/CNNGrassrootsSurvey2011 by Children & Nature Network

GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP SURVEY Findings of the 2011 Questionnaire Submitted April 2012 by M. Lynette Fleming, Ph.D. Independent Evaluator Research, Evaluation & Development Services 11220 E. Stetson Place Tucson, AZ 85749‐9550 520‐749‐4909 fleming@cox.net

Table of Contents Tables of Data Displays ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Charts .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Overview of Study .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Questionnaire Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Children and Nature Initiatives ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Organization (Question 2) .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Financial Support (Question 3) ................................................................................................................................... 9 Total Resources: Budget, In‐kind Products or Services, Volunteer Hours (Question 4) .......................................... 15 Formation (Question 5) ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Demographic Data for Geographic Areas Served ......................................................................................................... 20 Areas Served (Question 6) ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Population (Question 7) ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Ethnicity and Race Distribution in Geographic Areas Served (Question 8) .............................................................. 22 Income Level Distribution in Geographic Areas Served (Question 9) ...................................................................... 24 Population by Age Group Distribution in Geographic Areas Served (Question 10) ................................................. 26 Methods of Communication Used (Questions 11‐19).............................................................................................. 26 Outputs, Activities and Participants ............................................................................................................................. 28 Activities in the Last 12 Months (Question 20) ........................................................................................................ 28 Total Audience in the Last Year (Question 21) ......................................................................................................... 30 Underserved Youth Reached in the Last Year (Question 22) ................................................................................... 31 Distribution of Children and Nature Network Tools (Question 23) ......................................................................... 32 New Nature and Place‐based Efforts (Questions 24 and 25) ................................................................................... 33 Audiences Reached by New Efforts (Question 26 and 27) ....................................................................................... 35 Participating Audiences and Organizations (Question 29) ....................................................................................... 41 Programs and Activities(Questions 30 and 31) ........................................................................................................ 42 Outcomes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Observed Changes (Question 28) ............................................................................................................................. 45 Key Findings of Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Tables of Data Displays Table of Tables Table 1. Comparison of 2009 and 2011 Organization Findings ......................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Financial Support by Organization Structure ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 3. Total Financial Support or Budgeted Resources ................................................................................................. 15 Table 4. Total In‐kind Products or Services Committed to Initiatives in the Past 12 Months .......................................... 16 Table 5. Total Number of Volunteer Hours ...................................................................................................................... 17 Table 6. Ethnicity and Race Distribution in Geographic Areas Served, 2011 ................................................................... 23 Table 7. Race and Ethnicity Distribution in U.S. Compared with Majority of Grassroots Initiatives ................................ 24 Table 8. Income Level Distribution in Geographic Areas Served, 2011 ........................................................................... 24 Table 9. Income Distribution in U.S. Compared with Majority of Grassroots Initiatives .................................................. 25 Table 10. Population by Age Group .................................................................................................................................. 26 Table 11. Age Distribution in U.S. Compared with Majority of Grassroots Initiatives ..................................................... 26 Table 12. Numbers Reached by Communication Methods Used ..................................................................................... 27 Table 13. Comparisons of 2009 and 2011 Activities Engaged in by Grassroots Initiatives in the Last Year ..................... 30 Table 14. Estimated Participants Reached by Children and Nature Initiatives in the Last Year ....................................... 30 Table 15. Underserved Youth Reached in the Last Year .................................................................................................. 31 Table 16. Comparisons of 2009 and 2011 C&NN Tools Used by Grassroots Initiatives in the Last Year ......................... 33 Table 17. New Nature and Place‐based Efforts Started by Children and Nature Initiatives ........................................... 33 Table 18. Participant Numbers Reached by 6 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Community Gardens, Natural Play Areas, Nature Clubs for Families, Neighborhood Parks, School Gardens or Habitat Projects, Trails or Trail Projects, 2011 .............................................................................................................................. 36 Table 19. Participant Numbers Reached by 4 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Nature Clubs for Families, School Gardens, Natural Play Areas, and Community Gardens, 2009 ............................................... 37 Table 20. Cross Tabulations of 6 New Activities and Opportunities with Estimates of Total Audience Reached ............ 37 Table 21. Comparison of 2009 and 2011 Estimates of Audience Numbers Reached by Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Table 22. Underserved Youth Reached by 6 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Community Gardens, Natural Play Areas, Nature Clubs for Families, Neighborhood Parks, School Gardens or Habitat Projects, Trails or Trail Projects, 2011 .............................................................................................................................. 40 Table 23. Underserved Youth Reached by 4 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Nature Clubs for Families, School Gardens, Natural Play Areas, and Community Gardens, 2009 ............................................... 40 Table 24. Comparison of 2009 and 2011 Estimates of Number of Underserved Youth Reached by New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 41 Table 25. Programs and Activities by Hour and Day (Question 30a) ................................................................................ 43 Table 26. Programs and Activities by Week ..................................................................................................................... 43 Table 27. Programs and Activities by Season .................................................................................................................. 44 Table 28. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Hour ............................................................................................... 44 Table 29. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Day (Question 31b) ....................................................................... 44 Table 30. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Week ............................................................................................. 45 Table 31. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Season (Question 31d) .................................................................. 45 Table 32. Comparisons of 2009 and 2011 Changes as a Result of Children & Nature Initiatives ..................................... 47 3 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Table of Charts Chart 1. Organization Structure .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Chart 2. Financial Support by Organization Structure ...................................................................................................... 12 Chart 3. Total Financial Support or Budgeted Resources Committed in the Past 12 Months .......................................... 15 Chart 4. Total In‐kind Products or Services Committed to Initiatives in the Past 12 Months .......................................... 16 Chart 5. Total Number of Volunteer Hours Committed to Initiatives in the Past 12 Months .......................................... 17 Chart 6. Number of Children & Nature Initiatives Formed by Year .................................................................................. 18 Chart 7. Organization Structure by Formation Year ......................................................................................................... 18 Chart 8. Geographic Areas Served .................................................................................................................................... 20 Chart 9. Geographic Area Served by Organization Structure ........................................................................................... 21 Chart 10. Population of Geographic Area Served by Children & Nature Initiative ........................................................... 22 Chart 11. Communication Methods Used ........................................................................................................................ 27 Chart 12. Reported Activities of Grassroots Initiatives in the Last Year ........................................................................... 29 Chart 13. Estimated Participants Reached by Children & Nature Initiatives in the Last Year .......................................... 31 Chart 14. Children & Nature Network Tools Used ............................................................................................................ 32 Chart 15. Participant Numbers Reached by New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities, 2011 .................... 36 Chart 16. Audiences and Organizations Participating in Children & Nature Initiatives ................................................... 42 Chart 17. Changes as a Result of Children & Nature Initiatives ........................................................................................ 46

Executive Summary The Children & Nature Network (C&NN) conducted the second Grassroots Leadership Survey in fall 2011 to continue learning about efforts underway in communities, regions, states and provinces throughout the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom to reconnect children and families with nature. The 2011 questionnaire follows a similar questionnaire administered in 2009 so that C&NN can monitor growth and change in children and nature activities. Support for development of this questionnaire, analysis and reporting was provided by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Representatives of seventy‐eight children and nature initiatives throughout the U.S. and Canada, and one in Scotland, completed the questionnaire. From their responses the following is known. •

•

• •

•

• • •

•

The total population in the geographic areas served by the 78 grassroots initiatives responding to the 2011 Grassroots Leadership Survey is between 128 million and 260 million. In 2009, the 72 grassroots initiatives that completed the questionnaire operated in geographic areas with total populations estimated between 185 million and 300 million. The total number of participants reached in the past twelve months by questionnaire respondents from seventy‐two grassroots initiatives is between 2.7 and 4.25 million. Sixty‐eight initiatives reported participant numbers in 2009; the estimate of total audience reached in 2009 was between 900,000 and 1,500,000 in the previous year. The numbers reached on an annual basis are considerably higher in 2011 than in 2009. Although the number of participants is growing, the number of grassroots initiatives started is not. No new initiatives were started in 2011; whereas in 2009, the year of the last questionnaire, twelve new initiatives started. More than 25% of the grassroots initiatives are informal collaboratives of organizations, agencies and individuals. About one fourth of the grassroots initiatives are organized as a formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals. Less than a fifth of the initiatives are organized by a single agency or organization sponsor; a similar number are lead agencies with cooperating partner organizations. Funding support for most grassroots initiatives comes from a diversity of sources. Nearly half or more of the initiatives, however, receive no support from businesses, federal agencies, state agencies or local public agencies. Individuals appear to be the biggest source of support for informal collaborative initiatives. Support for single agency or organization initiatives comes primarily from individuals and foundations. Nearly all of the initiatives classified as lead agency with partners received support from foundations and more than two‐thirds were supported by state agencies. Formal collaboratives had support from the greatest diversity of sources. In the last year approximately a quarter of the initiatives reported financial support or budgeted resources of $1,000 or less; another quarter between $1,000 and $10,000; about a third between $10,000 and $100,000; and 14% over a quarter‐of‐a‐million dollars. In the last year approximately a quarter of the initiatives reported in‐kind products or services of $1,000 or less; another third between $1,000 and $5,000; another third between $5,000 and $50,000; and 14% over $50,000. Two initiatives reported in‐kind contributions in excess of $500,000. Volunteer hours for the seventy‐eight grassroots initiatives reporting ranged from none (1) to 100,000 hours. Nearly a quarter of the initiatives recorded between 1,001 and 5,000 volunteer hours. Over 40% selected between 101 and 1,000 hours. More than two‐thirds of the grassroots initiatives started in 2007, 2008 or 2009. Most early initiatives were organized by a single agency/organization sponsor or by a formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals with the trend toward both formal and informal collaboratives. Of the reporting initiatives, none started in 2011. 5 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

• •

•

• •

•

Approximately a third of the initiatives serve one or more of the following: cities, rural areas, and states. About a fourth of the initiatives serve one or more of these geographic areas: neighborhoods, suburban and metropolitan areas, multi‐county and single county/parish. Approximately half or more of the children and nature initiatives are in geographic areas where the Asian (64%), Black (62%), and Hispanic or Latino (49%) populations are between 1‐20% of the population. More than half (52%) of the initiatives are underway in geographic areas where 61‐100% of the population is white. These statistics are comparable to the U.S. race and ethnicity distributions reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. These demographics are essentially the same as 2009. A majority of the children and nature initiatives occur in geographic areas where income levels are distributed in the following range of percentages, which are somewhat similar to income statistics reported by U.S. Census Bureau for 2010. o $24,000 or less: 1‐20% o $24,001‐$45,000: 1‐40% o $45,001‐$90,000: 1‐40% o $90,001‐$150,000: 1‐20% o $150,001 or more: 1‐20% The distribution of age groups in the geographic areas served by the children and nature initiatives is aligned with the 2010 U.S. population distribution by age. Children and nature initiatives report using several communication methods including websites (88%), social networking tools (67%), e‐newsletters (63%), and print newsletters (18%). Since 2009 the number of initiatives using websites, social networking tools and e‐newsletters has increased; the number distributing print newsletters has decreased. In the last year nearly all of the grassroots initiatives were engaged in at least one of the nineteen activities listed in the questionnaire. Eighty‐six percent of the initiatives provided children’s outdoor programs and events. Approximately two thirds offered exhibits or booths and family events. More than half developed supporting materials and were involved in media interviews and organizational development activities. More than a quarter of the grassroots initiatives used or distributed thirteen of the nineteen C&NN Tools made available to the movement. Of particular note is that nearly two‐thirds of the initiatives used or distributed the research and studies available through C&NN. Nearly half of the grassroots initiatives reported using the C&NN electronic newsletters and Facebook. A third or more of the initiatives used the Nature Clubs for Families Toolkit, C&NN Community Action Guide, Let’s G.O.! (Get Outside) Toolkit, C&NN Report on the Movement to Re‐Connect Children with the Natural World and blogs. Between 1,000 and 3,000 new nature and place‐based opportunities for children have been established in the areas served by these grassroots initiatives, including community gardens for children, nature clubs for families, natural play areas, neighborhood parks, school gardens, and trails or trail projects. These numbers indicate at least a 50% growth in nature and place‐based opportunities in two years. Although 19% of the respondents are unsure of the size of the audiences reached by their new activities, 63 grassroots initiatives (81%) reported the total audience numbers participating in new community gardens, natural play areas, nature clubs for families, neighborhood parks, school gardens or habitat projects, trails or trail projects is at least two million and may be as large as five million. Fifty grassroots initiatives (64%) reported the number of underserved youth reached by new children and nature activities and opportunities including community gardens, natural play areas, nature clubs for families, neighborhood parks, school gardens or habitat projects, trails or trail projects. The majority of the reporting children and nature initiatives estimated their activities reached audiences comprised of between 1% and 25% underserved youth. The estimates of underserved youth participating in various 6 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

