States 

CAP grants are as follows: 

• State case studies show that the Fifty States CAP grants have been a critical catalyst 

for planning, goal setting, and achievement. For the states investigated in detail, the 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 6 

grants have stimulated greater involvement, investment, and progress. The level of 

political commitments and institutional changes that have occurred as a result of 

CAP grant funded planning efforts indicate that the gains are both substantial and 

sustainable 

• The Fifty States CAP grant program is considered successful by the surveyed USGS 

Geospatial liaisons, Census Regional Geographers, and State Geodetic Advisors – 

federal employees having direct contact with the grant recipients and the Fifty States 

Initiative. Responses to a survey indicate strong agreement with statements concerning the usefulness of the Strategic Plan and Business Plan Templates (now known as 

Guidelines) and with the positive contribution of the grant assistance program. 

These perceptions are an important indicator of the visibility and favorable impression that these CAP grant funded efforts have achieved. 

• Data on measures of state coordination collected for the period 2006-08 indicates that 

most states have established a baseline level of coordination, but that funding remains a primary concern. 

In addition, from the review of state experiences and survey data include, other noteworthy 

findings include: 

• State progress on coordination proceeds in an incremental fashion, and takes time. 

Many states have been working on coordination for a decade or more. Change at the 

scale of state government, especially where it also involves the engagement of local 

government and private sector partners, is a multi-year process. 

• Repeated planning efforts that either revisit prior plans or start fresh are required on 

a regular basis in order to maintain momentum, political support, and the attention 

and engagement of stakeholders. 

• Leadership is a critical factor in advancing the coordination agenda, including a recognized advocate for GIS (i.e. State GIS Coordinator or GIO) who has political support and institutional support, and a clear mandate for statewide coordination. 

• States often experience lags and setbacks associated with lack of funding, slow pace 

of organizational change, the time required for passage of enabling legislation, and 

dependence on a high degree of cooperation and effort (oftentimes voluntary) for the 

implementation of programs. 

• State historical experiences and means of progressing toward greater coordination 

vary widely, and there is no single path toward the goals of the Statewide Spatial 

Data Infrastructure (SSDI) and NSDI. In other words, states are starting from different levels of coordination and proceeding in distinct ways. Some of the drivers for 

these differences are variations in: state political processes, levels of monetary and 

staff resources, sense of urgency, ability of stakeholders to articulate the need for 

geospatial data and data coordination, and organizational mandates and interrelationships. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 7 

• Survey data on measures of coordination indicate a stable baseline of coordination 

achievement for the three year period, 2006-08; thus, the data collected to date are 

not a sensitive indicator of “progress” or change over time 

• The three year period covered by current survey data (2006-08) is not long enough to 

capture changes that are occurring at the state level as a result of the Fifty States CAP 

grant program given the anticipated and known lags between planning and planning impact. 

The following points are the important overarching conclusions from this study: 

• The Fifty States CAP grant program has made a positive difference at the state level 

in specific notable ways as shown by case histories, particularly in critical areas of 

institutional change and staffing, political support, additional funding, increased visibility and engagement of stakeholders, and in planning and initiation of specific 

programs. 

• The Fifty States CAP grant program is highly visible and well-received by states, and 

participation now includes most of the 50 states and territories; many of the grant 

funded plans have been completed and are “bearing fruit.” 

• GIS planning and coordination have gained “new” visibility within states and GIS 

stakeholders (including federal partners, state agencies, local government) are increasingly aware of lessons learned and “new” initiatives occurring in other sister 

states 

• The Fifty States planning process (based on the Strategic and Business Plan Guidelines) has proven itself useful for guiding the grant recipients in planning efforts and 

enhancing the quality and specificity of strategic and business plans; it has proven itself to be a flexible framework that is useful to states with widely different circumstances 

• Complacency with respect to coordination planning, funding, or implementation is 

not an option. Stresses on state budgets, the urgency of other state business and 

concerns, and the poorly understood importance and value of GIS and geospatial data in state political and legislative circles defines the challenge that remains for the 

future of state coordination in support of SSDI and NSDI. 

Based on the findings and conclusions of this review of state experiences and survey data, we 

make the following key recommendations: 

• Continued success and consolidation of the gains made over the past four Fifty 

States Cap grant cycles requires continued investment in the planning and coordination process, including: (1) ongoing review of progress and of the causes of setbacks 

and delays; (2) periodically revising and updating the Strategic and Business Plan 

Guidelines; (3) cataloging and fostering exchange of information, lessons learned, 

best practices and success stories among states; and (4) most importantly, continued 

funding to stimulate the refreshment and advancement of prior plans or to establish 

new ones. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 8 

• More investigation is required to establish how current generalized survey approaches or alternatives can effectively “measure” in aggregate the ways that states 

are progressing toward coordination. The current set of collected data on the nine 

coordination criteria, for example, do not show sufficient variation across states nor 

through time to support conclusions about the impact of the Fifty States CAP grants 

or other types of intervention on interstate variability or change over time. 

• Because the grant funded plans are tailored to each state, we recommend incorporating a progress reporting mechanism that allows the states to report on progress with 

respect to their individual plans in the years following the grant – e.g., to report the 

tangible accomplishments tied to their state-specific strategic and programmatic 

goals or business plans toward advancing NSDI. This would provide a finer-grained 

picture of the progress being made, with information on where and what kinds of 

setbacks are being encountered. This would help to establish “cause and effect” relationships between planning efforts and outcomes; and, it would provide program 

administrators an individual state-level and an aggregate national-level picture of 

the direct impact of the Fifty States CAP grant program. 

• Continued refinement of the definition of the NSDI to the level where specificity allows more direct and definitive measurement of its degree of achievement, and implications for state level coordination. This would assist and allow for strengthening 

of the Fifty States CAP grant program, enabling strategic and business planning to 

be brought into closer alignment with known and measurable success criteria. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 9 

3 Background 

3.1 Fifty States CAP Grant Category 

The Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP) administered by FGDC provides federal funding 

opportunities in support of NSDI, including a grant category for states in support of the Fifty 

States Initiative. This category of grants (i.e. Fifty States CAP grants) purposefully seeks to assist states to develop strategic and business plans to improve geospatial coordination in support 

of their own statewide spatial data infrastructures (SSDI) and the NSDI. As the 2009 CAP guidance describes, state projects for this category are designed to help develop and implement 

“statewide strategic and business plans that will facilitate the coordination of programs, policies, technologies, and resources that enable the coordination, collection, documentation, discovery, distribution, exchange and maintenance of geospatial information in support of the 

NSDI and the objectives of the Fifty States Initiative Action Plan.” Fundamentally, the Fifty 

States Initiative recognizes the need to build the NSDI with the essential involvement of State 

and local government partners. 

Fifty States CAP grants have been awarded annually since 2006. The FGDC has awarded eight 

to twelve cooperative agreements of up to $50,000 each year, with the recipients matching 50% 

of the award with funding or in-kind services. 

3.2 Purpose 

This Statewide Coordination “Measuring Progress” Report assesses the Fifty States CAP grant 

program and its impacts on furthering state geospatial coordination and, by extension, the 

NSDI. The report briefly summarizes approaches that have been used in the past to promote a 

more robust NSDI and examines criteria currently used by states to measure statewide coordination of geospatial data. Information on geospatial developments at the state level is currently 

gathered by the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) and these data were 

examined to assess the impacts of the Fifty States CAP grants on statewide coordination. In order to get a more complete picture of the impacts of CAP funding, this report also examines 

responses to a Federal Employee Survey, and qualitative opinions from state liaisons on the efficacy of the CAP program. These findings are presented and suggested conclusions and recommendations for the future of the CAP program are included. 

3.3 NSGIC State Summaries Survey and Nine Criteria 

The National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) State Summaries Survey is an 

annual and systematic tool that is currently used to document state geospatial management 

progress and contributions made to the NSDI. The survey (found in Appendix A: NSGIC State 

Summaries Survey) is annually administered to all states and select territories. It seeks to meas-
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 10 

ure the establishment of certain capabilities and actions, such as clearinghouse nodes and data 

sharing agreements, by each state. Many of these capabilities and actions have clear implications for the success of coordination efforts. 

In May 2004, NSGIC developed a list of nine critical success factors and criteria needed for effective statewide geographic information coordination programs. NSGIC intends that these criteria for coordination of geospatial information will guide the states and federal agencies to 

emphasize partnership building, which inherently involves coordination. Elements of this survey provide two important components for analysis: 1) the nine criteria, and 2) five selected 

questions whose answers are unambiguous and suggestive of progress in geospatial coordination (hereafter known as “the five questionsʺ). 

3.4 Analytical Context 

The empirical results of the NSGIC Survey serve as a starting point for analysis included in this 

Measuring Progress Report. The nine criteria and five questions attempt to provide a quantitative benchmark for future analyses. These components of the NSGIC Survey do not in and of 

themselves establish the efficacy of the Fifty States CAP grant program, yet they do offer timeseries and time-sensitive data to help assess state progress over a three year period. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 11 

4 Coordination Approaches 

4.1 Coordination Measurement Approaches 

4.1.1 NSGIC State Summaries Survey 

NSGIC conducts an annual survey of the states to evaluate their efforts to improve statewide 

coordination councils/authorities in furtherance of the NSDI. Status against the evaluation criteria are tracked within the NSGIC State Summaries Survey that is administered yearly to each 

state, select territories and Washington, DC (hereafter referred to collectively as “states”). For 

the purposes of this Measuring Progress Report, only two portions of the NSGIC Survey were 

used in an attempt to assess state coordination and contributions to the NSDI. These are: 1) the 

“nine criteria” and 2) the “five questions” elements of the survey. All data comes from the 

NSGIC website and represents a 3-year analysis period (2006 – 2008) for each state. 

4.1.2 Non-NSGIC Sources of Information 

To assess the coordination efforts of states and the efficacy of the Fifty States CAP grants, this 

report uses the following two additional sources of information: 1) responses to a survey from 

USGS State Liaisons, National Geodetic Survey State Geodetic Advisors, and Bureau of the 

Census Regional Geographers, and 2) a qualitative assessment consisting of four case studies 

from states that received grants. This information is independent of the NSGIC Survey. 

4.1.3 Two Levels of Coordination Measurement 

The analysis of these four separate and distinct measurements is intended to shed light on two 

important questions: 

1) Has there been progress in the degree of geospatial interaction and coordination 

across and between state and local agencies within the state as well as the degree of interaction and coordination between the state and federal government agencies that are 

geospatially active in a state? 

