<%BANNER%>

Evaluating Agency Perceptions of Partnerships: Lessons Learned from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


PAGE 1

EVALUATING AGENCY PERCEPTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE By KRISTY A. BENDER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Kristy A. Bender

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge my thesis committee for their time, insight, and instruction: Dr. Martha Monroe, faculty advisor and committee chair; Dr. Taylor Stein; and Dr. Susan Jacobson. The support provided to me by my committee and other faculty and staff at the School of Forest Resources and Conservation has been invaluable. I also wish to acknowledge Dawn Lagrotteria at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center for assisting in every stage of this process. I thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their financial support. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to my family for their endless patience and encouragement, despite the bugs encountered during this thesis process. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of Problem...................................................................................................2 Purpose and Objectives.................................................................................................5 Research Questions and Hypotheses............................................................................6 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................7 Introduction...................................................................................................................7 Defining the Goal and Purpose of Partnering...............................................................8 Definition...............................................................................................................8 Ways to Classify....................................................................................................9 Why Agencies Choose to Partner........................................................................10 Characteristics of Successful Partnerships.................................................................11 Obstacles to Success...................................................................................................13 Evaluation Methods....................................................................................................16 Goal Attainment..................................................................................................16 Phases of Partnerships.........................................................................................17 Summary.....................................................................................................................18 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................20 Study Process..............................................................................................................20 Sample........................................................................................................................20 Initial Interviews.........................................................................................................21 Survey Design.............................................................................................................23 Reliability and Content Validity.................................................................................24 Response Bias.............................................................................................................25 Pilot Testing................................................................................................................25 Survey Distribution.....................................................................................................27 iv

PAGE 5

Data Analysis..............................................................................................................28 Study Challenges and Limitations..............................................................................29 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................31 Survey Response.........................................................................................................31 Participant Background..............................................................................................32 Personal History..................................................................................................32 Job Characteristics...............................................................................................34 Partnership Characteristics..................................................................................36 Overall Perceptions.....................................................................................................38 Perceptions by Background Variables........................................................................40 Effects of Personal History on Perception...........................................................41 Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................................41 Formal training versus no formal training....................................................42 Effects of Job Characteristics on Perception.......................................................44 Degree to which job goals are related to the success of partnerships..........44 Office versus office/field..............................................................................45 Supervisors versus non-supervisors.............................................................47 Effects of Partnership Characteristics on Perception..........................................48 Number of partnerships................................................................................48 Average number of hours per week.............................................................49 Average number of weeks per year..............................................................49 Spend more time creating versus sustaining................................................52 Majority of partnerships are established by them versus by someone else..53 Planned versus opportunistic........................................................................55 Extension to Skills and Abilities.................................................................................57 5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION....................................................................60 Perceptions Not Widely Shared..................................................................................60 How Time Spent In Partnerships Affects Perception.................................................62 Who Attends Training................................................................................................63 Training Relationships................................................................................................63 Significant Variables..................................................................................................65 Background Variables With Little or No Significance...............................................66 Additional Research Possibilities...............................................................................67 Conclusion..................................................................................................................69 APPENDIX A EMPLOYEE CONTACT LETTERS.........................................................................70 B INITIAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PARTNERSHIP SURVEY........................................................................................80 C PAPER COPY OF FINAL ELECTRONIC SURVEY..............................................81 v

PAGE 6

D COMPLETE SURVEY DATA..................................................................................96 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................138 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................142 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service........................................................33 4-2 Training Attendance.................................................................................................33 4-3 Definition of partnerships in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................33 4-4 Respondents by region.............................................................................................34 4-5 Degree to which job goals are related to partnership success..................................35 4-6 Dichotomous job characteristic variables................................................................35 4-7 Number of partnerships involved with while working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service........................................................................................................36 4-8 Primary expected outcome of partnerships..............................................................37 4-9 Average number of hours per week spent on partnerships......................................37 4-10 Approximate number of weeks per year actively involved in partnerships.............38 4-11 Dichotomous partnership characteristic variables....................................................38 4-13 Perception variables with twenty-five percent or more respondents in minority.....39 4-14 Perception versus years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................42 4-16 Perception versus degree to which job goals related to partnership success............45 4-17 Work type versus perceptions..................................................................................46 4-18 Work type by degree to which job goals are related to partnership success............47 4-19 Time spent in partnership activity versus work type................................................47 4-20 Supervisory role versus perceptions.........................................................................48 4-21 Perception versus number of partnerships involved with........................................49 vii

PAGE 8

4-22 Perception versus hours per week and weeks per year............................................50 4-23 Creating/Sustaining versus perceptions...................................................................52 4-24 Who establishes partnerships versus perceptions.....................................................53 4-25 Who establishes partnerships by degree to which job goals are related to partnership success...................................................................................................55 4-26 Time spent in partnership activity versus who establishes partnership...................55 4-27 Planned/Opportunistic versus perceptions...............................................................56 4-28 Planned/Opportunistic by training...........................................................................56 4-29 List of skills and abilities sorted by mean................................................................58 4-30 Training attendance versus skills and abilities responsible for success...................59 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EVALUATING AGENCY PERCEPTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE By Kristy A. Bender December 2004 Chair: Martha Monroe Major Department: Forest Resources and Conservation In response to increasingly complex natural resource issues, collaborative approaches to natural resource management are being promoted as an effective way to achieve conservation goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that creating partnerships will strengthen and broaden support, create new allies, and aid in complex decision making and problem solving. As partnerships become more prevalent and are integrated into agency policies, it becomes increasingly important to develop a clear understanding of what variables influence their effectiveness. This study examined the relationship between perceptions of partnerships and employees personal history, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics. After initial interviews and pilot testing, a final survey was administered to 354 Service employees. Respondents answered 16 questions regarding their background and one question with 32 items on their perceptions of partnerships. Data collection took place between September 2002 and August 2004. ix

PAGE 10

Using SPSS 10.0, independent t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Spearmans rank order correlation, and chi-square tests for independence were used to analyze the quantitative data. Twenty-five of the 32 perception variables could be explained by an employees background. The background variables with the most explanatory power on perceptions were attendance at partnership training, who establishes their partnerships, degree to which job goals are related to partnership success, and amount of time spent partnering. Employees who have attended partnership training, establish their own partnerships, have a high correlation between job goals and partnership success, and spend a significant amount of time partnering share several perceptions. They view partnering as a flexible process dependent more on relationships than on formalities that can lead to greater success than individual efforts. They are comfortable with their level of training and believe they have the skills they need to feel confident representing the Service. Employees who have not attended training, work mainly in partnerships established by someone else, have a low correlation between job goals and partnership success, and spend little time partnering tend to view partnerships as a time consuming venture where outcomes are all or nothing that receives little support from their supervisors. Background variables with no explanatory power on perceptions include number of partnerships worked on, supervisory role, years with the Service, and job location. The results of this study indicate that perceptions of partnerships vary across agency employees. By addressing perceptions and the role background plays in how employees approach partnerships, Service managers and educators have a better understanding of what gaps to expect in their audience and who might benefit the most from training. x

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A new style of problem solving and management is under development in the United States (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Government agencies, communities, and private groups are building bridges to one another that enable them to deal with common problems, work through conflicts, and develop forward-thinking strategies for regional protection and development. Over the past several decades, these collaborative solutions have emerged to solve problems in every sector of society business, government, labor, and the environment (Gray 1989). From management partnerships and interagency cooperation to educational outreach and collaborative problem solving, this new style of management is developing organically in many places in response to shared problems (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Collaborative efforts are proliferating for many reasons. Some efforts are a direct response to problems caused by past public policies and the top-down management practices of government agencies that have tended to disempower landowners and local interest groups (McNeely 1995, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Others reflect the current organizational and social context of management (Selin and Chavez 1995, Whaley 1993). Still others spring from new ideas and energies (Darrow and Vaske 1995). In combination, these factors have provided an impetus for the growth of collaborative initiatives. Collaborative management has several key advantages. Collaboration can help create networks of relationships that overcome administrative and political boundaries. It 1

PAGE 12

2 can assist in the development of rich pools of knowledge that draw from diverse sources and provide frameworks for interdisciplinary learning and problem solving (Robertshaw et al. 1993). Building bridges between public and private parties can generate a diversity of ideas and approaches, so that decision makers have a menu of responses to deal with changing conditions, problems, and values. It can also help administrative agencies stay in touch with changing public values (McNeely 1995). Collaborative processes can help parties understand each other, while providing a decision-making framework that involves groups in a way that builds support and ownership. They also can help provide structures through which post-decision monitoring and evaluation can take place (Darrow and Vaske 1995). Images of successful collaboration can help motivate agency staff and citizens alike. In the best of worlds, it can also help create a dialogue about shared values and problems and assist in rebuilding a sense of individual responsibility for collective problems. While not the goal of resource management, collaboration can be a helpful stepping stone to more effective management (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Statement of Problem Among resource management agencies searching for solutions to complex natural resource problems, there has been a growing interest in collaborative approaches to decision making (Selin and Chavez 1995). Collaboration is an umbrella term for the establishment of a formal or informal relationship or structure and can include partnerships, multiparty working groups, interagency information networks, and simple relationships such as an agency staff member participating in community-based development discussions. Collaboration provides an opportunity to link natural resource agencies with other agencies, organizations, communities, and individuals (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Partnerships, one form of collaborative management, can provide

PAGE 13

3 vehicles for sharing expertise and ideas as public agencies reinvent themselves for the management challenges of the next century and communities diversify their economic bases and social values. They provide an avenue for otherwise unconnected parties to share in strategic planning and decision making processes. On one hand, this new approach to the management of resources is revolutionary. It responds directly to the problems inherent in traditional management that has emphasized narrow objectives, top-down control, tight boundaries, and extensive rules and formal structures to institutionalize public policies. On the other hand, a style of management that emphasizes people getting together to cooperatively solve shared problems seems almost like common sense (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). A 1999 report on the National Wildlife Refuge System indicates that for many years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enjoyed partnerships with states and tribes in the stewardship of fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. A more recent phenomenon is a concentrated effort to build partnerships with members of local business communities and the corporate community at large (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The Service recognizes that productive interagency and organizational partnerships help accomplish their conservation goals more effectively. Yet partnerships are not created by agencies, they are formed by staff. For this form of collaboration to be successful, their employees must work with both supporters and nontraditional alliances to forge new partnerships. It is possible for agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take specific action to enable staff members to build positive relationships with other parties. By enabling and encouraging employees through training, modeling, mentoring, and shifting responsibilities, agency leaders can provide a foundation for more effective

PAGE 14

4 partnering. To facilitate collaboration, the Service is actively training their employees to form, manage, and effectively participate in partnerships. For training to be effective and for employees to practice their new skills, however, it may be important for agency leaders to understand barriers to partnering. While people may represent organizations, agencies, or occupations in a partnership, they are fundamentally human beings. The relationships that form the core of collaborative partnerships are between those individuals, not between organizations. A partnership is not only at the organizational level, but also at the individual level, where perceptions and personalities can pose challenges to effective collaboration (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Thus, an individuals perceptions of agency partnerships must be acknowledged as one factor that can help or hinder collaboration. It is possible that employees vary in their perceptions of what constitutes a successful partnership, be it within or beyond agency walls. For example, some employees may view partnerships as a relationship based venture where there are mutual benefits by the organizations involved reflecting a high level of cooperation among the parties (termed exchange theory). Others, however, may view partnerships as interactions that are motivated less by anticipated mutual benefits than by a desire to attain resources, frequently at the expense of other organizations (termed resource dependence theory) (Selin and Beason 1991). Although extensive studies have determined situations that facilitate cooperation (Arnold and Long 1993, Kusler 1994, McNeeley 1995, Sawhill 1996), which group dynamics contribute to success and failure (Anderson et al. 1995, Darrow et al. 1993, Eng 1994, Friendly 1993, Selin and Chavez 1995, Segil et al. 2003), and the phases through

PAGE 15

5 which partnerships pass (Darrow and Vaske 1995, Dent 1999), there is a lack of information about individual variables that could influence overall perception of partnerships. Preliminary interviews with agency employees conducted for this study to enhance literature findings support the idea that differences in perceptions may be the result of individual variables such as time spent in the agency, job position and location, training received, and previous experience. If differences in perception exist, it is important for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address these perceptions at training sessions in an effort to improve employees ability to use partnerships. It is also important for supervisors to understand these perceptions when assigning tasks to employees. Outcomes of partnerships could well depend on the personalities and perceptions that are assembled around the table. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this survey was to assess what factors U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees perceive to be critical to developing successful partnerships; and to identify the tools and resources that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees feel will provide them with the foundation they need to be effective. This study, based on a subset of the survey questions, was designed to go beyond traditional studies of the role that employees skills play in partnerships, to determine if differences exist in employees perceptions of partnering. Objectives of this study were as follows: To contribute to the partnership research base To impact partnership training provided to employees by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to provide recommendations for future research.

PAGE 16

6 Research Questions and Hypotheses The following research questions were addressed in this study: 1. Do perceptions of requirements for and results of successful partnerships vary across agency employees? 2. Do perceptions of partnerships vary in a predictable way when considering personal characteristics, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics? The research hypotheses for this study were as follows: 1. Perceptions of partnerships will vary across agency employees. 2. Perceptions of partnerships will vary in a predictable way. Training attendance, supervisory role, and years with the Service will be the variables with the most explanatory power.

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Perception is the way we assimilate and organize the information that surrounds us. Individuals notice only certain aspects of their environment. Each persons perception of the same situation may be different because of this selective perception. Each of several individuals in a group will have a somewhat different perception of the group (Carroll 1977). Perception is an active process and there are no static forms of understanding or perception (Gibson 1970). The process however does not look like disconnected shoots growing out in different directions, but rather like a spiraling course evolving with the individual (Gibson 1988). Perception as a whole includes all that is experienced as well as the history of the experiencer and the way they experience. Each person has a different angle of vision which touches upon a common world (Brown 1977). For example, although two employees from the Service may be working on the same partnership, their approach and goals may vary due to differing backgrounds such as the amount of time spent in partnerships. Although different perceptions among partners are an important consideration, the purpose of this study is to assess differences within one agency. With regard to partnerships, perception differences might exist on four levels: the definition, the characteristics of successful partnerships, the obstacles to success, and the evaluation 7

PAGE 18

8 methods. There is extensive literature available on each of these topics, the most relevant of which is reviewed here. Defining the Goal and Purpose of Partnering Definition Defining the specific scope of partnerships is complicated given the diversity of situations and actors. However, it is generally accepted in literature that a key aspect of partnerships is a situation where power, responsibility, and resources are shared (Friendly 1993, Selin and Chavez 1993, Trauger et al. 1995, Whaley 1993). Not surprisingly, a word common to most partnership definitions is cooperation. In defining partnerships, several authors focus on the voluntary aspect (Robertshaw et al. 1993, Arnold and Long 1993, Long and Arnold 1995) where agencies, individuals, businesses, and other organized groups work together to improve environmental quality or natural resource utilization. Others focus on the joining of independent parties where power is shared and stakeholders take collective responsibility for their actions and subsequent outcomes (Selin and Chavez 1993). The idea of unifying diverse interests (Northwest Michigan RC&D Council Inc. 1994) indicates that actors are working together to solve problems that they cannot solve on their own. While some definitions refer to the resolution of a specific project in a definite timeframe (Trauger et al. 1995) others are vague and include any cooperative effort among organizations working towards a common goal and say nothing about the timeframe or the need to establish specific goals for the project (Robertshaw et al. 1993). Several definitions do not mention the idea of collaboration at all while others view partnerships as a subset of a larger framework of collaboration that also includes transactive planning, open decision

PAGE 19

9 making, and comanagement (Selin and Chavez 1995). Still others use the terms partnership and collaboration interchangeably (Whaley 1993). Ways to Classify There are numerous ways to classify partnerships, the most basic of which is to look at the broad goal of the partnership (Eng 1994, Long and Arnold 1995). Each partnership is developed for a specific purpose and can be classified based on the principles of that purpose (Arnold and Long 1993). These purposes or goals may include one or more of the following: technical assistance; information dissemination; and resource conservation (Conservation Partnership for the Northern Plains 1996). In cases where goals are used to evaluate success, categories focus on the degree to which that goal was met. For example, partnerships designed to solve a resource conflict would be evaluated based on the extent to which the conflict has been ameliorated and would not be subjected to other analysis such as the amount of funding required or the time spent working towards such objectives. Partnerships can also be classified according to types of participants (Arnold and Long 1993). For example, if an agency such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to classify their partnership according to participants, they could place their partnerships into categories of intergovernmental, interagency, federal, state, tribal, local government, community, college/university, and non-profit. The effectiveness of a partnership could then be evaluated within those categories. Other ways to classify partnerships include mode of formation, ranging from completely voluntary to judicially mandated, administrative organization structure by level of formalization, time span, project type, and the degree to which the partnership

PAGE 20

10 goal is relevant to the organizational mission (Williams and Ellefson 1996, Darrow et al. 1993). Why Agencies Choose to Partner Creating partnerships is not itself an end. Rather, it is a mean to several ends: building understanding, building support, and building capacity (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). By developing interpersonal and interorganizational linkages, agencies can be better informed and make choices about future direction that are more likely to solve the problems at hand. Programs are more likely to be implemented successfully if they are supported and owned by affected groups. In addition, on-the-ground partnerships can enhance the capacity of agencies and communities to deal with problems in the future (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Rocha and Jacobson 1998). Specific goals of partnerships depend on the underlying motivation. Agencies are motivated to partner when there is a task or issue at hand that cannot be resolved internally. In those cases, partners expect some element of mutual benefit, whether it is financial, environmental, or otherwise (Sawhill 1996). For large federal agencies in the United States, concerns revolve around shrinking agency budgets, increased demand on natural resources (McNeeley 1995), and the specific threat of regulatory and therefore litigious conflict (Arnold and Long 1993). These agencies may also be interested in addressing issues beyond federal regulatory control (Kusler 1994) such as regional planning efforts. There is also the desire to pool diverse expertise (Anderson et al. 1995) by working with partners who can provide a range of information and experience. Concerns that drive the establishment of conservation partnerships in other parts of the world, such as South America, include insufficient infrastructure and management, the exclusion of local communities or inhabitants of protected areas from management of