•

• •

•

children and nature activities and opportunities range from 94,000 in nature clubs for families to over 1.6 million in school gardens or habitat projects. Comparison of the 2009 and 2011 data indicate considerable increases in the number and percentage of initiatives that included underserved youth in their children and nature activities and opportunities. In 2011 C&NN campaigns engaged up to 1.2 million underserved youth in community garden projects (up from 176,600 in 2009); 856,000 in natural play areas (up from 316,100 in 2009); and 1.6 million in school gardens/habitat projects (up from 401,500 in 2009). In two years, the estimates are at least 2.5 times larger for underserved youth using natural play areas. The number of underserved youth participating in nature clubs for families at least tripled. The numbers quadrupled for underserved youth involved in school gardens and habitat projects and are at least six times larger for underserved youth with access to community gardens. More than half of the grassroots initiatives named these thirteen audiences and organizations as participants in their children and nature efforts: educators, nature centers, local non‐profit organizations, colleges or universities, parks, public school teachers, natural resource professionals, state agencies, childcare providers, scouts, community organizers, grandparents, and businesses. Initiatives most frequently offered activities weekly, on weekends and year‐round. The best attended programs or activities were offered monthly in the afternoon and occurred on Saturdays in spring. All of the questionnaire respondents saw at least one of twenty observed changes or outcomes since their children and nature initiatives started. Most grassroots initiatives (81%) reported increased awareness of the importance of nature for children’s healthy development, followed by two‐thirds who reported media attention, educational benefits to participants, and community support. Nearly two‐ thirds observed development or enhancement of places to play and learn outdoors in nature, partnerships with new allies, community improvements to provide access to nature‐based experiences, and increased engagement of non‐formal educators. More than half the grassroots initiatives reported increased engagement of formal educators, engagement of early childhood professionals and caregivers, and repeat participation by children and youth in nature‐based events and programs. A larger number of initiatives than in 2009 reported these changes: awareness of the importance of nature for children’s healthy development, number of children playing outdoors, and engagement of pediatricians and others in the medical community. A smaller number of initiatives than in 2009 reported these outcomes: funding for the children and nature initiatives and partnerships with new allies. Several statistically significant relationships or correlations between characteristics of the grassroots children and nature initiatives emerged from nonparametric inferential statistical analyses. The findings indicate the following relationships. o The earlier a grassroots initiative formed, the more activities the initiative is likely to have engaged in during the past 12 months. o The earlier a grassroots initiative formed, the larger the estimate of the total participants reached in the past 12 months is likely to be. o The larger the number of grassroots activities engaged in during the last 12 months, the greater the likelihood is that an initiative uses social networking tools such as Facebook and twitter. o The larger the number of C&NN tools used or distributed, the larger the number of grassroots activities engaged in during the last 12 months is likely to be. o The larger the number of grassroots activities engaged in during the last 12 months, the greater the number of changes likely to be seen since the start of the children and nature initiative.

Overview of Study The Children & Nature Network (C&NN) conducted the second Grassroots Leadership Survey in fall 2011 to continue learning about efforts underway in communities, regions, states and provinces throughout the U.S. and Canada to reconnect children and families with nature. The 2011 questionnaire follows a similar questionnaire administered in 2009 so that C&NN can monitor growth and change in children and nature activities. In‐person invitations issued at the annual conference in September 2011 and email invitations issued to designated points of contact and known leaders of children and nature initiatives within the children and nature movement created a snowball sample by encouraging potential respondents to send the questionnaire on to others to complete. The goal was to determine the scope and scale of the growing movement. During the sixteen weeks the questionnaire was available on Zoomerang (through January 6, 2012), representatives of seventy‐eight grassroots initiatives completed the questionnaire and reported about their work and program participants. The initiatives operate throughout the U.S. and Canada, plus one in Scotland. Respondents were encouraged to keep a record of their answers to the questions, so that comparisons could be made to the results. The 2011 questionnaire is very similar to the 2009 questionnaire. In addition, the same or a similar questionnaire will be administered in the future, so that the Children & Nature Network can monitor growth and change in children and nature activities. All of these data will help C&NN understand the movement’s impact, and will also help with making the case for funding in those cases where funding support is needed.

Methods Content analysis was employed for the qualitative responses on the questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were applied to the quantitative responses.

Content Analyses. Qualitative data from the open‐ended questionnaire items were analyzed for patterns and themes.

Descriptive Statistics. Frequencies, means and percentages were calculated for each questionnaire item. Where appropriate, tables and charts are used to illustrate responses.

Inferential Statistics. Relationships between characteristics of children and nature initiatives and several questionnaire items were analyzed using nonparametric statistical analyses including Kendall’s tau and Spearman’s rho. These analyses enabled us to discern the statistical significant relationships that are reported in the findings section.

Questionnaire Results Children and Nature Initiatives Organization (Question 2) In 2011 the organization structures of the respondents’ initiatives are divided as follows (see Chart 1): •

• • • •

24%‐FFormal collab borative of orgganizations, aagencies and individuals; 18%‐SSingle agencyy or organization sponsor; 17%‐LLead agency w with cooperating partner o organizationss and 15%‐O Other, includiing individualls (3); family vvolunteering time; family nature club; ffederal goverrnment; 501 c 3; funder; higgh school eco o club; private e, internationnal, for‐profit company serrving multiplee not‐for‐ es; social ente erprise based d in Scotland ((UK); statewide afterschoo ol network; aand profitt collaborative mostly separate an nd not‐collaborative effortts. Chart 1. Orgganization Sttructure

Total numb ber, percentaage 12, 15%

19, 24%

13, 17%

Formal collaboorative of organizzations, agencies and inndividuals Informal collabborative of organ nizations, agencies and inndividuals Single agency oor organization ssponsor

14 4, 18%

20, 26% Lead agency w ith cooperating partner organizations Other

A A comparison n of the resultts from 2009 and 2011 app pears in Tablee 1. In the 20009 questionn naire 4% (3) o of rrespondents w wrote in the O Other category, “Lead agency with coo perating parttner organizations,” which h led to tthe addition o of this response option to tthis multiple choice quest ion in 2011 and its selectio on by 17% off the rrespondents. The numberrs selecting fo ormal collaboratives and siingle agency ssponsor are d down betweeen 2009 aand 2011, like ely because so ome of the prrevious respo ondents foundd a more accu urate option in 2011. The number o of reporting in nformal collaboratives increased in two o years. Table 1. Com T parison of 20 009 and 20111 Organization n Findings

Organization Structure Formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individual s Informal co ollaborative o of organizatio ons, agencies and individuaals Lead agenccy with coope erating partne er organizatio ons (new opt ion in 2011) Single agen ncy or organization sponso or

2009 Total numberr, percentagge 25, 35% % 16, 22% % 22, 31% %

2011 Tottal number, percen ntage 19, 2 24% 20, 2 26% 13, 1 17% 14, 1 18%

FFinancial Sup pport (Quesstion 3) TThis item wass added on 20 011 Questionn naire: “Appro oximately whaat percentagee of your initiiative’s financcial ssupport for th he organizatio onal structure e you selected d in Questionn 2 comes from the followiing?” The six sources

of financial support from which the initiatives selected to total 100% of their funding are: businesses, federal agencies, foundations, individuals, local public agencies, and state agencies. Chart 2 and Table 2 show the sources of financial support by the organization structure selected in Item 2: formal collaborative, informal collaborative, lead agency with partners, and single agency. Table 2a‐f is organized by financial support. Within each source of financial support, the reader can compare the percentage distribution of support for all initiatives by organization structure. Table 2. Financial Support by Organization Structure Table 2a. Business Support by Organization Structure

What is your organization structure? (check the one that most applies) Formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Informal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Lead agency with cooperating partner organizations

Single agency or organization sponsor

Other, please specify

100%(78)

100%(19)

100%(20)

100%(13)

100%(14)

100%(12)

44%(34)

10.5%(2)

65%(13)

38.5%(5)

50%(7)

58.3%(7)

1 ‐ 20%

44.9%(35)

73.7%(14)

20%(4)

61.5%(8)

42.9%(6)

25%(3)

21 ‐ 40%

1.3%(1)

8.3%(1)

Business Support

Total

41 ‐ 60%

2.6%(2)

5(1)%

8.3%(1)

61 ‐ 80%%

>80%

1.3%(1)

5%(1)

Don't Know

6.4%(5)

10.5%(2)

10%(2)

7.1%(1)

Table 2b. Federal Agencies Support by Organization Structure

Federal Agencies Support

What is your organization structure? (check the one that most applies)

Total

Formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Informal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Lead agency with cooperating partner organizations

Single agency or organization sponsor

Other, please specify

100%(78)

100%(19)

100%(20)

100%(13)

100%(14)

100%(12)

61.5%(48)

42.1%(8)

55%(11)

69.2%(9)

78.6%(11)

75%(9)

1 ‐ 20%

15.4%(12)

26.3%(5)

25%(5)

7.7%(1)

8.3%(1)

21 ‐ 40%

5.1%(4)

5.3%(1)

10%(2)

7.1%(1)

41 ‐ 60%

3.8%(3)

10.5%(2)

8.3%(1)

61 ‐ 80%%

1.3%(1)

5.3%(1)

>80%

5.1%(4)

15.4%(2)

7.1%(1)

8.3%(1)

Don't Know

7.7%(6)

10.5%(2)

10%(2)

7.7%(1)

7.1%(1)

Table 2c. Foundations Support by Organization Structure

Foundations Support

What is your organization structure? (check the one that most applies)

Total

Formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Informal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Lead agency with cooperating partner organizations

Single agency or organization sponsor

Other, please specify

100%(78)

100%(19)

100%(20)

100%(13)

100%(14)

100%(12)

41%(32)

31.6%(6)

65%(13)

7.7%(1)

35.7%(5)

58.3%(7)

1 ‐ 20%

23.1%(18)

21.1%(4)

5%(1)

46.2%(6)

28.6%(4)

25%(3)

21 ‐ 40%

5.1%(4)

10.5%(2)

5%(1)

7.7%(1)

41 ‐ 60%

11.5%(9)

10.5%(2)

5%(1)

15.4%(2)

21.4%(3)

8.3%(1)

61 ‐ 80%%

5.1%(4)

10.5%(2)

5%(1)

7.7%(1)

9%(7)

10.5%(2)

5%(1)

15.4%(2)

7.1%(1)

8.3%(1)

5.1%(4)

5.3%(1)

10%(2)

7.1%(1)

>80% Don't Know

Table 2d. Individuals Support by Organization Structure

Individuals Support

What is your organization structure? (check the one that most applies)

Total

Formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Informal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Lead agency with cooperating partner organizations

Single agency or organization sponsor

Other, please specify

100%(78)

100%(19)

100%(20)

100%(13)

100%(14)

100%(12)

33.3%(26)

26.3%(5)

25%(5)

46.2%(6)

28.6%(4)

50%(6)

1 ‐ 20%

30.8%(24)

42.1%(8)

35%(7)

38.5%(5)

28.6%(4)

21 ‐ 40%

5.1%(4)

5%(1)

7.7%(1)

7.1%(1)

7.7%(1)

41 ‐ 60%

11.5%(9)

10.5%(2)

5%(1)

21.4%(3)

25%(3)

61 ‐ 80%%

1.3%(1)

7.7%(1)

>80%

11.5%(9)

10.5%(2)

20%(4)

7.7%(1)

7.1%(1)

7.7%(1)

Don't Know

6.4%(5)

10.5%(2)

10%(2)

7.1%(1)

Table 2e. Local Public Agencies Support by Organization Structure

Local Public Agencies Support

What is your organization structure? (check the one that most applies)

Total

Formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Informal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals

Lead agency with cooperating partner organizations

Single agency or organization sponsor

Other, please specify

100%(78)

100%(19)

100%(20)

100%(13)

100%(14)

100%(12)

52.6%(41)

42.1%(8)

60%(12)

38.5%(5)

57.1%(8)

66.7%(8)

1 ‐ 20%

25.6%(20)

21.1%(4)

20%(4)

53.8%(7)

21.4%(3)

16.7%(2)

21 ‐ 40%

9%(7)

21.1%(4)

5%(1)

7.7%(1)

41 ‐ 60%

5.1%(4)

10.5%(2)

5%(1)

7.1%(1)

61 ‐ 80%%

1.3%(1)

7.1%(1)

>80%

1.3%(1)

7.7%(1)

Don't Know

5.1%(4)

5.3%(1)

10%(2)

7.1%(1)

Table 2f. State T Agencies Supp port by Organ ization Structu ure

State Agencie es Support

What is your orgganization structuure? (check the on ne that most applies)

Total

100%(78)

Formal collaborative of organizationss, agencies and d individuals

Inform mal collaborattive of organizattions, agenciess and individu uals

Lead aagency with coooperating ppartner orgaanizations

Si ngle agency or organization sponsor

Other, please specify

100%(19)