2) What are the outcomes of that coordination in terms of contributions to the NSDI? 

The NSGIC State Summaries Survey (including the analysis of the nine criteria and five questions) provide quantitative information based on data gleaned from the survey. The federal employee survey and the case study analysis of selected states provide qualitative information 

based on the opinion of people who interact with the states. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 12 

5 Assessment of Nine Criteria 

5.1 Nine Criteria Approach & Methods 

The nine criteria are relevant to the analysis due to their ability to present state responses to 

prompts that are indicative of improved statewide coordination. Through the establishment of 

coordinator positions, authority figures, formal relationships with information officers, formal 

relationships with the Federal government, internal methodology for disseminating information, and the accessibility to funding, states can demonstrate their ability to achieve goals that 

are highly associated with improved coordination. 

The nine criteria focus on the: 

• Establishment of certain positions within the state to facilitate coordination, 

• Existence of a statewide coordination office and formal relationships with NSDI, and 

• Existence of Federal funding and communication. 

The nine criteria are as follows: 

1. A full-time, paid coordinator position is designated and has the authority to implement 

the state’s business and strategic plans. 

2. A clearly defined authority exists for statewide coordination of geospatial information 

technologies and data production. 

3. The statewide coordination office has a formal relationship with the state’s Chief Information Officer (or similar office). 

4. A champion (politician or executive decision-maker) is aware and involved in the 

process of coordination. 

5. Responsibilities for developing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and a State Clearinghouse are assigned. 

6. The ability exists to work and coordinate with local governments, academia, and the 

private sector. 

7. Sustainable funding sources exist to meet projected needs. 

8. Coordinators have the authority to enter into contracts and become capable of receiving 

and expending funds. 

9. The Federal government works through the statewide coordinating authority. 

For each of these criteria, the states responded with a numerical rating of 1 through 5, with 5 

representing best performance against criteria. These ratings corresponded to different levels of 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 13 

agreement or implementation, levels that are thoroughly defined in Figure 5-1. The nine criteria 

element of the survey is provided every year and this allowed the project team to attempt to 

track progress in spatial coordination over the 3 years from 2006 to 2008. 

A scorecard approach used in the analysis of these responses determines improvement and 

change with respect to coordination within the states. Each response corresponds to a colorcoded scorecard rating that aligns with a numerical response. This numerical scale and corresponding color-code ratings are described below. 

Nine Criteria: 

Level of Agreement/Implementation 

Numerical 

Rating 

Scorecard Rating 

We previously had this function and lost it over 

the past year 

1 RED 

No plans at this time for implementing this criteria 2 RED 

We currently are planning to implement this 

within the next 12 to 18 months 

3 YELLOW 

Progress has been made and we reasonably expect this to be fully implemented within the next 

12 months 

4 YELLOW 

Implemented at this time 5 GREEN 

Table 5-1. Nine Criteria Scorecard 

The project team performed an analysis on the answers from each state for the years 2006 

through 2008. The analysis documented and then matched answers with corresponding colorcode ratings. From here, the team performed an extensive examination to determine whether 

state progress had been made over the three year period. States receiving Fifty States CAP 

grants were compared to states not receiving these CAP grants to determine if the grants correlated to states advancing from one color-code to another (e.g., red to yellow, or yellow to green). 

5.2 Nine Criteria Measurement 

Using the scorecard approach described above, the team performed an analysis on how states 

improved on their ratings for the nine criteria over 3 years. States were segregated as CAP 

States and Non-CAP states (vis-à-vis receipt of Fifty States CAP grants) in order to compare 

their coordination progress. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 14 

Once states were segregated, their response to each of the nine criteria was assigned a “red”, 

“yellow”, or “green” color-code based on the ratings described above in Nine Criteria Approach 

& Methods,. These ratings were then summarized to determine the total number of each “red”, 

“yellow”, or “green” rating for each state. For example, Connecticut responded with a “5” to 22 

of the possible 27 Criteria prompts (i.e., 9 criteria answers over 3 years), a “3” or “4” to 4 Criteria 

prompts, and a “1” or “2” to 1 Criteria prompt. Therefore, the total number of green ratings 

that Connecticut received for the analysis was 22, the number of yellow ratings was 4, and the 

number of red ratings was 1. 

The means for green, yellow, and red ratings were then calculated for all CAP states and again 

for Non-CAP states. For example, in 2006, all CAP states combined responded with a “5” on 

the 9 criteria questions 4.61 times, responded with a “3” or “4” to the criteria 3.0 times, and responded with a “1” or “2” to a criteria 1.39 times). These averages were used as the basis for the 

analysis (described below) performed to determine if Fifty States CAP grants may be related to 

more successful or positive responses. The means were compared to determine if a significant 

difference existed and if means really represented separate populations. 

For comparative purposes, 2006 responses will serve as the baseline values from which progress 

in 2007 and 2008 is measured. Means for states receiving Fifty States CAP grants and states not 

receiving such grants in the years 2006 to 2008 are shown below: 

2006 CAP (Fifty States) Non-CAP (Fifty States)

Green 4.61 5.22

Yellow 3.00 2.58

Red 1.39 1.19

Table 5-2. Nine Criteria – 2006 State Means 

2007 CAP (Fifty States) Non-CAP (Fifty States)

Green 4.83 5.89

Yellow 3.17 2.44

Red 1.00 0.67

Table 5-3. Nine Criteria – 2007 State Means 

2008 CAP (Fifty States) Non-CAP (Fifty States)

Green 4.78 5.89

Yellow 3.26 2.39

Red 0.96 0.69

Table 5-4. Nine Criteria – 2008 State Means 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 15 

For this analysis of the nine criteria, the team used the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to 

determine if the means were significantly different or not. This analysis provided a numerical 

value that allows a conclusion to be drawn at a set degree of confidence as to whether states receiving grants did perform at a significantly higher level than states not receiving grants according to their responses on the nine criteria section of the NSGIC Survey. 

5.3 Nine Criteria Results 

For the Nine Criteria ANOVA test, the means for states receiving grants and states not receiving 

grants were compared in each year (2006 – 2008) using a 95% confidence level (α = 0.05). This 

analysis yielded an f-value = .0000121 and a critical value = 4.4939. Since the f-value is below 

the critical value, it is concluded that state survey data submitted for the Nine Criteria is not statistically different at the 95% confidence level. Based on this data, there is no statistically significant difference in the results reported from states receiving grants and states not receiving 

grants in the year the state received a grant. 

The ratios of green statuses between Fifty States CAP grant recipients and states not receiving 

such grants were also compared to determine if grant recipients might be out-performing or 

under-performing in comparison to states not receiving grants. When the means of the two 

groups are compared, and the mean of the Fifty States CAP grant recipients is divided by the 

mean from the non-recipients, this ratio can inform the reader if the CAP grant recipients are 

performing at a higher level if the ratio is greater than 1. If it is less than 1, those states receiving grants are underperforming. 

From this particular perspective, Fifty States CAP grant recipients are underperforming as 

compared to the non-recipients. In the overall ratio, grant recipients were seen to be 83.9% as 

effective as non-recipients. Therefore, non-recipients reported a 16.1% higher green rating on 

the 9 questions in the NSGIC State Survey. This may also mean that the Fifty States CAP grant 

recipients are tougher critics of their own results, since the survey data is self-reported. 

As illustrated in Table 5-5 below, states receiving Fifty States grants did improve in average 

green ratings from 2006 to 2007, but declined slightly from 2007 to 2008. Non-recipient states 

instead improved noticeably from 2006 to 2007, and then remained constant in their performance from 2007 to 2008. 

Green Means 2006 2007 2008

Cap Grants (Fifty States) 4.60 4.83 4.78

Non-CAP (Fifty States) 5.22 5.88 5.88

Table 5-5. Nine Criteria - Green Means (Recipients and Non-Recipients of Fifty States CAP grants) 

In addition to having a lower green rating as compared to non-recipients, Fifty States CAP grant 

states also received more red ratings in their reported responses. As illustrated in Table 5-6 below, although the number of red ratings for CAP states did decrease from 2006 to 2008, it did 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 16 

not decrease at the same rate as those of states not receiving grants. Fifty States CAP grant 

states received a red rating 29.1% more of the time compared to states not receiving such grants. 

Red Means 2006 2007 2008

CAP Grants (Fifty States) 1.39 1.00 0.95

Non-CAP (Fifty States) 1.19 0.67 0.69

Table 5-6. Nine Criteria - Red Means (Recipients and Non-Recipients of Fifty States CAP grants) 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 17 

6 Assessment of the “Five Questions” 

6.1 Five Questions Approach & Methods 

Like the nine criteria, the five questions are found in the NSGIC State Survey. These five questions were selected by the team from all the NSGIC Survey questions as being the most definitive indicators of geospatial coordination and associated contribution to the NSDI. These questions focus on the existence of Clearinghouse Node capabilities, the existence of data stewards

for the state, and the adoption of standards and data sharing agreements. This set of questions 

provides insight into the impact on state coordination because more positive responses to these 

questions are assumed to be highly correlated to improved state geospatial coordination. 

Therefore, these questions offer states the opportunity to display their accomplishment of specific goals and achievements that link directly to improved coordination. 

The Five Questions are as follows: 

1. Background #19: Please provide the URL link for your state GIS Clearinghouse Node. 

This question was selected because if the state has no geospatial clearinghouse its ability 

to coordinate, to share data efficiently and effectively is severely impaired. 

2. Background #20: Is your Clearinghouse Node set up to be harvested by the Geospatial 

One-Stop (GOS) portal? The question was selected because it demonstrates a state’s 

decision to actively contribute to national level efforts to build the NSDI. Coordination 

is presumed to increase if data is harvestable by the GOS portal. 

3. Background #21: Please provide a URL link to a list of GIS data stewards for your 

state. This question was selected because it reflects an institutional commitment on the 

part of a state to actively curate its geospatial data holdings on an ongoing basis, thereby 

preserving and enhancing its utility. If data is being actively managed, the prospects for 

coordination with respect to that data are much improved. 

4. Scorecard #11: Does your GIS Council officially endorse the use of appropriate OGC, 

FGDC, ANSI, or ISO standards as appropriate? This question was selected because the 

use of and adherence to common data standards is essential to any meaningful datasharing, and data sharing is one of the primary purposes of coordination. 

