Respondents were also asked about perceptions of their relationship with the agency with which worked. Transportation Reviewers were asked about their relationship with Resource agencies and Resource Reviewers were asked about their relationship with Transportation agencies. The following questions comprised the relationship questions for both 2003 and 2006:
1. My agency knew what was expected of it in this process. (Resource and Transportation)
2. The agency provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed. (Resource and Transportation)
3. The Resource agency wanted to play an active role in the process. (Transportation only)
4. Appreciated our contribution to the process. (Resource only)
5. Encouraged us to play an active role in the process. (Resource only)
6. My agency&146;s opinions seemed to count in the permitting process. (Resource and Transportation)
7. The Resource agency felt mission of project was important. (Transportation only)
8. The agency helped to move this project forward. (Resource and Transportation)
9. The agency made efforts to improve the process during this project. (Resource and Transportation)
Comparing data received in 2003 with data received this year, an evaluation of the overall perception of the relationships between agencies, by both Resource and Transportation Reviewers can be estimated. In essence, the overall perception of the relationships between agencies, by Resource Reviewers was higher than that of Transportation Reviewers. More interesting however, are the changes that occurred between specific regions.
· Perception of the relationships between agencies in one area by one group (i.e., Resource) did not necessarily reflect the perception of the relationships between agencies in that same area by their sister agencies (Transportation). In 2006, Resource Reviewers in all regions except one (Region 6 &151; and the difference between Resource and Transportation Reviewers in this region was one percentage point) rated &147;provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed&148; higher than the Transportation Reviewers.
· Among Resource Reviewers, Regions 4, 5, and 8 overall, rated the perception of the relationships between agencies higher than other regions of Resource Reviewers. However, Transportation Reviewers in Regions 4, 5, and 6 rated the perception of the relationships between agencies higher than other regions of Transportation Reviewers.
· The largest two changes noted were both by Transportation Reviewers. In Region 7 percentage of agreement fell from 77% in 2003 to 52% that [Resource Agency] felt that the mission of the project was important. While in Region 10, the percentage of agreement fell from 70% in 2003 to 48% that [Resource Agency] helped to move this project forward.
· Among Resource Reviewers, the changes seen over time were less pronounced with the largest single region change being that of Region 2 increasing from 36% agreement to 63% agreement with, [Transportation Agency] provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed.
Tables 3 and 3a show the percentages of Reviewers who agreed with the survey item listed for Resource and Transportation. Specifically, the tables show the percentages of respondents who &147;Somewhat Agreed&148; and who &147;Strongly Agreed.&148;
Table 3: Relationship With Transportation Agencies as Rated by Resource Agencies for 2006
|
Resource Agencies Rating Communication With Transportation Agencies |
Somewhat Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|---|---|---|
|
My agency knew what was expected of it in this process |
31% |
57% |
|
Transportation Agency Provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed |
33% |
37% |
|
Transportation Agency Appreciated our contribution to the process |
36% |
32% |
|
Transportation Agency Encouraged us to play an active role in the process |
29% |
46% |
|
Transportation Agency My agency&146;s opinions seemed to count in the process |
32% |
39% |
|
Transportation Agency Helped to move this project forward |
35% |
41% |
|
Transportation Agency Made efforts to improve the process during this project |
37% |
29% |
Table 3a: Relationship With Resource Agencies as Rated by Transportation Agencies for 2006
|
Transportation Agencies Rating Relationship With Resource Agencies |
Somewhat Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|---|---|---|
|
My agency knew what was expected of it in this process |
37% |
40% |
|
Resource Agency Provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed |
35% |
28% |
|
Resource Agency Wanted to play an active role in the process |
28% |
43% |
|
My agency&146;s opinions seemed to count in the permitting process |
33% |
32% |
|
Resource Agency Felt mission of project was important |
32% |
31% |
|
Resource Agency Helped to move this project forward |
28% |
27% |
Chart 17: My Agency Knew What Was Expected Of It In This Process &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
35 |
34% |
55% |
19 |
90% |
|
Region 2 |
17 |
12% |
77% |
11 |
82% |
|
Region 3 |
47 |
34% |
53% |
32 |
100% |
|
Region 4 |
42 |
31% |
55% |
34 |
92% |
|
Region 5 |
36 |
35% |
58% |
32 |
88% |
|
Region 6 |
42 |
26% |
57% |
33 |
91% |
|
Region 7 |