100%(2 20)

1000%(13)

100%(14)

100%(12)

47.4%(37)

31.6% %(6)

55%(11) 5

30.8%(4)

57.1%(8)

66.7%((8)

1 ‐ 20%

20.5%(16)

26.3% %(5)

15%(3)

23.1%(3)

21.4%(3)

16.7%((2)

21 ‐ 40%

7.7%(6)

15.8% %(3)

5%(1)

7.7%(1)

7.7%((1)

9%(7)

15.8% %(3)

5%(1)

15.4%(2)

7.1%(1)

00%

61 ‐ 80%%

41 ‐ 60%

6.4%(5)

5% %(1)

10%(2)

7.7%(1)

7.1%(1)

00%

>80%

2.6%(2)

15.4%(2)

00%

Don't Know

6.4%(5)

5% %(1)

10%(2)

7.1%(1)

7.7%((1)

C Chart 2a‐d pre esents findinggs by organizaation structure. Each of thhe charts disp plays six colorrful columns ffor each o of the six sourrces of financcial support, w which allows tthe reader too compare thee percentage distribution of ssupport within one organizzation structu ure. No financcial support iss represented d by the colorr lime green, rust rrepresents 1‐2 20% of financcial support, ggold displays 21‐40%, purpple shows 41‐‐60% supportt, blue is 61‐8 80%, kelly ggreen indicate es the numbe er of initiative es that receive e more than 880% of their ffunding from m that source; don’t kknow is pink. Chart 2. FFinancial Supp port by Orga nization Stru ucture Chart 2a. Form C mal Collaboratiive Structure (n=19) Financiaal Support

Chart 2b. Inform C mal Collaborattive Structure (n=20) Financial Support

Chart 2c. Lead Agency w with Cooperatting Partner Sttructure (n=13) Financial Sup pport

Chart 2d. Single Agencyy or Organizatiion Sponsor Sttructure (n=144) Financial Sup pport

D Diverse sources of fundingg support mosst initiatives rregardless of organization structure. Tw wenty‐four (31%) initiatives, however, report that more than 80% of th heir funding ccomes from o one source an nd in this ordeer: individuals (9)), foundations (7), federal agencies (4), state agenciees (2), busineess (1) and loccal public ageencies (1). N Nearly half (44%, 34) of the e initiatives re eceive no finaancial supporrt from busineesses; nearly the same number (45%, 35) rece eive between n 1 and 20% o of their fundin ng from businnesses. Almost two‐thirds (62%, 48) of the ort from fede eral agencies, but 20% of t he initiatives rely on federral agencies ffor 1‐40% initiatives receive no suppo o of their fundin ng. Foundatio ons provide n no support to o 41% (32) of tthe initiativess and betweeen 1 and 20% of the ssupport of another 18 (21% %) of the initiatives. One tthird of the innitiatives repo ort no funding from individ duals; aanother third report betwe een 1 and 20% % of their fun nding comes ffrom individu uals. More than half (53%)) the initiatives report no fundin ng from local public agenciies; another qquarter (26%)) of the initiattives receive between 1 1 and 20% of their fundingg from this sou urce. Nearly half (47%) thhe initiatives gget no funding from state agencies, b but a fifth (21 1%) of the inittiatives receivve between 1 and 20% of ttheir funding from state aggencies. Initiatives that reported be eing formal co ollaborative o organizations (n=19) receivve a bit of sup pport from eaach of the ssix sources, w with 74% relyin ng on businessses for 1‐20% % of their funnding. More tthan half of the informal ccollaborativess (n=20) receiived no funding from busin nesses, federral agencies, ffoundations, local public agencies, aand state agencies. Individ duals appear to be the bigggest source oof support forr informal collaboratives. Nearly all (99%) of the initiatives classsified as lead d agency with h partners (n==13) received support from m foundations, more tthan two‐third ds were supp ported by statte agencies, aand 30% receiived support from federal agencies. Su upport for initiatives cate egorized as siingle agency or organizatio on (n=14) com mes primarilyy from individ duals and foun ndations.

TTotal Resourrces: Budge et, In‐kind Prroducts or Services, Volunteer Hours (Question n 4) A Also new to th he 2011 Quesstionnaire waas this item ab bout the tota l resources co ommitted to initiatives in the last yyear. This three‐part quesstion asked about financial support or bbudgeted resources, in‐kin nd products o or sservices and vvolunteer hou urs. B Budget. The financial support or budgeted resource es committedd to initiatives in the last yyear are displaayed in TTable 3 and Chart 3. The findings indicaate budgets fo or grassrootss initiatives raanged from no o budget to m more than $ $500,000. In the last yearr approximate ely a quarter of the initiati ves reported d budgeted reesources of $1,000 or leess; another quarter betw ween $1,000 aand $10,000; about a thirdd between $10,000 and $1 100,000; and 14% over aa quarter‐of‐aa‐million dollaars. Table 3. To otal Financial Support or B Budgeted Ressources Committed to Initiaatives in the PPast 12 Montths Budgete ed Resources More than $50 M 0,001 $250,001 ‐ $50 $ 0,000 $100,001 ‐ $25 $ 0,000 $50,001 ‐ $100 $ ,000 $20,001 ‐ $50,0 $ 000 $10,001 ‐ $20,0 $ 000 $5,001 ‐ $10,00 $ 00 $1,001 ‐ $5,000 $ 0 $101 ‐ $1,000 $ Less than $100 L None N Unknown U Total T

Freequency 5 4 2 11 7 6 8 12 8 8 2 5 78

P Percent 6% 5% 3% 14% 9% 8% 10% 15% 10% 10% 3% 6% 100%

Support/Resources

Cha art 3. Total Financial Supp port or Budge eted Resourcces Committeed in the Pastt 12 Months More e than $500,001 $250,,001 ‐ $500,000 $100,,001 ‐ $250,000 $50,,001 ‐ $100,000 $20 0,001 ‐ $50,000 0,001 ‐ $20,000 $10 $5,001 ‐ $10,000 $1,001 ‐ $5,000 $101 ‐ $1,000 Less than $100 None Unknown

of Initiatives Number o

IIn‐kind Prod ducts or Serv vices. Table 4 4 and Chart 4 4 display the i n‐kind products or servicees committed to rresponding initiatives durin ng the last ye ear. Although h about 10% oof the initiativves were uncertain about their in‐ kkind productss or services, tthe other 90% % reported be etween nonee and in‐kind p products and services valu ued at m more than half‐a‐million dollars. In the last year app proximately aa quarter of th he initiatives reported in‐kind ccontributions of $1,000 or less; anotherr third between $1,000 an d $5,000; ano other third beetween $5,00 00 and $ $50,000; and 14% over $50 0,000. Tablle 4. Total In‐‐kind Productts or Servicess Committed to Initiaatives in the PPast 12 Montths More thaan $500,001 $250,001 1 ‐ $500,000 $100,001 1 ‐ $250,000 $50,001 ‐ $100,000 $20,001 ‐ $50,000 $10,001 ‐ $20,000 $5,001 ‐ $10,000 $1,001 ‐ $5,000 $101 ‐ $1 1,000 Less than n $100 None Unknown Total

2 1 4 4 110 8 8 113 112 5 3 8 778

3% % 1% % 5% % 5% % 133% 100% 100% 177% 155% 6% % 4% % 100% 1000%

In‐kind Products or Services

Chart 4. Total In n‐kind Products or Service es Committed d to Initiativees in the Pastt 12 Months

More e than $500,00 01 $250,,001 ‐ $500,00 00 $100,,001 ‐ $250,00 00 00 $50,,001 ‐ $100,00 00 $20,001 ‐ $50,00 00 $10,001 ‐ $20,00 $5,001 ‐ $10,00 00 $1,001 ‐ $5,00 00 $101 ‐ $1,00 00 Less than $10 00 Non ne Unknow wn 0

110

Numberr of Initiatives

V Volunteer Ho ours. The ap pproximate nu umber of hou urs volunteereed to grassroots initiativess in the last yeear is rreported in Taable 5 and Ch hart 5. Voluntteer hours for the seventyy‐eight grassro oots initiativees reporting rranged 16 © 2012 Childre © en & Nature N Network

ffrom none (1)) to 100,000 h hours. Nearlyy a quarter off the initiativees recorded b between 1,000 and 5,000 vvolunteer h hours. Over 4 40% selected between 1,001 and 5,000 0 hours; in 8‐hhour days, 5000 hours is th he equivalentt of nearly 2 2 full time staff members.

Tablle 5. Total Nu umber of Volu unteer Hourss Committed to Initiaatives in the PPast 12 Montths Mo ore than 500,0 001 hours 250,001 to 500,0 000 100,001 to 250,0 000 50,001 to 100,00 00 20,001 to 50,000 0 10,001 to 20,000 0 5,0 001 – 10,000 1,0 001 ‐ 5,000 101 ‐ 1,000 Lesss than 100 ho ours No one Un nknown Total

0 0 0 2 1 2 7 18 32 8 1 7 78

0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 3% 9% 23% 41% 10% 1% 9% 100%

Volunteer Houts

Chart 5. Total N Number of Vo olunteer Hourrs Committed d to Initiativees in the Pastt 12 Months

50,,001 to 100,00 00 20 0,001 to 50,00 00 0,001 to 20,00 00 10 5001 ‐ 10,00 00 1,001 ‐ 5,00 00 101 ‐ 1,00 00 Less than 100 hourrs None Unknow wn 0

Numberr of Initiatives

FFormation (Q Question 5) N Nearly a quarter of the inittiatives reporting on the 2011 Questionnnaire (18 or 23%) started in 2006 or eaarlier (13 in 2005, 6 in 2 2006), the sam me number o of initiatives th hat started inn 2008. 2009 saw the nextt largest number of or 22%, and 9 9 in 2010. Non ne of the initiiatives complleting this questionnaire started in initiatives starrted with 17 o 2 2011. See Chart 6.

Cha art 6. Numbe er of Children n & Nature In itiatives Form med by Year 23% (18) 2 2% (17) 21% (16)

Number of Initiatives

16 14

3) 17% (13

12 12%(99)

10 8 6

6% (5)

4 2

0 2005 or 2006 earlier

200 07

2008

22009

2010

2011

A A breakdown of the organiization structure by year the grassrootss initiative forrmed is displaayed in Chartt 7. A Although the numbers are small, until 2 2010 changess over time arre clear in thee increase in tthe percentagge of informal collaboratives, the decrease in n the percentaage of single agency or orgganization sp ponsors of thee ggrassroots inittiatives, and tthe stability in the percenttage of lead aagency‐coopeerating partneers. Differen nces in 2 2010 may refllect global economic conditions. Chart 7. Organization n Structure byy Formation YYear

Initiativess Formed in 2005 or earllier, n=13

31%(4)

Formal collaborative of orrganizations, agencies aand individuals

23% (3) 8%(1)

Informal ccollaborative of o organizations, agencies aand individuals Single agency or organizattion sponsor

15%(2)

23%(3)

Lead agency with cooperaating partner organizatio ons Other, please specify

Initia atives Forme ed in 2006, n n=5

Initiaatives Formeed in 2007, n=16

0% % 20%(1)

12%(2) 19%(3)

40%(2 2)

%(2) 12% 19%(33)

40%(2) 4

38%(6) 0% 0

Initiatives Forme ed in 2008, n n=18

Initiaatives Formeed in 2009, n=17

11%(2)

6%(1) 17%(3)

23%(4)

118%(3)

22%(4) 12%(22) 39%(7 7)

41%(7)

11%(2)

Initia atives Forme ed in 2010, n n=9

In nitiatives Fo ormed in 201 11 0% %

11%(1) 22%(2) 0% 4%(3) 34 33 3%(3)

TThe findings o of the 2009 Grassroots Questionnaire show that neaarly 40% (29) of the initiatiives started in n 2009 or tthe year before those dataa were gatherred (2009‐12 new initiativees; 2008‐17 n new initiatives). Contrast tthat with tthe 2011 dataa that indicate e no initiative es started in tthe year of th e questionnaaire and only 12% (9) started in the yyear before, 2 2010. 19 © 2012 Childre © en & Nature N Network

D Demographiic Data for G Geographic A Areas Served d A Areas Served d (Question 6) M Many children n and nature initiatives serrve more than one geograaphic area. Ch hart 8 displayys the areas served, o ordered by the number of times each area was seleccted by questtionnaire resp pondents. Citties, rural areeas, and sstates are eacch served by aat least a third d of the initiaatives. Neigh borhoods, meetropolitan and suburban areas are sserved by abo out a fourth o of the initiativves. In 2009 th he percentag es of rural, m multi‐county aand single ccounty/parish h areas served d was slightlyy lower; the percentage of suburban areeas served waas slightly higgher. Chart 8. Geographic Areaas Served (checkk all that applly)