5. Scorecard #13: Does your state actively develop and promote the use of data sharing 

agreements? This question was selected because formal, institutionalized data-sharing 

is a crucial concept in geospatial coordination. 

For the five questions, states could only answer in the affirmative or negative for each question. 

Affirmative answers consist of any response given that could satisfy the question by verifying 

the existence of a URL link for Background #19 and #21, or an answer in the affirmative for 

Background #20, Scorecard #11 or #13. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 18 

As with the nine criteria, the team performed analysis on each state’s responses for years 2006 to 

2008. To calculate results, the analysis used a binary system to categorize the given responses. 

Affirmative answers received a numerical score of “1” and negative answers received a score of 

“0” for more applicable quantitative analysis. The analysis then compared states receiving Fifty 

States CAP grants to states not receiving these CAP grants to determine if receiving these grants 

correlated with a higher frequency of positive answers to the five questions. 

6.2 Five Questions Measurement 

Measurement for the five questions section of the NSGIC Survey also involved an ANOVA 

analysis of yearly data. To determine if states receiving grants were significantly different from 

states not receiving grants in their reported results, the means from each group were compared 

by year. Means were calculated for each state within each group for each year. 

Using the binary system described in Five Questions Approach & Methods, each response was 

given a numerical rating of “1” if the response was affirmative (i.e. the state was able to provide 

a URL link for a GIS Clearinghouse Node in Background Question #9). If the state was unable 

to provide an affirmative response (i.e. no URL link existed or a negative response was given) 

then the response was graded as “0.” From the 5 responses given per year per state, the mean 

was established. As illustrated below in Table 6-1, the means were then averaged by year per 

group (states receiving grants and states not receiving grants). 

State Means 2006 2007 2008

CAP Grants (Fifty States) 0.530 0.600 0.608

Non-CAP (Fifty States) 0.614 0.592 0.607

Table 6-1. Five Questions - State Means (Recipients and Non-Recipients of Fifty States CAP grants) 

6.3 Five Questions Results 

The Five Questions ANOVA analysis yielded a finding that reported results were not statistically different between states receiving grants and states not receiving grants. The determined fvalue (f = 0.961) was below the critical value (f-critical = 7.708). These results were determined 

using an ANOVA single factor analysis with a 95% confidence level (α = 0.05). The analysis 

grouped the states by grant recipient and year. It can be concluded that there was no significant 

difference between the states receiving CAP grants and states receiving no CAP grant funding 

because the f-value was less than the f-critical value. Based on that analysis using a very stringent 95% confidence interval, we cannot conclude that Fifty States Initiative CAP funding produced improvement for states as measured by the 5 selected questions from the annual NSGIC 

survey. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 19 

Overall Fifty States CAP grant states reported, on average, a 4.2% lower rating on the Five 

Questions as compared to the states not receiving such grants. In 2006, Fifty States CAP grant 

states received a 13.7% lower rating on the Five Questions than states not receiving such grants. 

In 2007 and 2008, scores reported were indistinguishable as both states reporting approximately 

the same average. From these results, we infer that both CAP grant recipients and nonrecipients improved as indicated by their answers to these five questions at the same rate with 

insignificant variation. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 20 

7 Federal Employee Survey 

7.1 Federal Employee Survey Approach & Methods 

The federal employee survey data was collected in June, 2009. The Federal Employee Survey 

was forwarded to 134 USGS Geospatial Liaisons, Census Regional Geographers, and State Geodetic Advisors to participate in the survey. The survey respondents included 31 USGS Geospatial Liaisons, 3 Census Regional Geographers, and 17 State Geodetic Advisors. There were 12 

responses in the “other” category and these individuals either: a) represented a different position; or b) in some cases, a further clarification of someone who had also classified themselves as 

a liaison, regional geographer or geodetic advisor. This group was selected to participate in the 

survey based upon their insight into state coordination success based on their direct contact 

with the CAP program and the Fifty States Initiative; as well as their close interaction with the 

state geospatial points of contact. Respondents were not required to answer every question, but 

sixty-one individuals took the complete survey and provided their name for a response rate of 

45.5%. 

The federal employee survey, found in Appendix B: Federal Employee Survey, provides a systematic reflection of federal agency staff opinions on the efficacy of the Fifty States CAP grants 

program and its effects on state coordination. Questions for the survey were formulated by the 

project team. The online survey tool Survey Monkey was used to administer the survey which 

was “open” from June 11, 2009 to July 1, 20091. Respondents completed the survey online and 

the compiled results serve as the basis for the analysis. 

The team recorded and analyzed results to interpret how well the Fifty States Initiative and its 

grants influenced improved state coordination and contribution to the NSDI according to the 

perspectives of federal employees who directly work with states. 

 

1 It should be noted that there was a technical difficulty that arose with the use of the survey tool. Because of a malfunction in the collection tool, some respondents created duplicate responses to the survey. The project team identified these duplicative responses and they were deleted from the answer 

database prior to conducting the analysis. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 21 

7.2 Federal Employee Survey Measurement 

7.2.1 Background Questions 

The following background questions detail where respondents were currently employed and 

their current involvement with state geospatial coordination issues. 

7.2.2 Agency 

Analysis of the Federal Employee Survey provides insight into how individuals interacting with 

states perceive the efficiency and importance of the grant program. The majority of respondents, 51.6%, worked within the USGS, 12.9% worked for the US Census Bureau, and 27.4% 

represented the National Geodetic Survey (8.1% of respondents did not report their agency affiliation). 

7.2.3 Current Position 

Of these respondents, 49.2% were Geospatial Liaisons, 4.8% were Regional Geographers, and 

27% serve as State Geodetic Advisors. Nineteen percent of respondents chose none of these 

three options and reported their position as “other.” It is of note that one respondent reported 

being both a State Geodetic Advisor as well as serving in multiple roles that fell into the “other” 

category. Respondents reported serving in these roles for a range of 4 months to 26 years. Each 

state had at least 1 representative that responded to the survey. 

7.2.4 States receiving Fifty States Initiative grants 

In assessing how many respondents interact with states receiving grants, the majority of respondents to this question (58.1 %) reported that they interact with states that have received a 

Fifty States CAP grant for statewide strategic and business planning. Approximately ten percent (9.7%) reported that their states had not received a grant and approximately a third of respondents (32.3%) were unsure if their states had received the grant funding. 

7.2.5 Percentage of time spent working with states 

Respondents to this question reported a range of replies when assessing how much of their time 

is spent “interacting with state Geospatial programs.” Responses roughly followed a normal 

distribution with 9.7% spending less than 10% of their time, 17.7% of respondents spending between 10%-25% of their time, 21% of respondents spending between 25% - 50% of their time, 

35.5% spending between 50% - 75% of their time, and the remaining 16.1% of respondents 

spending over 75% of their time interacting with state geospatial programs. From these results 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 22 

it is noticeable that the majority of the survey sample population spends the majority of their 

time interacting with state geospatial programs. 

7.3 Survey Responses 

The following graphics describe respondents’ answers to survey questions and statements. The 

questions and statements from the survey are listed in the title of each bar graph. 

7.3.1 Fifty States Strategic and Business Plan Templates (a.k.a. Guidelines) 

Figure 7-1. Fifty States Strategic and Business Plan Templates 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 23 

7.3.2 Contribution to the NSDI 

Figure 7-2. Contribution to the NSDI 

7.3.3 Active Participation in Strategic and/or Business Planning 

Figure 7-3. Active Participation in Strategic and/or Business Planning 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 24 

7.3.4 Need for Fifty States Initiative Grants 

Figure 7-4. Need of Fifty States Initiative Grants 

7.3.5 Improved Geospatial Coordination with Grants 

Figure 7-5. Improved Geospatial Coordination with Grants 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 25 

7.3.6 Effective Statewide Coordination 

Figure 7-6. Effective Statewide Coordination 

7.3.7 Fifty States Initiative Grants Enable Geospatial Coordination 

Figure 7-7. Fifty States Initiative Grants Enable Geospatial Coordination 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 26 

7.3.8 Contribution Improvement 

Figure 7-8. Contribution Improvement 

7.3.9 Actions or Developments that Improve State Coordination 

The last survey question asked respondents to provide a single action or development that they 

thought would most improve federal-state coordination on geospatial matters. Answers varied 

by individual. Dominant themes presented included: 

• Improvement of federal-state communication to facilitate collaboration and contribution 

• Establishment of regular meetings with Federal partners 

• Creation of a more unified Federal voice to the states to create consistency 

• Creation of a standardized approach in establishing coordination criteria and processes 

• Provision of more, or incentive federal funding and grants to the states that are easier to 

work with (e.g. their personnel/policies are more collaborative and/or their data are 

more accessible) 

• Clarification of differences between the NSDI and State Spatial Data Infrastructures 

(SSDI) 

Other themes reported by the respondents did emerge from the survey yet these six themes 

were the most frequently mentioned. The full list of responses to this question can be viewed in 

Appendix C: Open-ended Responses to Federal Employee Survey from Question 9. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 27 

7.4 Federal Employee Survey Results 

The Federal Employee Survey aimed to seek “expert opinion” how useful and effective the Fifty 

States CAP grants were from the perspectives of USGS State Liaisons, NGS Geodetic Advisors, 

and Census Regional Geographers. This population was considered “expert” due to their extensive interactions with state geospatial programs. The data suggest that the 50 States Program 

is effective at improving state geospatial coordination, and by extensions, advancing the NSDI. 

Overall, respondents reported a high level of support for these grants designed to assist state 

geospatial coordination. On questions concerning how effective the grants have been for state 

geospatial coordination, respondents reported a high level of effectiveness. Questions 2 and 4-8 

show that respondents view the grants as having real value in increasing the ability of the states 

to make the NSDI a reality and make improvements in effective geospatial coordination. A 

very small portion of individuals answered negatively to these questions. 

Another component of the Fifty States Initiative scored by respondents was the effectiveness of 

Strategic and Business Plan Templates (a.k.a. Guidelines). In response to a statement addressing how useful the Templates were for guiding planning efforts, 76% respondents largely 

agreed that these templates were essential and effective. It can be concluded that these templates provided by FGDC for grant recipients are a vital part for the planning efforts of individuals involved in geospatial coordination. 