26 |
31% |
69% |
21 |
95% |
|
Region 8 |
28 |
25% |
57% |
30 |
87% |
|
Region 9 |
32 |
28% |
63% |
36 |
92% |
|
Region 10 |
41 |
42% |
39% |
32 |
94% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 17a: My Agency Knew What Was Expected Of It In This Process &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
55 |
35% |
35% |
23 |
69% |
|
Region 2 |
37 |
43% |
32% |
24 |
80% |
|
Region 3 |
56 |
34% |
45% |
39 |
72% |
|
Region 4 |
68 |
43% |
40% |
41 |
83% |
|
Region 5 |
46 |
43% |
47% |
36 |
94% |
|
Region 6 |
66 |
39% |
46% |
52 |
79% |
|
Region 7 |
23 |
30% |
40% |
29 |
76% |
|
Region 8 |
53 |
26% |
49% |
47 |
79% |
|
Region 9 |
64 |
34% |
39% |
60 |
84% |
|
Region 10 |
55 |
40% |
24% |
40 |
80% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Resource: Two regions saw large declines over the three years of measurement in the question of my agency knew what was expected of it in this process. Region 3 dipped to a top two box score of 87% from 100% in 2003 and Region 10 dropped to 81% top two box compared to 94% in 2003. No other regions saw a change of more than 10 percentage points from 2003. Slight changes that occurred in other regions worth noting included an increase of five points in Region 5 (up to 93% from 88% top two box), and increase of seven points in Region 2 (to 89% from 82%) and a decrease of eight points in Region 6 (to 83% from 91%).
Transportation: Two regions of Transportation Reviewers also noted large declines with this item. They were in Region 9 where the top two box score dropped from 84% to 73% and Region 10 where the top two box dropped from 80% in 2003 to 64% in 2006. The only other region to show a slight change of note was Region 3 where there was an increase from 72% top two box in 2003 to 79% top two box in 2006.
Summary: Overall, as with 2003, Resource Reviewers gave higher top two box scores on this item than did Transportation Reviewers. The largest differences within regions occurred in Region 1 (19-point difference between Resource and Transportation Reviewers), Region 7 (a 30-point difference), and Region 10 (a 17-point difference). What was consistent within Region 10 was that both Resource and Transportation Reviewers gave much lower scores for my agency knew what was expected of it in this process than they did three years when the last survey was undertaken. However, the discrepancy between scores given by Resource and Transportation Reviewers in this region remains with Resource Reviewers giving high scores in both 2003 and 2006 (17% higher in 2003 and 14% higher in 2006). Region 9 Transportation Reviewers gave much lower scores in 2006 than in 2003, while Resource Reviewers&146; scores stayed constant. The overall effect of this was to widen the discrepancy between the two groups of Reviewers in Region 9 to 18 points in 2006 from 8 points in 2003. The other discrepancy of note occurred in Region 7 where in 2003 Resource Reviewers gave much higher scores (19 points higher) than did Transportation Reviewers. That discrepancy widened greatly in 2006 where Resource Reviewers gave a top two box score of 100% while Transportation Reviewers gave a top two box score of 70%, a 30-point difference.
Chart 18: [Transportation Agency] Provided My Agency With The Materials, Information, Or Documentation That We Needed &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
34 |
44% |
27% |
20 |
65% |
|
Region 2 |
16 |
19% |
44% |
11 |
36% |
|
Region 3 |
48 |
33% |
35% |
32 |
82% |
|
Region 4 |
41 |
39% |
39% |
34 |
70% |
|
Region 5 |
36 |
35% |
47% |
32 |
69% |
|
Region 6 |
42 |
29% |
40% |
33 |
60% |
|
Region 7 |
25 |
36% |
40% |
21 |
86% |
|
Region 8 |
27 |
26% |
44% |
30 |
60% |
|
Region 9 |
34 |
27% |
32% |
37 |
51% |
|
Region 10 |
41 |
29% |
22% |
32 |
47% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 18a: [Resource Agency] Provided My Agency With The Materials, Information, Or Documentation That We Needed &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
51 |
33% |
22% |
22 |
63% |
|
Region 2 |
35 |
43% |
20% |
23 |
48% |
|
Region 3 |
54 |
44% |
20% |
38 |
66% |
|
Region 4 |
66 |
39% |
36% |
40 |
74% |
|
Region 5 |
46 |
41% |
37% |
34 |
65% |
|
Region 6 |
62 |
34% |
36% |
48 |
73% |
|
Region 7 |
21 |
19% |
29% |
29 |
59% |
|
Region 8 |
52 |
25% |
35% |
45 |
71% |
|
Region 9 |
57 |
28% |
21% |
60 |
57% |
|
Region 10 |
53 |
32% |
15% |
35 |
55% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Resource: More drastic changes among regions occurred in this category than for the previous question. Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Resource Reviewers in Regions 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Regions 3 (from 82% to 68% top two box, a 14-point decline) and Region 7 (from 86% to 76%, 10 points). Large increases occurred in Regions 2 (from 36% to 63% top two box, a 27-point increase), Region 5 (from 69% to 82%, a 13-point increase), and Region 8 (from 60% to 70% top two box, a 10-point increase). Region 6 increased 9 percentage points, 60% to 69%. Overall, Region 5 Resource Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 82% saying their sister agency provided my agency with the materials, information or documentation that we needed.