37%(29)

City

33%(26)

Rural Area

32%(25)

State

229%(23)

Neighborh hoods

288%(22)

Metropolitan n Area

288%(22)

n Area Suburban

22%(17)

Multi‐county

21%(16)

County/P Parish 8%(6)

Tribal N Nation

8%(6)

N Nation

4%(3)

Multi SState/Multi Pro ovince 1

Pro ovince 0

115

225

Num mber of Children n & Nature Initiaatives

A A breakdown of the geograaphic areas se erved by orgaanization struucture is displlayed in Chartt 9. Although the n numbers are ssmall, the ord der of service e to various ge eographic areeas differs greeatly based on organizatio on sstructure. Fe ew informal collaborative initiatives serrve the metroopolitan areass that are servved by the otther three o organization ttypes. Single e agency spon nsors serve fe ew cities wherreas initiativees with other organization sstructures wo ork at that levvel. Most statte‐wide effortts function thhrough formaal collaborativves or through h a lead aagency with ccooperating partner organizations. 20 © 2012 Childre © en & Nature N Network

Chart 9. Geographic Area Served by O Organization SStructure Informal Co ollaborative

Formal Colla aborative 42% State 42% Metropolitan Area 37% 3 City % 32 Multi‐county 26% Rural Area 21% Suburban Area 21% Neighbo orhoods 16% Countyy/Parish 11% Nation 5% Tribal Nation % Multi Statte/Multi… 0% % 0% Province P

Ruraal Area Suburbann Area Neighborrhoods State County//Parish City Multi‐ccounty Metropolitann Area Tribal N Nation N Nation Multi State//Multi… Proovince

30% 30% 25% % 25% % 25% % 15% 10% 55% 0% 0% 0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Le ead Agency w with Partnerss

City State n Area Suburban Multi‐county Rural Area Neighborh hoods County/P Parish Metropolitan n Area Tribal N Nation Nation N Multi State//Multi… Pro ovince

40%

Single Agency or Organization SSponsor 69% 54% 54%

38% 38% 38% 31% 31% 8% 8% 8 8% 0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Metropolitann Area Ruraal Area Suburbann Area State Neighborrhoods Tribal N Nation Multi‐ccounty City N Nation Multi State//Multi… Proovince County//Parish

29% 29% 29% 21% 21% 14% 14% 14% 77% 77% 77% 77%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FFew informal collaborative e initiatives se erve the metrropolitan areaas that are seerved by the o other three o organization ttypes. Single e agency spon nsors serve fe ew cities wherreas initiativees with other organization sstructures wo ork at that levvel. More than half of the lead agenciess with partneers serve city, state and suburban aareas. Most sstate‐wide effforts function n through form mal collaboraatives or through a lead aggency with ccooperating p partner organizations. Neighborhoods are served prrimarily by infformal collab boratives and lead aagency with p partner organization structtures. These ffindings differr only slightlyy from the 2009 results.

Population (Question 7) The population of the geographic areas served by the responding children and nature initiatives ranges between 10,000 or less and 10 million or more, with the most frequently reported population being between one and five million (23 initiatives – 29% of respondents. See Chart 10.) A conservative estimate is that the total population in the geographic areas served by the initiatives that completed the questionnaire is between 128 million and 260 million. These findings are similar to those from 2009. Chart 10. Population of Geographic Area Served by Children & Nature Initiative 10,000,001 or more 5,000,001 to 10,000,000 1,000,001 – 5,000,000 500,001 – 1,000,000 100,001 – 500,000 50,001 to 100,000 25,001 to 50,000 10,001 to 25,000 10,000 or less 0

Number of Children & Nature Initiatives

Ethnicity and Race Distribution in Geographic Areas Served (Question 8) Between 15% and 21% of the respondents did not know the racial or ethnic distribution of the populations in the geographic areas served by their children and nature initiatives. Table 6a‐f displays the known distributions of ethnicity and race in the geographic areas served by the children and nature initiatives that responded to the questionnaire. • • •

• • •

More than a quarter (26%) of the children and nature initiatives started in geographic areas where the white population is between 61‐80% of the population and another fourth of the initiatives (26%) are underway in geographic areas where 81‐100% of the population is white (Table 6a). More than sixty percent (62%) of the children and nature initiatives started in geographic areas where the black population is between 1‐20% of the population (Table 6b). Approximately a fifth of the initiatives (22%) exist in geographic areas with a native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander population between 1‐20%. In more than half (58%) of the geographic areas, native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander populations are not present (Table 6c). Nearly half (49%) of the initiatives occur in geographic areas where the Hispanic or Latino population is between 1‐20% (Table 6d). Half (50%) of the initiatives occur in geographic areas where the Asian population is between 1‐20% (Table 6e). Half (50%) of the initiatives occur in geographic areas where the American Indian or Alaska Native population is between 1‐20%. In 30% of the areas, these populations are not present (Table 6f). 22 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Table 6. Ethnicity and Race Distribution in Geographic Areas Served, 2011 Table 6a. Initiatives by Percent of White Population in Geographic Area White Population (not Hispanic or Latino) Number of Initiatives Percent 0% 1 1% 1‐20% 3 4% 21‐40% 7 9% 41‐60% 15 19% 61‐80% 20 26% 81‐100% 20 26% Don't know 12 15% Table 6b. Initiatives by Percent of Black or African American Population in Geographic Area Black or African American Population (not Hispanic or Latino) Number of Initiatives Percent 0% 3 4% 1‐20% 48 62% 21‐40% 8 10% 41‐60% 4 5% 61‐80% 0 0% 81‐100% 1 1% Don't know 14 18% Table 6c. Initiatives by Percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Population in Geographic Area Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Population Number of Initiatives Percent (not Hispanic or Latino) 0% 45 58% 1‐20% 17 22% Don't know 16 21% Table 6d. Initiatives by Percent of Hispanic or Latino Population in Geographic Area Hispanic or Latino Population Number of Initiatives Percent 0% 7 9% 1‐20% 38 49% 21‐40% 8 10% 41‐60% 8 10% 61‐80% 2 3% 81‐100% 1 1% Don't know 14 18% Table 6e. Initiatives by Percent of Asian Population in Geographic Area Asian Population (not Hispanic or Latino) Number of Initiatives Percent 0% 12 15% 1‐20% 50 64% 21‐40% 2 3% Don't know 14 18% Table 6f. Initiatives by Percent of American Indian or Alaska Native Population in Geographic Area American Indian or Alaska Native (not Hispanic or Latino) Number of Initiatives Percent 0% 23 29% 1‐20% 39 50% 21‐40% 0 0% 41‐60% 1 1% Don't know 15 19% Total number of initiatives 78

Table 7 combines the U.S. population's distribution by race and ethnicity in 2010 with the findings of this study. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010 are compared with the percentages reported by the majority of the grassroots initiatives. Approximately half or more of the children and nature initiatives are in geographic areas where the Asian (64%), Black (62%), and Hispanic or Latino (49%) populations are between 1‐20% of the population. More than half (52%) of the initiatives are underway in geographic areas where 61‐100% of the population is white. These statistics are comparable to the U.S. race and ethnicity distributions reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. These demographics are essentially the same as 2009 and consistent with overall national demographics for race and ethnicity. Table 7. Race and Ethnicity Distribution in U.S. Compared with Majority of Grassroots Initiatives Race and Ethnicity

U.S. Population Distribution Percentage*

Majority of Grassroots Initiatives

White alone

72.4%

61‐100%

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race

16.3%

1‐20%

Black or African American alone

12.6%

1‐20%

Asian alone

4.8%

1‐20%

American Indian or Alaska Native alone

0.9%

1‐20%

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone

0.2%

*Source: US Census Bureau, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br‐02.pdf

Income Level Distribution in Geographic Areas Served (Question 9) Between 36% and 44% of the respondents did not know the income level distribution of the populations in the geographic areas served by their initiatives. Table 8a‐e displays the known distributions of income level in the geographic areas served by the children and nature initiatives that responded to the questionnaire. Table 8. Income Level Distribution in Geographic Areas Served, 2011 Table 8a. Initiatives by percent of population making $24,000 or less per year per family Population making $24,000 or less in geographic area Number of Initiatives Percent of Reporting Initiatives 0% 2 4% 1‐20% 26 52% 21‐40% 15 30% 41‐60% 5 10% 61‐80% 2 4% Total number of initiatives reporting 50 Table 8b. Initiatives by percent of population making $24,001‐$45,000 per year per family Population making $24,001‐$45,000 in geographic area Number of Initiatives Percent of Reporting Initiatives 1‐20% 14 30% 21‐40% 19 40% 41‐60% 11 23% 61‐80% 2 4% 81‐100% 1 2% Total number of initiatives reporting 47 24 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Table 8c. Initiatives by percent of population making $45,001‐$90,000 per year per family Population making $45,001‐$90,000 in geographic area Number of Initiatives Percent of Reporting Initiatives 0% 2 4% 1‐20% 11 23% 21‐40% 19 40% 41‐60% 10 21% 61‐80% 3 6% 81‐100% 2 4% Total number of initiatives reporting 47 Table 8d. Initiatives by percent of population making $90,001‐$150,000 per year per family Population making $90,001‐$150,000 in geographic area Number of Initiatives Percent of Reporting Initiatives 0% 6 14% 1‐20% 31 70% 21‐40% 4 9% 41‐60% 3 7% Total number of initiatives reporting 44 Table 8e. Initiatives by percent of population making $150,001 or more per year per family Population making $150,001 or more in geographic area Number of Initiatives Percent of Reporting Initiatives 0% 8 18% 1‐20% 36 82% Total number of initiatives reporting 44

A majority of the children and nature initiatives occur in geographic areas where income levels are distributed in the following range of percentages, which are similar to income statistics reported by the U.S. Census Bureau for 2010 (see Table 9.) Wealth distribution in the U.S. has changed slightly from the 2005 Census Bureau data that was used in the 2009 Grassroots Leadership Survey report; thus, the data from the grassroots initiatives of 2009 and 2011 are similar. Table 9. Income Distribution in U.S. Compared with Majority of Grassroots Initiatives Income Range

U.S. Income Distribution Percentage*

Income Range

Majority of Reporting Grassroots Initiatives

$0 to $24,999

25.7%

$24,000 or less

1‐20%

$25,000 to $49,999

24.8%

$24,001‐$45,000

1‐40%

$50,000 to $74,999

17.7%

$45,001‐$90,000

1‐40%

$75,000 to $99,999

11.4%

$100,000 to $149,999

12.1%

$90,001‐$150,000

1‐20%

$150,000 or more

8.4%

$150,001 or more

1‐20%

* Source: US Census Bureau, 2010: Income statistics for the year 2010

Population by Age Group Distribution in Geographic Areas Served (Question 10) Approximately one‐third of the respondents did not know the age group distribution of the populations in the geographic areas served by the children and nature initiatives. Table 10 displays the known distributions of age groups in the geographic areas served by the children and nature initiatives that responded to the questionnaire. The data from the majority of the reporting grassroots initiatives is aligned with the U.S. population by age in 2010 (see Table 11.) This item is new to the 2011 questionnaire. Table 10. Population by Age Group Age Group

Birth to under five years

Five to nine years

Ten to 14 years

15 to 19 years

Percentage of Population 1‐ 21 ‐ 41 ‐ 61 ‐ Total 0% >80% 20% 40% 60% 80% Reporting frequency 7 38 5 1 0 2 53 % of 9% 72% 9% 2% 0% 4% initiatives frequency 5 26 12 6 2 0 51 % of 6% 51% 24% 12% 4% 0% initiatives frequency 2 30 8 11 0 0 51 % of 3% 59% 16% 22% 0% 0% initiatives frequency 6 33 10 1 0 1 51 % of 8% 65% 20% 2% 0% 2% initiatives

Table 11. Age Distribution in U.S. Compared with Majority of Grassroots Initiatives Age Range

U.S. Age Distribution Percentage*

Age Range

Majority of Reporting Grassroots Initiatives

Birth to under five years

7.0%

Birth to under five years

1‐20%

Five to nine years

6.8%

Five to nine years

1‐20%

Ten to 14 years

6.5%

Ten to 14 years

1‐20%

15 to 19 years

6.9%

15 to 19 years

1‐20%

* Source: US Census Bureau, Population by Age and Sex: 2010

Methods of Communication Used (Questions 11‐19) Grassroots initiatives use a variety of communication methods. Data displayed in Chart 11 and Table 12a‐d are based on questionnaire items 11 through 19 that asked respondents to estimate the numbers reached by various methods of communication. Note that response options with a frequency of zero are not included. The vast majority of the children and nature initiatives, 88% (69), have a website. During Fall 2011, those with websites reported less than 500 unique visitors, although another 25% did not know their total number of unique visitors. Nearly two‐thirds (67%, 52) are using social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter, 26 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

although nearly one‐third (29%) communicate with fewer than 250 recipients and for nearly that many initiatives (25%) the number of recipients is unknown. Nearly two‐thirds have electronic newsletters. Of those with electronic newsletters, nearly half (44%) distribute to fewer than 500 recipients. Only 18% have print newsletters. Chart 11. Communication Methods Used