The survey responses also demonstrated that individuals dealing with geospatial coordination 

issues varied in their level of participation in the Fifty States strategic planning and business 

planning processes for their respective states. Approximately twenty-nine percent responded 

that they were not involved in the process, whereas approximately 42% reported an active level 

of participation. The remaining 29% of respondents indicated that the statement was “not applicable” to their work or neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. 

The survey also allowed respondents to provide open-ended responses on how federal-state 

coordination on geospatial matters could be improved. Dominant themes are presented above 

in the Section 7.3.9. Out of these themes, respondents demonstrated a desire to improve communication between states and federal agencies as well as increasing the availability and access 

to federal funding. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 28 

8 Assessment of State Case Studies 

8.1 Case Study Approach & Methods 

After recognizing the limitations with the quantitative analyses based on the NSGIC Survey, the 

analysis team determined that it would be useful to present a companion qualitative assessment 

that directly described the impacts of the Fifty States CAP grant program in individual states. 

For this portion of the analysis, four (4) states were selected from the 2006 and 2007 pool of CAP 

recipients and a narrative case study was prepared that describes how a state benefited from a 

Fifty States CAP grant and what coordination improvements followed the grant. States used for 

this portion of the analysis (Minnesota, Connecticut, West Virginia and California) shared only 

one thing in common: they received a Fifty States CAP grant in either the year 2006 or 2007. 

This allowed the assessment to capture any gradually emerging coordination benefits from the 

federal funding. 

The project team worked with state representative to assemble these case studies which described how the Fifty States CAP funds were used and what outcomes followed the completion 

of the CAP projects. 

8.2 The Case Studies 

The following case studies present the qualitative and subjective findings on how Fifty States 

CAP grants have impacted individual states and geospatial coordination within those states. 

8.2.1 Minnesota 

In June of 2009 Minnesota celebrated the creation of the new Minnesota Office of Geospatial Information (MnGeo) and the Commissioner of Administration announced the appointment of 

the state’s first Geospatial Information Officer. This event culminated a focused and sustained 

planning effort begun in 2004. The state’s receipt of a 2006 Fifty States CAP grant is considered 

instrumental in achieving this milestone. 

Although Minnesota was an early pioneer in state GIS efforts, by the early 2000s there was a 

feeling that the state’s leadership was waning. The Land Management Information Center 

(LMIC), the state’s leading statewide GIS coordination organization, was hampered by inadequate funds and the lack of an explicit mission to carry out statewide coordination. In spite of 

rapidly growing GIS utilization across the state, almost all of LMIC’s coordination efforts were 

pursued on an informal basis. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 29 

Recognizing this, in 2004 the state developed a strategic plan aimed at improving geospatial 

coordination and pursuing the development of a Minnesota Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI). 

This plan, titled Foundations for Coordinated GIS, was adopted by the Governorʹs Council on 

Geographic Information (GCGI) in June 2004. The plan recommended formally authorizing a 

state executive branch agency to coordinate GIS as a strategically essential element. Despite the 

strong case made by the plan, the Governor proposed budget reductions for LMIC in 2005 and 

2007 and little was done to implement its recommendations. 

The 2006 CAP grant offered a much needed opportunity for LMIC to pursue the agenda set 

forth in the Foundations plan. A statement in Minnesota’s final report to the FGDC states that 

“the grant provided critical funding needed to supplement long-term efforts devoted to achieving the goals of the 2004 plan and developing a second-generation strategic plan that focused on 

organizational and operational issues.” 

Activities pursued by Minnesota and supported by the Fifty States CAP grant funding included: 

• Hiring a part-time staff person dedicated to working on issues of statewide coordination 

and MSDI development 

• Conducting a GIS stakeholder planning retreat to gain consensus on a new “vision 

statement” and priorities for coordination 

• Development of a closer relationship with the state CIO, the leader of a newly re-formed 

Office of Enterprise Technology 

The project was completed by November, 2007 and was considered a strong success that helped 

to elevate the visibility of GIS and the need for progress to key government executives. The final report to the FGDC observed that “work will continue towards establishing a formally recognized State GIS coordinating entity with its roles, responsibilities, relationships, resources, 

authorities and governance defined, understood, and supported by the community.” 

An immediate result of the 2006 – 2007 Fifty States CAP supported planning efforts was Governor Pawlenty identifying GIS as a “Drive to Excellence” initiative. Drive to Excellence was a 

gubernatorial led government effectiveness effort that aimed to create efficiency through the 

pursuit of state government-wide enterprise initiatives. Being identified as a “Drive” project 

meant that geospatial coordination and enterprise development had both priority and visibility 

at the highest levels of government. To pursue the Drive GIS project the state identified over 

$150,000 of funding – contributed from multiple state agencies - to pursue detailed planning 

and to continue the part-time staff that was focused on geospatial coordination. Indeed, the 

state stepped in and was able to build on the key seed funding that the FGDC had provided. 

During 2008 the state hired a consultant to pursue a formal and detailed planning study titled A 

Program for Transformed GIS in the State of Minnesota: Program Design & Implementation Plan. This 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 30 

plan built on the earlier Foundations strategic plan and the CAP supported report. The Transformation study focused on the development of a business case for geospatial coordination and 

the development of an operational plan for implementation. The Transformation report identified specific roles and responsibilities for a geospatial coordination office and staff and was 

coordinated with the Governor’s Council on Geographic Information’s (GCGI) parallel effort to 

develop a governance model for overseeing the new office. This project was a strong success 

and the three commissioners who participated in the process spearheaded efforts to see the 

plan’s recommendations carried out. 

As a result of this senior executive support and hard staff work, during the spring of 2009 many 

of the Transformation study’s recommendations were embodied in new legislation that dissolved 

the Land Management Information Center (LMIC) and replaced it with the new Minnesota 

Geospatial Information Office, MnGeo. The legislation also provided a clear and specific mission to carry out statewide geospatial coordination. This legislation was passed into law in 

May, 2009. Although the Transformation study recommended significant new funding, no new 

operational resources were provided to the new office beyond LMIC’s previous funding. However, during the same legislative session, $5.6M was authorized for the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources to pursue statewide elevation data through Light Detection and Ranging 

(LiDAR) collection, with 2.5 percent set aside for MnGeo’s coordination function. 

Minnesota now embarks on a new chapter in its long history in GIS deployment. The Fifty 

States CAP grant played an important role in the state’s efforts to advance its internal coordination and to build its statewide SDI. MnGeo, with a stakeholder-oriented governance structure 

and an explicit mandate to foster coordination, make Minnesota a stronger partner that is better 

able to coordinate with federal agencies and more prepared to fully build-out and maintain 

framework data sets. Three years later, it is clear that FGDC’s investment in Minnesota has 

paid dividends. 

8.2.2 Connecticut 

Prior to the year 2006 the State of Connecticut’s state-level GIS efforts were led by a small group 

of state agencies and the champions within these groups that were responsible for their respective GIS activities. State, regional and local geospatial activities were not coordinated by any 

official state agency or council, and there was often competition for resources, or duplication of 

effort because of a lack of communication or knowledge of what was going on in the state. 

There was no official State office of GIS, no department designated to coordinate statewide efforts, and there was no official coordinating council within the state. Users communicated on a 

project-by-project basis and coordinated their efforts through the necessity of trying to pool 

funds for the common good. 

The GIS Council was formed in January 2006 with the appointment of members from municipalities, state agencies, and higher education and in February of 2006, a website, 

www.ct.gov/gis, was established and the Council held its first meeting. The Council adopted 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 31 

bylaws on March 22, 2006. Four working groups were formed to spread out the workload and 

each work group began working on the major issues that were initially identified. These working groups are: 

• Data and Inventory Assessment 

• Education and Training 

• Legal and Security 

• Finance 

In March 2006, the GIS Council received a $50,000 Fifty States CAP grant to fund the development of Strategic and Business Plans for the GIS Council. To ensure interaction and collaboration from regional and local municipal organizations on strategic and business planning, GIS 

Council representatives met with representatives of the state’s 15 Regional Planning Organizations (RPO’s), and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, starting in July 2006. These efforts resulted in the formation of a new GIS user group representing the state’s fifteen RPOs and 

opened up a formal avenue of communication and collaboration on GIS issues. 

From July of 2006 through July of 2007 five regional stakeholder sessions were held and over 48 

meetings were held by the various active Working Groups of the GIS Council showing the significant commitment by Connecticutʹs GIS practitioners to improving coordination and planning. In September of 2007 the Strategic and Business Plans developed as part of this process 

were formally approved by the GIS Council and contained the following strategic goals: 

• Organize GIS efforts across state and local government agencies. 

• Develop a core set of data layers that are kept up-to-date and made broadly accessible in 

a state-managed data repository. 

• Communicate and educate potential users and decision makers about the benefits and 

capabilities achieved by GIS investments. 

Programmatic goals were also established that included the following: 

• Improve coordination and organize GIS efforts across all levels of government (federal, 

state, regional, and local). 

• Develop a core set of framework data layers that can be shared across state agencies and 

with local government. 

• Communicate the benefits of and educate decision makers on the use of geospatial technology to increase adoption and provide sustainable funding. 

As a result of these plans much has changed in the State with respect to coordination of geospatial activities: 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 32 

Improved Communication: Since the planning process started in 2006, thirty-one Geospatial 

Council meetings have been held at which federal, state, regional, and local governments as 

well as academic institutions and the private sector actively participated. 

Data Improvements: The data holding for the State have been divided into fourteen geospatial 

categories to provide a structured framework for the assessment of thousands of potential 

geospatial datasets that exist that can be used to create statewide layers. Twelve of these data 

layers have been identified as high priority for the state and a subcommittee has been established for each. 

Development of Cooperative Data Sharing Agreements: Cooperative data sharing agreements with three bordering states are being finalized to enable each State to acquire needed GIS 

data in the event of an emergency.

Improvements to Education and Outreach: 

• Developed Outreach and Educational Materials 

• Organized GIS Day at State Capitol 

• Initiated Quarterly Newsletter, “Connecticut Geo-Focus” 

Staffing: In concert with the recommendations of the plans the State designated an IT Manager 

to manage, review, coordinate and approve geospatial related projects conducted by State agencies, and also hired the first full-time GIS Analyst within the Department of Information Technology to support the Council’s initiatives. 

Funding and Projects: In the three years since the plans were adopted the State GIS community 

was able to continue as well as initiate several projects which were funded in whole or partially 

through several federal grant programs that resulted from efforts identified in the Strategic and 

Business Plans. 