PAGE 21

11 natural resources, and geographic isolation of protected areas in a matrix of human land use (Rocha and Jacobson 1998). The specific definition, classification, and reason for partnering are, in combination, all good ways to define a partnership. If there is variation in how employees think about a partnership it could make for difficulty in communication, at a minimum. Characteristics of Successful Partnerships The literature suggests there are many specific factors that contribute to successful partnerships. It would be important for members of an agency to have similar ideas about success, or if not identical strategies, the ability and support to pursue those factors they believe are most important. The most prominent characteristic of success in the literature is a shared vision or a common goal that unites all of the parties such as habitat conservation (Friendly 1993). Even if the represented parties have disparate missions, finding a common ground has to be the first step in any partnering process (Sample et al. 1995). For example, the Mill Creek Canyon management partnership between Salt Lake County, Utah and the U.S. Forest Service was built on shared goals. Prior to the partnership, the canyon experienced heavy recreational use, vandalism, and water quality degradation. Critical to the development of the innovative resource-sharing arrangement that raised funds and allowed for better management of the canyon was the perception of shared goals among disparate federal and local agencies (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). For a shared vision to exist, the partnering process has to allow for substantive involvement by each member. Rather than seeing outside involvement as a mandate, partnering efforts that view the ideas of each partner as integral to finding an effective solution are more likely to result in positive outcomes. This involvement is facilitated by

PAGE 22

12 consensus decision-making where all interests have a say in the process and the decisions. Another factor is the involvement of a range of partners representing each stakeholder group. Leaving a partner out, whether unintentionally or deliberately, poses a serious threat to the validity and integrity of the outcome (Darrow et al. 1993). It is not uncommon for group members to use personal appeals to aggressively press other groups to participate. At other times, strategies have been used to try to represent interests that were important to the partnering process but that were held by those who would not participate on their own. For example, in Nevadas Clark County Partnership, ranchers chose not to participate in a partnership with the county since it was likely that preserving habitat for the desert tortoise would mean losing grazing rights on public lands. In response, the county hired an attorney who was trusted by ranchers to serve as a rural community representative and unofficially represent livestock interests in the partnership (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Such involvement strengthens the commitment to outcomes reached during the process. It is critical that partners share an understanding of what is expected from the process (Kusler 1994). This process of creating a unified goal for the group despite organizational differences requires basic communication and interpersonal skills (Eng 1994). Open communication and the willingness to share risks and benefits facilitate the development of trust that is critical to the functioning of a partnership (Sawhill 1996). Successful collaborations dont require friendship between collaborators. However, there must be a minimum threshold of mutual respect, tolerance, and trust for any collaboration

PAGE 23

13 to succeed (Schrage 1990). Successful collaborations do not try to sidestep a lack of trust but instead begin taking steps to build that trust (p. 57, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Obstacles to Success Partnering is counter to traditional management and can be feared by both agencies and employees for a variety of reasons including losing the ability to protect and control their organizational turf (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). The dominant centralized, rational-comprehensive planning process of agencies along with characteristic inertia that hinders large government bureaucracies are often cited as impeding collaboration. Additionally, many of these organizations view compromise as watering down their mission. Some agencies feel an obligation to set clear environmental objectives and pursue them with as much vigor and resolve as their opponent (Selin and Chavez 1995). For example, the establishment of a multistate recovery program for the endangered black-footed ferret was hindered by actions taken by the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish which wished to maintain control over the program (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). How we think often affects how we act. Our thinking, as a result of both institutional norms and traditional training, is often biased against collaboration (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Additionally, there are substantial relational obstacles, such as management support and the need for control, to collaboration in the environmental management field (Selin and Chavez 1995). It is possible that these factors play a role in employee perceptions of partnerships. Relational obstacles reflect the attitudes and perceptions held by individuals, groups, and organizations that often push people apart rather than foster cooperation. While some think political power is essential to accomplishing goals (Porter and Salvesen

PAGE 24

14 1995) others believe that the differences in power structure created when one partner has disproportionate control over resources causes tension which disrupts the group dynamic and leads to failure (Selin and Chavez 1995). This struggle for power within a group can exaggerate the rivalries that exist among players (Kusler 1994) and enforce stereotyped us-them images that lead to polarization. For example, members of the public participating in a collaborative effort as volunteers may struggle to find the time to do the background research and reading that representatives of agencies and businesses can do as a part of their daily job. A small landowner participant in the planning process for the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan summed it up by saying: To be a participant, fight back, and protect our interests took all of our spare time, evenings, and weekends. It was irritating to look around and see all these people were getting paid to do this, especially when their decisions were affecting our land and a lot of other people. (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). An unbalanced power structure can also heighten the sense of distrust in a newly formed group (Friendly 1993). This distrust is common if the partners involved in the collaboration have historical differences that have not been resolved (Selin and Chavez 1995). Another obstacle is the non-binding nature of the results. This can cause a lack of motivation and interest that may lead to failure regardless of whether or not trust exists (Anderson et al. 1995). Distrust can also occur when dealing with parties of varying backgrounds and interests. This distrust is primarily due to conflicting missions, goals, and a lack of common culture which includes terminology and values (Arnold and Long 1993). Even among agencies that ought to be on the same side slight differences in mission can

PAGE 25

15 create differences in perspective, priorities, and objectives. These differences can make trusting each other and partnerships challenging. For example, the management of the water resources of South Florida involves numerous agencies with conflicting missions. The South Florida Water Management District is charged with supplying drinking and irrigation water and flood control to the public and commercial interests. The mission of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is to ensure water quality and wetlands protection. Those differences in missions have led to different priorities for various restoration activities. The FDEP argued that the long-term monitoring of agricultural operations was essential, while the water management district pointed to studies that found no evidence of farming-induced aquifer pollution. Even after joint monitoring showed negligible amounts of herbicides and pesticides in the East Everglades water, FDEP remained skeptical of the results (Wondolleck 1988). This lack of common perspective makes communication and trust building more difficult and more critical. In combination, these factors lead to fear of committing to partnering because it requires new and potentially risky behavior. Obstacles can also exist within an agency as a function of supervisor/employee relationships. Organizations are largely made up of people and their relationships with each other. These relationships include both vertical and horizontal relationships within the organization. The quality of relationships in this complex web of interconnections largely determines the quality and effectiveness of the organization. If employees are uncooperative, untruthful, angry, uncaring, or unduly constrained, the organization will be unable to coordinate internally. The highest quality relationships are those of partnership, mutual support, and mutual respect for autonomy, not those in which one

PAGE 26

16 party dominates another (Segil et al. 2003). Thus, if employees feel that their partnering efforts are not supported by their supervisor or their agency, the quality of the partnership may be negatively affected. A study in the National Park Service revealed that agency level coordination is needed to invigorate park-to-park as well as agency-to-agency programmatic cooperation. From the headquarters level, through the park superintendents to the maintenance foreman and the trail crew bosses, all must be empowered to work together. To be most effective at successive levels, cooperation must start on a day-to-day basis at the superintendents level with positive direction and oversight from headquarters providing incentive and accountability (Tilghman and Murray 1995). Evaluation Methods Goal Attainment Partnerships are generally evaluated based on the degree to which goals were met. However, goals may vary from one partnership to another and from one individual to another. Therefore, there are two primary measures of success. For some, success may be defined as the creation or maintenance of a relationship between partners and not necessarily working towards or reaching a specific target (Williams and Ellefson 1996). Thus, evaluation of success may include the willingness of partners to continue working together. However, in situations where the partnership was established to tackle a specific task, an evaluation would assess the achievement of those specific goals (Long and Arnold 1995). This can include both environmental and process goals. It would be important for all parties at the table to have common goals for the partnership, or at least an understanding of how their goals differ and the effect it will have on procedures and outcomes.

PAGE 27

17 Phases of Partnerships It is widely accepted that there are a number of phases through which partnerships pass. An understanding of these phases may impact an employees level of comfort and perception of the process. People are most familiar, and therefore comfortable, with the stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing (Dent 1999); however there are two other descriptions of phases that are also common. The second model, which is structurally similar to the first model but uses different labels, identifies three phases through which successful partnerships pass: initiation, planning, and implementation/evaluation (Darrow and Vaske 1995). For each phase, there are important issues such as motivation, activities, and indicators of success. The initiation phase involves activities such as partner selection. Indicators of success include the ability to identify key resources and to forecast potential problems. Activities such as formal meetings and clarification of partner roles occur during the planning phase. Indicators of success during this phase include development of a strategic plan and the creation of an information system. The implementation/ evaluation phase includes creating a strategy for termination, with success indicated by the use of ongoing evaluation and monitoring (Darrow and Vaske 1995). A third perspective on partnerships, which is qualitatively different than the other two descriptions of phases, suggests they emerge out of an environmental context, or antecedent, and then proceed sequentially through problem-setting, direction-setting, and structuring phases which result in some set of outcomes. In this model, antecedents are reasons for partnering such as crisis or legal mandate. In the problem-setting stage, participants realize that problem resolution will require collective action and consensus is reached on who has a legitimate stake in an issue. Direction setting is where goals are

PAGE 28

18 established, ground rules are set, and joint information searching begins (Selin and Chavez 1995). Wondolleck (1988) attributed much of the conflict over forest management plans to a lack of opportunity for different groups to jointly determine where and how timber resources are available and with what consequences. This represents a breakdown in the direction setting phase. The structuring stage involves institutionalizing the shared meaning of the group and devising a regulatory framework to guide future collective action and assure collective compliance to the goals of the group, similar to that of the norming stage in the first model. Structuring is where agencies may formalize the process through memorandums of understanding. This phase can be illustrated with a watershed planning example from Canaan Valley, West Virginia. Concern over development impacts in the Canaan Valley led the Environmental Protection Agency to convene a series of meeting to develop a resource protection plan for the valley. These meetings led to the establishment of the Canaan Valley Task Force, an informal partnership without a legal charter, to implement the strategy. Through the structuring process, participants formalized their roles by defining their responsibilities and assuming mutual control over the resolution of the watershed issues that confronted them (Clower 1993). Assessing outcomes, the final stage in this model, involves implementation and impact assessment (Selin and Chavez 1995). Summary The literature suggests multiple elements that might be important to the success of partnerships. These variables include: having a shared vision or a common goal that unites all of the parties, consensus decision making, a formalized agreement, the involvement of a range of partners representing each stakeholder group, the ability to create a unified goal for the group, basic communication and interpersonal skills, the

PAGE 29

19 development of trust among parties, shared power, and the support of a supervisor and/or the agency. How an employee approaches partnerships is a function of perception. These perceptions may be a function of training and, therefore, are likely to change. However, they could be a function of experience or academic background and, therefore, harder to change in the short term but may inform the hiring process. Therefore it is important to find out how background affects perception of the factors that make partnerships successful. If staff hold different ideas about what makes partnerships successful, it could be more difficult for the agency to move toward improved partnerships. While differences in perception are not necessarily problematic and may simply indicate a difference in approach or partnership style, it may be that there are some items where agreement is more important than others. For example, if the Service is expecting a specific measurable product from each partnership, lack of agreement for a variable such as It is critical to have concrete results from your involvement in the partnership may represent a perception that is a target for future Service-wide communication and training. While the list of variables suggested by the literature as important to the success of partnerships seems thorough, it is heavily weighted toward specific measurable skills. It is possible that there are other factors important to successful partnerships that have not yet been researched or perhaps are common sense and, therefore, not given much attention in the literature. Interviews were conducted with employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to serve as a supplement to the literature review in an effort to develop an exhaustive list of elements important to success.

PAGE 30

CHAPTER 3 METHODS This chapter provides an explanation of the study process. It covers the sample, initial interviews, survey design, reliability and content validity, response bias, pilot testing, survey distribution, and data analysis. Study challenges and limitations are addressed at the end of the chapter. Study Process This survey was originally requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to explore the skills and abilities critical to successful partnerships to come up with tools and resources to meet their changing outreach needs. As a result of preliminary work, the survey evolved into a much broader instrument encompassing not only skills and abilities but also perception and background variables. This study was divided into three phases; initial interviews, pilot testing, and the final survey. Each stage of the survey process is reviewed and significant changes resulting from the first two stages are included below. Sample Due to agency restrictions, the sample for each stage of the study was selected by staff from the Division of Education Outreach of the National Conservation Training Center, a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They provided a list of names and corresponding contact information for staff for the initial interviews, pilot test, and survey population. For the initial interviews, ten employees who the Division of Education Outreach staff felt had significant experience in partnering were contacted. The pilot test 20

PAGE 31

21 participants were split into two groups including 25 employees from the Washington office and 20 employees from various field offices. The staff from the Washington office was comprised mostly of employees working on a recently developed partnership team. The field office group represents employees who are the target audience for the Division of Education Outreachs training courses. The sample for the final survey was generated though a list of employees who have attended educational courses at the National Conservation Training Center and/or were involved Ecoteams for the Service. All eight regions were represented in each part of the process. Initial Interviews Ten U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees were selected by the agency from a range of field offices, wildlife refuges, and the agencys headquarters office to participate in the initial interview process. A staff member from the Division of Education Outreach contacted each of these employees via e-mail to request their participation in the study (Appendix A). Upon their approval, an e-mail was sent by the researcher to the employee requesting to schedule an interview time. Subsequently, each of the ten employees was contacted via telephone during September and October of 2002. Each employee was asked a series of eight open-ended questions (Appendix B). These questions asked participants to draw on their experience working with partnerships as natural resource professionals. Participants were asked to characterize the types of partnerships they are involved with, describe why their successful partnerships have worked and what challenges they have faced, and list the types of skills, knowledge, and attitudes that staff have or need to have to make partnerships successful. This discussion is based on responses to what makes partnerships successful since that is the focus of this study.

PAGE 32

22 Some responses emphasized common sense such as, Personalities are always key to success, and are supported, or at least mentioned, in the literature. Other examples of this type of response include the ability to create a shared vision for group, a clear timeline, a goal/ultimate desired outcome in advance, strong communication and interpersonal skills, and the ability to build trust with other parties. When several people provided the same perception, a statement was added to the survey to discover how widespread this impression is. Other responses brought out new ideas that were not revealed in the literature review. For example, several responses including, The best partnerships occur when people come together naturally and not when someone binds their hands together, and Partners felt more comfortable without a formalized agreement. You have to be open to just letting the process evolve, focused on the need for a sense of freedom. Another example of this type of response is Experience is vital to success and if you fail once you probably wont have any interest in working on another partnership. While these perceptions seemed highly pertinent to some, others viewed them as less significant. When perceptions such as these were mentioned several times, statements were added to determine agreement. Finally, some answers given were in direct contradiction to what other interviewees stated. For example, one employee stated that, You have to recognize and understand that as biology, forestry, chemistry, etc. are considered a science, collaboration is just as much of a science. You need to know that there is a right and wrong way to go about things. Training provides you with the skills you need to be successful. However when asked the same set of questions another employee stated that, Partnerships are not a

PAGE 33

23 cookbook recipe that can be taught. Even if you are trained in all of the skills deemed necessary, your partnerships may still fail. These polarized statements strengthened the hypothesis that a difference in perception of partnerships exists and prompted the addition of several statements to identify how universal these perceptions are across the sample population. For example, as a result of these interviews, the statements Engaging in a partnership is a process with a set of steps and tasks it is a science, and Engaging in a partnership is a flexible process with a basic goal but no structure it is an art were added to the survey. While the interview questions were geared towards eliciting specific measurable skills that contribute to success, the focus of many interviews seemed to be about the way people perceive success. These interviews prompted the researcher to ask two separate questions: one on perceptions, the other on skills and abilities that contribute to success. The skills and abilities section focuses on concrete skills that employees may use when partnering whereas the perception section focuses not on direct actions but on the way people think about requirements for successful partnerships. Survey Design Based on the responses received during the interviews and a thorough literature review, an on-line survey was developed (Appendix C). The survey design followed standard procedures to construct simple questions that would elicit accurate results (Dillman 2000). The decision to use an electronic survey was encouraged by the Service in an effort to reduce the amount of paper, an ongoing concern of the agency, and increase the response rate by increasing convenience. Lists of skills and abilities generated through the interview process were cross-checked against variables previously identified in literature as critical to successful

PAGE 34

24 partnerships to ensure the completeness of the survey. The background and perception questions were also formed from a combination of interviews and literature searches. Although no interview questions were specifically geared towards perception, it became clear through the interview process that there were differences among participants that could be explored. The survey included five sections: 1. Background information There were 16 questions in this section comprised of 11 categorical and five open ended questions. Questions included academic training, time spent in the agency, position in the agency, training received, partnership experience, and primary expected outcome of their partnerships. 2. Perceptions of various aspects of partnership There was one question in this section which included 32 variables. Each variable was measured on a four point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This section sought to measure employee perceptions on a wide range of partnership inputs and outcomes. 3. Experience with and reasons for successful partnerships This section had 11 questions including nine categorical, one scaled, and one open ended question. The questions were designed to elicit which specific skills are used in successful partnerships and which of those skills have the most influence over success. 4. Experience with and reasons for less successful partnerships This part of the survey also included 11 questions, 10 of which were categorical and one of which was open ended. These questions were aimed to determine what specific skills are lacking in less successful partnerships and which of those skills have the most influence over the success. 5. Tools and resources required for success There were five questions in this section. This included four open ended questions and one categorical question. This section sought to determine major roadblocks to success and asked employees to suggest tools and resources they could use to enhance their ability to develop and implement partnerships. Respondents were invited to provide a name and contact information so that they could be contacted to provide additional insight. Reliability and Content Validity An instrument is reliable if it provides consistent measurements and it is valid if it measures what it is intended to measure (Litwin 2003). Reliability of scales in surveys is commonly measured by internal consistency. Since the perception statements in this

PAGE 35

25 survey were not measuring the same general construct and items could not be summed across to obtain a total score, there was no accurate way to estimate the reliability of this scale. Content validity is a subjective measure of how appropriate items or scales seem to a set of reviewers who have some knowledge of the subject matter. The assessment of content validity typically involves an organized review of the surveys contents to ensure that it includes everything it should and does not include anything it should not (Litwin 2003). To ensure content validity, pilot test participants who are veterans in partnership development were asked to rate the scales for appropriateness, relevance, and completeness. Alterations to scale items were made accordingly. Thorough literature reviews also increased the validity of the survey. Response Bias Several of the perception statements were deliberately written in negative form to ensure that participants were actually reading the survey rather than simply marking answers. For example, the phrase The success of partnerships depends on personalities was reversed to The success of partnerships does not depend on personalities. The direction of each perception statement was determined randomly. Pilot Testing Forty-five Service employees, including 25 employees from the Washington office and 20 employees from field offices were chosen as pilot test participants by the Division of Education Outreach. On August 1, 2003 a staff member from that unit e-mailed a message to each of the employees identified asking them to participate in the study. A cover letter which included an electronic link to the pilot test was e-mailed by the researcher to participants on August 2, 2003. Twenty of the 45 employees completed the