Website

69 (88%)

Social networking tools

52 (67%)

E‐newsletter

49 (63%) 14 ((18%)

Print newsletter 0

Number of Grassroots Initiatives

Since 2009 there have been increases in the number of initiatives that have a website (change from 75% in 2009 to 88% in 2011), use social networking tools (64% up to 67%) and distribute e‐newsletters (from 50% to 63%), and a decrease in the number of initiatives that distribute print newsletters (29% down to 18%.) Table 12. Numbers Reached by Communication Methods Used by Children and Nature Initiatives Table 12a. Website ‐ Number of unique visitors in the past month Response Options Number of Initiatives Percent of Initiatives Reporting Less than 500 21 54% 501‐1,000 4 10% 1,001‐2,500 5 13% 2,501‐5,000 3 8% 5,001‐10,000 3 8% 10,001‐20,000 3 8% Unknown 30 Total number of initiatives responding 69 Table 12b. Social Networking Tools – Number of fans or followers Response options Number of Initiatives Percent of Initiatives Reporting Less than 50 7 15% 51‐100 10 21% 101‐250 12 25% 251‐500 8 17% 501‐1,000 6 13% 1,001‐2,500 3 6% 2,501‐5,000 2 4% Unknown 16 Total number of initiatives responding 64 27 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Table 12c. E‐newsletter – Number on distribution list Response options Number of Initiatives Percent of Initiatives Reporting Less than 500 28 58% 501‐1,000 10 21% 1,001‐2,500 5 10% 2,501‐5,000 2 4% 5,001‐10,000 2 4% More than 200,001 1 2% Unknown 16 Total number of initiatives responding 64 Table 12d. Print Newsletter – Number on distribution list Response options Number of Initiatives Percent of Initiatives Reporting Less than 500 5 38% 501‐1,000 1 8% 2,501‐5,000 3 23% 5,001‐10,000 3 23% More than 200,001 1 8% Unknown 15 Total number of initiatives responding 28 Total number of initiatives 78

Outputs, Activities and Participants Activities in the Last 12 Months (Question 20) In the last year more than two‐thirds of the grassroots initiatives were engaged in at least one of the activities listed in the questionnaire. Nearly three‐quarters of the initiatives provided children’s outdoor programs or events and exhibits or booths (86% and 71% respectively). Approximately two‐thirds of the grassroots initiatives provided family events (65%) and developed collateral materials such as brochures, publications or educational products (63%). Approximately half provided organizational development (56%), media interviews (53%), public lectures (51%) and networking meetings (49%). The activities and number and percentage of initiatives engaged in these activities appear in Chart 12. Other reported grassroots activities undertaken in the last year include: • • • • • • • •

Advocacy for California State Parks, letter writing for a local adventure playground set to close, blog writing; Development of website; Medical education; Passport to Adventure; Press releases, social media, web and application design; Screening of Play Again film; Teacher training; and Writing Scottish Government publication ‐ Outdoor Learning Resource Pack.

Chart 12. Reported Activities of Grassroots Initiatives in the Last Year 80

Number of Initiatives

67,86%

55,71% 51,65% 49,63% 44,56% 41, 53% 40,51% 38,49% 33,42% 32,41% 31,40% 26,33% 27,35% 25,32% 24,31%

18,23%

17,22%

15,19%

10 4,5% 0

For the 2011 questionnaire, ten additional choices were listed for this item. Comparisons of the nine categories that appear on both the 2009 and 2011 questionnaires appear in Table 13. The number of grassroots initiatives increased for three activities between the two administrations of the questionnaires: children’s outdoor programs or events (up 16 initiatives), exhibits or booths (up 11 initiatives), and family events (up 9 initiatives.) Six activities decreased but were still engaged in by 40% or more of the initiatives.

Table 13. Comparisons of 2009 and 2011 Activities Engaged in by Grassroots Initiatives in the Last Year 2011 Grassroots Initiatives (#,%) Total number of initiatives = 78

Children’s outdoor programs/events

2009 Grassroots Initiatives (#,%) Total number of initiatives = 72 51, 71%

Exhibits/booths Family Events Public Lectures Organizational Development Professional workshops Media interviews Capacity building Networking meetings

44, 61% 40, 56% 41, 57% 44, 61% 38, 53% 48, 67% 46, 64% 53, 74%

55, 71% 49, 63% 40, 51% 41, 53% 31, 40% 40, 51% 32, 41% 38, 49%

Activities in the Last Year

Comparison 2009 to 2011

67, 86%

Total Audience in the Last Year (Question 21) In the last year more than one‐fourth of the grassroots initiatives reached between 101 and 1,000 participants and nearly another quarter reached between 1,001 and 5,000. The number and percentage of initiatives and the audience numbers reached are displayed in the Table 14 and Chart 13. Table 14. Estimated Participants Reached by Children and Nature Initiatives in the Last Year Response Options Less than 100 101 – 1,000 1,001 ‐ 5000 5,001 ‐ 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 250,000 250,001 to 500,000 More than 500,001 Unknown Total

Number of Initiatives 2 21 19 8 5 2 6 5 1 3 6 78

Percent 3% 27% 24% 10% 6% 3% 8% 6% 1% 4% 8% 100%

A conservative estimate is that the total audience of participants reached by the respondents from the reporting seventy‐two grassroots initiatives is between 2.7 and 4.25 million. On the 2011 questionnaire, two additional response options were added to more accurately capture annual audience numbers that exceeded 100,000 participants. Sixty‐eight initiatives reported participant numbers in 2009; the estimate of total audience reached was between 900,000 and 1,500,000 in the previous year. The numbers reached on an annual basis are considerably higher in 2011 than in 2009.

Chart 13. Estimated Participants Reached by Children & Nature Initiatives in the Last Year Total number of initiatives reporting participant estimates = 72

More than 500,001 250,001 to 500,000 100,001 to 250,000 50,001 to 100,000 20,001 to 50,000 10,001 to 20,000 5001 ‐ 10,000 1001 ‐ 5000 101 ‐ 1000 Less than 100 0

Number of Children & Nature Initiatives

Underserved Youth Reached in the Last Year (Question 22) On the questionnaire respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of underserved youth who comprised their audiences. “Under‐served” was defined as families under the poverty threshold as set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (see http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml.) Although nearly a quarter (24%) of the children and nature initiatives do not know the number of underserved youth who were reached in the last year, the majority estimated their activities reached audiences comprised of between 1‐25% underserved youth. Table 15 displays the numbers and percentages of grassroots initiatives and the estimated percentage of underserved youth reached. Table 15. Underserved Youth Reached in the Last Year Percentage

Number of Initiatives

0% 1‐10% 11‐25% 26%‐50% 51%‐75% Over 75% Don't know Total number of initiatives

2 21 11 11 10 4 19 78

Percent of Total Respondents 3% 27% 14% 14% 13% 5% 24% Total number of initiatives responding

Percent with Known Underserved Youth Data 3% 36% 19% 19% 17% 7% 59

Distribution of Children and Nature Network Tools (Question 23) More than a quarter of the grassroots initiatives used or distributed thirteen of the nineteen C&NN Tools listed on the questionnaire. Chart 14 displays the numbers and percentages of grassroots initiatives and their use of C&NN tools. Of particular note is that nearly two‐thirds of the initiatives used or distributed the research and studies available through C&NN. Nearly half of the grassroots initiatives reported using the C&NN electronic newsletters and Facebook. A third or more of the initiatives used the Nature Clubs for Families Toolkit, C&NN Community Action Guide, Let’s G.O.! (Get Outside) Toolkit, C&NN Report on the Movement to Re‐Connect Children with the Natural World and blogs. Other tools listed as used and comments given include the following: • • • • • • • •

Natural Teachers information; Our website links to Children and Nature website; Professional Toolkit we produced; Quotes from Rich or his book; radio and news media, Mother Nature's Child film, network member; Rich Louv's Field Notes; RSS feeds; and School presentations based on children's book.

Chart 14. Children & Nature Network Tools Used Research and Studies

49,63%

C&NN electronic newsletters

38,49%

Facebook

35,45%

Nature Clubs for Families Toolkit

34,44%

C&NN Community Action Guide

33,42%

Let’s G.O.! (Get Outside) Toolkit

31,40%

C&NN Report: Movement to Re‐Connect Children…

29,37%

Blogs

28,36%

Web site news summaries

25,32%

NING C&NN Community Site—C&NN Connect

24,31%

Book list on web site

21,27%

Power Point Presentations

20,26%

Video links on web site

19,24%

Natural Leaders Network Toolkit

15,19%

YouTube

11,14%

Twitter

10,13%

Where Nature Meets Story

8,10%

Natural Service Network Toolkit

5,6%

Leadership Writing Series

4,5% 0

20 40 Number (Percent) of Initiatives

On the 2011 questionnaire, twelve additional response options were given for this item. Comparisons of the seven categories that appear on both the 2009 and 2011 questionnaires appear in Table 16. The number of grassroots initiatives increased slightly using three tools (Power Point presentations, Nature Clubs for Families Toolkit, C&NN electronic newsletters) and decreased slightly using two tools (Research and Studies, C&NN Community Action Guide) between the two administrations of the questionnaires. Eight to ten fewer initiatives used two tools (Report on the Movement to Re‐Connect Children with the Natural World, Website news summaries) between the 2009 and 2011 questionnaires. Table 16. Comparisons of 2009 and 2011 C&NN Tools Used by Grassroots Initiatives in the Last Year Children & Nature Network Tools Used in the Last Year

Comparison 2009 to 2011

Power Point presentations Nature Clubs for Families Toolkit C&NN electronic newsletters Research and Studies C&NN Community Action Guide Report on the Movement to Re‐Connect Children with the Natural World Website news summaries

2009 Grassroots Initiatives (#,%) Total number of initiatives = 72 16, 22% 31, 43% 36, 50%

2011 Grassroots Initiatives (#,%) Total number of initiatives = 78 20, 26% 34, 44%

50, 69% 35, 49%

49, 63% 33, 42%

37, 51%

29, 37%

35, 49%

25, 32%

38, 49%

New Nature and Place‐based Efforts (Questions 24 and 25) Half or more of the grassroots initiatives reported that school gardens or habitat projects, natural play areas, trails or trail projects, and community gardens had been established since they started their activities. More than a quarter of the grassroots initiatives started nature clubs for families and neighborhood parks. These nature and place‐based opportunities are displayed in Table 17 with the number and percentage of initiatives. These findings indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 new nature and place‐based opportunities for children have been established in the areas served by these grassroots initiatives. The 2011 Questionnaire added neighborhood parks and trails or trail projects as response options. The 2009 results indicated at least 500 new nature clubs for families, school gardens, natural play areas, and community gardens for children had been established. The grassroots initiatives reported that those four efforts added between 725 and 2000 new nature and place‐based opportunities, indicating growth of at least another 225 new opportunities in the last two years. Table 17. New Nature and Place‐based Efforts Started by Children and Nature Initiatives

None 10 or less 11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

Table 17a. Community Gardens Response Options Number of Initiatives 20 29 6 5 18

Percent 26% 37% 8% 6% 23%

Table 17b. Natural Play Areas None 10 or less 11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

15 45 1 4 13

19% 58% 1% 5% 17%

21 29 2 1 25

27% 37% 3% 1% 32%

Table 17c. Nature Clubs for Families None 10 or less 11 — 20 21 or more Don't know Table 17d. Neighborhood Parks None 10 or less 11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

36 15 3 3 21 Table 17e. School Gardens or Habitat Projects Response options Number of Initiatives None 15 10 or less 30 11 — 20 6 21 or more 11 Don't know 16 Table 17f. Trails or Trail Projects None 19 10 or less 29 11 — 20 5 21 or more 5 Don't know 20 Total number of initiatives 78

46% 19% 4% 4% 27% Percent 19% 38% 8% 14% 21% 24% 37% 6% 6% 26%

Respondents listed they had initiated the following other new children and nature activities. • • • • • • • •

A local business that deals with alternative energy sources noticed our efforts of a community garden. This spring, 2011, they came and built some new benches and added to our landscaping efforts. We would have liked to have more involvement with our nature group but they did not want children working with the tools they had. 'Bringing Nature to Life' Workshop series has grown organically with people and organizations across North America paying to attend. Community outreach events reaching diverse audiences with conservation messages and activities. Exploration & increased utilization of existing local parks & nature preserves, interest from local daycares & schools on how to integrate nature into curriculum more. Family Discovery Walks led by naturalists. Family habitat projects. Forest Kindergartens ‐ 8 pilot projects. Supported various freelancers set up, the development of two charitable trusts and a Community Interest Company. Gateway CNC has been slow to achieve establishment of specific facilities, projects, family activity groups due to lack of funding and active members. Our member organizations (in our collaborative) have achieved many of the above goals individually, however ‐ though they do not all report these things to Gateway CNC. Gateway CNC has 34 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