Transportation: Among Transportation Reviewers, Regions 2, 5, 7, and 8 saw drastic changes over the 2003 survey. Two of the changes were increases and two were decreases. Region 2 increased from 48% to 63% top two box (15-point increase) and Region 5 increased from 65% to 78% top two box (13-point increase). Region 7 decreased from 59% to 48% (11-point decrease) and Region 8 decreased from 71% in 2003 to 60% top two box in 2006 (11-point decrease). Three regions had relatively low scores for this item with less than one-half of the Transportation Reviewers rating it a &147;4&148; or &147;5.&148; Regions 7, 9, and 10 all received top two box scores of less than 50% while Region 1 Reviewers rated this item 55%.
Summary: In 2006, Resource Reviewers in all regions except one (Region 6 and the difference between Resource and Transportation Reviewers in this region was one point) rated &147;provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed&148; higher than did Transportation Reviewers. This differs from 2003 where Transportation Reviewers rated this item higher in 6 of the 10 regions. The starkest contrasts within regions occurred in Regions 7 and 8. In Region 7, three-quarters (76%) of Resource Reviewers gave top two box scores for provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed while less than one-half (48%) of Transportation Reviewers did the same. In Region 8, 7 in 10 (70%) Resource Reviewers gave top two box scores while only 6 in 10 (60%) Transportation Reviewers did the same (a difference of 10 points).
Chart 19: [Transportation Agency] Appreciated Our Contribution To The Process &151; Resource Only
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
35 |
29% |
23% |
20 |
65% |
|
Region 2 |
15 |
20% |
33% |
11 |
45% |
|
Region 3 |
47 |
47% |
28% |
31 |
81% |
|
Region 4 |
39 |
41% |
39% |
30 |
70% |
|
Region 5 |
33 |
30% |
38% |
29 |
48% |
|
Region 6 |
39 |
36% |
26% |
32 |
69% |
|
Region 7 |
24 |
42% |
42% |
19 |
83% |
|
Region 8 |
24 |
46% |
33% |
28 |
81% |
|
Region 9 |
31 |
36% |
29% |
36 |
70% |
|
Region 10 |
37 |
27% |
35% |
31 |
58% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Appreciated Our Contribution to the Process_________________________________
Resource: Appreciated our contribution to the process was asked only of Resource Reviewers. With this item, there was marked improvement over the scores given in 2003 with increases in 6 of 10 regions. Two regions had 8 in 10 Reviewers giving this item top two box scores (Regions 4 and 7). The largest changes in Resource reviewer ratings from 2003 occurred in Region 1 (a decline of 13 points), Region 5 (an increase of 22 points), and Region 8 (an increase of 18 points). The lowest top two box scores for appreciated our contribution to the process were given by Resource Reviewers in Region 1 (52% top two box), Region 2 (53% top two box), Region 6 (62%), and Region 10 (62%).