PAGE 36

26 pilot test. All 20 of these employees were interviewed via telephone. The main purpose of the pilot test was to identify problematic questions in the survey, look for areas of poor question and instruction wording, and identify the participants general impressions of the surveys thoroughness. Participants were also asked to evaluate the ease of use of the website. Response to the pilot test was generally positive and the majority of comments focused on refining questions in order to improve clarity. No technical problems were reported. Modifications, including the addition of questions, were made to both survey directions and questions based on the results of the pilot test. For example, the order of sections was rearranged in response to comments that the previous order seemed to jump from general questions to specific and then back to general. Additionally, a question regarding the point at which the partnership broke down was added to the less successful section to determine the stage at which the majority of problems are occurring. During these interviews it became clear that there were several other perceptions that had not been addressed that employees felt were critical to success. For example, one respondent stated that, When you want to do something and your partners dont you are likely to fail. You have to be motivated to overcome failure. Another employee said, It is critical to take off the agency patch when you work with people. You have to overlook your personal feelings. These answers prompted the addition of several statements to the perception section. Similar to the initial interviews, several contradicting interview responses appeared to result from differences in overall partnership philosophy such as: What is the goal of partnerships relationships or a concrete product? and, Are partnerships viewed as an art

PAGE 37

27 or as a science? For example, one employee stated that Forming relationships should not be the goal. Addressing the conservation issue should be the goal. Another employee stated that For a lot of the work you do you will have nothing to show for it. Its in the good will and relationship you have developed that the secrets to success exist. Partnerships can be of significance even if there is no direct tangible output. When these statements were made by multiple employees, additional statements such as It is critical to have concrete results from your involvement in the partnership, and The most important outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with partners. were added in an attempt to determine agreement. Survey Distribution An e-mail explaining the purpose of the survey was sent to each of the regional chiefs by a staff member from the Division of Education Outreach on March 3, 2004. This emailed provided the names of all employees from that region who were selected to receive the survey in addition to a copy of a memo from the assistant director of external affairs requesting participation (Appendix A). Regional chiefs were asked to encourage those employees to participate in the study. The final survey was administered to 354 Service employees in March and April of 2004 (Appendix C). A tailored design technique was used to administer the survey (Dillman 2000). On March 15, 2004 each participant received an e-mail that was designed to serve as a cover letter (Appendix A). In addition to including a hyperlink to the survey website, the e-mail explained participants rights as mandated by the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board (protocol number 2004-U-224). The e-mail also explained the general purpose of the survey and informed participants that their identity would remain anonymous.

PAGE 38

28 Due to an Internet shutdown within the Department of Interior on the day following the first request to complete the survey a second e-mail was sent to participants on March 25, 2004 reminding them of the survey and encouraging them to participate. Two additional follow-up e-mails were sent on April 6, 2004 and April 26, 2004 in accordance with standard survey procedures (Dillman 2000) thanking those who had already participated and encouraging those who had not yet responded to do so in an effort to increase the response rate (Appendix A). On August 27, 2004 a final e-mail was sent to non-respondents by a staff member form the Division of Education Outreach in an effort to obtain their job title and region. Responses were forwarded to the researcher and it was determined that there was no clear pattern of non-response. Data Analysis The data presented in this paper focus on the effect of an employees background on their perception of requirements for and results of a successful partnership. The complete study results are available in Appendix D. Raw data were downloaded from the survey website directly into Excel software. The data were then imported into an SPSS 10.0 software package for statistical analysis. The data were checked for missing values and outliers. Questions that were not answered generated missing totals for that variable, which SPSS identified as missing system(s). Preliminary analysis included reports of frequency distributions, central tendency and dispersion. Independent t-tests were conducted to identify significant differences in mean scores between dichotomous background variables and perceptions. Significance differences were determined using an alpha level of 0.05. Chi-square test for independence were used to determine if two categorical variables such as who establishes

PAGE 39

29 the majority of their partnerships and their supervisory role are related by comparing the frequency of cases found in the various categories of one variable across the different categories of a second variable. Significances were determined at the 0.05 alpha level. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukeys post-hoc tests were performed to identify significant differences in mean scores between scaled background variables and perceptions. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were used to report F values. The Spearmans Rho correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength of relationships between several categorical variables such as perception and years with the Service, average hours spent per week on partnership activities, and average weeks spent per year on partnership activities. Two-tailed significances were determined at the 0.05 alpha level. Study Challenges and Limitations While using a web survey provided the opportunity to reach a large audience in a short period of time, it also created some unique challenges. In addition to the survey website periodically being unavailable, the Department of the Interior was offline for one week immediately following the distribution of the first e-mail requesting participation. This prompted additional follow-up contacts with participants that are not standard procedure with mailed surveys. An additional challenge with using a web based survey is the number of incomplete surveys. With standard mail surveys people generally complete the entire survey and return it or simply do not respond (Dillman 2000). Thirteen respondents to this survey answered only part of one or two sections and skipped the remainder of the survey. This could be due to the discovery of length or a forgotten intention to return and finish it at a

PAGE 40

30 later point. These responses had to be removed so that the data set would not be compromised. Despite an advance notice from the Division of Education Outreach to the regions, there was some confusion about the legitimacy since the survey was administered outside of the agency. Several phone calls were received by the Division about the authenticity of the survey. Aside from the letter sent by the Division of Education Outreach to the regional chiefs, it is impossible to know which employees received advance notice of the survey. It is possible, therefore, that some employees received no advance notification and were hesitant to participate. While this limitation probably did not alter the results that were received, it certainly reduced the response rate. Finally, due to agency restrictions the survey was not sent to a random sample of agency employees. Thus, the results of this survey could not be extrapolated to the entire population of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff. However, there was substantial diversity in the responses and there did not appear to be a non-response bias. Response rate by region ranged from 40 to 84 percent. Fifty-three non-respondents replied to an e-mail from the Division requesting their job title. Responses range from Regional Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Coordinator to Refuge Manager to Fish and Wildlife Biologist and indicate no response bias on the basis of job title. Due to Agency restrictions, no additional information about non-respondents could be requested or attained. Assuming no bias, non-response would randomly reduce response rate and the effect of this on the survey data would be minimal as it only affects frequencies and averages.

PAGE 41

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section includes data analysis and discussion for participant background, overall perceptions, and the effect of background on perceptions of partnerships. Relevant discussion is included in each section with the focus on the research questions identified in Chapter 1: 1. Do perceptions of requirements for and results of successful partnerships vary across agency employees? 2. Do perceptions of partnerships vary in a predictable way when considering personal characteristics, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics? Survey Response The contact list provided by the Division of Education Outreach for the final survey included 354 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees. This list was comprised mainly of employees who have attended courses at the National Conservation Training Center or worked as Ecoteam leaders in the Service. Thirty-four of these people were not contacted, due to bounced e-mails and departures from the Service, so the effective population was 320. Two hundred and thirty two responses were received. The response rate, calculated as a percentage of number of responses per number of responses plus number of refusals, was 72.5%. Thirteen surveys in which participants failed to answer more than just the background section were determined to be incomplete and were removed from the data set. Upon the completion of survey data collection an e-mail was sent to non-respondents by a staff member from the Division of Education Outreach in an effort to 31

PAGE 42

32 obtain their job title and region. Responses were forwarded to the researcher to determine if there was a pattern of non-response. Fifty-three non-respondents replied to the e-mail from the Division. Responses range from Regional Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Coordinator to Refuge Manager to Fish and Wildlife Biologist which covered the same range as the respondents, indicating no response bias on the basis of position in the agency (Appendix D). Additionally, there were respondents were from all 8 regions within the service, with response rate by region ranging from 40 to 83%, indicating no response bias by region. Participant Background Reponses to the background section are critical to this study in that the purpose of this study was to explore relationships between background and perception. The background section contains sixteen questions, including four questions about personal history, four questions about job characteristics, and seven questions about partnership characteristics. Responses to these questions are addressed by category. Personal History Academic training of respondents ranged from biology to human resources and environmental management and planning. A majority, however, had some type of natural resource academic background. Respondents also ranged in level of education from some college to doctorate degrees (Appendix D). The number of years that respondents have been with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ranged from 1 to 36 ( =15.6, S=9.9). There were at least two people in each year from 1 to 20 (Table 4-1). One hundred and thirty-two respondents (61%) reported that they have had no formal partnership training, while 85 (39%) have attended some type of training

PAGE 43

33 (Table 4-2). Respondents who indicated that they have received formal training listed a wide range of classes taught by the National Conservation Training Center (Appendix D). Table 4-1: Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Years with Service Number Percent 1-5 52 24.07 6-10 16 7.41 11-15 48 22.22 16-20 29 13.43 21-25 24 11.11 26-30 37 17.13 31+ 10 4.63 Mean = 15.6 Standard Deviation = 9.9 Table 4-2: Training Attendance Background variable Number Percentage Attended formal partnership training: No Yes 132 85 60.8 39.2 The definition of partnering that most respondents selected was a voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals on a specific project within a definite time (56.9%). A majority of the 34 people who did not select one of the three given definitions indicated that their definition is a combination of all the three choices, depending on the specific partnership (Table 4-3). Table 4-3: Definition of partnerships in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Definition Number Percent A mandated project where you are assigned to work with another individual or organization. 0 0 Any voluntary collaboration among organizations working toward a common objective. 60 27.5 A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals on a specific project within a definite time. 124 56.9 If none of these completely capture your sense of the p artnerships you work with, please provide your definition below. 34 15.6

PAGE 44

34 Job Characteristics Participants represented a wide range of job titles and positions within the agency. Included in this study among others were 81 biologists, 43 refuge managers, 17 state and national level program coordinators, 17 specialists (covering everything from training to realty), and 3 division chiefs. Although the agency has a formalized system of job classification, it is not consistently used and, therefore, no attempt was made to categorize participants by their specific job title (Appendix D). There were respondents from all eight regions within the service. Since information about region of nonrespondents was available, calculations could be made about overall response rate. Response rate by region ranged from 40% to 83%. The highest rate of return was from Region 1 (Pacific) at 83.3%. The lowest rate of return was from Region 9 (Headquarters) with 40.1%. Region 4 was sent the largest number of surveys (80) and was also the region that contributed the greatest number of responses (58) (Table 4-4). Table 4-4: Respondents by region Region # Surveys sent out Number responded Percent responded Percent of all responses Number missing Percent missing 1 36 30 83.3 13.8 6 16.7 2 34 21 61.8 9.7 13 38.2 3 27 19 70.4 8.8 8 29.6 4 80 58 72.5 26.7 22 27.5 5 69 46 66.7 21.2 23 33.3 6 41 22 53.7 10.1 19 46.3 7 20 12 60.0 5.5 8 40.0 9 22 9 40.1 4.1 13 59.1 Responses to the question about the degree to which the accomplishment of job goals are related to the success of their partnerships were spread out across all four

PAGE 45

35 response options, with the greatest response at both extremes. While 31.9% of respondents indicated that the degree to which the accomplishment of their job goals are related to the success of their partnerships is 0-25% an almost equivalent amount (31.5%) fell into the 76-100% response option (Table 4-5). Table 4-5: Degree to which job goals are related to partnership success Degree to which job goals relate to partnership success (%) Frequency Percent 0-25 69 31.9 26-50 30 13.9 51-75 49 22.7 76-100 68 31.5 One hundred forty-five respondents (68%) indicated that they spend the majority of their time in an office setting. Sixty-nine, or 32%, spend a fairly equal amount of time in both a field setting and an office setting. Only four people indicated that they spend the majority of their time in a field setting. The field sample size was not sufficient enough to conduct statistical analysis and therefore only the office and split office/field categories were included and the variable is considered dichotomous (Table 4-6). When asked if they were a supervisor in their current position, 125 answered yes while 91 answered no (Table 4-6). Table 4-6: Dichotomous job characteristic variables Background variable Number Percentage The majority of work time is spent: In a field setting In an office setting Split between the office and field 4 145 69 1.8 66.5 31.7 Currently a supervisor: Yes No 125 91 57.9 42.1

PAGE 46

36 Partnership Characteristics When asked to categorize the number of partnerships they have been involved with while working for the USFWS, 92 people (42.2%) indicated that they had been involved in 25 or more. At the other extreme, nine people (4.1%) marked that they have not been involved in any partnerships while working for the service (Table 4-7). Although this doesnt necessarily mean that they have never been a part of any partnership activity (since the survey doesnt ask about previous work experience), it is possible that some of these respondents are basing their perception on ideas and not experience. Table 4-7: Number of partnerships involved with while working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Number of partnerships Number Percent 0 9 4.1 1 4 1.8 2-5 38 17.4 6-10 37 17.0 11-24 38 17.4 25+ 92 42.2 When asked about the primary expected outcome of partnerships they were involved with almost half of the respondents chose habitat conservation/restoration (46%). Two outcomes were chosen by fewer than 5 people: new or improved relationships (.9%) and prevention of a natural resource conflict (.5%). Almost all of the 29 people who selected the other category and wrote in their own answer responded that the primary expected outcome of their partnerships included most or all of the choices and they were unable to select just one (Table 4-8). The range of hours per week spent on partnership activities was from one to 40 ( =16.25, S=12.6). Ten, twenty, and fourty hours each contained at least ten percent of the respondents (Table 4-9).

PAGE 47

37 Table 4-8: Primary expected outcome of partnerships Expected outcome Number Percent Promote Educational Programs 12 5.6 Building Community Support 12 5.6 Habitat Conservation/Restoration 98 46.0 Endangered Species Protection/Management 23 10.8 Controlling Exotic Species 6 2.8 Other Species Protection/Management 9 4.2 N ew or Improved Relationships 2 0.9 Resolution of a Natural Resource Conflict 7 3.3 Prevention of a Natural Resource Conflict 1 0.5 General Resource Conservation 14 6.6 Other 29 13.6 Table 4-9: Average number of hours per week spent on partnerships Hours per week Number Percent 1-5 55 27.77 6-10 49 24.75 11-15 11 5.56 16-20 26 13.13 21-30 26 13.13 31-40 31 15.66 Mean = 16.25 Standard Deviation = 12.6 Approximate weeks per year actively spent on partnership activities ranged from one to 52 ( =28.1, S=19.7). Forty-five percent of the respondents answered 40 or above. Although there is no way to be certain, it is possible that those people that answered 45 weeks may have been thinking every week of the federal work year which for many employees is 45 weeks (Table 4-10). Forty-five people (21%) spend more of their time creating new partnerships whereas one hundred and sixty-nine (79%) spend more time sustaining existing partnerships (Table 4-11). One hundred and sixteen people (55%) indicated that they establish the majority of partnerships they work with. Ninety-three (45%) responded that

PAGE 48

38 the majority of their partnerships are established by someone else (Table 4-11). Of those who responded, about half (117) indicated that the majority of their partnerships are planned as opposed to opportunistic (94) (Table 4-11). Table 4-10: Approximate number of weeks per year actively involved in partnerships Weeks per year Number Percent 1-8 55 27.92 9-16 22 11.17 17-24 9 4.57 25-32 20 10.15 33-40 2 1.02 41-48 37 18.78 49+ 52 26.39 Mean = 28.1 Standard Deviation = 19.7 Table 4-11: Dichotomous partnership characteristic variables Background variable Number Percentage More time is spent: Creating new partnership Sustaining existing partnerships 45 169 21.0 79.0 The majority of partnerships are established: By me By someone else 116 93 55.5 44.5 The majority of partnerships are: Planned Opportunistic 117 94 55.5 44.5 This section reveals the diversity of types of partnerships and backgrounds of the respondents. While not a random sample, the above data clearly speak to the inclusion of individuals from a wide representation of backgrounds and partnering opportunities. Overall Perceptions The survey contained 32 perception variables in which participants were asked to classify their perception on a 4-point Likert scale where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, and 4=strongly agree (Table 4-12).

PAGE 49

39 Table 4-12: List of perception variables sorted by mean Perception Mean SD We can accomplish a great deal more in partnerships than we can accomplish alone 3.52 .62 I can effectively represent my agency in a partnership 3.47 .59 The most successful partnerships occur when partners come together naturally and are not forced into cooperation 3.40 .59 Partnerships are easier when the partners can meet face to face 3.32 .60 I have the skills I need to be a good team member in a partnership setting 3.30 .52 Very successful partnerships can occur with an informal and unofficial agreement 3.29 .62 Success is mostly due to the personalities of the active partners 3.23 .67 M y supervisor approves the time I need to make my partnerships effective 3.20 .71 I know how to locate and contact appropriate partners 3.15 .61 M y motivation can overcome the challenges of partnerships 3.11 .53 I'm comfortable taking responsibility for a partnership someone else established 3.07 .59 I am comfortable when working with partners with disparate missions or g oals 3.07 .57 Engagn ig in a partnership is a flexible process with a basic goal but no structure it is an art 2.95 .61 It is important to develop relationships with other partners on a personal level 2.93 .65 The most important outcome from partnerships is the tangible benefits unique to each partnership 2.90 .56 I am able to allocate the time I need to devote to the partnership 2.85 .75 I have the necessary training to effectively develop and implemt en a p artnership 2.84 .70 It is critical tohave concrete results from your involvement in the partnership 2.70 .68 The most important outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with p artners 2.64 .68 Most chle alnges to successful partnerships occur within the agency 2.57 .68 Partnerships have no definitive end 2.52 .65 Success is mostly due to the skill ofh te facilitator 2.51 .65 Partnerships are likely to fail if the partners have no experience working in similar situations 2.25 .60 Engaging in a pare tnrship is a process with a set of steps and tasks it is a 2.09 .61 science It is easie st to work with people in your own agency 2.06 .60 People can't be taught how to create successful partners hips 1.91 .58 The success of partnerships does not depend on personalities 1.82 .63 If I fail once in a partnership I have little interest in working onanother p artnership 1.57 .57 My superviso r doesn't support my efforts in partnerships1.55 .58 Partnerships are a win/lose situation 1.53 .56 Partnerships take much more time tha n they are worth 1.64 .58 I feel that I have nothing to offer in a partnership setting 1.47 .68

PAGE 50

40 For each perception variable, the strongly disagree and disagree categories were combined into one group and the strongly agree and agree categories were combined into a second grouping. This revealed that for eight of the 32 perception variables, 25% or more of the respondents did not share the same response as the majority (Table 4-13). These are perceptions that, regardless of other variables, are not widely shared by employees. It is possible that employees are either getting mixed messages about the nature of USFWS partnerships or that these perceptions are not currently addressed in Service-wide communications. These perceptions will be explored further in the following sections. Table 4-13: Perception variables with twenty-five percent or more respondents in minority Perception variable Total number of respondents Number disagree Percent disagree Number agree Percent agree Likely to fail if partners have no experience 218 159 72.94 59 27.06 Success is mostly due to the facilitator 215 111 51.63 104 48.37 Most challenges occur within the agency 217 111 51.15 106 48.85 Partnerships have no definitive end 212 105 49.53 107 50.47 Most important outcome is relationships 215 96 44.65 119 55.35 Critical to have concrete results 217 80 36.87 137 63.13 I have the necessary training 218 66 30.28 152 69.72 I have the time I need 214 58 27.10 156 72.90 Perceptions by Background Variables Analysis of the effect of background variables on perception is split into three sections to address the three types of background variables separately. These three sections include personal history, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics.