• • • •

• • • • • •

accomplished two events ‐ at Earth Day 2010 and 2011 in Forest Park in the City of St. Louis where we "connected" children with small mammal pelts and skulls to increase their nature "awareness". Get Outdoors Florida is collaborating closely with the Florida Youth Conservation Center Network sponsored by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, some of their sites are also included. Get to Know Unconference participation. Library developing a "nature literacy" garden and teachers committing to bringing kids outside. Pediatric medical community wearing "Has Your Child Played Outside Today?" buttons; Ohio Children's Outdoor Bill of Rights; Environmental Literacy Plan draft; The Report on Ohio's Initiative to Reconnect Children with Nature; Public Awareness Campaign; Helping grow statewide collaboration, organization and capacity of other Ohio grassroots initiatives. Permanent mud wallow established in existing communitypark. Professional development‐ especially in training child care center evaluators to award points for centers with built environments and activities that promote outdoor play in nature. Quest Discovery programming (self‐guided environmental scavenger hunts throughout the state for families). Rain gardens have been planted (with community involvement) at Antioch University New England, Keene Recreation Center (planted with help from all 4th grade classes over the course of a day last spring), a local elementary school and in front of the Keene Police station. Vision 2020 efforts to make Keene the healthiest community by 2020 has a big push for healthy eating/active living among youth and adults. We're working to create a related program to engage youth, particularly youth with mental and physical challenges. Schoolyard habitats; outdoor education lessons. Service learning projects have been established at parks throughout Rutland County, Vermont. Service Learning Projects to include recycling programs; Nature Scene Investigator program; compost bins; fire restoration projects; outdoor STEM learning; bird box construction; family service teams; MLK and Earth Day Day of Service (trail maintenance, invasive plant removal, etc.). Teachers taking their students outside regularly...as well as their own children. The organization has received the endorsement of Governor Sam Brownback for the Kansans for Children in Nature Plan, and is now determining next steps for implementing the Plan. Two Green Lots, one Kids Corridor initiative, one paid Green Jobs initiative, one unpaid Green Jobs initiative.

Other comments included: •

Without surveying the entire state there is no way for us to know of our impact. We do not have the coalition capacity to track this.

Audiences Reached by New Efforts (Question 26 and 27) The item that asked respondents to estimate the total audience numbers reached by new initiatives was changed on the 2011 questionnaire. The largest response option in 2009, more than 100,001, was expanded to three response options on the 2011 questionnaire: 100,001–250,000, 250,001–500,000, and more than 500,001. This change is partially responsible for the increase in estimated audience numbers; it also increases the accuracy of the estimates that appear in this section. Although nearly a fifth (19%) of the respondents are unsure of the size of the audiences reached by the six new activities, 63 grassroots initiatives (81%) reported the total audience numbers participating in new community gardens, natural play areas, nature clubs for families, neighborhood parks, school gardens or habitat projects, and trails or trail projects. One‐third of the initiatives that knew their participant numbers in 2011 reported reaching between 101 and 1,000 participants with their new children and nature activities and opportunities; another third reached between 1,000 and 10,000 participants. Estimated number of 2011 participants appears in Chart 15 and Table 18; estimated number of participants reported for 2009 appears in Table 19. 35 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Chart 15. Participant Numbers Reached by New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities, 2011 More than 500,001 250,001 –500,000 100,001 – 250,000 50,001‐100,000 20,001‐50,000 10,001‐20,000 5,001‐10,000 1,001‐5,000 101‐1,000 Less than 100 0

Number of Children & Nature Initiatives

Table 18. Participant Numbers Reached by 6 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Community Gardens, Natural Play Areas, Nature Clubs for Families, Neighborhood Parks, School Gardens or Habitat Projects, Trails or Trail Projects, 2011 Response Options

Number of Initiatives

Percent of Total Respondents

Less than 100 101‐1,000 1,001‐5,000 5,001‐10,000 10,001‐20,000 20,001‐50,000 50,001‐100,000 100,001–250,000 250,001–500,000 More than 500,001 Unknown Total number of initiatives

2 21 11 10 5 5 2 3 1 3 15 78

3% 27% 14% 13% 6% 6% 3% 4% 1% 4% 19% Number of initiatives responding

Percent with Known Participant Numbers 3% 33% 17% 16% 8% 8% 3% 5% 2% 5% 63

The total number participating in six new activities in 2011 is at least two million and may be as large as five million. These numbers are considerably larger than the 2009 questionnaire with estimates between 305,000 and half a million for total audience numbers reached in four new activities. 36 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Table 19. Participant Numbers Reached by 4 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Nature Clubs for Families, School Gardens, Natural Play Areas, and Community Gardens, 2009 Response Options

Number of Initiatives

Percent of Total Respondents

Less than 100 101‐1,000 1,001‐5,000 5,001‐10,000 10,001‐20,000 20,001‐50,000 50,001‐100,000 More than 100,001 Unknown Total number of initiatives

4 18 18 3 2 0 1 2 21 69

6% 26% 26% 4% 3% 0% 1% 3% 30% Number of initiatives responding

Percent with Known Participant Numbers 8% 38% 38% 6% 4% 0% 2% 4% 48

In Table 20, the six new children and nature activities and opportunities are broken down by the estimates of total audience reached. Although approximately a fifth of the respondents are unsure of the size of the audiences reached by their new activities, a range of participants can be calculated for those grassroots initiatives that knew their audience numbers. Table 20. Cross Tabulations of 6 New Activities and Opportunities with Estimates of Total Audience Reached Since your initiative began, approximately how many nature clubs, school gardens, natural play areas and community gardens have been established in your region, either directly or indirectly, as a result of your efforts? Table 17a. Community Gardens None 10 or less

11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

Number of Community Gardens

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by these new initiatives? (check one)

Less than 100 2 1

21 10

1,001 – 5,000 11 3

101 – 1,000

10 2

10,001 – 20,000 5 0

20,001 – 50,000 4 1

50,001 – 100,000 2 0

100,001 – 250,000 3 0

250,001 – 500,000 1 0

More than 500,001 3 0

5,00110,000

Unknown 16 3

Table 17b. Natural Play Areas None 10 or less

11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

Number of Natural Play Areas

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by these new initiatives? (check one)

Less than 100 1

1,001 – 5,000 3

101 – 1,000

10,001 – 20,000 0

20,001 – 50,000 0

50,001 – 100,000 0

100,001 – 250,000 0

250,001 – 500,000 0

More than 500,001 0

5,00110,000

Unknown 3

Table 17c. Nature Clubs for Families None 10 or less

11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

Number of Nature Clubs for Families

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by these new initiatives? (check one)

Less than 100 0

1,001 – 5,000 6

101 – 1,000

10,001 – 20,000 1

20,001 – 50,000 2

50,001 – 100,000 1

100,001 – 250,000 1

250,001 – 500,000 0

More than 500,001 1

5,00110,000

Unknown 1

Table 17d. Neighborhood Parks None 10 or less

11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

Number of Neighborhood Parks

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by these new initiatives? (check one)

Less than 100 1

1,001 – 5,000 5

101 – 1,000

10,001 – 20,000 0

20,001 – 50,000 3

50,001 – 100,000 1

100,001 – 250,000 0

250,001 – 500,000 0

More than 500,001 0

5,00110,000

Unknown 5

Table 17e. School Gardens or Habitat Projects None 10 or less

11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

Number of School Gardens Less than or Habitat 100 Projects

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by these new initiatives? (check one) 101 – 1,000

1,001 – 5,000

5,00110,000

10,001 – 20,000

20,001 – 50,000

50,001 – 100,000

100,001 – 250,000

250,001 – 500,000

More than 500,001

Unknown

Table 17f. Trails or Trail Projects None 10 or less

11 — 20 21 or more Don't know

Number of Trails or Trail Projects

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by these new initiatives? (check one)

Less than 100 1

1,001 – 5,000 4

101 – 1,000

10,001 – 20,000 0

20,001 – 50,000 0

50,001 – 100,000 1

100,001 – 250,000 0

250,001 – 500,000 0

More than 500,001 0

5,00110,000

Unknown 2

Table 21 displays estimates of the range of audience numbers reached by the six new children and nature activities and opportunities in 2011 as well as the estimated numbers for the four new activities and opportunities for which data were gathered in 2009. The audience estimates for two opportunities added to the 2011 questionnaire are by far the largest, with participants at neighborhood parks estimated at 2.3 million to 4.7 million and participants on trails or trail projects at 2.2 to 4.7 million. School gardens or habitat projects received the next highest audience numbers; the total audience reached through these school‐based activities is at least 2.2 million and may be as large as 4.6 million or more. Community gardens, natural play areas and nature clubs for families had at least a million participants each in 2011. The smallest estimate of the number of participants was in nature clubs for families, still impressive with an upper range that may be as large as two million or more. Each of the four activities and opportunities for which data were gathered twice show huge increases in audience numbers in 2011 compared with 2009. The order of audience size was slightly different for the activities and opportunities in 2009: school gardens or habitat projects followed by natural play areas, community gardens and nature clubs for families. Table 21. Comparison of 2009 and 2011 Estimates of Audience Numbers Reached by Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities 2011

2009

Neighborhood Parks Lower Range Upper Range 2.3 million 4.7 million Trails or Trail Projects Lower Range Upper Range 2.2 million 4.7 million School Gardens or Habitat Projects Lower Range Upper Range 2.2 million 4.6 million Community Gardens Lower Range Upper Range 1.5 million 3.5 million Natural Play Areas Lower Range Upper Range 1.3 million 2.9 million Nature Clubs for Families Lower Range Upper Range 1.0 million 2.0 million

Neighborhood Parks Data not gathered in 2009 Trails or Trail Projects Data not gathered in 2009 School Gardens or Habitat Projects Lower Range Upper Range 293,000 530,000 Community Gardens Lower Range Upper Range 180,000 360,000 Natural Play Areas Lower Range Upper Range 248,000 500,000 Nature Clubs for Families Lower Range Upper Range 172,000 320,000

The percentage of underserved youth who participated in these new activities and opportunities ranges from none to 75%. Numbers and percentages of underserved youth reached in 2011 and 2009 are presented in Tables 22 and 23 respectively. Although more than 36% (28) of the grassroots initiatives in 2011 are unsure of the percentage of underserved youth reached by their new initiatives, 64% (50) reported data about 39 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

underserved youth. Of those grassroots initiatives that knew the number of underserved youth, more than a quarter (26%) reached audiences comprised of between 1‐10% underserved youth. Nearly a quarter of the initiatives reached participants that included between 11‐25% underserved youth, the same number reaching participants that included between 26‐50% underserved youth. New children and nature activities and opportunities offered by another 16% reached audiences that included between 51 to 75% underserved youth. In at least four initiatives, at least 75% of the audiences were underserved youth. Table 22. Underserved Youth Reached by 6 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Community Gardens, Natural Play Areas, Nature Clubs for Families, Neighborhood Parks, School Gardens or Habitat Projects, Trails or Trail Projects, 2011 Percentage 0% 1‐10% 11‐25% 26%‐50% 51%‐75% Over 75% Don't know Total number of initiatives responding

Number of Initiatives 1 13 12 12 8 4 28

Percent of Total Respondents 1% 17% 15% 15% 10% 5% 36%

Percent with Known Underserved Youth Data 2% 26% 24% 24% 16% 8% 50

Comparison of the 2009 and 2011 data indicate considerable increases in the number and percentage of reporting initiatives that included underserved youth in their children and nature activities and opportunities. Twenty‐eight initiatives did not report underserved youth data in either years. In 2011, however, only one initiative reported no underserved youth in their children and nature activities and opportunities, compared with six in 2009. The three intervals between 11% and 75% show substantial increases from 2009 in the number of initiatives reaching underserved youth. Table 23. Underserved Youth Reached by 4 New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities including Nature Clubs for Families, School Gardens, Natural Play Areas, and Community Gardens, 2009 Percentage 0% 1‐10% 11‐25% 26%‐50% 51%‐75% Over 75% Don't know Total number of initiatives responding

Number of Initiatives 6 14 9 6 2 4 28

Percent of Total Respondents 9% 20% 13% 9% 3% 6% 41%

Percent with Known Underserved Youth Data 15% 34% 22% 15% 5% 10% 41

The estimates of underserved youth reached by the six new children and nature activities and opportunities in 2011 are reported in Table 24, which also displays the estimates for 2009. The new activities and opportunities are ordered by the 2011 upper range estimates of underserved youth. The order is slightly different from those displayed for total audience numbers in Table 21; still, the largest numbers of underserved youth are reached 40 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

through the same activities and opportunities: school gardens or habitat projects, neighborhood parks and trails or trail projects. The 2011 estimates for underserved youth in four new children and natures activities and opportunities are all considerably larger than those from 2009. In two years, the estimates are at least 2.5 times larger for underserved youth using natural play areas. The number of underserved youth participating in nature clubs for families at least tripled. The numbers quadrupled for underserved youth involved in school gardens and habitat projects and are at least six times larger for underserved youth with access to community gardens. Since respondents could check all that apply in the question about these options, their reported audience numbers and underserved youth may have been counted for more than one of these activities. Thus it would not be appropriate to total the numbers reported in Table 24.