Chart 20: [Transportation Agency] Encouraged Us To Play An Active Role In The Process &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
35 |
37% |
43% |
20 |
95% |
|
Region 2 |
17 |
29% |
41% |
11 |
82% |
|
Region 3 |
48 |
23% |
56% |
32 |
72% |
|
Region 4 |
41 |
34% |
49% |
34 |
68% |
|
Region 5 |
36 |
32% |
47% |
31 |
62% |
|
Region 6 |
42 |
29% |
41% |
32 |
75% |
|
Region 7 |
25 |
16% |
52% |
20 |
75% |
|
Region 8 |
27 |
37% |
48% |
29 |
72% |
|
Region 9 |
34 |
27% |
35% |
37 |
78% |
|
Region 10 |
40 |
23% |
43% |
32 |
60% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 20a: [Resource Agency] Encouraged Us To Play An Active Role In The Process &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
55 |
27% |
47% |
22 |
69% |
|
Region 2 |
35 |
20% |
51% |
24 |
58% |
|
Region 3 |
54 |
33% |
35% |
37 |
60% |
|
Region 4 |
66 |
35% |
47% |
40 |
75% |
|
Region 5 |
44 |
22% |
59% |
36 |
69% |
|
Region 6 |
61 |
25% |
48% |
52 |
65% |
|
Region 7 |
22 |
36% |
32% |
29 |
69% |
|
Region 8 |
47 |
17% |
49% |
46 |
65% |
|
Region 9 |
59 |
38% |
25% |
59 |
45% |
|
Region 10 |
57 |
26% |
35% |
40 |
78% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Encouraged Us to Play an Active Role in the Process___________________________
Resource: In 3 of the 10 regions, 8 in 10 Resource Reviewers gave top two box scores for encouraged us to play an active role in the process. An additional four regions had 7 to 10 giving top two box scores for this item. The largest changes over time came in Regions 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9. In Region 1, there was a large decrease in top two box scores from 95% in 2003 to 80% in 2006 (a 15-point decrease over the three years). Region 9 was the other region with a decrease, from 78% to 62%, a 16-point decrease. Regions 4, 5, and 8 all had increases with Region 4 increasing from 68% to 83% (a 15-point increase), Region 5 increasing from 62% to 79% (a 17-point increase), and Region 8 increasing from 72% to 85% (a 13-point increase).
Transportation: Transportation Reviewers gave somewhat lower scores for this item in 2006 with only two regions having 8 in 10 Reviewers giving top box scores. In three regions, 7 in 10 Reviewers gave top two box scores for this item. In five regions (Regions 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10), 6 in 10 Reviewers gave top two box scores. Four regions saw large changes over 2003: Regions 2, 5, 9, and 10. In Region 2, the top two box scores increased from 58% to 71% (a 13-point increase), Region 5 from 69% to 81% (12-point increase), and Region 9 from 45% to 63% (18-point increase). Region 10 was the only region to see a large decline, from 78% in 2003 to 61% in 2006 (a 17-point decrease).
Summary: Overall, Resource Reviewers gave slightly higher scores on this item than did Transportation Reviewers. While in 2003 there were some stark contrasts, four regions differed by at least 20 points and two more differed by 10 points, in 2006 only two regions saw large contrasts &151; Regions 3 and 8. The remaining eight regions differed slightly if at all (six regions differed by less than 3 points). Region 8 had the largest difference between Resource and Transportation Reviewers with 85% of Resource Reviewers giving top two box scores but only 66% of Transportation Reviewers doing the same (a 19-percentage point difference between the two).
Chart 21: My Agency&146;s Opinions Seemed To Count In The Process &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
34 |
35% |
29% |
20 |
85% |
|
Region 2 |
16 |
38% |
44% |
11 |
54% |
|
Region 3 |
47 |
36% |
36% |
32 |
81% |
|
Region 4 |
41 |
46% |
37% |
32 |
75% |
|
Region 5 |
35 |
28% |
47% |
31 |
78% |
|
Region 6 |
42 |
33% |
36% |
33 |
72% |
|
Region 7 |
25 |
24% |
48% |
21 |
85% |
|
Region 8 |
27 |
26% |
52% |
28 |
74% |
|
Region 9 |
34 |
21% |
38% |
36 |
69% |
|
Region 10 |
41 |
27% |
37% |
32 |
66% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 21a: My Agency&146;s Opinions Seemed To Count In The Process &151;Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
54 |
32% |
30% |
22 |
63% |
|
Region 2 |
36 |
25% |
31% |
24 |
59% |
|
Region 3 |
55 |
33% |
33% |
37 |
63% |
|
Region 4 |
63 |
40% |
30% |
37 |
84% |
|
Region 5 |
43 |
35% |
48% |
33 |
79% |
|
Region 6 |
62 |
40% |
36% |
50 |
76% |
|
Region 7 |
23 |
22% |
39% |
27 |
70% |
|
Region 8 |
50 |
20% |
38% |
44 |
66% |
|
Region 9 |
62 |
34% |
18% |
58 |
57% |
|
Region 10 |
54 |
43% |
26% |
36 |
80% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the