PAGE 51

41 Independent t-tests were run to compare mean scores within each of the six dichotomous background questions including: office versus office/field, supervisor versus non-supervisor, training versus no training, creating versus sustaining, planned versus opportunistic, and established by them versus established by someone else. These tests were run to determine if any of the above affect the perception variables. One-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted to explore the impact of both the number of partnerships involved with and job goals (both categorical variables) on perceptions of partnerships, as measured by the 32 perception variables. Spearmans rank order correlation is used to calculate the strength of the relationship between two continuous variables. The relationships between perception of partnerships (where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, and 4=strongly agree) and years with the Service, average number of hours spent per week on partnerships, and average number of weeks per year spent on partnership were investigated using this method. Chi-square test for independence were used to determine if two categorical variables such as who establishes the majority of their partnerships and their supervisory role are related by comparing the frequency of cases found in the carious categories of one variable across the different categories of a second variable. Effects of Personal History on Perception Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The number of years spent working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was negatively correlated with only two perception variables. More time spent with the Service is associated with lower values of those perceptions (Table 4-14). Overall, the influence of time spent in the agency on perception appears very small. While there are two statistically significant negative correlations indicating that the less

PAGE 52

42 time an employee has spent in the agency the more likely they were to agree with the statement, the strength of both correlations is relatively weak. While there are some aspects of lengthy employment that probably enhance perception of partnering such as a greater sense of organizational flexibility there are also elements which probably inhibit partnering such as a negative attitude towards those who do not share similar values. Since time spent in the Service has both positive and negative influences on perception the overall influence is reduced. Table 4-14: Perception versus years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Perception variable Correlation between perception and years with USFWS Success is due to skill of facilitator Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.151* .027 213 Partnerships have no definitive end Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.203** .003 210 Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) Formal training versus no formal training There was a significant difference in means for eight perception variables between those respondents who have not had formal partnership training versus those that have (Table 4-15). Training appears to have increased respondents sense of value of partnerships, as they were more likely to agree that they can accomplish more with partnerships than by working alone. Those with training also were more confident in their abilities to locate partners and work through difficult situations. Those respondents who have had no formal training appear to have a more negativistic attitude towards partnering than those who have had training. They are more likely to agree that partnerships are a win/lose situation and are not worth the amount of time involved. While it is possible that those

PAGE 53

43 respondents who attended some form of training had a more positive attitude from the start and that is why they chose to attend, the above data are an indication that those employees who have attended partnership training share more positive perceptions of partnerships than those who have not attended training. Table 4-15: Training versus perceptions No training N=132 Training N=85 Perception variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p We accomplish more in partnerships than alone 3.42 .66 3.67 .54 -3.00 202 .003 I can locate and contact partners 3.05 .66 3.32 .47 -3.20 214 .002 I have the necessary training 2.64 .69 3.15 .61 -5.71 195 .000 I am comfortable with partners with disparate mission 2.99 .61 3.19 .48 -2.51 213 .013 My motivation can overcome the challenges 3.05 .54 3.21 .52 -2.21 175 .029 My supervisor doesn't support my efforts 1.61 .57 1.45 .59 1.96 208 .050 Partnerships are a win/lose situation 1.61 .58 1.41 .52 2.58 214 .011 Partnerships take more time than they are worth 1.73 .57 1.48 .57 3.11 211 .002 When comparing the means between those employees who indicated that the partnership training they have attended was specifically geared towards partnerships such as Conservation Partnerships in Practice versus those who indicated that the partnership training they received has been incorporated into other training sessions such as Stepping up to Leadership there were no perceptions that were significantly different. In other words, training sessions specifically designed to enable partnering do not appear to have influenced perceptions of partnerships any differently than those courses that simply included partnerships as a sub-topic.

PAGE 54

44 Effects of Job Characteristics on Perception Degree to which job goals are related to the success of partnerships Respondents placed themselves into one of four groups according to the degree to which the accomplishment of job goals are related to the success of partnerships in which they work (Group 1: 0-25%, Group 2: 26-50%, Group 3: 51-75%, Group 4: 76-100%). There were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for ten of the perception variables. However, while results are statistically significant for ten variables, there are only five variables where the mean values are in continuum. For each of these five variables the mean value consistently increases or decreases from Group 1 to Group 4, making those variables more meaningful (Table 4-16). The more important partnership are to an employees job goals, the more confident respondents are in their training but it is unclear if this formalized training or simply on-the-job experience. The idea that respondents whose job goals are highly associated with partnership success are more likely to disagree that partnerships are a win/lose situation can be explained by the fact that as the importance of successful partnerships increases so does the commitment to making a partnership succeed and the desire to look for positives even when a partnership may be struggling. It follows then that the more important partnerships are to their job goals, the more likely they are to agree that more can be accomplished in partnerships than individually. The fact that groups whose job relies more on partnership success feel like they have greater supervisor support is not unusual. Although the means for the other perception variables such as Partnerships take much more time than they are worth are not in continuum, it is important to note that those employees whose job goals were least related to partnerships were significantly more likely to agree with the statement than all of the groups. It follows then that those

PAGE 55

45 people whose jobs are least dependent on the success of partnerships have a more negative attitude towards partnerships and are more likely to give up after one failure than to pursue another partnership. In contrast, those whose job goals are highly related to partnership success were more likely to indicate that they are able to contact appropriate partners and effectively represent the agency which may be due to the fact that they spend more time working in partnerships. Table 4-16: Perception versus degree to which job goals related to partnership succe ss Perception Overall Mean Mean Mean Mean ANOVA Tukey variable mean* 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% (F test) Post Hoc Most challenges occur 2.57 2.51 2.80 2.35 2.69 3.83 2>3 within the agency Partnerships are 1.53 1.71 1.50 1.48 1.40 3.95 1>4 a win/lose situation We accomplish more in 3.52 3.28 3.47 3.59 3.74 6.65 4>1 partnerships than alone Partnerships take more 1.63 1.90 1.48 1.55 1.49 7.76 1>2,3,4 time than they are worth I can effectively 3.48 3.30 3.57 3.38 3.69 5.97 4>3,1 represent my agency I can locate and 3.16 2.90 3.27 3.15 3.38 8.45 2,4>1 contact partners I have the necessary training 2.84 2.52 2.70 3.00 3.12 10.74 3>1; 4>2 If I fail once I have little 1.57 1.78 1.46 1.58 1.40 5.91 1>4,2 interest in other pships My supervisor approves 3.20 2.94 3.13 3.27 3.44 6.15 4>1 the time I need My supervisor doesn't 1.55 1.77 1.63 1.44 1.36 6.89 1>3,4 support my efforts _________________________________________________________________________ p<.05 *1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree Office versus office/field There was a significant difference in means for four perception variables between those who spend most of their time in the office versus those that spend a fairly equal amount of time in the office and the field. In each of those cases, the office/field group

PAGE 56

46 had a mean that was significantly higher and therefore in more likely to agree with the perception statements than the office only group (Table 4-17). Table 4-17: Work type versus perceptions Office N=142 Field/Office N=69 Perception variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p Success when partners come together naturally 3.33 .61 3.54 .53 -2.39 212 .018 We accomplish more in partnerships than alone 3.44 .66 3.66 .54 -2.64 158 .009 Partnerships have no definitive end 2.44 .61 2.70 .70 -2.72 206 .007 I have the time I need 2.75 .76 3.03 .69 -2.62 145 .010 Those people who spend a fairly equal amount of time in the office and in the field agreed more frequently that they have time to devote to partnership activity. While both groups agree that partnerships work better when partners come together naturally and are not forced into a situation, the office/field group scored higher for that variable and showed stronger support for the idea that their agency can accomplish more through partnerships than they can alone. Since there was not enough data to test the group that spends the majority of their time in the field it is not known if this is a trend that increases as one spends more time in the field and less time in the office. Three of the significant variables, accomplishing more, no definitive end, and having time, relate to productivity. This leads to the question are partnerships inherently different for the office and the office/field groups? To attempt to answer this question, the background variable of office versus office/field was compared to the degree to which job goals are related to partnership success, the number of partnerships they have been involved with, and time spent of partnerships (including approximate number of hours per week and weeks per year).

PAGE 57

47 Although the comparison to number of partnerships was not significant (p = .78), the degree to which job goals are related to partnership success (Table 4-18), and time spent of partnerships (Table 4-19) both had statistically significant results. Table 4-18: Work type by degree to which job goals are related to partnership succes s 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total _____________ N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) ___ Office 55(38) 18(13) 33(23) 38(26 144(68) Office/Field 13(19) 11(16) 16(24) 28(41) 68(32) Total N (%) 68(32) 29(14) 49(23) 66(31) 212(100) 2 = 8.95, df =3, p = .03 Table 4-19: Time spent in partnership activity versus work type Office N=127 Office/Field N=67 Mean SD Mean SD t df p Hours per week 14.01 11.36 20.10 13.50 -3.15 116 .002 Weeks per year 25.88 19.48 32.08 19.49 -2.10 191 .037 Those employees who split their time between the office and field indicated that they average more time spent on partnerships and that the degree to which their job goals depend on partnership success tends to be greater. The amount of partnership training that those who split their time between the office and field have had is not significantly different than those who work mainly in the office (P = .42). It seems as though the employees who spend more time on partnering and whose job goals are highly correlated with partnership success would be targets for training. Supervisors versus non-supervisors There was a significant difference in means for two perception variables between supervisors and non-supervisors (Table 4-20).

PAGE 58

48 Table 4-20: Supervisory role versus perceptions Supervisor N=125 Not a supervisor N=91 Perception variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p I can locate and contact partners 3.22 .62 3.06 .59 1.94 197 .050 I have the time I n eed 2.76 .78 2.98 .68 -2.15 199 .033 esults are similar to what one might expect. Supervisors were more confident in their ability to seek out partners however they feel they have less time to devote to partnership activities. Supervisors increased confidence may be a result of time spent in the agency. Supervisors had a significantly higher mean ( R =19.87, S=8.92) than non-supervisors ( =9.67, S=8.14) when comparing time spent with the Service (t(214)=8.57, p<.01). It is important to remember, however, that supervision does not correlate with training. There is no significant difference between supervisors and non-supervisors in the amount of training they have attended (P = .88). Effects of Partnership Characteristics on Perception Number of partnerships Respondents divided themselves into six groups according to the number of partnerships they have been involved with while working for the Service (0, 1, 2-5, 6-10, 11-24, and 25+). There were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for two of the perception variables (Table 4-21). Both of the variables appear to increase with experience. Relationship building may become more important the more partnerships an employee works with in order to maintain future contacts. Additionally, the more partnerships an employee works with the greater their confidence and ability to seek out appropriate partners, which is to be expected. The number of partnerships is positively correlated with length of Service

PAGE 59

49 (r=.436, p<.01) indicating that the more time spent the Service, the more partnerships an employee has been involved with. Table 4-21: Perception versus number of partnerships involved with______________ Perception Overall Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean ANOVA Tukey variable mean* 0 1 2-5 6-10 11-24 25+ (F test) Post Hoc pships pships pships pships pships pships __________________ Developing personal 2.93 3.11 2.25 2.95 2.72 2.84 3.04 2.56 1>2 relationships with partners is important I can locate and 3.15 2.56 2.75 2.89 2.97 3.18 3.39 8.07 5>1; 6>2 contact partners _______________________________________________________________________________ p<.05 *1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree Average number of hours per week The average number of hours per week spent on partnership activities was positively correlated to 11 perception variables (Table 4-22). While it appears as though the more time an employee spends in partnership activity the more comfortable they are in that role, that idea may be misleading. It is possible that the more comfortable they are, the more time they spend or the more often they are assigned to partnerships. They have a positive attitude towards partnering and feel that they have had the training and possess the skills to be effective. Additionally, the more time spent in partnership activity, the more important the relationship aspect of partnerships become. Hours spent per week is positively correlated with the perceptions that it is important to develop relationships with other partners on a personal level and that partnering is an art with a basic goal but a flexible process. Average number of weeks per year The approximate number of weeks per year spent doing partnership related activity was positively correlated with ten perception variables. Eight of these variables were also significant for average number of hours per week spent on partnerships (Table 4-22).

PAGE 60

50 Table 4-22: Perception versus hours per week and weeks per year spent partnering Perception variable Correlation between perception and hours per week spent on partnering Correlation between perception and weeks per year spent partnering Success is due to personalities of partners Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .055 .443 196 .055 .443 195 Success is due to skill of facilitator Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.013 .853 196 .036 .612 195 Success when partners come together naturally Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.045 .525 198 .037 .603 197 Most challenges occur within the agency Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .144* .044 197 .120 .095 196 Likely to fail if partners have no experience Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.083 .244 198 -.099 .167 197 Success does not depend on personalities Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.032 .655 197 -.059 .410 196 People cant be taught to create successful partnerships Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .084 .239 198 .053 .460 197 It is critical to have concrete results Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .015 .831 197 .036 .612 196 Success can occur with an informal agreement Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .134 .061 197 .244** .001 196 The most important outcome is relationships Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .028 .699 196 .041 .570 195 The most important outcome is the tangible benefits Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .036 .621 196 -.045 .533 195 Developing personal relationships with partners is important Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .167* .018 198 .138 .053 196 Partnerships are a win/lose situation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.148* .037 198 -.241** .001 197 We accomplish more in partnerships than alone Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .190** .008 197 .190** .008 195 Partnerships take more time than they are worth Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.202** .005 195 -.261** .000 193 Engaging in a partnership is a science Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.133 .064 196 -.124 .084 195

PAGE 61

51 Table 4-22: Continued Perception variable Correlation between perception and hours per week spent partnering Correlation between perception and weeks per year spent partnering Engaging in a partnerships is an art Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .177* .013 196 .252** .000 195 Partnerships have no definitive end Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .097 .176 195 .024 .737 193 Partnerships are easier when partners meet face to face Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .068 .339 197 .114 .112 196 Easiest to work with people in your own agency Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.143* .044 198 -.190** .007 197 I feel that I have nothing to offer in a partnership setting Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.192** .007 197 -.250** .000 195 I can effectively represent myagency Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .229** .001 197 .236** .001 196 Im comfortable taking over a partnership someone else established Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .026 .712 197 .066 .357 196 I can locate and contact partners Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .268** .000 197 .274** .000 196 I have the necessary training Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .340** .000 198 .378** .000 197 I have the skills I need to be agood team member Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .211** .003 197 .190** .008 196 I am comfortable with partners with disparate mission Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .211** .003 195 .285** .000 194 My motivation can overcome the challenges Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .192** .007 195 .167* .020 194 If I fail once I have little interest in working on another one Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.171* .017 195 -.267** .000 194 My supervisor approves the time I need Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .096 .180 197 .152* .034 195 My supervisor doesn't support my efforts Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N -.142* .046 197 -.204** .004 195 I have the time I need Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N .150* .035 198 .065 .362 196 Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 62

52 The results of average number of weeks per year are nearly identical to those of the average number of hours per week background variable. Time spent on partnerships, whether measured in hours or weeks, appears to have a similar effect on perceptions. It is possible, therefore, that those employees that spend 40 hours per week for three weeks per year but less for the rest of the year were not captured due to the averaging of hours. Spend more time creating versus sustaining There was a significant difference in means for two perception variables between those people who spend more of their time creating new partnerships versus those who spend more time sustaining existing partnerships. In both of those cases, the group who spends more time creating new partnerships had a mean that was significantly higher than the group who spends more time sustaining existing partnerships (Table 4-23). Table 4-23: Creating/Sustaining versus perceptions Creating N=45 Sustaining N=214 Perception variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p I have the necessary training 3.04 .71 2.79 .69 2.17 212 .031 I have the time I need 3.09 .73 2.79 .74 2.40 211 .018 Respondents who spend more time creating new partnerships believe they have both the available time and necessary training to do so. Those who spend their time sustaining existing partnerships could be doing so because they are either constrained by time or because they feel they lack the necessary skills provided in training to locate and contact partners. Although the perception variables identified here are similar to those identified in the supervisor versus non-supervisor analysis, a chi-square test showed no significant relationship between the two variables (p = .30).