Table 24. Comparison of 2009 and 2011 Estimates of Number of Underserved Youth Reached by New Children and Nature Activities and Opportunities 2011

2009

School Gardens or Habitat Projects Lower Range Upper Range 451,000 1,639,000 Neighborhood Parks Lower Range Upper Range 484,000 1,574,000 Trails or Trail Projects Lower Range Upper Range 454,000 1,546,000 Community Gardens Lower Range Upper Range 360,000 1,180,000 Natural Play Areas Lower Range Upper Range 216,000 856,000 Nature Clubs for Families Lower Range Upper Range 94,000 371,000

School Gardens or Habitat Projects Lower Range Upper Range 89,000 401,500 Neighborhood Parks Data not gathered in 2009 Trails or Trail Projects Data not gathered in 2009 Community Gardens Lower Range Upper Range 45,250 176,600 Natural Play Areas Lower Range Upper Range 87,500 316,100 Nature Clubs for Families Lower Range Upper Range 20,750 110,750

Participating Audiences and Organizations (Question 29) Respondents selected among twenty‐eight audiences and organizations that participated in their children and nature initiatives. The percentage and number of initiatives and their selections appear in Chart 16. Three‐ fourths of the initiatives named these participants: educators (79%); nature centers (76%) and local non‐profit organizations (74%). Approximately two‐thirds reported participants from colleges or universities, parks, public school teachers, and natural resource professionals. Half or more listed these participants: state agencies, childcare providers, scouts, community organizers, grandparents and businesses. 41 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Chart 16. Audiences and Organizations Participating in Children & Nature Initiatives Educators Nature centers Local non‐profit organizations Colleges or universities Parks Public school teachers Natural resource professionals State agencies Childcare providers Scouts Community organizers Grandparents Businesses Private school teachers Home schoolers Health care providers Federal agencies Camp staff and counselors Landscape designers Faith‐based organizations Children’s museums Boys and Girls Clubs Libraries 4‐H Zoos and aquaria YMCA or YWCA Planners Parent teacher organizations

79%(62) 76%(59) 74%(58) 67%(52) 64%(50) 63%(49) 62%(48) 54%(42) 54%(42) 53%(41) 53%(41) 50%(39) 50%(39) 45%(35) 45%(35) 45%(35) 42%(33) 41%(32) 40%(31) 38%(30) 33%(26) 33%(26) 32%(25) 31%(24) 29%(23) 27%(21) 26%(20) 24%(19) 0

Number of Initiatives

Other audiences and organizations identified as participants in the responding initiatives were: arboreta, botanic, public and wildflower gardens (5); museums (3); apiary (1); military (1); parents (1); and researchers (1). This item was new on the 2011 questionnaire.

Programs and Activities Items 30 through 31 examine the timing and reported attendance of programs and activities offered by children and nature initiatives by season, week, day and time of day. These items are new to the 2011 Questionnaire. Tables 25 through 31 present these data. The findings indicate that initiatives most frequently offered activities weekly (45%), on weekends (77%) and year‐round (78%). The best attended programs or activities were offered monthly (26%), in the afternoon (22%), and occurred on Saturdays (44%) in spring (26%).

Table 25. Programs and Activities by Hour and Day (Question 30a) Weekends 60 77% Weekdays 47 60% Afternoon 40 51% Morning 39 50% After‐school 33 42% Evening 30 38% Other, please specify 19 24% Many of the comments in the Other categories for questions 30‐31 indicated that respondents do not know or do not provide programs or activities. Rather partners or existing agencies provide programming for their children and nature initiatives. They also commented: • • • • • • • •

All of the above, but our efforts are collaborative with partner organizations who provide the programming; Holidays; Nature Play Club is on weekends (The website is updated 3‐4 times throughout the week); Our work has been focused on supporting professionals within agencies (work week); Overnight eco‐programs, multiday programs; Overnight youth summit (3 days); Weekdays during summer, weekends year‐round and We provide design consultations and educator workshops in diverse settings at diverse times.

Table 26. Programs and Activities by Week (Question 30b) Weekly 35 45% Monthly 33 42% Quarterly 22 28% Annually 18 23% Other, please specify 24 31% Respondents listed these comments in the Other column: • • • • • • • • • •

A partner is a camp facility; their programs promote outdoors and run weekly; Most weekends throughout the year, some weekday programming; Our activities vary ‐ not regular in nature, except for one project that met with teachers on a monthly basis; Seasonal camps; Some times of the year daily, other times very sporadic; Sporadically ‐ a lot early in year (more than monthly) and then quiet summer and then picking back up ‐ averages to bi‐monthly; Sporadically throughout the year, associated with local, annual events, C&NN initiatives, national initiatives, or as opportunities unfold; We gather as a Steering Committee monthly and host two professional education sessions annually; We involved our summer reading program children during the summer months and Weekly in summer, monthly year‐round. 43 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

Table 27. Programs and Activities by Season (Question 30c) Year‐round 61 78% Spring 25 32% Fall 23 29% Summer 21 27% Winter 17 22%

Table 28. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Hour (Question 31a) Afternoon 17 22% Morning 16 21% After‐school 9 12% Evening 7 9% Other, please specify 29 37% In the Other column, respondents commented: • • • • • •

Activities vary in nature (children and adults) and it's not possible to give one answer; Day‐long, during the school day, morning and afternoon, work week hours, all day 8am‐4pm (5); Depends on the program & the group participating (i.e. Scout, school, day camp); It really varies depending upon the initiative and demographic of the target audience; Weekend afternoons for actual "real‐life" nature club. First thing in the morning and last thing at night is when moms are online reading the website and my social media and Weekends (4).

Table 29. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Day (Question 31b) Mondays 1 1% Tuesdays 2 3% Wednesdays 2 3% Thursdays 2 3% Fridays 4 5% Saturdays 34 44% Sundays 5 6% Other, please specify 28 36% Respondents specified these comments in the Other column: • • • • •

As a science center we offer programming daily ‐ in July and August we have participants every day b/c they are our highest visitation months; Depends on the age ‐ Mondays being the least favorite during the school year; During the school week; It really varies depending upon the initiative and demographic of the target audience; It varies‐‐Monday‐Friday represented; 44 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

• • • • • • • •

Professional development sessions have varied; Saturdays for Nature Play Club. Tuesday through Thursday for interactions on web and social media; School programs = weekdays; Family/community programs = weekends; Summer weeklong intensive institute with teachers (87 hours); Teacher planning days; We have several scheduled dates which vary by season and Weekdays ‐‐ no significant difference between days.

Table 30. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Week (Question 31c) Monthly 20 26% Weekly 15 19% Quarterly 9 12% Annually 7 9% Other, please specify 27 35% Respondents added: • • •

Depends on type of programming & time of year; July and August ‐ highest visitation months and Schools participate annually; community program participants quarterly.

Table 31. Best Attended Programs and Activities by Season (Question 31d) Spring 20 26% Year‐round 14 18% Summer 13 17% Fall 10 13% Winter 2 3% Respondents also listed these options: • • • •

Our initiative follows the school year; Some partner groups do well year round, others summer only; Spring and Fall and Spring, Summer, Fall.

Outcomes Observed Changes (Question 28) In response to the question about which of twenty changes have been observed since their children and nature initiatives started, all of the questionnaire respondents saw at least one. Most grassroots initiatives reported increased awareness of the importance of nature for children’s healthy development (81%), followed by 67% who reported media attention and educational benefits to participants, and 65% who reported community 45 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

ssupport. Nearly two‐thirdss observed de evelopment o or enhancemeent of places to play and learn outdoorrs in n nature, partne erships with n new allies, co ommunity imp provements tto provide acccess to nature‐based expeeriences aand increased d engagementt of non‐form mal educators. More than half the grasssroots initiatiives reported d increased enggagement of fformal educators, increase ed engagemeent of early ch hildhood proffessionals and d ccaregivers and d repeat participation by cchildren and yyouth in natuure‐based eveents and proggrams. Changges, n numbers and percentages appear in Chart 17. R Respondents also listed these other obsserved changges: • • • • •

Increa ased collaborattion among ageencies; Increa ased corporate social responssibility efforts; Increa ased interest in creating nature play areas ffrom outside orrganizations; Naturee initiatives in child care centters and Parent networking.

Chart 17. Ch hanges as a R Result of Child dren & Naturre Initiatives

O On the 2009 q questionnaire e only eight outcomes werre listed as re sponse optio ons. Then eighty‐five perceent of the q questionnaire e respondentss saw at leastt one of eight changes sincce their childrren and naturre initiatives sstarted vversus one hu undred percen nt seeing at le east one chan nge to reportt in 2011. Chaanges on thosse eight items b between 2009 9 and 2011 arre displayed in Table 30. Four outcom es showed an n increase in the number o of ggrassroots inittiatives; four showed decrreases. Of no ote are the faiirly large num mber of initiattives reportin ng 46 © 2012 Childre © en & Nature N Network

changes in: awareness of the importance of nature for children’s healthy development (up 12 initiatives), number of children playing outdoors (up 9 initiatives), engagement of pediatricians and others in the medical community (up 6 initiatives), funding for the children and nature initiative (down 6 initiatives), and partnerships with new allies (down 12 initiatives.) Table 32. Comparisons of 2009 and 2011 Changes as a Result of Children & Nature Initiatives 2009 Grassroots Initiatives (#,%) Total number of initiatives = 72

2011 Grassroots Initiatives (#,%) Total number of initiatives = 78

51, 71%

63, 81%

24, 33%

33, 42%

24, 33%

30, 38%

Media attention

51, 71%

52, 67%

Increased community support Increased number of people participating in events and programs Increased funding for the children and nature initiative Partnerships with new allies

53, 74%

51, 65%

39, 54%

36, 46%

26, 36%

20, 26%

61, 85%

49, 63%

Changes as a Result of Initiatives

Increased awareness of the importance of nature for children’s healthy development Increased number of children playing outdoors Increased engagement of pediatricians and others in the medical community

Comparison 2009 to 2011

Key Findings of Statistical Analyses Relationships or correlations between characteristics of the grassroots children and nature initiatives and several questionnaire items were analyzed using nonparametric inferential statistical analyses including Kendall’s tau, Spearman’s rho and regression. Statistically significant degrees of association (p<.05) emerged in comparisons of these sets of data. These results do not mean that one characteristic caused the other; merely that a strong relationship exists between the two sets of characteristics. Year grassroots initiatives formed (question 5) compared grassroots activities (question 20). This finding indicates the earlier the grassroots initiatives formed, the more grassroots activities an initiative is likely to have engaged in during the past 12 months. Conversely, the later a grassroots initiative formed, the fewer activities it is likely to have engaged in during the last 12 months. Said another way, grassroots initiatives that engaged in few activities during the last 12 months are more likely to have been formed in the last year or two. Year grassroots initiatives formed (question 5) compared to total audience in the last 12 months (question 21). This association indicates the earlier the grassroots initiative formed, the larger the estimate of the total audience reached in the past 12 months is likely to be. In contrast, grassroots initiatives that reported smaller total audience numbers during the last 12 months are more likely to have been formed in the last year or two.

Grassroots activities (question 20) compared to use of social networking tools (question 18). The correlation indicates that the larger the number of grassroots activities engaged in during the last 12 months, the greater the likelihood is that an initiative uses social networking tools such as Facebook and twitter. Alternatively, if social networking tools are not used, the number of grassroots activities is likely to be smaller over the last 12 months. Grassroots activities (question 20) compared to use of C&NN tools (question 23). The finding points to the conclusion that the larger the number of grassroots activities engaged in during the last 12 months, the larger the number of C&NN tools used or distributed is likely to be. This strong relationship also indicates that the fewer the number of C&NN tools used or distributed, the smaller the number of grassroots activities likely to have been engaged in during the last 12 months. In other words, as number of activities increases so too does the number of C&NN tools used; and vice versa, when more tools are used initiatives engage in more activities. Grassroots activities (question 20) compared to changes seen (question 28). The relationship indicates that as activities increase so do the number of impacts; the larger the number of grassroots activities engaged in during the last 12 months, the greater the number of changes likely to be seen since the start of the children and nature initiative. Conversely, the smaller the number of grassroots activities engaged in during the last 12 months, the fewer changes are likely to be seen as a direct or indirect result since the start of the children and nature initiative.