• Geospatial Emergency Management System - DEMHS GIS Project, created an Emergency Response and Planning tool for use by state, regional and local government entities. 

• Oblique Imagery Project – Through cooperative funding the State purchase oblique photographic imagery for the central third of Connecticutʹs land area. 

• Road Network Environment – Developed a pilot to test long term road data framework 

creation. This is now under full statewide development. 

• Regional Performance Incentive Grants 

• The State of Connecticut provided over 8 million dollars in competitive grants for 

projects where improved efficiency could be gained by providing services or performing 

functions on a regional basis. Over 2.5 million dollars of these grant funds went to geo-
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 33 

spatial projects including regional imagery and cadastral data development, regional 

shared services, and regional web application development projects. 

In summary the State of Connecticut has had significant success with improving its geospatial 

coordination in the areas of education and outreach, data inventory, assessment, and development, staffing, and funding since receiving its Fifty States CAP grant and completing its strategic and business plans. Much work is left to be done to achieve the vision and goals laid on in 

these plans, but the plans themselves have had a significant effect on improving the situation in 

the State. 

8.2.3 West Virginia 

In support of the Future Directions Fifty States Initiative, the State of West Virginia received 

2006 funding from the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s Fifty States CAP grant program to 

organize a new statewide coordinating structure and for developing strategic and business 

plans. 

The most visible direct outcome of the 2006 CAP grant is the formation of the West Virginia Association of Geospatial Professionals (WVAGP). WVAGP presents itself as a growing nonprofit 

organization for geospatial professionals involved in digital cartography, geographic information systems (GIS), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), land information systems, remote sensing, and other related geospatial technologies. Members of WVAGP include representatives 

from local, state and federal agencies, educational and research institutions, the private sector, 

and other professional organizations. The Charter Meeting was held in March 2007 where bylaws were approved, officers elected, and new member enrollment opened. In August 2007, 

WVAGP was designated a 501(c)(3) nonprofit by the IRS. 

Formation of WVAGP was driven by what were identified as deficiencies in an August 2006 

GIS Coordination Report. In 1992 the State developed a GIS Strategic Plan, and in 1993 recommendations in the plan were used by the Governor’s Office to issue an Executive Order to establish West Virginia’s statewide GIS program. The program was later funded in 1995 through 

provisions of House Bill 2222, that created the Mineral Lands Mapping Program, and subsequently through other state and federal sources. The Executive Order established a GIS Coordinator, State Data Clearinghouse, and three coordinating bodies: a Policy Council consisting of 

cabinet secretaries to implement the State’s GIS plan; a Steering Committee comprised mostly of 

geospatial leaders from state government and academia; and a GIS Users Group to serve as the 

vehicle for education, training, and information exchange among GIS users. Of these three 

coordinating entities, the Steering Committee has been the primary mechanism for advancing 

statewide spatial data infrastructure in West Virginia during the past decade. Political and 

technological changes over the previous decade have rendered many aspects of the 1993 Executive Order obsolete. In 2005, the statewide GIS community, after experiencing 10 years of rapid 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 34 

growth in the number of GIS professionals and services employed, collectively recognized that 

a new GIS coordination program was needed to more adequately serve the State. 

Receipt of the 2006 CAP grant positively impacted West Virginia geospatial coordination 

progress in two ways. First, the grant deadline caused the geospatial community to take action 

on planning and coordination tasks that would not otherwise have happened. Secondly the new 

WVAGP association would not have formed without the financial assistance to pay for expenses such as meetings, parliamentarian fees for drafting bylaws, legal fees to attain nonprofit 

status, and website development. 

There was healthy discussion on how to apply for and utilize the 2006 CAP grant funds. Ultimately West Virginia chose to form WVAGP so that coordination could be dramatically enhanced. The secondary benefit is that the association is now in place to seek future funding and 

have a solid team to focus on re-authoring a now outdated 1993 GIS Strategic Plan. 

Before the 2006 CAP grant, West Virginia statewide coordination had been hampered with too 

frequent changeover in formal state GIS Coordinators and significant gaps when no coordinator 

was in place. With that resolved as a result of the 2006 CAP grant, broader statewide coordination can be entertained. A 2008 survey indicated that 88% of the respondents indicated that 

government agencies starting, or wanting to start a GIS program do not have access to the 

knowledge or resources required to successfully implement one. The new GIS Coordinator is 

coordinating within the state to assist counties who in the past released GIS-related RFPs without sufficient GIS knowledge. Within the state, the GIS Coordinator is also working with the 

Tax Department and the Statewide Address and Mapping Board to prepare for Broadband 

Mapping stimulus funds. “Without the formal coordinating body our state coordination stalls.”

Currently, and historically, coordination with adjacent states has not been a priority. The focus 

was first to coordinate within the state. Informal adjacent state coordination is facilitated by the 

twice annual NSGIC Conference. No immediate plans are in place to change this informal coordination approach. 

State geospatial coordination with the federal government over the last three years has had 

mixed results. The state works closely with its new USGS Liaison and this relationship has 

yielded positive results. FEMA and USDA coordination has improved, and USFS and State Park 

interaction has stayed consistent. Federal coordination with the USGS at the local level was 

identified to have dropped significantly. This was attributed to the loss of technical staff at the 

local USGS technical center offices due, perhaps to consolidation of the Mapping Centers. This 

has negatively impacted the state and their ability to enhance the National Hydrography Dataset and other core and supplemental framework data sets. Federal coordination is also hampered by the fact that West Virginia is not consistently classified by federal agencies. In some 

cases the state is designated as being in the Northeast and in some cases as being in the South. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 35 

This was identified as a barrier to maintaining consistent coordination with a constant set of regional states. 

In practical terms, West Virginia believes that most effective indicators of geospatial coordination progress are milestone projects. These are projects that have set outcomes, hard delivery 

dates, and when coordinating with Federal agencies, progress and deliverables are mandated. 

The 2006 Fifty States CAP grant award to West Virginia was instrumental in forming the WV 

Association of Geospatial Professionals (WVAGP). On 3 February 2009, the WVAGP board 

adopted a resolution in support of legislation recognizing WVAGP. Overall, three years later, 

statewide and federal coordination has improved. 

8.2.4 California 

Prior to the FGDC 2007 Fifty States CAP grant award, and continuing today, there are two 

statewide geospatial entities that meet on a regular basis: 1) the California GIS Council, and 2) 

California Geographic Information Association. There are also sixteen Regional Collaboratives 

across this expansive state, and these are at various stages of maturity and local/regional coordination activity. 

The California GIS Council (http://gis.ca.gov/council) formed in 2003 is comprised of representatives from local, tribal, state and federal government agencies and the private sector, and was 

formed to collaborate on the planning, implementation and maintenance of a California GIS infrastructure. The Council meets twice yearly. 

California Geographic Information Association (CGIA) (http://www.cgia.org) is a non-profit, 

statewide association formed in 1994 to facilitate coordination, collaboration, and advocacy for 

Californiaʹs Geographic Information System (GIS) community. CGIA promotes the creation and 

maintenance of the best practices in the governance and application of geographic information 

within the State of California. The CGIA Board meets quarterly. 

Both entities share some common meeting participants, thereby facilitating knowledge transfer; 

and, they collaborate on geospatial-related initiatives. This collaboration was essential as the 

CGIA, as a non-profit, was able to apply for, and administer, the Fifty States CAP grant funds. 

Five recent collaboration projects, two of which were funded from CAP resources, are considered significant events since 2006. 

1. California Geospatial Framework Draft Data Plan (Published September 2006) 

The CGIA partnered with the US Geological Survey, the California Resources Agency and the 

California GIS Council (with 2005 CAP grant funding from the Federal Geographic Data Committee) to develop a Draft Geospatial Framework Data Plan for California. The seven core 

framework data sets and eleven California supplemental framework data sets were identified 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 36 

and prioritized in the document (the plan can be found at: http://www.cgia.org/geospatialdraftplan.htm) 

2. California Strategic Plan Phase 1 (Published September 2006) 

The California GIS Council convened a volunteer (un-funded) strategic planning work group in 

April, 2006, to develop a strategic plan for the comprehensive development of a spatial data infrastructure in California, making liberal use of the Fifty States Initiative strategic plan templates. This group developed a draft plan which was presented to the California GIS Council in 

September, 2006. 

3. Formation of the California Office of the Chief Information Officer (January 2007) 

The California GIS Council has one seat on the Council for the State Chief Information Office. 

The State CIO became an official office of the Governor of the State of California in January, 

2007. The State CIO has developed a State Information Technology Strategic Plan which calls 

for a formal geospatial coordination effort. 

4. California Strategic Plan Phase 2: Regional Participation (Published May 2008) 

California received an FGDC 2007 Fifty States CAP grant to fund a series of workshops for regional geospatial collaboratives. The workshops provided critical input from California’s sixteen Regional Collaboratives on the strategic goals, priorities, and implementation elements of 

the draft Strategic Plan, and develop reiterative mechanisms for their continued participation. 

The project furthers California’s Spatial Data Infrastructure (CA-SDI) Strategic Plan, facilitating 

the coordination of programs, policies, technologies, and resources enabling the coordination, 

collection, documentation, discovery, distribution, exchange, and maintenance of geospatial information in California. The Phase 2 Plan made five Governance, eight Data, five Finance, and 

seven Marketing recommendations. (The plan can be found at: http://www.cgia.org/strategicgisplanning.htm) 

5. California Imagery Business Plan and Best Practices Project; A Review of Regional MultiJurisdictional Collaborations (Published April 2008) 

CGIA partnered with the US Geological Survey, the California Resources Agency, and the California GIS Council to identify best practice options for cooperatively acquiring and procuring 

digital imagery, as guidance for regional and other multi-participant digital imagery projects 

that may be conducted within California. (The plan can be found at: 

http://www.cgia.org/imagery-project.htm) 

Without FGDC CAP grant funding, along with USGS funding, the initiatives noted above may 

never have occurred, and certainly would never have happened in the last three years. 

In 2008, the Office of the Geographic Information Officer was created under the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer. This event achieved an objective that had been envisioned for many 

years by the California geospatial community and marked an important and substantive result 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 37 

from the planning efforts described above. Plans are in place to build up and expand the Office 

of the GIO with two deputies: one for operations and one for planning. Operations will be further divided into two parts: (1) services (web applications, library/catalog, imagery, grants & 

procurement) and (2) data (divided by layer categories such as environmental, parcels, and 

transportation). 