PAGE 63

53 Majority of partnerships are established by them versus by someone else There was a significant difference in means for nine perception variables between those people who establish the majority of their partnership for themselves versus those who partnerships are primarily established by someone else (Table 4-24). Table 4-24: Who establishes partnerships versus perceptions Established by me N=116 Established by someone else N=93 Perception variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p Success does not depend on personalities 1.76 .67 1.95 .56 -2.23 206 .027 Success can occur with an informal agreement 3.40 .60 3.16 .63 2.71 206 .007 Engaging in a partnership is a science 1.98 .59 2.24 .62 -3.01 192 .003 Engaging in a partnership is an art 3.04 .58 2.83 .62 2.46 188 .014 Easiest to work with people in your own agency 1.98 .59 2.15 .62 -1.99 207 .048 I can effectively represent my agency 3.57 .59 3.38 .57 2.32 206 .021 I can locate and contact partners 3.27 .58 3.03 .60 2.85 206 .005 I have the necessary training 2.99 .63 2.65 .73 3.62 181 .000 My motivation can overcome the challenges 3.19 .50 2.99 .57 2.76 202 .006 The focus of the results in this section appear to pertain to the role that relationships play in partnerships. Those respondents who spend the majority of their time working in partnerships established by someone else scored higher on the success of partnerships does not depend on personalities and on the idea that engaging in a partnership is a science with a set of steps and tasks than their counterparts. It appears as though those people who fall into partnerships that someone else has created have missed the trust and relationship building stages of the process and therefore do not see partnerships as an art form where personalities have to be carefully considered. Or, it is possible that they

PAGE 64

54 simply have the type of personality that allows them to carry on with whatever task is at hand. It is not a surprise that they also were more likely to disagree that a partnership can occur with an informal agreement because at the point where they join the partnerships, partners are already locked into place. Additionally, informal partnerships are not as likely to be handed off to another person due to the fact that the partnership exists because of some element of trust or respect between two individuals so if an employee usually works on partnerships that someone else has established, they are likely to be formalized. Those individuals who work mostly in partnerships that they have established are more confident in their level of training, their ability to locate partners, and their ability to represent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are also more likely to view partnerships as an art where the process is flexible. These results indicate that this group of employees has either had more training, spend more time in partnership related activity, or have positions that depend heavily on the success of partnerships. Upon analyzing the data further, tests revealed no significant relationship between whether or not they establish the majority of their partnerships and their supervisory role (p = .24), years with the Service (p = .99), and whether or not they have attended training (p = .35). Employees who work mostly in partnerships that they have established for themselves are more confident in their level of training even though they have not received more training. It is possible that they have gotten more out of their training or have been more effective in putting their training to use. However, significant relationships do exist between who establishes their partnerships and degree to which job

PAGE 65

55 goals are related to partnership success (Table 4-25) and time spent in partnership activity (Table 4-26). Table 4-25: Who establishes partnerships by degree to which job goals are related to __________partnership success__________________________________________ 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total (N) _____________ N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)__ Me 28(25) 8(7) 33(29) 45(39) 114(56) Someone else 34(38) 21(23) 15(17) 20(22) 90(44) T otal N (%) 62(30) 29(14) 48(24) 65(32) 204(100) _2 2 = 20.23, df =3, p < .001 Table 4-26: Time spent in partnership activity versus who establishes partnership Established by me N=109 Established by someone else N=81 Mean SD Mean SD t df p Hours per week 18.76 12.35 12.69 11.60 3.44 188 .001 Weeks per year 32.90 18.80 21.89 19.04 3.96 187 .000 Those employees whose job goals are highly related to partnership success are more likely to be establishing their own partnerships than those whose job goals are not highly dependent on partnership success. Additionally, those people who average more time, including both hours per week and weeks per year on partnership related activity, working on partnerships are more likely to be establishing their own partnerships. It is possible that this is related to the time it takes to establish the necessary connections to form a partnership. Planned versus opportunistic There was a significant difference in means for two perception variables between those people whose partnership activity is mostly planned versus those respondents whose partnership activity is mostly opportunistic (Table 4-27).

PAGE 66

Table 4-27: Planned/Opportunistic versus perceptions Planned N=117 Opportunistic N=94 Perception variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p The most important outcome is relationships 2.55 .64 2.77 .72 -2.36 207 .019 I have the necessary training 2.97 .67 2.67 .69 3.13 196 .002 This is the first background variable to address the anticipated outcome of partnerships. It is possible that those that spend more time working in opportunistic partnerships find themselves working in situations where the partnerships form through relationship and trust building whereas those respondents who are working in planned partnerships are not as concerned with relationship building as they are about a predetermined set of objectives and goals. It is also conceivable that partnerships are not a primary objective for those who spend more time in opportunistic partnerships and therefore, there is less need to have concrete results. Additionally, those people who spent more time in planned partnerships agree more frequently that they have the necessary training indicating that employee training may have a positive effect on the ability to plan partnerships. In fact, chi-square tests indicated a relationship between training and the planned versus opportunistic variable that supports this (Table 4-28). Table 4-28: Planned/Opportunistic by training__________ Not trained Trained Total ______________ N(%) N(%) N(%)___ Planned 63(54) 53(46) 116(55) Opportunistic 65(69) 29(31) 94(45) Total N (%) 128(61) 82(39) 210(100) _2 2 = 4.2, df =1, p = .04 Employees who work mainly in planned partnerships have attended training more than what would be expected if there was no relationship between the variables whereas 56

PAGE 67

57 those who work mainly in opportunistic partnerships have attended less training than expected. Extension to Skills and Abilities Part of the survey that employees completed asked them to think about a successful partnership that they have been involved with. After identifying various characteristics about the scope of the partnership, respondents were asked to review a list of 41 skills and abilities that may be necessary for successful partnerships and select those that were most responsible for their success (Table 4-29). These variables were treated as dichotomous and therefore were entered into SPSS as for important if selected by the respondent and for not important if not selected. To take the data analysis one step beyond the original research question, the background variable have you had any formal partnership training was compared against the skills and abilities that respondents indicated as critical to their successful partnerships to see if there are some skills/abilities that are more commonly associated with those employees who have had training versus those who have not. There was a significant difference in means for four items from the skills and abilities list between those respondents who have attended training versus those that have not (Table 4-30).

PAGE 68

Table 4-29: List of skills and abilities sorted by mean Skill/Ability Mean SD Building trust among group members .69 .46 Actively listening .67 .47 Creating a common goal for the group .65 .48 Identifying appropriate partners .63 .48 Effectively working with people outside of your agency .61 .49 Finding financial resources .58 .49 Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource management .50 .50 Accepting different points of view .48 .50 Having the academic background and/or technical training you need to be an effective member of the partnership .48 .50 Defining your role in the partnership .47 .50 Knowing who in the community should be in the partnership .47 .50 Conveying technical information to others who do not share your knowledge of the subject .47 .50 Knowing partners' roles in the partnership .46 .50 Articulating a shared vision for the group .46 .50 Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than your own .44 .50 Developing a plan with clear, measurable objectives .43 .50 Being comfortable in a group setting .43 .50 Speaking clearly .40 .49 Overcoming budget restrictions of partners .37 .48 Finding FWS agency personnel to provide assistance .37 .48 Thorough understanding of your partners background, mission, and goals .36 .48 N ot letting difficult situations bother you .35 .48 Knowing when the agency can accept compromise .33 .47 Figuring out how to deal with disparate missions of partners .32 .47 Effectively working with antagonistic partners .28 .45 Being able to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even if you are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency .28 .45 Creating a written agreement for all members .27 .44 Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed .27 .45 Accepting compromise willingly .26 .44 Participating when you are not the lead agency and/or have no clear authority .25 .43 Increasing comfort level for new group members .22 .41 Developing a timeline .22 .41 Finding equipment .21 .40 Finding a way to work with individuals who can not speak effectively for their agency/organization .19 .40 Controlling your temper in difficult situations .19 .40 Setting aside deeply held opinions .18 .38 Understanding the influence of the current administration on partnerships .18 .38 Knowing which structure to use for a partnership .17 .38 Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships .16 .37 Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant .14 .34 Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships .14 .35 58

PAGE 69

59 Table 4-30: Training attendance versus skills and abilities responsible for success Not trained N=109 Trained N=80 Skill/Ability variable Mean SD Mean SD T df p Having the training you need to be effective .05 .23 .25 .44 -3.65 111 .00 Knowing who should be in the partnership .39 .49 .56 .50 -2.31 187 .02 Not letting difficult situations bother you .28 .45 .43 .50 -1.99 161 .05 Dealing with disparate missions of partners .25 .43 .40 .49 -2.21 157 .03

PAGE 70

CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION The objectives of this study were to add to the partnership research base, to impact partnership training provided to employees by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and to provide recommendations for future research by understanding the perspectives that employees have about partnerships. The following section addresses these objectives while providing answers to the research questions and hypotheses posed in Chapter 1. Perceptions Not Widely Shared Partnerships are meant to be creative solutions to aid in decision making and resource management and each employee will have a slightly different way of accomplishing things. The fact that perception differences exist does not indicate an immediate need to change the way things are done, it simply indicates a need for awareness that the way people define the inputs and outcomes is not necessarily similar. In looking at one perception statement at a time, Service managers can determine if employee thinking is in line with the Services expectations and goals. If there are perceptions where employees seem to be off track with the Service, strategies can be developed accordingly. Perhaps a first step is looking at what perceptions are not widely shared, irrespective of background. Variables such as most important outcome is relationships and critical to have concrete results that do not have broad agreement indicate that not all employees share a common vision for partnerships. It could also be that people are involved in different types of partnerships and we cannot treat all partnerships the same. 60

PAGE 71

61 Although on the surface these seem like opposite perspectives, 72 of the 118 respondents agreed with both perceptions. Additionally, there were 31 respondents that disagreed with both statements. It may be of use to the Service to know how those employees who agreed with both struck a balance between them, particularly when working with partners with disparate missions. The Service may also be interested in the goals and desired outcomes of those employees that disagreed with both perceptions. If the Service thinks that these perceptions are important perspectives to better quality partnerships, then these perceptions are potential targets of outreach and education efforts. For example, some employees think that the most challenges occur within the agency while others feel that outside challenges are greater. If employees feel that the challenges they face within their own agency are too great, their willingness to partner may be limited. Training could address challenges faced in the agency such as funding and paperwork (the two barriers identified most by employees in a later section of the survey) and help employees work through these issues by exploring alternative avenues of support. Additionally, if some employees in the same partnership think the Service wants them to develop relationships with partners on a personal level while others are less focused on a relationship and more interested in a final product, there may be disagreement on approach. As a result of employee conflict, partners could be getting mixed messages causing a heightened sense of distrust. Thirty percent of employees surveyed perceive that they do not have the necessary training. A later section of the survey asked employees what support the National Conservation Training Center could offer employees and an overwhelming majority of responses focused on training, including requests to improve and expand existing training

PAGE 72

62 courses to cover funding, paperwork, regulations, and the Services role (Appendix D). These employees and the significant number of training related suggestions represent a gap that needs to be filled and demonstrate a desire for enhanced training opportunities. However, it is important to determine whether these employees have been to a training session and still feel that they lack the necessary skills or if they simply have not attended training. The barriers to their participation in existing training courses was not explored. How Time Spent In Partnerships Affects Perception Four background variables addressed the amount of time spent and the degree to which the employee is involved in partnership activity. It may be of value to the Service to look at how those people who spend a lot of time in partnering answered to see if their perceptions are in line with what the Service deems important. Those who spend more time in partnerships and whose jobs are highly correlated with partnership success have several commonalities. These respondents have a positive attitude towards partnerships and believe they are a flexible, relationship-rich endeavor that succeeds, in part, because of the skills and personal motivation these staff bring to the job. Those employees who spend less time in partnerships or whose job goals are not highly related to partnership success were more likely to have a vision of partnerships that is more onerous and troublesome, and that they would have nothing to contribute. Given the dichotomy in perceptions it appears as though there is a gap in the way these two groups of employees view the benefits of and their contribution to partnerships. Therefore those employees who do not partner represent potential targets for training if this is something that would enhance their job and site. These results should not be confused with years of employment with the Service, as this variable had little impact on perception.

PAGE 73

63 Who Attends Training Employees who split their time between the office and field indicated that they average more time spent on partnerships and that the degree to which their job goals depend on partnership success tends to be greater than those who spend all of their time in the office. It is surprising, therefore, when comparing where employees do most of their work to whether or not they have attended partnership training there is no significant relationship. In other words, employees whose jobs depend heavily on partnering are not attending training at a higher rate than those who spend less time on partnering. It could be that those who are doing partnerships are good at it and may not feel that they need the courses that are offered. It may be important to explore this further to determine if the right people are attending training. Additionally, those employees that spend more time creating new partnerships than sustaining existing ones, establish the majority of their partnerships for themselves, and work in planned as opposed to opportunistic partnerships were more likely to perceive that they have the necessary training. Therefore training may be working to help people plan and create partnerships but may be missing some of the people involved in partnerships that are already established. Training Relationships As hypothesized, training attendance was one variable with a high degree of explanatory power. Employees who have been trained were more likely to agree with several skill based perceptions than those that have not been trained including feeling comfortable when working with partners with disparate missions and knowing how to locate and contact appropriate partners. However, the differences between those who have had and have not had formal training do not extend to all perceptions. Some may be

PAGE 74

64 common sense such as Partnerships are easier when the partners can meet face to face while others such as I am able to allocate the time I need to devote to the partnership may not be impacted by any training program. Training attendance also does not appear to have an effect on any of the relationship variables such as the most important outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with partners or structure variables such as very successful partnerships can occur with an informal and unofficial agreement. The literature suggests that these are important elements of good partnerships, often extending from the development of trust. Although there is high agreement about partnering without a formal agreement there is less agreement about the importance of relationships. If the Service agrees that these relationship variables are key to successful partnerships, this may be an important thing for the training program to emphasize. Training may also by affecting employees perceptions of the skills and abilities needed for a successful partnership. There were four skills (having the training you need to be effective, knowing who should be in the partnership, not letting difficult situations bother you, and dealing with disparate missions of partners) identified as significantly more important to the success of their partnership by those who have had training than by those who have not. The variables appear to be linked in the sense that they are skills that are commonly addressed in literature and training (as opposed to controlling your temper in difficult situations which, although still important, is not necessarily a skill that is addressed in a formalized setting). Thus, one hypothesis is that these are the top few skills that employees are coming away from training with and, therefore, are more likely to see as being significant factors in partnering. In that skills and abilities may be

PAGE 75

65 easier to change through training than perceptions, it may be useful to explore what other skills could be targeted as objectives for training. Significant Variables The research questions posed for this study were: Do perceptions of requirements for and results of successful partnerships vary across agency employees? and; Do perceptions of partnerships vary in a predictable way when considering personal characteristics, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics? The following two sections summarize the answers to these questions. As collaborative efforts become more widespread and are incorporated into official policies, both proponents and critics seek to evaluate these new approaches. This includes developing a solid understanding of what can and cannot be reasonably expected of partnerships and what variables influence their effectiveness (Conley and Moote 2003). We know that how an employee approaches partnerships is a function of perception. The results of this study support the hypothesis that perceptions of partnerships vary across Service employees. Of the 32 perception variables, 25 are influenced by variation in employees background. The background variables that affected the most perceptions were training attendance, whether or not they established the majority of their partnerships, degree to which their job goals are related to the success of their partnerships, and the average number of hours per week and weeks per year spent in partnership activity. Employees who have attended training, establish partnerships for themselves, have a high correlation of partnership success to job goals, and average significant amounts of time partnering share similar perceptions. These employees believe that partnering is a flexible process dependent more on relationships than on formalities and can lead to

PAGE 76

66 greater success than one individual could accomplish. They are comfortable with their level of training and have the skills they need to feel confident representing the Service. Employees who dont fall into these categories view partnerships as a time consuming venture that receives little support from their supervisors where outcomes are all or nothing. Background Variables With Little or No Significance As important as significant variables are, variables with little or no explanatory value are equally as important, particularly when they are contrary to what is expected. This study started out with the hypothesis that supervisors perceptions differ from non-supervisors. Contrary to what was predicted however, there was no significant difference in the way these two groups of employees perceive partnerships except that supervisors felt more confident in locating partners. Similarly, while it was hypothesized that long-time employees would have a variety of different perceptions than newcomers, years with the Service had no significant effect on perception of partnerships. While some employees interviewed in the beginning stages of this study had ideas about what long timers and supervisors think about partnerships, this study shows that differences in perception can not be attributed to those variables. Other variables with little significance were job location and number of partnerships. Although those employees who split their time between the office and field felt more could be accomplished in partnerships than individually, the overall effect of the variable is very small. Those people who are involved in a large number of partnerships generally share similar perceptions with those who are not. However, those employees who have worked on a significant number of partnerships feel that relationship building is a key part of the process. In some respects, this seems contrary to

PAGE 77

67 what would be expected. If someone works on a large number of partnerships it is possible that they have less time to devote to each one, making the time to form personal relationships limited. A majority of these employees, however, feel the exact opposite and rely on relationships to guide them to success. Additional Research Possibilities This research is but a first step in exploring U.S. Fish and Wildlife employees understanding and use of partnerships. To assist with the development of training courses, interviews with those who have attended training could reveal the aspects they thought were most valuable and applicable to their partnerships and what they have been able to use in practice. It may also be important to find out what they didnt learn. Those employees who havent attended training could be interviewed to reveal the barriers to training. Second, more could be done to explore the perceptions on which there is high agreement. For example, the majority of employees agreed that very successful partnerships can occur with and informal and unofficial agreement. It may be of interest to the Service to know more about this such as how often this type of partnership occurs, what the circumstances are that allow for this to be successful, and the degree of accountability by each of the parties. It might be good to know if those employees who seem to be most talented and successful with partnerships are in agreement when it comes to what makes partnerships work. Similarly, one could identify the characteristics of failed partnerships to see if they are the opposite of success or if there were new elements that were considered important. It may also be helpful to explore the successful partnerships, develop case studies about them, and use the stories from staff to improve the depth of training.

PAGE 78

68 It could also be of use to compare the skills addressed at training to those that people identified in the survey as critical. Are the skills these employees identified covered in training? Did people already have these or is training creating significant gains? Are the perceptions that were significant in this survey addressed in training or in other Service-wide communications? Is attendance at training improving perception or do the people who come to training already have those positive attitudes? Why are more people not attending training (money, time, support, lack of interest, etc)? It may be of use to the Service to look to those who are involved in partnerships for new ideas that could contribute to success. This includes suggestions not only on how to expand or improve training but also novel ideas suggested by employees. While not all suggestions will be feasible, ideas such as establishing a message board for employees where they can ask co-workers who may be involved in similar situations for advice suggests that employees are interested in learning and benefiting from others experiences. Empowering employees who seek to improve their skills, knowledge, and strategies should always be a priority. It would also be beneficial to look at partnering from the partners perspective. Do their ideas and opinions match those of agency employees? What are their barriers to partnering with the Service? Are there specific steps the Service or individual employees can take to reduce these barriers? Finally, it may be valuable to look at the role personalities play in partnership success. Are there people that are more equipped to work in partnerships based on personality characteristics? What sorts of personalities give people a head start towards

PAGE 79

69 success? Are there challenges faced by some employees solely because of their personality and, if so, what can be done to overcome them? Conclusion Today, collaborative approaches to natural resource management are being broadly promoted as promising ways to deal with complex natural resource issues. A comprehensive report on the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1999 recommends that the Service forge new and non-traditional alliances to broaden support for the System by establishing citizen and community partnerships on all staffed refuges. They go on to state that partnerships with states, Tribes, nonprofit organizations, and academia should be strengthened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that with encouragement, training, staff support, and clear guidance, new allies will be found, new partnerships developed, and the circle of support will widen and strengthen (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The Service is actively training their employees to form, manage, and effectively participate in partnerships. It may help enhance this partnership training if instructors understand the way that employees approach partnering. By addressing perceptions and the role background plays in how employees approach partnerships, managers and educators have a better understanding of not only what gaps to expect in their audience, but also who might benefit the most from training. Although there may be no cookbook recipe for success, it is important to give employees every advantage possible when dealing with the increasingly difficult task of resource management.