Appendix Grassroots Leadership 2011 Survey © Children & Nature Network. All rights reserved. Please contact Cheryl Charles, Ph.D., President and CEO, Children & Nature Network, Cheryl@childrenandnature.org, for permission to use this survey. Support for development of this survey, analysis and reporting was provided by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Grassroots Leadership 2011 Survey

Page 1 - Heading

The Grassroots Leadership survey is multiple choice and should only take a few minutes of your time to complete. Either "check one," "check all that apply," or fill in the blanks. If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "Submit" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 1 - Question 1 - Open Ended - One Line

[Mandatory]

Name of your grassroots children and nature initiative: (fill in the blank)

Page 1 - Question 2 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

What is your organization structure? (check ALL that apply) Single agency or organization sponsor Informal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals Formal collaborative of organizations, agencies and individuals Lead agency with cooperating partner organizations Other, please specify

[Mandatory]

Page 1 - Question 3 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets) Approximately what percentage of your initiative’s financial support for the organizational structure you selected in Question 2 comes from the following? (Total should be approximately 100%.)

1- 20%

21 - 40%

41 - 60%

61 - 80%

> 8 0 %

Don't Know

B u s i n e s s e s Federal agencies F o u n d a t i o n s I n d i v i d u a l s Local public agencies S t a t e a g e n c i e s Other, please specify

Question 4 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets) per column [Mandatory]

What do you estimate are the total resources committed to your initiative in the past 12 months? Note: Respond to this question based on the resources of the organizational structure you selected in question 2, e.g., the budget, in-kind products or services and volunteers hours of your informal or formal children and nature collaborative. (check one per column) Financial Support, Budget Less than $100 $101 - $1,000 $1,001 - $5,000 $5,001 - $10,000 $10,001 to $20,000 $20,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $250,000 $250,001 to $500,000 More than $500,001 None Unknown

In-kind products or services Less than $100 $101 - $1,000 $1,001 - $5,000 $5,001 - $10,000 $10,001 to $20,000 $20,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $250,000 $250,001 to $500,000 More than $500,001 None Unknown

Volunteer Hours Less than 100 hours 101 – 1,000 1,001 – 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 250,000 250,001 to 500,000 More than 500,001 hours None Unknown

Page 1 - Question 5 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

When was your children and nature initiative formed? (check one) 2005 or earlier 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Page 1 – Question 6 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

What best describes the geographic area you serve? (check ALL that apply) Neighborhoods Suburban Area Rural Area City Metropolitan Area County/Parish Multi-county State Province Multi State/Multi Province Nation Tribal Nation Other, please specify

Page 2 - Heading

Page 2 of 5 If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "Submit" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 2 - Heading

What can you tell us about the demographics of your region? [We know that this may take a little research on your part, but the information would be very helpful to us! Wikipedia is a good source of demographic information - search for your geographic region and use “demographics” as a key word.] http://en.wikipedia.org/

Page 2 - Question 7 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

Approximately what is the population of the geographic area you serve with your children and nature initiative? (check one) 10,000 or less 10,001 to 25,000 25,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 – 500,000 500,001 – 1,000,000 1,000,001 – 5,000,000 5,000,001 to 10,000,000 10,000,001 or more Page 2 - Question 8 - Rating Scale - Matrix

[Mandatory]

Percent of Population by Race/Ethnicity (Please check one in each row below) 0

1- 20%

21 - 40%

41 - 60%

61 - 80%

> 8 0 %

Don't Know

W h i t e ( n o t H i s p a n i c o r L a t i n o ) Black or African American (not Hispanic or Latino) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (not Hispanic or Latino) H i s p a n i c o r L a t i n o A s i a n ( n o t H i s p a n i c o r L a t i n o ) American Indian or Alaska Native (not Hispanic or Latino) T w o o r m o r e r a c e s

Page 2 - Question 9 - Rating Scale - Matrix

[Mandatory]

Percent of Population by Income Level (Please check one in each row below)

$24,000 or less per year per family $24,001 to $45,000 per year per family $45,001 to $90,000 per year per family $90,001 to $150,000 per year per family $150,001 or more per year per family 52 © 2012 Children & Nature Network

1- 20%

21 - 40%

41 - 60%

61 - 80%

> 8 0 %

Don't Know

Page 2 - Question 10 - Rating Scale - Matrix

[Mandatory]

Percent of Population by Age Group (Please check one in each row below)

1- 20%

21 - 40%

41 - 60%

61 - 80%

> 8 0 %

Don't Know

B i r t h t o u n d e r f i v e y e a r s F i v e t o n i n e y e a r s T e n t o 1 4 y e a r s 1 5 t o 1 9 y e a r s

Page 2 - Heading

Page 2 of 5 If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "Submit" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 3 - Heading

Page 3 of 5

If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "SUBMIT" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 3 - Question 11 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

Does your children and nature initiative have a Web site? (check one) Yes No Page 3 - Question 12- Open Ended - One Line

If yes, what is the URL? (fill in the blank)

[Mandatory]

Page 3 - Question 13 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

If "Yes," how many “unique visitors” (a statistic used to count each individual who visits a Web site during a specific time period) did you have in the past month? (check one) Note: if you do not currently have a tool to measure this, you may want to use Google Analytics, a free tool that measures the effectiveness of your website. Less than 500 501-1,000 1,001-2,500 2,501-5,000 5,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 200,000 More than 200,001 Unknown Page 3 - Question 14 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

Do you have an electronic newsletter or listserv? (check one) Yes No Page 3 - Question 15 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

If yes, how many people are on your distribution list? (check one) Less than 500 501-1,000 1,001-2,500 2,501-5,000 5,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001- 200,000 More than 200,001 Unknown Page 3 - Question 16 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

Do you have a print newsletter? (check one) Yes No

[Mandatory]

Page 3 - Question 17 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

If yes, how many people are on your distribution list? (check one) Less than 500 501-1,000 1,001-2,500 2,501-5,000 5,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001to 200,000 More than 200,001 Unknown Page 3 - Question 18 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

Are you using other social networking tools such as facebook and twitter? Yes No Other, please specify

Page 3 - Question 19 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

If yes, how many facebook fans do you have or followers on twitter or other social media sites? (check one) Less than 50 51-100 101-250 251-500 501 – 1,000 1,001 – 2,500 2,501 – 5,000 5,001 – 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 50,000 More than 50,001 Unknown Page 3 - Heading

Page 3 of 5 If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "Submit" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 4 - Heading

Page 4 of 5 If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "SUBMIT" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 4 - Question 20 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

In the past twelve months, in which of the following activities has your grassroots initiative engaged. (check all that apply) Briefings for elected officials Capacity building Children’s outdoor programs/events Convening annual conference or summit Development of collateral material such as brochures, publications or educational products Development of related research Exhibits/booths Family events Fundraising Let’s G.O.! (Get Outside) campaign in April 2011 Media interviews Nature Clubs for Families Natural Leaders Natural Service Network Natural Teachers Network Networking meetings Organizational development Professional workshops Public lectures Other, please specify Page 4 - Question 21 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by your activities in the past 12 months? (check one) Less than 100 101 – 1,000 1,001 – 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 250,000 250,001 to 500,000 More than 500,001 Unknown

[Mandatory]

Page 4 - Question 22 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

Of the children and youth served in the previous question, approximately what percentage is under-served? (check one) Note: For purposes of this survey, “under-served” is defined as families under the poverty threshold as set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml 0% 1 - 10% 11 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% over 75% Don't Know Page 4 - Question 23- Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)

Which of the following Children & Nature Network Tools have you used or distributed? (check all that apply) Blogs Book list on web site C&NN Community Action Guide C&NN electronic newsletters C&NN Report on the Movement to Re-Connect Children with the Natural World Facebook Leadership Writing Series Let’s G.O.! (Get Outside) Toolkit Power Point Presentations Nature Clubs for Families Toolkit Natural Leaders Network Toolkit Natural Service Network Toolkit NING C&NN Community Site—C&NN Connect Research and Studies Twitter Video links on web site Web site news summaries Where Nature Meets Story YouTube Other, please specify

[Mandatory]

Page 4 - Question 24 - Rating Scale - Matrix

[Mandatory]

Since your children and nature initiative began, approximately how many of each of the following has been established in your region, either directly or indirectly, as a result of your efforts? (please provide an answer in each row) N

10 or less

1 1

2 0

21 or more

Don't know

C o m m u n i t y G a r d e n s Healing gardens, e.g., at hospitals N a t u r a l p l a y A r e a s N a t u r e c l u b s f o r f a m i l i e s N e i g h b o r h o o d p a r k s School gardens or habitat projects T r a i l s o r t r a i l p r o j e c t s O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y b e l o w )

Page 4 - Question 25 - Open Ended - Comments Box

Describe other efforts:

Page 4 - Question 26 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

What do you estimate as the total audience reached by these new initiatives? (check one) Less than 100 101 - 1,000 1,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 100,000 100,001 to 250,000 250,001 to 500,000 More than 500,001 Unknown

[Mandatory]

Page 4 - Question 27 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)

[Mandatory]

What percentage of the children and youth participating in these new initiatives is under-served? (check one) Note: For purposes of this survey, “under-served” is defined as families under the poverty threshold as set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml 0% 1 - 10% 11 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% Over 75% Don't Know Page 4 - Question 28 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)

Since your children and nature initiative began, which of the following changes have you seen as a direct or indirect result? (check all that apply) Behavioral indicators that children are happier, more creative, confident and/or collaborative Community improvements to provide access to nature-based experiences Development or enhancement of places to play and learn outdoors in nature Educational benefits to participants Enhanced family bonding Health benefits to participants Increased awareness of the importance of nature for children’s healthy development Increased community support Increased engagement of early childhood professionals and caregivers Increased engagement of formal educators Increased engagement of non-formal educators Increased engagement of pediatricians and others in the medical community Increased frequency of children playing outdoors in nature Increased funding for the children and nature initiative Increased interest and participation in nature-based service projects Increased number of children playing outdoors in nature Increased number of people participating in nature-based events and programs Media attention Partnerships with new allies Repeat participation by children and youth in nature-based events and programs None Other, please specify

[Mandatory]

Question 29—Choice—Multiple Answers Which of the following audiences and organizations are participating in your children and nature initiative? (check all that apply) 4-H Boys and Girls Clubs Businesses Camp staff and counselors Childcare providers Children’s museums Colleges or universities Community organizers Educators Faith-based organizations Federal agencies Grandparents Health care providers Home schoolers Landscape designers Libraries Local non-profit organizations Natural resource professionals Nature centers Parent teacher organizations Parks Planners Private school teachers Public school teachers Scouts State agencies YMCA or YWCA Zoos and aquaria Other, please specify

Question 30 —Choice—Multiple Answers

In the last year, when has your children and nature initiative provided programs and activities? Check all that apply.

a. By Hour and Day Check all that apply. Morning Afternoon After-school Evening Weekdays Weekends Other, please specify

b. By Week Check all that apply. Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Other, please specify

c. By Season Check all that apply. Winter Spring Summer Fall Year-round Other, please specify

Question 31 —Choice—One Answer Per Section In the last year, when have your best attended children and nature initiative programs and activities occurred? Check one per section. a. By Hour Check one. Morning Afternoon After-school Evening Other, please specify b. By Day Check one. Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays Thursdays Fridays Saturdays Sundays Other, please specify c. By Week Check one. Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Other, please specify d. By Season Check one. Winter Spring Summer Fall Year-round Other, please specify

Page 4 - Heading

Page 4 of 5 If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "Submit" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 5 - Heading

Page 5 of 5 If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "SUBMIT" button at the bottom of the page.

Page 5 - Heading

Your Name and Organization

Page 5 - Question - Open Ended - One Line

[Mandatory]

Email Address:

Page 5 - Question - Open Ended - One Line

[Mandatory]

First Name:

Page 5 - Question - Open Ended - One Line

[Mandatory]

Last Name:

Page 5 - Question - Open Ended - One Line

[Mandatory]

Organization:

Page 5 - Heading

Page 5 of 5 If you do not complete this survey in one sitting, remember to SAVE YOUR ANSWERS by selecting the "Submit" button at the bottom of the page.

Thank You Page

We thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Having this information will help us to track the tangible success of the movement to reconnect children and nature. Your completion of this survey indicates that you agree to have the information you provided be compiled into the report of these survey results. Please print your survey responses for your records. Thank you! Click here to visit our web site: <http://www.childrenandnature.org/>

Screen Out Page

Thank you for your willingness to participate, however, we are looking for survey respondents who fit a different profile.

Over Quota Page

Thank you for your willingness to participate, however, this survey is now closed.

Survey Closed Page

Thank you for your willingness to participate, however, this survey is now closed.