The vision for the Office is built around two of the major documents produced by the California 

GIS council, and described above (i.e. the California GIS Council Strategic Plan and the GIS 

Council Framework Data Plan). The Strategic Plan is built around the vision statement: “California and its citizens’ values and are empowered by geographic resources.” This vision statement is supported by four major roles: policy role (data sharing, technical) operational role (central services, e.g. geocoding), consolidation roles (Governor’s Reorganization Plan), and an enterprise role (services for the collective). 

In the last three years geospatial coordination within the state has increased dramatically, particularly through the establishment of the GIO. The GIO has begun collaborative efforts along 

the following data paths; 1) Imagery, 2) Transportation, 3) Landmarks, 4) address geocoding 

and 5) parcels. In addition, there has been significant increased coordination in the Homeland 

Security business areas and involving the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). Now, regular working group meetings for emergency response happen with key players 

discussing homeland security GIS needs. 

The priority for California has been to improve State coordination and expand Federal coordination. California has not focused on coordination with adjacent states. However, through the 

appointment of the GIO and the increased activity around the Western Governors Association 

(WGA) GIS Working Group, some increased interstate coordination has taken place. In particular, California helped the effort for the WGA reauthorization of its Geospatial Policy Statement. 

Functionally in California, federal government coordination has also improved in the last three 

years. The largest improvement has come with the addition of a USGS Liaison position for the 

state. California now has one position each in northern California and southern California. The 

addition of these positions greatly increases the amount of partnership opportunities, in particular for local imagery collection to the state. 

Federal CAP funding has been an important contributor to GIS planning in California. Now 

that the state has a GIO whose job it is to functionally coordinate geospatial activity in the state, 

there is likely to be continued coordination progress. The state anticipates that specific measures will likely be developed around the GIO work plan and the GIO/CIO strategic plan. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 38 

8.3 Case Study Results 

Concrete information from these case studies overwhelmingly suggests that the States that received Fifty States CAP grants show that their geospatial programs have realized many benefits 

directly associated with the receipt of the grants. Each state case study demonstrates positive 

outcomes resulting from Fifty States CAP grant funding. Perhaps most importantly, Fifty States 

CAP grants assisted in the formation of several State Strategic and Business Plans which influenced organizational change and improved geospatial coordination. 

Fifty States CAP grants directly influenced the establishment of geospatial coordination offices 

and the hiring of employees responsible for geospatial coordination. In Minnesota, the MnGeo 

office was created as following the grant funding and the completion of their planning effort. 

Connecticut also established a GIS Council for the state in 2006 on the heels of their CAP grant 

award. In West Virginia, the CAP grant was directly responsible for the formation of the 

WVAGP that currently plays a leading role in establishing a geospatial coordination structure. 

And in California, CAP supported planning was instrumental in making the case for the successful establishment of the Office of the Geospatial Information Officer. 

Fifty States CAP grants are consistently linked to positive geospatial advancements by states. In 

Minnesota, these grants were a key link in a chain that has resulted in the formal creation of the 

state’s first state Geospatial Information Officer, the further development of relationships with 

the state CIO, and the successful achievement of the “Drive to Excellence” GIS Initiative. Connecticut has seen such advancements as the creation of a geospatial website, establishment of 

data sharing agreements, and the formulation of regional stakeholder sessions to publicize 

geospatial coordination. West Virginia is currently realizing the benefits of a geospatial coordination structure and is seeing less internal turnover with formal state GIS coordinators as a result of grant funding. California’s new GIO is now in a position to actively engage with regional collaboratives, the federal government and neighboring states. 

Overall, this qualitative review strongly indicates that states are achieving results and making 

significant progress with the help of Fifty States CAP grants. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 39 

9 Analytical Challenges 

9.1 Analytical Challenges & Limits of Quantitative Analysis for 

Geospatial Coordination 

There currently exist significant and inherent challenges in accurately measuring state geospatial coordination progress. Some of these are definitional in nature, others are a function of the 

lack of available of data, and still others are a function of how and when the limited available 

data were generated. The team completed the analyses on the quantitative data that were available and determined that these data were generally inadequate to provide statistically significant 

results. The project team did identify a measurement methodology that should be useful and 

relevant in future years if, and when better data are available to support the analysis. These 

current data streams (i.e. the state survey) were not purposefully designed to yield performance 

measurement information. This means that based on the available data the team was, at best, in 

a position to only draw informed inferences rather than to confidently calculate results based on 

data and data collection systems that were specifically designed for the purpose of performance 

management. It is thus no surprise that the quantitative analyses yielded results that were not 

statistically significant. 

9.1.1 NSDI Definition Inadequacies 

The abstract nature of the NSDI presents a challenge in measuring its progress. There is no universally accepted clear definition for the NSDI; although the federal government has a high 

level working definition in Executive Order 12906. Ideally, there would be a broadly accepted 

federal logic model for the NSDI, replete with clearly articulated goals, end and intermediate 

outcomes, and associated performance metrics, all of which would have gone through a public 

involvement and commenting process. Since none of this exists, it becomes challenging to link 

the activities of one small grant program to a broader performance management construct that 

has never been fully articulated. Therefore, establishing the “right” metrics that can be integrated with other NSDI activities remains a problem for federal agencies, states, and for this 

analysis. 

9.1.2 Data variability in the NSGIC State Summaries Survey 

Because participation in the NSGIC State Summaries Survey is voluntary, and states self-report 

and self-evaluate, data validation and verification is a significant concern. While the survey 

questions have been validated across the states, there is no way to avoid states interpreting the 

questions differently, and there remains the possibility that a state’s bias might be reflected in 

the survey. For example, some states may have reasons to portray themselves as advanced and 

well coordinated. Other states may have reasons to portray a deficiency that justifies a need for 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 40 

budgetary investment to address the deficiency. As a result, any comparative analysis of states 

that have received funds compared to those that have not may be problematic when it relies on 

the NSGIC State Summaries Survey data alone. Currently, the NSGIC State Summaries Survey 

does not afford the opportunity for states to delineate which state initiatives are the results of 

CAP funding. 

9.1.3 Absence of timely data 

The NSGIC State Summaries Survey provides a wealth of data. However, it must be noted that 

although states were encouraged to revisit this survey and respond yearly, some states do not 

routinely update their surveys, and some did not respond to the data call at all. This absence of 

current information means the available data may not reflect actual progress. Each year, the 

survey is “closed” and the previous year’s information is used to “populate” the new survey. 

This reduces the amount of work required for the person participating in the survey to help improve the participation rate. Therefore, some states did not submit updated information for 

some, or all of the years in the analysis. 

9.1.4 Conclusion 

In conclusion, the statistical analyses that were completed cannot be viewed as definitive or reflective of state progress or achievements in geospatial coordination. Rather, they are indicative 

of gaps in a performance measurement regime and data to support performance measurement. 

As such, the analyses presented in Sections 5 and 6 are examples of potential approaches that 

may be valid with better underlying data. As reflected in the recommendations below in Section 10, these data and performance measurement challenges imply a great need for improved 

communication about required performance measures and consistent year-to-year data collection to support statistical analysis in future Fifty States CAP grants. 

The assessments presented in Sections 7 and 8 strongly suggest that the 50 States program is 

improving state geospatial coordination in meaningful ways. A properly designed performance 

measurement and data collection system should be able to document that progress in a statistically significant manner. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 41 

10 Conclusions and Recommendations 

There are strong indications that the CAP grants in support of the Fifty States Initiative (i.e. Fifty States CAP grants) have meaningfully improved state geospatial coordination and state contributions to the NSDI. In particular, two analyses based on 1) the Federal employee survey, 

and 2) four state case studies taken from early recipients of Fifty States CAP grants provide 

strong quantitative and qualitative evidence that the grants are having a strong positive impact 

on state geospatial coordination and by extension, the state’s ability to contribute to the NSDI. 

However, significant data limitations currently prevent an effective statistical analysis of quantitative information on state geospatial activity and progress. Therefore, the quantitative analyses undertaken in this study were inconclusive on the proposition that Fifty States CAP Grants 

have directly improved state government geospatial coordination. 

The following points are the important overarching conclusions from this study: 

• The Fifty States CAP grant program has made a positive difference at the 

state level in specific notable ways as shown by case histories, particularly in 

critical areas of institutional change and staffing, political support, additional 

funding, increased visibility and engagement of stakeholders, and in planning and initiation of specific programs. 

• The Fifty States CAP grant program is highly visible and well-received by 

states, and participation now includes most of the 50 states and territories; 

many of the grant funded plans have been completed and are “bearing fruit.” 

• GIS planning and coordination have gained “new” visibility within states and 

GIS stakeholders (including federal partners, state agencies, local government) are increasingly aware of lessons learned and “new” initiatives occurring in other sister states 

• The Fifty States planning process (based on the Strategic and Business Plan 

Guidelines) has proven itself useful for guiding the grant recipients in planning efforts and enhancing the quality and specificity of strategic and business plans; it has proven itself to be a flexible framework that is useful to 

states with widely different circumstances 

• Complacency with respect to coordination planning, funding, or implementation is not an option. Stresses on state budgets, the urgency of other state 

business and concerns, and the poorly understood importance and value of 

GIS and geospatial data in state political and legislative circles defines the 

challenge that remains for the future of state coordination in support of SSDI 

and NSDI. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 42 

Based on the findings and conclusions of this review of state experiences and survey 

data, we make the following key recommendations: 

• Continued success and consolidation of the gains made over the past four Fifty States Cap grant cycles requires continued investment in the planning and 

coordination process, including: 

(1) ongoing review of progress and of the causes of setbacks and delays; 

(2) periodically revising and updating the Strategic and Business Plan 

Guidelines; 

(3) cataloging and fostering exchange of information, lessons learned, best 

practices and success stories among states; and 

(4) most importantly, continued funding to stimulate the refreshment and 

advancement of prior plans or to establish new ones. 

• More investigation is required to establish how current generalized survey 

approaches or alternatives can effectively “measure” in aggregate the ways 

that states are progressing toward coordination. The current set of collected 

data on the nine coordination criteria, for example, do not show sufficient 

variation across states nor through time to support conclusions about the impact of the Fifty States CAP grants or other types of intervention. 