PAGE 80

APPENDIX A EMPLOYEE CONTACT LETTERS

PAGE 81

Hello, I would like to request your assistance with a needs assessment that is being conducted. The Division of Education Outreach at NCTC in Shepherdstown, WV, has a cooperative agreement with the University of Florida to conduct a needs assessment to determine strengths, weaknesses, and areas of improvement with FWS partnerships. The University has requested a list of approximately 10 persons they can interview initially and use the information obtained from the interview to shape the actual questionnaire that will be used in the needs assessment. I was wondering if you would be one of those individuals. If you agree, the University will contact you to schedule a telephone interview. It is believed that the telephone interview should take no more than 30 minutes. With your expertise and experience with partnerships, specifically within the Service, your input is very valuable. The Division would greatly appreciate your time to assist us if you are available. Please let me know if it is okay to forward your name as one of the interviewees. You may e-mail me or call me at (304) 876-7339. If you are able to assist, please include your telephone number. Thank you. Dawn Lagrotteria Chief, Education and Outreach Training Division of Education Outreach USFWS/NCTC (304) 876-7339 dawn_lagrotteria@fws.gov _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 9/18/02 71

PAGE 82

72 The Division of Education Outreach, National Conservation Training Center is working with the University of Florida, School of Forest Resources Conservation to conduct a Service-wide partnership survey. The Division of Education Outreach wishes to learn what knowledge and skills you believe are needed for successful partnerships. We are requesting that you be a member of our pilot test group. Very soon, you will receive an e-mail message from the University of Florida requesting your assistance and directing you to a web site that is hosting the survey. You will be asked to complete the survey as well as participate in a follow-up telephone interview where you will be asked to give feedback on the survey itself. We appreciate your assistance with this effort. If you are unable to participate, simply ignore the e-mail. All responses are anonymous and will be kept confidential. Regards, Dawn Lagrotteria Chief, Education and Outreach Training Division of Education Outreach National Conservation Training Center (304) 876-7339 _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 8/1/03

PAGE 83

73 PILOT TEST Survey on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partnerships Greetings: You have been selected to pilot test a survey about conservation partnerships within the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Your experience with partnerships and knowledge of the Service will be very useful in this process. The survey has been requested by the National Conservation Training Center. We hope to explore staff perceptions of what is successful and where the needs are by determining what skills you feel are necessary to be effective at creating and sustaining partnerships. To participate in the pilot, we ask that you complete this survey on-line, within the next two weeks, at the at the web address provided below: [SurveyLink] Shortly after you submit the survey, we would like to contact you for a follow up interview to review your thoughts on the clarity and completeness of the survey. Please indicate in the space at the end of the survey a date, time, and number when you might be available for us to contact you. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. All responses are anonymous and will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. There are no known risks or benefits to your personal participation, and no compensation is offered. The act of responding is an indication of your voluntary agreement. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL, 32611-2250, (352)392-0433. Thank you for your assistance with this project. Sincerely, Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher, Martha Monroe, Associate Professor School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 8/1/03

PAGE 84

74 Attached is a memo regarding a partnership needs assessment sponsored by the National Conservation Training Center, Division of Education Outreach. The needs assessment is being administered by the University of Florida. Next week, the persons on the attached list will receive an e-mail from the University requesting their participation and directions on how to complete the assessment. Please encourage those listed from your region to complete the assessment. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Dawn Lagrotteria at the National Conservation Training Center, 304-876-7339. _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 3/10/04

PAGE 85

75 Needs Assessment on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partnerships Greetings: You have been selected to complete a needs assessment about conservation partnerships with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Your experience and knowledge of the Service will be very useful in this process. This needs assessment has been requested by the National Conservation Training Center. We are exploring staff perceptions of what is successful and where the needs are by determining what skills you feel are necessary to be effective at creating and sustaining partnerships. This information will be useful in preparing future NCTC courses and opportunities to support partnerships. To participate, we ask that you complete this needs assessment on-line, within the next two weeks, at the at the web address provided below. Pretests show this takes just 20 minutes to complete. [SurveyLink] This website will provide an analysis of the responses without identifying the names of the respondents. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. There are no known risks or benefits to your personal participation, and no compensation is offered other than the deep satisfaction of helping to improve our ability to protect and enhance resource conservation! The act of responding is an indication of your voluntary agreement. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL, 32611-2250, (352)392-0433. Thank you for your assistance with this project! Sincerely, Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher Martha Monroe, Associate Professor School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 3/15/04

PAGE 86

76 Needs Assessment Window of Opportunity Please help! Greetings: You may recall receiving an email from us last week asking you to complete an online needs assessment. Unfortunately our timing wasn't quite right and shortly after the needs assessment was sent to you, your internet connection was unplugged. Since your internet connection has been re-established, at least temporarily, we would appreciate it if you could take just 20 minutes to complete the needs assessment by clicking on the link below: [SurveyLink] I just had my tonsils removed so the best way to reach me would be through email at benderk@ufl.edu as I will not be able to talk on the telephone until next week. Thanks in advance for your assistance with this project! Sincerely, Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher Martha Monroe, Associate Professor School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 3/25/04

PAGE 87

77 Partnership Needs Assessment Follow-up Greetings: Three weeks ago an electronic link to a needs assessment seeking your perceptions about conservation partnerships with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was e-mailed to you. Your name was selected by the National Conservation Training Center. If you have already completed the needs assessment, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please do so as soon as possible. Because this needs assessment was sent to only a small, but representative, sample of US Fish and Wildlife Service employees it is extremely important that your response also be included in the study if the results are to accurately represent the opinions of Service personnel. This information will be used to identify opportunities to support your work in partnerships and in preparing future NCTC courses. To participate, we ask that you complete this needs assessment on-line at the web address provided below. Pretests show this takes about 20 minutes to complete. [SurveyLink] If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL, 32611-2250, (352)392-0433. Thank you for your assistance with this project! Sincerely, Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher Martha Monroe, Associate Professor School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 4/7/04

PAGE 88

78 Partnership Needs Assessment Your Response Matters! Greetings: Several weeks ago an electronic link to a needs assessment seeking your perceptions about conservation partnerships with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was e-mailed to you. Your name was selected by the National Conservation Training Center. If you have already completed the needs assessment, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please consider taking 20 minutes of your time to complete it. Because this needs assessment was sent to only a small, but representative, sample of US Fish and Wildlife Service employees it is extremely important that your response also be included in the study if the results are to accurately represent the opinions of Service personnel. This information will be used to identify opportunities to support your work in partnerships and in preparing future NCTC courses. To participate, we ask that you complete this needs assessment on-line at the web address provided below. [SurveyLink] If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL, 32611-2250, (352)392-0433. Thank you for your assistance with this project! Sincerely, Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher Martha Monroe, Associate Professor School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 4/26/04

PAGE 89

79 This past year, you were one of the persons selected as part of a sample to complete a partnership needs assessment being conducted by the Division of Education Outreach, National Conservation Training Center, through a cooperative agreement with the University of Florida. The person preparing the needs assessment report wants to provide an overview of the titles of the persons in the sample to show validity of the sample. Therefore, it is important to know the titles of all the persons in the needs assessment sample, regardless if the person chose to complete the needs assessment or not. This is a request to please e-mail me your title. It will be greatly appreciated. Dawn Lagrotteria Chief, Education and Outreach Training Branch Division of Education Outreach National Conservation Training Center U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 698 Conservation Way Shepherdstown, WV 25443 (304) 876-7339 _________________________ Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 8/27/2004

PAGE 90

APPENDIX B INITIAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PARTNERSHIP SURVEY 1. What kind of partnerships are you involved in? Who are the partners? Is your agency the lead agency? 2. When you think about partnerships you work with how would you characterize them? 3. Think of a successful partnership you have been involved with. Why was it successful? 4. What are problems/potholes in the partnerships you have been involved with? What tend to be the challenges? 5. What do staff need to do to be effective involved in these partnerships? 80

PAGE 91

APPENDIX C PAPER COPY OF FINAL ELECTRONIC SURVEY

PAGE 92

Needs Assessment on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partnerships Introduction You have been selected by the Division of Education Outreach to participate in this needs assessment. We appreciate your honest thoughts and reactions to the questions as they will increase the agency's ability to provide appropriate training programs. The results of this needs assessment will be reported anonymously and no names will be used. PRETESTS SHOW THIS NEEDS ASSESSMENT TAKES 20 MINUTES TO COMPLETE Background Information 1. How long have you worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ___________________________________________________________________ 2. What is your job title? ___________________________________________________________________ 3. Please indicate which of the following best describes your work: _____ I spend the majority of my time in a "field setting" doing biological and other types of outdoor work. _____ I spend the majority of my time in an "office setting" doing administrative, management, and other types of indoor work. _____ I spend a fairly equal amount of time in both a field setting and office setting doing my work. 4. Are you a supervisor in your current position? _____ Yes, I am currently a supervisor. _____ No, I am not currently a supervisor. 5. What is your academic background (professional field)? ___________________________________________________________________ 82

PAGE 93

83 6. In what region do you currently work? _____ Region 1 Pacific _____ Region 2 Southwest _____ Region 3 Midwest _____ Region 4 Southeast _____ Region 5 Northeast _____ Region 6 Mountain-Prairie _____ Region 7 Alaska _____ Region 9 Headquarters 7. Please indicate the definition that best fits your understanding of partnerships in the USFWS: _____ a mandated project where you are assigned to work with another individual or organization _____ any voluntary collaboration among organizations working toward a common objective _____ a voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals on a specific project within a definite time _____ If none of these completely capture your sense of the partnerships you work with, please provide your definition below. 8. Have you had any formal partnership training? _____ No _____ Yes (please list the trainings below) 9. Approximately how many partnerships have you been involved in while working for the USFWS? (circle one) 0 1 2-5 6-10 11-24 25+ 10. While actively working on partnerships for the USFWS, approximately how many hours per week do you spend doing partnership related work? ___________ hours per week 11. Approximately how many weeks out of the year do you spend actively involved in partnership activities? ___________ weeks per year 12. To what degree is the accomplishment of your job goals related to the success of the partnerships in which you work (i.e., to what extent is your job dependent on partnership outcomes?)? (circle one) 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

PAGE 94

84 13. Do you spend more time creating new partnerships or sustaining existing partnerships? _____ Creating new partnerships _____ Sustaining existing partnerships 14. Are the majority of partnerships you work with established by you or by someone else? _____ Established by me _____ Established by someone else 15. Are the majority of your partnerships planned or opportunistic? _____ Planned _____ Opportunistic 16. What is the primary expected outcome of the partnerships in which you are involved? (check one) _____ Promote educational programs _____ Building community support _____ Habitat conservation/restoration _____ Endangered species protection/management _____ Controlling exotic species _____ Other species protection/management _____ New or improved relationships _____ Resolution of a natural resource conflict _____ Prevention of a natural resource conflict _____ General resource conservation _____ Other (please specify)

PAGE 95

85 Perceptions Please mark the response that best describes how you perceive the following aspects of partnerships. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree Success is mostly due to the personalities of the active partners Success is mostly due to the skill of the facilitator The most successful partnerships occur when partners come together naturally and are not forced into cooperation Most challenges to successful partnerships occur within the agency Partnerships are likely to fail if the partners have no experience working in similar situations The success of partnerships does not depend on personalities People can't be taught how to create successful partnerships It is critical to have concrete results from your involvement in the partnership Very successful partnerships can occur with an informal and unofficial agreement The most important outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with partners The most important outcome from partnerships is the tangible benefits unique to each partnership It is important to develop relationships with other partners on a personal level Partnerships are a win/lose situation We can accomplish a great deal more in partnerships than we can accomplish alone Partnerships take much more time than they are worth Engagin g in a partnership is a process with a set of steps and tasks it is a science Engaging in a partnership is a flexbl ie process with a basic goal but no structure it is an art Partnerships have no definitive end Partnerships are easier when the parne trs can meet face to face It is easiest to work with people in your own agency

PAGE 96

86 strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree I feel that I have nothin g to offer in a partnership setting I can effectively represent my agency in a partnership I'm comfortab le taking responsibility for a partnership someone else established I know how to locate and contact appop rriate pa rtners I have the necessary training to effectively de velop and implement a partnership I have the skills I need to be a good team member in a partnership setting I am comfortable when working with partnewith disparate missions or goals rs My motivation can overcome the challenges of partnerships If I fail once in a partnership I have little interest in workin g on another partnership My supervisor approves the time I need to make my partnerships effective M y supervisor doesn't support my efforts in partnerships I am able to allocate the time I need to devote to the partners hip

PAGE 97

87 S uccessful Partnerships lthough you may be involved in multiple partnerships, for the purpose only one SUCCESSFUL partnership that an example of a successful partnership please check the box below and kip this section. ____ I have no example of a successful partnership. artnership? heck one) ve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality) olve an existing natural resource conflict cies, communities, neighbors) t incentives that led to the formation of this partnership, lease identify them (check all that apply). ____ To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) ) conflict cies, communities, neighbors) heck all that apply) ____ Federal Agency(ies) ____ State Agency(ies) l Educational Institution(s) rcial/Industrial Enterprises n(s) A of this section please focus on has had results. 1. If you do not have s 2. How would you characterize the primary incentive behind the formation of this p (c _____ To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) _____ To resol _____ To res _____ To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species) _____ To establish a new relationship _____ To improve existing relationships (ex. with agen _____ Opportunity/circumstance _____ Other (please specify) 3. If there are other importan p _____ To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality_____ To resolve an existing natural resource _____ To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species) _____ To establish a new relationship _____ To improve existing relationships (ex. with agen _____ Opportunity/circumstance _____ Other (please specify) 4. Who were the partners? (c _ _____ Local Government(s) _____ Tribes _____ Formal/Non-forma _____ Private Individual(s) _____ Comme _____ Non-commerical non-governmental organizatio _____ Other (please specify)

PAGE 98

88 5 How many partners, including you, are ACTIVE in the partnership? (circle one) How many partners, including you, are NOT ACTIVE in the partnership and participate name only? (circle one) 5-9 10-19 20-35 36+ On what scale(s) is the partnership active? ____ International Below is a list of skills and abilities that may be necessary for individuals who are volved in partnerships. To what extent do or did the Service employees working as a part 1 2-4 5-9 10-19 20-35 36+ 6 in 0 1-4 7 _____ National _____ Regional _____ State _____ Local 8 in of this partnership exhibit these skills and abilities? Please mark your answers where 1 = not at all evident, 3 = somewhat evident, and 5 = very evident. Not at all evident 2 Somewhat evident 4 Very evident Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource management Overcoming budget restrictions of partne rs Finding financ ial resources Finding FWS agency personnel to provide assistance Finding equipment Having the academic background a nd/or technical training yo u need to be an effective member of the partnership Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant Knowing which structure to use for a partnership Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed Identifying appropriate partners Knowing w ho in the community should be in the partnership Developing a timeline

PAGE 99

89 Not at all evident 2 Somewhat evident 4 Very evident Creating a common goal for the group Articulating a shared vision for the grou p Creating a written agreement for all members Developin g a plan with clear, measurable objectives Being comf ortable in a group setting Increasing comfort level for new grou p members Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than your own Build ing trust among group members Actively listening Speaking clearly Conveying technical information to others who do not share your knowledge of the subject Being ab le to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisio ns, even if you are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency Knowing when the ageny ccan accept compromise Accepting compromise willingly Effectively working with antagoni stic partners Not letting difficult situations bother you Controlling your temper in difficult situations Accepting different points of view Setting aside deeply held opinions Finding a way to work with individ uals who can not speak effectively for their agency/organization Figuring out how to deal with disp arate missions of partners Finding a way to work with individuals who can not speak effectively for their agency/organization Figuring out how to deal with disp arate missions of partners Thorough understanding of your partners background, mission, and goals Knowing partners' roles in the partnership Defining your role in the partnership

PAGE 100

90 Not at all evident 2 Somewhat evident 4 Very evident Participating when you are not the lead agency and/or have no clear authority Effectively working with people outside of your agency Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships Understanding the influence of the current administration on partnerships 9 Which skills and abilities were most responsible for your success in this partnership? t you need to be an effective p ers tives rent power/authority level than your al information to others who do not share your knowledge of the you her you Please mark all the apply _____ Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource managemen _____ Overcoming budget restrictions of partners _____ Finding financial resources nel to provide assistance _____ Finding FWS agency person _____ Finding equipment c background and/or technical training _____ Having the academi member of the partnership _____ Hng you need to be an effective participant aving the partnership traini _____ Knowing which structure to use for a partnership _____ Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed _____ Identifying appropriate partners should be in the partnership _____ Knowing who in the community _____ Developing a timeline al for the group _____ Creating a common go _____ Articulating a shared vision for the grou _____ Creating a written agreement for all memb _____ Developing a plan with clear, measurable objec _____ Being comfortable in a group setting p members _____ Increasing comfort level for new grou _____ Effectively working with people who are in a diffe own _____ ng trust among group members Buildi _____ Actively listening _____ Speaking clearly _____ Conveying technic subject _____ Ble to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even if eing ab are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency _____ Knowing when the agency can accept compromise _____ Accepting compromise willingly istic partners _____ Effectively working with antagon_____ Not letting difficult situations bot

PAGE 101

91 _____ Controlling your temper in difficult situations _____ Accepting different points of view _____ Setting aside deeply held opinions _____ Finding a way to work with individu als who can not speak effectively for their _____ ng of your partners background, mission, and goals ncy and/or have no clear authority de of your agency on partnerships 0. In general, which category of skills and abilities was most important to the success of our partnership example? steps of partnership development eople skills") ge of partners 1. What other factors contributed to the success of this partnership? agency/organization _____ Figuring out how to deal with disparate missions of partners Thorough understandi _____ Knowing partners' roles in the partnership _____ Defining your role in the partnership _____ Participating when you are not the lead age _____ Effectively working with people outsi _____ Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships _____ Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships _____ Understanding the influence of the current administration 1 y _____ Locating agency support _____ Knowing and applying _____ Communication skills ("P _____ Understanding your role/Service's role in the process _____ Knowing how to work with a diverse ran _____ Assessing your partners background and goals _____ Being able to set the people apart from the issue 1

PAGE 102

92 L ess Successful Partnerships nly 2 more short sections! lthough you may be involved in multiple partnerships, for the purpose If you do not have an example of a less successful partnership please check the box below of a less successful partnership. At what point in the process did your partnership start to break down? inition of roles, formalization How would you characterize the primary incentive behind the formation of this uality) If there are other important incentives that led to the formation of this partnership, uality) You are almost done! There are o Aof this section please focus on only one LESS SUCCESSFUL partnership that has had results. 1 and skip this section. ____ I have no example 2 _____ problem setting (finding or contacting appropriate partners) _____ direction setting (establishing goals, setting ground rules) ef _____ structuring (devising a framework to guide future action, d of process) _____ ig (project management, activity, production) mplementin _____ assessing outcomes (impact assessment) 3 partnership? (check one) _____ To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) _____ To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water q _____ To resolve an existing natural resource conflict ict (ex. listing a new species) _____ To prevent an anticipated natural resource confl _____ To establish a new relationship s (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors) _____ To improve existing relationship _____ Opportunity/circumstance _____ Other (please specify) 4 please identify them (check all that apply). _____ To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) _____ To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water q _____ To resolve an existing natural resource conflict ict (ex. listing a new species) _____ To prevent an anticipated natural resource confl _____ To establish a new relationship s (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors) _____ To improve existing relationship _____ Opportunity/circumstance _____ Other (please specify)

PAGE 103

93 5 Who were the partners? (check all that apply) ____ Federal Agency(ies) ucational Institution(s) Individual(s) governmental organization(s) How many partners, including you, are ACTIVE in the partnership? 36+ How many partners, including you, are NOT ACTIVE in the partnership and participate name only? 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-35 36+ On what scale(s) is the partnership active? ____ International Which obstacles were most responsible for your lack of success in this partnership? lease mark all the apply ent ssistance ning you need to be an effective ership _____ use for a partnership artnership sion for the group mbers bjectives _____ State Agency(ies) _____ Local Government(s) _____ Tribes _____ Formal/Non-formal Ed _____ Private _____ Commercial/Industrial Enterprises _____ Non-commerical non_____ Other (please specify) 6 1 2-4 5-9 10-19 20-35 7 in 0 8 _____ National _____ Regional _____ State _____ Local 9 P _____ Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource managem_____ Overcoming budget restrictions of partners _____ Finding financial resources _____ Finding FWS agency personnel to provide a _____ Finding equipment _____ Having the academic background and/or technical trai member of the partn _____ Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant Knowing which structure to _____ Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed _____ Identifying appropriate partners _____ Knowing who in the community should be in the p _____ Developing a timeline _____ Creating a common goal for the group _____ Articulating a shared vi _____ Creating a written agreement for all me _____ Developing a plan with clear, measurable o _____ Being comfortable in a group setting

PAGE 104

94 _____ Increasing comfort level for new group members _____ Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than your _____ A listening l information to others who do not share your knowledge of the f you WS representative and FWS is the lead agency _____ als who can not speak effectively for their _____ ng of your partners background, mission, and goals ncy and/or have no clear authority de of your agency on partnerships 0. In general, which category of skills and abilities was the biggest obstacle in your artnership example? ying steps of partnership development eople skills") ge of partners 1. What other obstacles contributed to the lack of success in this partnership? own _____ Building trust among group members ctively _____ Speaking clearly _____ Conveying technica subject _____ Being able to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even i are the F _____ Knowing when the agency can accept compromise Accepting compromise willingly _____ Effectively working with antagonistic partners _____ Not letting difficult situations bother you _____ Controlling your temper in difficult situations _____ Accepting different points of view _____ Setting aside deeply held opinions _____ Finding a way to work with individu agency/organization _____ Figuring out how to deal with disparate missions of partners Thorough understandi _____ Knowing partners' roles in the partnership _____ Defining your role in the partnership _____ Participating when you are not the lead age _____ Effectively working with people outsi _____ Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships _____ Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships _____ Understanding the influence of the current administration 1 p _____ Locating agency support _____ Knowing and appl _____ Communication skills ("P _____ Understanding your role/Service's role in the process _____ Knowing how to work with a diverse ran _____ Assessing your partners background and goals _____ Being able to set the people apart from the issue 1

PAGE 105

95 A dditional Information your partnership was successful? For those skills and abilities that you indicated are major elements for successful Below is a list of roadblocks that may affect the success of your partnerships. To what ewhat a factor, and 5 = very 1. How do you judge whether or not 2 partnerships, what tools/resources do you need to use them fully? 3 extent are or were these roadblocks hindering your success? lease mark your answers where 1 = not at all a factor, 3 = som P much a factor. Not at all 2 4 Somewhat a Very much a factor factor a factor policy/procedure paperwork funding time manag ement support Other (please specify ) 4 What can the National Conservation Training Center offer to improve FWS's ability to If you know of a partnership that would make a good case study for NCTC courses, __________ hanks! ry much for your time and your thoughts. When you submit your answers effectively use partnerships for resource conservation and accomplish the Service mission? 5 please give us an appropriate contact name and reference artnership ________________________________________ P ocation ____________________________________________________ L ontact Name ________________________________________________ C T Thank you ve they will be accessed by individuals at the University of Florida. It will not have your name attached to it. Only a compilation of results will be reported to the FWS

PAGE 106

APPENDIX D COMPLETE SURVEY DATA

PAGE 107

Job title of non-respondents Deputy Refuge Manager 2 Refuge Manager 14 Assistant Refuge Manager Refuge Planner Refuge Operations Specialist 3 Field Supervisor 3 Fish and Wildlife Biologist 5 Wildlife Biologist 2 Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Project Coordinator Hydrologist Supervisory Range Technician Natural Resources Planner Senior Budget Analyst Senior Legislative Specialist Chief, Division of Contracting and General Services Chief, Division of Partnerships and Outreach Chief, Branch of Habitat Restoration Chief, Division of Resource Management Chief of Visitor Services Regional Chief, Refuge Law Enforcement Regional Partners for Fish & Wildlife Coordinator 2 Coordinator, Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Strategic Growth Coordinator Distance Learning Coordinator. Private Lands Coordinator Assistant Coordinator South Atlantic Fisheries Coordination Office Western Colorado Supervisor 97

PAGE 108

98 Academic background by category (professional field) Biology Biology (13) BS Biology (8) Biology and wildlife biology General biology Biology and Environmental Planning Biology with a marine emphasis BS Forest Biology, MS Wildlife Biology BS Wildlife Biology, MS Environmental Ed. MS Biology (3) Zoology Zoology (3) Zoology/Wildlife Science Zoology and Resource Conservation BS Zoology, MS Zoology BS Wildlife Ecology, MS Zoology BS Zoology/Fisheries Minor MS Zoology MS in Zoology BA in biology PhD Zoology emphasis in wildlife management Fisheries Aquatic Ecology Fisheries Biology (7) Fisheries Science (3) Fisheries Management Fisheries/Aquatic Biology Marine fisheries Marine Science Fisheries and Agriculture Malacology and fisheries MSES Water resources, BS Biology MS Vertebrate Zoology/Fish MS Aquatic Biology MS Fisheries (4) MS Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences PhD Zoology (aquatic sciences) Fish and Wildlife Fisheries and wildlife sciences (6) Fish and Wildlife Biology (3) Fish Management and Biology BS Fisheries & Wildlife (2) BS Fish and Wildlife; M.S. degree in Biology Fish/Wildlife Biology MS fish and wildlife biologist Wildlife Wildlife Biology (16) Wildlife Ecology (5) Wildlife science (2) Wildlife Science and Tropical Forest Ecology Wildlife and forestry Forestry/Wildlife Biology Wildlife biology (B.S. and M.S.)

PAGE 109

99 Wildlife Wildlife Biology; Zoology Wildlife Biology/Education BS Wildlife Science, MS Range Ecology BS and MS in Wildlife Biology BS Fisheries & Wildlife Biology MS Wildlife Ecology (4) MS Wildlife (5) MS Wildlife biology concentration in environmental education and public relations PhD Wildlife Biology PhD Wildlife Ecology: Waterfowl Biology Wildlife Management Wildlife Management (7) Zoology & wildlife mang. Fish and Wildlife Management Wildlife Management ; Biology Wildlife management and Economics Forestry/Wildlife Management (2) BS Fish and Wildlife Management (2) BS Zoology, MS Wildl. Mgmt. BS Wildlife Management (9) BS Wildlife Biology, MS Wildlife Management BS and MS Wildlife Management BS/MS wildlife mgmt/ecology MS Wildlife Management (3) MS Wildlife Biology/Mgmt Ph.D. Zoology and Wildlife Management Miscellaneous Science Degrees Earth Science Environmental science/biology Biology and Environmental Studies BA natural science MS Natural Resources (2) Terrestrial ecology Botanical Sciences Wildlife Ecology and Botany Botany BS Forestry Forestry PhD Physiology Entomology Vertebrate Population/Reproductive Ecology MS Soil Science Agronomy & Biology Ecology BS geography MS Geography BS Cartography

PAGE 110

100 Management Natural Resources Management Resource management Wildland Recreation Mgt. Recreation and Parks Administration BS Environmental Mgmt and Planning Forestry and Recreation mgt. M.S. Forest Resources Management Other Accounting Lawyer Political science/attorney BA Justice Environmental policy Civil Engineering (Land Surveying) Bio Tech/Admin Latin American Studies / biochemistry / Spanish English literature; biology Human Resources BBA Human Resources Management Human Resources Management Public Relations BS Speech Communication MS History & Education Environmental Writing Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Years with Service Number Percent 1-5 52 24.07 6-10 16 7.41 11-15 48 22.22 16-20 29 13.43 21-25 24 11.11 26-30 37 17.13 31+ 10 4.63 Mean = 15.6 Standard Deviation = 9.9 Training Attendance Background variable Number Percentage Attended formal partnership training: No Yes 132 85 60.8 39.2

PAGE 111

101 Training that employees have attended Introduction to Conservation Partnerships Conservation Partnerships Basics (3) Partnerships: An Overview (3) Building Partnerships (2) Conservation Partnerships (7) Conservation Partnerships in Practice (8) Advanced Partnerships in Practice Partnership Roundtable Workshop (5) IMPACT (9) Negotiation training (2) Negotiation Strategies and Techniques (2) Conflict Resolution Resolving complex environmental issues with stakeholders Community-based Consensus Building Building Common Ground Building Community Support Working with Friends Groups Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (5) Ecosystem Team Class Habitat Evaluation Procedures Conserving Endangered Species on Non-federal Lands Natural Community Conservation Planning Habitat Conservation Planning (2) Conserving endangered species on Private Lands Conservation Biology course Coordinated Resource Management An approach to Ecosystem Conservation (6) Recovery Implementation Training Coaching for Excellence Course Stepping Up to Leadership (3) Upper Level Management Training Team Effectiveness Training Teambuilding Education and Outreach Grant Writing Conservation Easements Realty Academy Refuge Academy Additional responses: Too numerous to name, both formal and informal, various supervisory courses, Refuge System workshops dealing with partnerships, and Partnership training has been incorporated into other training sessions

PAGE 112

102 Definition of partnerships in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Definition Number Percent A mandated project where you are assigned to work with another individual or organization. 0 0 Any voluntary collaboration among organizations working toward a common objective. 60 27.5 A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals on a specific project within a definite time. 124 56.9 If none of these completely capture your sense of the partnerships you work with, please provide your definition below. 34 15.6 1. A mandated project among organizations working toward a common objective 2. A collaboration either mandated or voluntary among individuals, groups, or organizations to achieve a shared common objective or goal. 3. A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, agencies, or combinations of those working toward a common objective. 4. A voluntary collaboration among individuals, organizations or both to achieve common objectives. 5. A voluntary collaboration of individuals organizations or both to achieve common goals and objectives that protect conserve and restore fish and wildlife populations and their habitats thereby providing benefits to the American people 6. Any voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, and/or agencies working toward a mutually beneficial goal or objective. 7. A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals 8. A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both working toward a common objective or to achieve common goals on a specific project within a definite time 9. A voluntary or mandated collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve commons goals either within a definite time or for the long term as long as the collaboration continues to meet a common objective 10. A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, and agencies in various combinations to achieve common goals for habitat restoration, enhancement, and protection. 11. Any voluntary collaboration among individuals and/or organizations to achieve common goals or differing compatible goals on both specific and non specific projects with or without definite times. 12. Voluntary, however project funding is often contingent on the level of partnership/capacity building involved. 13. A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both working towards a common goal 14. A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, and/or both to achieve common objectives. 15. A collaboration of individuals and or organizations working together to achieve common resource conservation goals. 16. A voluntary collaboration of individuals organizations or both to achieve common goals on a project specific or being developed/defined with or without a definite time 17. Delivering voluntary on the ground habitat improvement projects and technical assistance to private landowners for the benefit of federal trust species. 18. Partnerships are a voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals. They can exist for the term of a project or be ongoing.

PAGE 113

103 19. For me partnerships are indeed voluntary collaborations consisting of both individuals and organizations. Generally they are initiated to achieve common goals and/or projects but some of the most productive partnerships continue as foundations that provide consultation, review, and discussion sounding boards to achieve long term landscape level projects and problem resolution. 20. Most work is establishing dialog with disparate interests to identify common interests and lead to common goals of a specific project within a definite time. 21. The USFWS particularly Ecological Services is involved with mandated and contractual work responsibilities; 22. Partnerships vary between a landowner agreement for habitat restoration to an interagency agreement for the review of a federal project. 23. Can be "A" and "B" 24. All 3 definitions apply to some partnerships. I view partnerships as a collaboration of people working together to address a common issue. 25. A combination of the first three. 26. A combination of all three 27. My understanding includes the above three statements 28. I like your second definition but don't underestimate the importance of the individual as being the catalyst for everything and the objective(s) as usually a combination of specific/shorter-term and more general and longer-term goals & activities! (small successes in the shorter-term build over time to create large long-term collaborations 29. I agree with the definition under the second box above except that it does not include individuals in its definition (it only refers to organizations). 30. Your second and third choice represent the best answer. Sometimes it is a common objective sometimes it is to achieve a specific project 31. Actually a collaboration of individuals and organizations working together towards a common objective. Within that the group would have common goals on specific projects not necessarily within a definite time. It is a combination of the second and third choices above. 32. #3 but add to it "to benefit Service trust resources (i.e. listed candidate species of concern and migratory birds and their habitats)" 33. The third definition should be the Service definition. However often the Service forgets it is mandated to regulate parties but continues to call those parties with mandated requirements its partner often allowing the partner to do less than required by law. 34. As above in 3rd answer voluntary collaboration individuals, organizations, or both working to achieve common goals but not always limited to a specific project with a definite timeline sometimes more like a common objective that can be more long term. 35. A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals on a specific project. Note: this is the same as #3 omitting "within a definite time" Many partnerships are long-term and ongoing time limits do not apply especially when many uncontrollable factors influence goal achievement.