• Because the grant funded plans are tailored to each state, we recommend incorporating a progress reporting mechanism that allows the states to report 

on progress with respect to their individual plans in the years following the 

grant – e.g., to report the tangible accomplishments tied to their state-specific 

strategic and programmatic goals or business plans toward advancing NSDI. 

This would provide a finer-grained picture of the progress being made, with 

information on where and what kinds of setbacks are being encountered. 

This would help to establish “cause and effect” relationships between planning efforts and outcomes; and, it would provide program administrators an 

individual state-level and an aggregate national-level picture of the direct 

impact of the Fifty States CAP grant program. 

• Continued refinement of the definition of the NSDI to the level where specificity allows more direct and definitive measurement of its degree of 

achievement, and implications for state level coordination. This would assist 

and allow for strengthening of the Fifty States CAP grant program, enabling 

strategic and business planning to be brought into closer alignment with 

known and measurable success criteria. 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 43 

Appendix A: NSGIC State Summaries Survey 

The National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) Survey was given to 

states, Washington DC and select territories to determine state geospatial coordination. 

The following survey questions were used from years 2007 to 2009. 

2007 – 2009 NSGIC State Summaries Questions and Answers 

(Missing numbers are a technical issue with the survey software. No questions are missing) 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

1. Please choose the primary contact 

3. Please select the answer that most closely describes your role in statewide GIS coordination. 

• Officially Recognized Statewide GIS Coordinator 

• Officially Recognized State Government Only GIS Coordinator 

• Generally Recognized Volunteer Statewide GIS Coordinator 

• Generally Recognized Volunteer State Government Only GIS Coordinator 

• Volunteer Working on Statewide Issues 

• Volunteer Working on State Government Only Issues 

• Other (please specify below) 

4. What is your job title? 

• State Geographic Information Officer 

• State Geographic Information Systems Coordinator 

• State Geographic Information Systems Director 

• Division Director 

• Other (please specify) 

5. Enter the name of your agency/organization. 

6. Please select the answer that best describes the affiliation of your office/agency in state government. 

• Governorʹs Office 

• Non-Profit Organization 

• University or other Academic Organization 

• Other Department of State Government 

• Emergency Management/Homeland Security Agency 

• State Geological Survey 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 44 

• Department of Planning 

• Department of Transportation 

• Department of Natural Resources or Environmental Protection 

• Department of Health or Human Services 

• Department of Commerce or Economic Development 

• Department of Agriculture 

• Budget or Fiscal Oversight Agency 

• State CIOʹs Office 

• Information Technology Agency 

• Other (please specify in the space below) 

11. Describe your stateʹs top three geospatial accomplishments during the past year. (200 character limit per line) 

12. Describe your stateʹs top three geospatial goals for the coming year. (200 character limit per 

line) 

13. Describe the three most significant geospatial challenges for your state. (200 character limit 

per line) 

14. Describe any significant cooperative efforts with federal, state or local partners. (200 character limit per line) 

15. Describe any significant data development activities, innovative applications, cost saving 

measures, contracts, etc. that are on-going or that you have begun over the past year. (200 character limit per line) 

16. Please provide the URL link for the mission statement of your state GIS Council. 

• Donʹt Have a Mission Statement 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

17. Please provide the URL link for your state GIS Coordination Office. 

• No State GIS Coordination Office 

• No Web Page - Use E-mail Address Provided 

• URL: 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 45 

18. Please provide the URL link for your state GIS Coordination Council Web Page. 

• No Coordination Council 

• Council Does Not Have a Web Page 

• URL: 

*

19. Please provide the URL link for your state GIS Clearinghouse Node. 

• No Clearinghouse Node 

• We Are Working on a Clearinghouse Node - Not Yet Available 

• URL: 

*

20. Is your Clearinghouse Node set up to be harvested by the GOS Portal? 

• Yes 

• Not Sure 

• No 

• Not Applicable 

• Other (please specify) 

*

21. Please provide the URL link to a list of GIS data stewards for your state. 

• No List Available 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

22. Please provide the URL link to your state GIS Personnel Classifications. 

• No Specific GIS Classifications 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-Mail 

• URL: 

23. Please provide the URL link for your state GIS data distribution policies. 

• No State Data Distribution Policy 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 46 

24. Please provide the URL link for your state GIS Data Standards. 

• No Data Standards 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

*

*SCORECARD for the Fifty States Initiative 

1. Which of the following NSGIC Coordination Criteria are in effect in your state? 

A. A full-time, paid coordinator position is designated and has the authority to implement 

the state’s business and strategic plans. 

B. A clearly defined authority exists for statewide coordination of geospatial information 

technologies and data production. 

C. The statewide coordination office has a formal relationship with the stateʹs Chief Information Officer (or similar office). 

D. A champion (politician or executive decision-maker) is aware and involved in the 

process of coordination. 

E. Responsibilities for developing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and a State Clearinghouse are assigned. 

F. The ability exists to work and coordinate with local governments, academia, and the 

private sector. 

G. Sustainable funding sources exist to meet projected needs. 

H. Coordinators have the authority to enter into contracts and become capable of receiving 

and expending funds. 

I. The Federal government works through the statewide coordinating authority. 

RATING SCALE: 

1 = We previously had this function and lost it over the past year 

2 = No plans at this time for implementing this criteria 

3 = We currently are planning to implement this within the next 12 to 18 months 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 47 

4 = Progress has been made and we reasonably expect this to be fully implemented within the next 12 months 

5 = Implemented at this time 

2. Please identify the stakeholder groups that participate on your GIS Coordination Council and 

their level of participation. 

Actively Participates 

on our Council

Has an official “seat” 

or voting privileges 

on our Council

Invited to participate 

in general meetings 

of our Council

Cities and Towns 

Statewide City Organization

Counties and Parishes 

Statewide County 

Organization

 

Regional Government 

Organizations

 

State Agencies 

Tribal Governments

Federal Agencies

Utilities 

Academic (Colleges 

and Universities)

Education (K-12) 

Private Sector (GIS 

Industry Vendors and 

Users)

 

General Business 

Community

 

Surveying Community

 

Non-Profit Organizations

 

General Public 

Local URISA Chapter 

Local ASPRS Chapter 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 48 

3. Please provide the URL link to your current Statewide Strategic Plan for GIS. 

• No Strategic Plan Available 

• Under Development - Not Available at this Time 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

4. Please provide the URL link to your current Statewide Business Plan for GIS. 

• No Business Plan Available 

• Under Development - Not Available at this Time 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

5. Please provide the URL link to your current Statewide Marketing Plan for GIS. 

• No Marketing Plan Available 

• Under Development - Not Available at this Time 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

• Total text responses 

6. Please provide the URL link to the Law or Executive Order that established your GIS Coordination Office and/or Council. 

• Not Applicable - No Executive Order or Law Available 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

7. Please provide a URL link to your stateʹs law(s) related to privacy issues as they affect data 

and information technology. 

• Not Applicable - No Law in Effect 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 49 

8. Please provide a URL link to your stateʹs law(s) related to data security issues. 

• Not Applicable - No Law in Effect 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

9. Does your GIS Coordination Council have adequate funding to support its operation? (This 

refers only to the activities of the Council and not to your Coordination Office or projects like 

data development.) 

• Fully Funded 

• Partially Funded 

• Not Funded 

• Not Applicable 

• Other (please specify) 

10. What fund sources does your Coordination Council use to support its operations? (Check all 

that apply) 

• Not Applicable 

• State Bonds 

• State General Funds 

• State Special Funds 

• State Capital Budget Funds 

• Agency Contributions As Required 

• Membership Fees 

• Federal Funds Appropriated in State Budget 

• Federal Grants 

• Other (please specify) 

*

11. Does your GIS Council officially endorse the use of appropriate OGC, FGDC, ANSI or ISO 

standards as appropriate? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Not Applicable 

• Other (please specify) 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 50 

12. Does your state make its own GIS Inventory tool available to users? 

• Yes - All Users 

• Yes - Government Users Only 

• No, but we actively support use of the Ramona System 

• No 

• Other (please specify) 

*

13. Does your state actively develop and promote the use of data sharing agreements? 

• Yes for Homeland Security applications only 

• Yes, but only for limited operational needs 

• Yes for all applications 

• None needed because everyone participates in the public domain 

• No 

• Other (please specify) 

14. Does your GIS Council or State Coordination Office actively participate in The National 

Map? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Other (please specify) 

HOT TOPICS 

1. Does your state have a shared Orthoimagery Program that involves local and state agencies? 

• Yes 

• No, but we plan to start one in the next 12 months 

• No 

• Other (please specify) 

2. Have you completed a Return on Investment (ROI) Study or Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to 

justify a shared Orthoimagery Program? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Other (please specify) 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 51 

3. Please provide a URL link so we can obtain a copy of your ROI or CBA study. 

• Not Applicable 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

4. Does your state have a shared Road Centerline file project that involves local and state agencies? 

• Yes 

• No, but we plan to start one in the next 12 months 

• No 

• Other (please specify) 

5. Have you completed a Return on Investment (ROI) Study or Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to 

justify a shared Road Centerline File program? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Other (please specify) 

6. Please provide a URL link so we can obtain a copy of your ROI or CBA study. 

• Not Applicable 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

7. Does your state have a statewide (or multi-jurisdictional) address database? (pick one) 

• No 

• Yes 

8. Is this database based on individual addresses or address ranges? (pick one) 

• Individual addresses 

• Address ranges 

• Both 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 52 

9. Have you completed a Return on Investment (ROI) or Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to justify 

this Address program? (pick one) 

• Yes 

• No 

• Not Applicable 

10. If applicable, please provide a URL link so we can obtain a copy of your ROI or CBA study. 

(fill-in if applicable) 

ROLE OF STATE GIS COORDINATORS 

1. Please choose the mechanism that created your position. 

• Legislation 

• Governorʹs Executive Order 

• Action of Coordination Council 

• Agency Administrative Decision 

• Other (please specify) 

2. Please provide the URL link for the document(s) that created your position (Legislation, Executive Order or Other Action). 

• No Statutory Authority, Executive Order, or Other Action 

• Hard Copy Only 

• Digital File Available by E-mail 

• URL: 

3. Which choice most closely matches the title of your boss? 

• State Chief Information Officer 

• State Department/Agency Director 

• State Department/Agency Division Director 

• Other (please specify) 

4. What choice best describes how closely you are aligned with the State CIO? 

• The CIO is My Boss 

• Very Close 

• Not Very Close, But Getting Closer 

• Not Very Close 

• My State Does Not Have a CIO 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 53 

5. Please select the number of staff that you supervise. 

• Less than 3 

• 3 to 5 

• 6 to 10 

• 11 to 15 

• More than 15 

6. Does your GIS Coordination Office have adequate funding to support its operation? (This refers only to the activities of your office and not to the Coordination Council, or projects like data 

development.) 

• Fully Funded 

• Partially Funded 

• Not Funded 

• Not Applicable 

• Other (please specify) 

7. What fund sources does your Coordination Office use to support its operations? (Check all 

that apply) 

• Not Applicable 

• State Bonds 

• State General Funds 

• State Special Funds 

• State Capital Budget Funds 

• Agency Contributions As Required 

• Membership Fees 

• Federal Funds Appropriated in State Budget 

• Federal Grants 

• Other (please specify) 

8. When an administration change occurs following a statewide election is your position? 

• Likely to be Affected 

• Not Likely to be Affected 

9. Please rank the importance of these characteristics/skills to the effective performance of your 

job. 

Not ImportantNot Very 

Important

Important Very ImportantCritical

GIS Evangelist/Cheerleader

 

GIS Architect

Political Savvy
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 54 

Technological Savvy 

General management 

Skills

Procurement/Contracting 

Skills

People Skills 

Understanding the Business Needs of Your Customers

____________________________

*Element used in Five Questions 

**Element used in Nine Criteria 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 55 

Appendix B: Federal Employee Survey

B. 1 Background Information 

1. Please provide your name (Please note names are only available to the project team and 

will not be made available as part of the published results; the project team may followup with you): 

2. Please provide your email: 

3. Please provide your office location (state): 

4. Please choose your Agency: 

• USGS 

• Census 

• National Geodetic Survey 

• Other 

5. What is your current position: 

• Geospatial Liaison 

• Regional Geographer 

• State Geodetic Advisor 

• Other 

6. How long have you been in your current position (in years)? 

7. With which states do you work? 

8. What percent of your time do you spend interacting with state Geospatial programs? 

9. Have any of your states received an FGDC Fifty States Initiative grant for statewide strategic and business planning? 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 56 

B. 2 Selected federal agency state and/or regional staff survey questions 

1. The Fifty States Strategic and Business Plan Templates (guidelines at 

http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/revbsp) produced for Fifty States Initiative 

grant recipients are a useful tool for guiding planning efforts. 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

2. The plans produced with Fifty States Initiative grant assistance will help contribute to 

progress toward making the National Data Spatial Infrastructure (NSDI) a reality. 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

3. I was an active participant in the Fifty States strategic planning and/or business planning 

process for your state(s). 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

4. The states do not need Fifty States Initiative grants to contribute to the National Data 

Spatial Infrastructure (NSDI). 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 57 

5. States that have received Fifty States Initiative grants do a better job of geospatial coordination than states that have not received such grants. 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

6. States are more likely to have more effective statewide coordination if they receive Fifty 

States Initiative grants. 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

7. Future Fifty States Initiative grants will enable the ability of states to improve geospatial 

coordination. 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

8. Fifty States Initiative grants have improved the ability of states to contribute data to 

NSDI. 

O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O ------------------ O 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

9. What single action or development would most improve federal-state coordination on 

geospatial matters? 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 58 

Appendix C: Open-ended Responses to Federal 

Employee Survey from Question 9 

The following responses were given to the final question on the Federal Employee Survey. (Responses are 

shown here in their original state at submission.) 

Question 9: What single action or development would most improve federal-state coordination 

on geospatial matters? 

1. Regular (semi-annual??) meetings between Federal partners to ensure the effectiveness 

of this effort and to target specific areas of technical deficiencies that require more immediate attention (e.g. encouraging height modernization efforts in a state with a poor 

geoid model)

2. Improve federal inter-agency communication and collaboration.

3. The Federal Government needs to recognize and accept the diversity of State organization. We should not assume, for example, that geospatial coordination is part of -- or 

should be part of -- an enterprise IT organization at the State level. It might be something else entirely, something more appropriate to a particular Stateʹs history and character, and we need to be flexible about working with differences.

4. A more unified Federal voice to the states would help. It is difficult to get state agency 

cooperation on some geospatial projects because another Federal agency is giving the 

state a different set of geospatial priorities that USGS. It is also frustrating to hear of 

competing and/or redundant geospatial projects by another federal agency AFTER the 

project is completed rather than in the planning stage where coordination is possible.

5. Cooperative funding towards the State-level SDI contingent upon the presence of official in-state coordination.

6. I doubt there is a ʺsingle actionʺ to improve coordination because ʺFederalʺ responsibility assumes cooperation and agreement among Departments and agencies (DOI, 

USDA, DOD, etc.) and the NSDI assumes a ʺState coordinatorʺ has cooperation and 

agreement among ALL State agencies (DOT, DNR, Ag, etc.) - in addition to diverse 

Local (county and municipal) and Regional (i.e. Metro) organizations.

7. Develop methods, procedures, and publications to clearly define and articulate the 

benefits of sharing base framework geospatial data in the public domain for all levels 

of government with specific and real life examples. For example, what are the benefits 

of the NAIP imagery to the casual GIS user county employee or the general public in a 

typical county? Are they aware of the huge federal and state investment in this imagery that is freely available to them?

8. Money

9. Consistency In Federal Role in NSDI

10. NGP stays in GIO and GIO goes in Geography. Our State partners are very confused 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 59 

as to why we would remove the NGP from the GIO. It does nothing to enhance our 

credibility.

11. Proactive participation by Federal and State agencies.

12. Federal government needs to build partnership programs and establish leadership for 

national framework themes. The states cannot build the NSDI is no federal agency 

takes the lead in providing leadership and guidance for these themes.

13. National standards that are adhered to by most federal agencies that state and locals 

could use as the model for their own standard.

14. More regional interaction would assist us to access and participate in this program. I 

am not that knowledgeable and therefore am not much help.

15. A Federal Mandate

16. Having a state Geodetic Advisor funded by this program.

17. A presentation to political leaders (perhaps at a Governor’s conference) about the 

NSDI, Geospatial Liaisons, etc and the benefits to be gained for their state.

18. For USGS to have staffing in place to support geospatial activities

19. Sustainable funding. Not just from a Federal stand point, but also from the State in order for them to maintain acquisition on a regular cycle.

20. Continued Federal and State support of the National States Geographic Information 

Council. Expanded Federal participation with the NSGIC organization. USGS and 

Census are doing a good job, but several other Federal agencies need to initiate/expand their involvement with this group.

21. Strong leadership on the federal side to develop standards in support of Circular A-16.

22. -coordinated federal funding for NSDI framework development and enhancement 

in case you donʹt like that one!! 

-funding to seed implementation of business plans related to NSDI framework

23. Including participants from all levels of government, from the very beginning, when 

changes, particularly big changes, are coming to an established program, such as The 

National Map, where all of the levels of government are able to actively participate in 

developing the plans for change so that all stakeholders can be on board from the beginning.

24. Sustainable, institutionalized funding streams, either from state or federal entities, to 

counties and cities, to educate, develop and promote standards, increase accuracy, engage stewardships, develop processes for data to be moved into state and federal databases, all of the components necessary to building NSDI need to be supported by a 

realistic and sustained funding stream.

25. Keep improving the lines of communication.

26. Institute policies whereby a certain percentage of funds (75-80%) spent for certain 

geospatial data development, maintenance, distribution, and related matters, etc. by 

either federal or state organizations required matching funds/cost shares, and certain 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 60 

agencies check off that they were notified but were unable to participate in the coordinated effort.

27. Increased federal funding incentives.

28. Long term funding for state data stewardship for national framework geodata layers.

29. Consistency on the availability of funding so states can better rely on potential funds 

as they plan future activities.

30. An overarching legal decision mandating that all data developed by public funding be 

placed in the public domain.

31. 1) A better description of the NSGIC term for State Spatial Data Infrastructure is 

needed (SSDI). The 7 framework data themes of the NSDI are clearly defined. My 

perception of an SSDI would be the extension of these 7 Framework Themes to also include the remaining themes identified by the ISO 19115 Topic Categories, for which 

there are a total of 19 data themes. 

2) I would like to see some specific language on the emphasis of data becoming ‘Public 

Domain” as one of goals of the NSDI 50-States Strategic Plan and Business Plan initiative. There’s been some confusion with regards to several key data layers here in 

South Carolina, and whether the license constraints of these layers actually qualify as 

NSDI. The licensing in question allows the data to be shared freely among State, 

County and local government but intentionally restricts the data from becoming 

shareable with federal government and without any cost recovery being sought. The 

state data layers in question are Orthoimagery, E911 Street Centerlines, Address 

Points, and Parcels. My reason for bringing this up is that our state coordinator has 

done a good job of bringing together a State Plan, but I have to question the absence of 

a federal component from his plan. More specifically, the pilot projects identified are 

focused on the above data layers in question.

32. A single state-level contact for all geospatial data (looking across all states, not just 

those in our region).

33. Federally fund the NGS State Geodetic Advisor program or a State GIS Coordinator

34. local involvement

35. Most states want ʺexternal/Federalʺ funding for federal-state coordination since few 

have adequate State appropriations to support that effort for the NSDI.

36. The Missouri Land Survey Program has been developing a statewide GRS on a county 

by county basis. More money could and would enhance our ability to do more surveys. However, we are not grant writers. We do not have the staff to go out looking 

for these grants and we do not have the expertise (or the time) to write a proper proposal. A single action would be an email asking if we would be interested and a simple form asking us to outline how we would propose spending the money.

37. WebEx conference calls so many can participate without traveling.

38. A standard agreement document for state and federal agencies to collaborate and 

partner toward geospatial programs. Also, a funding mechanism or process for the 
Measuring Progress of the Fifty States Initiative Report 

Contract #08HQCN0024 61 

transfer and deployment of money between state and federal agencies.

39. A better understanding of the National Spatial Reference system and its importance 

with the fifty states initiative.

40. Realization that all states are not identical and that tailored considerations of statecentric circumstances need to be engineered into statewide coordination efforts; 

Alaska is a good example in that 75% of the jurisdictional spatial extents are federal, 

not state.