PAGE 114

104 Job title of respondents Fish and Wildlife Biologist (35) Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist (10) Wildlife Biologist (8) Fisheries Biologist (13) Biologist (4) Regional Refuge Biologist Refuge biologist Supervisory Biologist (2) Supervisory Fishery Biologist (2) Private Lands Biologist (2) Migratory Bird Biologist Private Lands Biologist Field Office Supervisor (4) Field Supervisor (8) Deputy Field Supervisor Deputy Refuge Manager (5) Refuge Manager (Project Leader) (43) Assistant Refuge Mgr. (2) Fish Hatchery Manager (3) Human Resources Officer Center Director Team leader Administrative Officer ESA Program Advisor Fish and Wildlife Administrator (2) Program Analyst Private Lands Coordinator (2) Botanist Biological science technician (2) Supervisory Cartographer Cartographer Park ranger Wildlife inspector Evidence Custodian Farm Bill Coordinator Chief Land Surveyor Regional outdoor recreation planner Regional Coordinator Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (4) Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program State Coordinator (7) Supervisory Realty Specialist Realty Specialist (3) Realty Assistant (Realty Specialist Trainee) Supervisory fire management specialist International Affairs Specialist Human Resources Specialist (2) Program Specialist Legislative Affairs Specialist Training Specialist Information & Education Specialist IT Specialist

PAGE 115

105 Intelligence Research Specialist Grant Management Specialist Refuge Operations Specialist (2) Pacific Coast Joint Venture Coordinator West Gulf Coastal Plain Initiative Coordinator Gulf Coast Fisheries Coordinator Illinois Private Lands Coordinator Lower Colorado River Coordinator State Private Lands Coordinator (5) Habitat Restoration Coordinator National Research Coordinator Regional Habitat Restoration and Partnerships Coordinator Federal Permits and Projects Coordinator Outreach Coordinator Asst. Joint Venture Coordinator Asst. State Coordinator MTPFW Program Chief Division Fish & Wildlife Management and Habitat Restoration Chief Division of Natural Resources NWRS Region 5 Director of Communications Deputy Regional Director Special Assistant to the RD Division Chief Respondents by region Region # Surveys sent Out Number responded Percent responded Percent of all responses Number missing Percent missing 1 36 30 83.3 13.8 6 16.7 2 34 21 61.8 9.7 13 38.2 3 27 19 70.4 8.8 8 29.6 4 80 58 72.5 26.7 22 27.5 5 69 46 66.7 21.2 23 33.3 6 41 22 53.7 10.1 19 46.3 7 20 12 60.0 5.5 8 40.0 9 22 9 40.1 4.1 13 59.1 Degree to which job goals are related to partnership success Degree to which job goals relate to partnership success Frequency Percent 0 25% 69 31.9 26 50% 30 13.9 51 75% 49 22.7 76 100% 68 31.5

PAGE 116

106 Dichotomous job characteristic variables Background variable Number Percentage The majority of work time is spent: In a field setting In an office setting Split between the office and field 4 145 69 1.8 66.5 31.7 Currently a supervisor: Yes No 125 91 57.9 42.1 Number of partnerships involved with while working for USFWS Number of partnerships Number Percent 0 9 4.1 1 4 1.8 2-5 38 17.4 6-10 37 17.0 11-24 38 17.4 25+ 92 42.2 Primary expected outcome of partnerships Expected outcome Number Percent Promote Educational Programs 12 5.6 Building Community Support 12 5.6 Habitat Conservation/Restoration 98 46.0 Endangered Species Protection/Management 23 10.8 Controlling Exotic Species 6 2.8 Other Species Protection/Management 9 4.2 N ew or Improved Rel a tionships 2 .9 Resolution of a Natural Resource Conflict 7 3.3 Prevention of a Natural Resource Conflict 1 .5 General Resource Conservation 14 6.6 Other 29 13.6 All of the above 18 Sharing scarce resources Funding considerations Establish measurable natural resource outcomes in research projects. Providing a product that benefits US citizens Sharing spatial data Conservation easements NRDA trustee partnerships Fishery mitigation of federal river projects Fishery Mitigation/Recreational Fishing Anadromous fish restoration Monitoring non-T&E salmon stocks

PAGE 117

107 Average number of hours per week spent on partnerships Hours per week Number Percent 1-5 55 27.77 6-10 49 24.75 11-15 11 5.56 16-20 26 13.13 21-30 26 13.13 31-40 31 15.66 Mean = 16.25 Standard Deviation = 12.6 Approximate number of weeks per year actively involved in partnerships Weeks per year Number Percent 1-8 55 27.92 9-16 22 11.17 17-24 9 4.57 25-32 20 10.15 33-40 2 1.02 41-48 37 18.78 49+ 52 26.39 Mean = 28.1 Standard Deviation = 19.7 Dichotomous partnership characteristic variables Background variable Number Percentage More time is spent: Creating new partnership Sustaining existing partnerships 45 169 21.0 79.0 The majority of partnerships are established: By me By someone else 116 93 55.5 44.5 The majority of partnerships are: Planned Opportunistic 117 94 55.5 44.5

PAGE 118

108 List of perception variables sorted by mean Perception Mean SD We can accomplish a great deal more in partnerships than we can accomplish alone 3.52 .62 I can effectively represent my agency in a partnership 3.47 .59 The most successful partnerships occur when partners come together naturally and are not forced into cooperation 3.40 .59 Partnerships are easier when the partners can meet face to face 3.32 .60 I have the skills I need to be a good team member in a partnership setting 3.30 .52 Very successful partnerships can occur with an informal and unofficial agreement 3.29 .62 Success is mostly due to the personalities of the active partners 3.23 .67 My supervisor approves the time I need to make my partnerships effective 3.20 .71 I know how to locate and contact appropriate partners 3.15 .61 My motivation can overcome the challenges of partnerships 3.11 .53 I'm comfortable taking responsibility for a partnership someone else established 3.07 .59 I am comfortable when working with partners with disparate missions or goals 3.07 .57 Engaging in a partnership is a flexible process with a basic goal but no structure it is an art 2.95 .61 It is important to develop relationships with other partners on a personal level 2.93 .65 The most important outcome from partnerships is the tangible benefits unique to each partnership 2.90 .56 I am able to allocate the time I need to devote to the partnership 2.85 .75 I have the necessary training to effectively develop and implement a partnership 2.84 .70 It is critical to have concrete results from your involvement in the partnership 2.70 .68 The most important outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with partners 2.64 .68 Most challenges to successful partnerships occur within the agency 2.57 .68 Partnerships have no definitive end 2.52 .65 Success is mostly due to the skill of the facilitator 2.51 .65 Partnerships are likely to fail if the partners have no experience working in similar situations 2.25 .60 Engaging in a partnership is a process with a set of steps and tasks it is a science 2.09 .61 It is easiest to work with people in your own agency 2.06 .60 People can't be taught how to create successful partnerships 1.91 .58 The success of partnerships does not depend on personalities 1.82 .63 If I fail once in a partnership I have little interest in working on another partnership 1.57 .57 My supervisor doesn't support my efforts in partnerships 1.55 .58 Partnerships are a win/lose situation 1.53 .56 Partnerships take much more time than they are worth 1.64 .58 I feel that I have nothing to offer in a partnership setting 1.47 .68

PAGE 119

109 Perceptions with twenty-five percent or more respondents in minority Perception variable Total number of respondents Number disagree Percent disagree Number agree Percent agree Likely to fail if partners have no experience 218 159 72.94 59 27.06 Success is mostly due to the facilitator 215 111 51.63 104 48.37 Most challenges occur within the agency 217 111 51.15 106 48.85 Partnerships have no definitive end 212 105 49.53 107 50.47 Most important outcome is relationships 215 96 44.65 119 55.35 Critical to have concrete results 217 80 36.87 137 63.13 I have the necessary training 218 66 30.28 152 69.72 I have the time I need 214 58 27.10 156 72.90 Primary incentive behind the formation of the successful partnership Primary incentive Number Percent To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) 12 5.9 To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality) 115 56.1 To resolve an existing natural resource conflict 13 6.3 To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species) 9 4.4 To establish a new relationship 4 2.0 To improve existing relationships (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors) 16 7.8 Opportunity/circumstance 8 3.9 Other (please specify) 16 7.3 Creating a meaningful partnership out of a pseudo-partnership Land acquisition assistance Develop an open space plan To address a natural resource need Habitat conservation on landscape scale Non-federal parties in violation of the ESA To share spatial data and reduce duplication of efforts To build an educational center To increase awareness and understanding of natural resource issues To promote environmental education goals within the community Education/Training To support domestic and international partnerships A mandate from the secretary of the interior It started with the primary incentive to resolve a common natural resource problem but it changed to several others listed as the partnership developed. All of the above depending on the project

PAGE 120

110 Other incentives that led to the formation of the successful partnership Other incentives Number Percent To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) 51 10.7 To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality) 70 14.6 To resolve an existing natural resource conflict 51 10.7 To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species) 50 10.4 To establish a new relationship 67 14.0 To improve existing relationships (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors) 96 20.0 Opportunity/circumstance 78 16.3 Other (please specify) 16 3.3 Needed funds to buy land at refuge To retain all people with historical knowledge and insight into a subject (ex. endangered species) Archeological Resource Protection To reintroduce a listed species to private lands Achieve public education goal More can be accomplished when working together leveraging capabilities, funds, knowledge etc. To improve groundwater quality for human consumption Demonstrate how TEK and Western Science can be used together Access grant funds Develop international treaty and associated implementing legislation Private landowner involvement in resource conservation To gather baseline information upon which management decisions would be made To enhance recruitment into the Service Employee recruitment All of the above (2) Partners in successful example Partners Number Percent Federal Agency(ies) 149 19.1 State Agency(ies) 147 18.8 Local Government(s) 94 12.1 Tribes 32 4.1 Formal/Non-formal Educational Institution(s) 56 7.2 Private Individual(s) 117 15.0 Commercial/Industrial Enterprises 52 6.7 Non-commerical non-governmental organization(s) 119 15.3 Other (please specify) 14 1.8 Institutions Non-governmental agency With other FWS E.S offices and Regions Retired Native Corp Profit Watershed association Public television station Chamber of commerce Refuge Friends group Family Trust/Foundations District of Columbia Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Canadian Agencies All of the above except commercial/Industrial

PAGE 121

111 Number of partners active in the successful partnership Number of active partners Number Percent 1 1 0.5 2-4 63 30.7 5-9 71 34.6 10-19 32 15.6 20-35 13 6.3 36+ 12 5.9 Number of partners not active in the successful partnership Number of partners not active Number Percent 0 91 44.4 1-4 61 29.8 5-9 14 6.8 10-19 5 2.4 20-35 8 3.9 36+ 3 1.5 Scale on which the successful partnership is active Scale Number Percent International 8 3.5 National 20 8.7 Regional 55 23.9 State 68 29.6 Local 79 34.3

PAGE 122

112 Extent to which Service employees exhibited these skills and abilities sorted by mean List of skills and abilities Number Mean SD Effectively working with people outside of your agency 185 4.26 .74 Being comfortable in a group setting 187 4.12 .69 Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than your own 187 4.07 .74 Creating a common goal for the group 185 4.06 .83 Identifying appropriate partners 186 4.04 .77 Conveying technical information to others who do not share your knowledge of the subject 186 4.01 .81 Building trust among group members 186 4.00 .80 Defining your role in the partnership 186 3.99 .83 Actively listening 183 3.99 .80 Speaking clearly 184 3.98 .72 Having the academic background and/or technical training you need to be an effective member of the partnership 186 3.92 .90 Articulating a shared vision for the group 186 3.92 .88 Accepting different points of view 186 3.91 .83 Knowing partners' roles in the partnership 185 3.88 .75 Knowing who in the community should be in the partnership 186 3.84 .88 Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource management 185 3.82 .97 Finding financial resources 184 3.81 .94 Finding FWS agency personnel to provide assistance 186 3.80 .98 Thorough understanding of your partners background, mission, and goals 185 3.79 .83 Controlling your temper in difficult situations 185 3.79 .96 Participating when you are not the lead agency and/or have no clear authority 184 3.75 .93 Increasing comfort level for new group members 182 3.72 .83 Accepting compromise willingly 186 3.69 .78 Being able to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even if you are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency 177 3.66 1.01 Knowing when the agency can accept compromise 184 3.66 .93 Overcoming budget restrictions of partners 187 3.66 .90 Developing a plan with clear, measurable objectives 185 3.63 1.07 Figuring out how to deal with disparate missions of partners 186 3.59 .91 Finding equipment 179 3.53 1.04 Setting aside deeply held opinions 183 3.52 .98 Developing a timeline 187 3.51 .95 N ot letting difficult situations bother you 186 3.49 .93 Finding a way to work with individuals who can not speak effectively for their agency/organization 181 3.48 1.00 Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed 186 3.43 1.11 Effectively working with antagonistic partners 182 3.38 1.05 Creating a written agreement for all members 185 3.35 1.22 Understanding the influence of the current administration on partnerships 185 3.35 1.15 Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships 184 3.32 1.07 Knowing which structure to use for a partnership 186 3.28 1.04 Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships 183 3.20 1.16 Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant 185 3.17 1.09

PAGE 123

113 Skills and abilities most responsible for success sorted by mean Skill/Ability Mean SD Building trust among group members .69 .46 Actively listening .67 .47 Creating a common goal for the group .65 .48 Identifying appropriate partners .63 .48 Effectively working with people outside of your agency .61 .49 Finding financial resources .58 .49 Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource management .50 .50 Accepting different points of view .48 .50 Having the academic background and/or technical training you need to be an effective member of the partnership .48 .50 Defining your role in the partnership .47 .50 Knowing who in the community should be in the partnership .47 .50 Conveying technical information to others who do not share your knowledge of the subject .47 .50 Knowing partners' roles in the partnership .46 .50 Articulating a shared vision for the group .46 .50 Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than your own .44 .50 Developing a plan with clear, measurable objectives .43 .50 Being comfortable in a group setting .43 .50 Speaking clearly .40 .49 Overcoming budget restrictions of partners .37 .48 Finding FWS agency personnel to provide assistance .37 .48 Thorough understanding of your partners background, mission, and goals .36 .48 N ot letting difficult situations bother you .35 .48 Knowing when the agency can accept compromise .33 .47 Figuring out how to deal with disparate missions of partners .32 .47 Effectively working with antagonistic partners .28 .45 Being able to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even if you are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency .28 .45 Creating a written agreement for all members .27 .44 Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed .27 .45 Accepting compromise willingly .26 .44 Participating when you are not the lead agency and/or have no clear authority .25 .43 Increasing comfort level for new group members .22 .41 Developing a timeline .22 .41 Finding equipment .21 .40 Finding a way to work with individuals who can not speak effectively for their agency/organization .19 .40 Controlling your temper in difficult situations .19 .40 Setting aside deeply held opinions .18 .38 Understanding the influence of the current administration on partnerships .18 .38 Knowing which structure to use for a partnership .17 .38 Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships .16 .37 Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant .14 .34 Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships .14 .35

PAGE 124

114 Category of skills and abilities most important to success Category Number Percent Communication skills ("People skills") 95 50.3 Knowing how to work with a diverse range of partners 39 20.6 Understanding your role/Service's role in the process 24 12.7 Locating agency support 10 5.3 Knowing and applying steps of partnership development 8 4.2 Assessing your partners background and goals 8 4.2 Being able to set the people apart from the issue 5 2.6 Other factors that contributed to success 1. Ability to coordinate efforts to write grant applications. Necessity to name one of the partners as the leader or administrator to facilitate the group. 2. Identifying common resource goals. Finding sufficient funding. Being able to work through funding restrictions. 3. Sharing common goals 4. Autonomy from the regional office. 5. We all like each other 6. Mutual interest in the intended outcome and finding a way to meet at least some of everyone's needs in the partnership. 7. All of the above factors 8. Previous partnerships on projects and agency reputation. 9. Developing relationships with local community 10. Persistence of partners to see each project to completion 11. Finding the common ground. Planning ahead and getting the resources needed before they were needed. Taking advantage of windows of opportunity (realizing that things will change). 12. Shared vision and interests of members 13. the people the people the people! 14. Having a clear common goal 15. understanding role in process 16. A common goal for natural resource enhancement 17. Interest in reaching a settlement agreement in which all parties needs are addressed with settlement agreement reached parties are now interested in implementing the settlement agreement and we are working to determine how that will be done. 18. Finding ways to address resource issues/ restoration needs and meet goals of landowners involved. For once being able to focus enough FWS staff time to leverage outside funds pull together multiple agency partners and manage a large project while being responsive to landowner needs. 19. Locating agency support. 20. Understanding the fact that the USFWS was not the lead agency or driving force behind the partnership and that it should not be. By and large the USFWS is not structured to be an effective partner and until we fix that all we can do is help those who should be in the drivers seat the local landowners. 21. Persistence honesty hard work 22. Success. Partners realizing they are part of something well liked by the general public. 23. Each of the partners were sincerely motivated by the goals of the partnership and had a stake in the outcome. 24. common understanding of the issue that needed to be resolved 25. Persistence. Inclusiveness. 26. Communication skills (People skills) 27. finding common goals. 28. Having a goal that was accepted by all both those inside and outside the partnership. 29. Being flexible.

PAGE 125

115 30. Effectively communicating with all partners 31. Knowledge that the Federal government was prepared to move forward with an enforcement action if the cooperative approach was not successful. 32. Legal mandate and court decision proof of effectiveness (step by step approach), honesty, don't inflate your needs, use best available science, create win-win atmosphere, recognize partners funding limits, be flexible, get authority to speak for agency then speak! 33. The partner organization and the Refuge really wanted to achieve a common objective--intensity of desire to succeed. 34. Learning who the decision makers are within the partnerships. Finding out what is important to these decision makers. 35. Learning how to fit my agenda into their agenda. Working toward compromise to accomplish shared goals. 36. Having partners strongly committed to the objectives of the partnership 37. looking at partners with respect and recognizing their contributions not just what can they do for us 38. Having the skills to understand/vision of the big picture. People Skills People Skills...... Ability to compromise building the bridge a step at a time. 39. Knowing to work with a diverse range of partners 40. Not discussing timelines, outcomes, roles, funding, strategic plans, management plans, white papers, etc. until a level of trust was established. 41. Commitment of partners to the cause and not their own glory 42. A dedicated university research professor and talented graduate student. 43. We identified a project and worked together to develop it so it met at least one objective of each partner. 44. People Skills 45. Technical skill in habitat restoration 46. All of the above are important. 47. Desire by all partners to succeed. 48. Establishing a Steering Committee that meets monthly and is chaired by a capable non-partisan individual not directly associated with any partner organization. 49. Promote successes and accomplishments, especially through site dedications. Recognize partner efforts through awards, certificates, etc. Strive to make all partners feel like they are part of the goal and that they are accomplishing something for their organization. 50. Clear Communication, Define Long-Term Management/Goals, and Willing Participation by all involved. 51. Relationships from previous work efforts partnership and otherwise 52. everyone puts something in and gets something out. patience and tolerance. 53. Support from supervisor and Regional Office. Having funding available to accomplish tasks at hand. 54. My partners have been motivated to assist in making the refuge a better place despite almost no funding from the agency. 55. Development of long-term working relationships 56. This partnership is a result of ESA Sec. 7 consultations. The 3-year partnership is still working toward trying to complete their primary task (i.e. developing and implementing a basin-wide recovery plan). Seven years later, however, the jury is still out as to whether they will ultimately succeed. 57. personal initiative technical expertise shared or overlapping natural resource goals good identification of tasks to meet goals 58. All parties were willing to work together to address the interests of each participant so it was successful for all parties. 59. All of the above 60. Trust--willingness to meet deadlines--gains for all in the partnership 61. Basically having something to offer that is in demand. In my case the ability of our office to supply highly skilled people is what drives the partnership. 62. Support of supervisors 63. Innovation on part of agency office heads to pursue a partnership agreement and participation and signing of agreement by office heads and staff. 64. Deciding (or being directed) to partner is not enough; sufficient staff talent and funding are needed to nurture partnerships. Partners need to believe that their role in the partnership is meaningful.

PAGE 126

116 Partnerships offering meaningful involvement where partners have a shared vision are more apt to be successful. 65. Bottom Line: Working together for common goals and put aside all agendas except those that advance the common goals of the group. 66. The key was/is having supervisors who trust their employees enough to give them the freedom to develop partnerships based on the needs for that specific area. You can have the best employee with all the partnership knowledge but if his/her supervisor is a can't do person the partnership will fail. 67. Treating people like you would like to be treated. 68. Flexible decision making process (creative decisions). 69. The partnership was started by a local grass roots group and they contacted our agency and asked for assistance primarily financial and after reviewing the project it was 70. apparent that it was a well planned project so the best tact was to help them obtain funding and help the project be completed. 71. Tenacity 72. Leadership having an effective leader, especially for public-private partnerships. The individual must be committed and active and understand the issues and politics. History Events interactions and activities of partners during the previous 10+ years (often on opposing sides of and issue) that enabled us to come together in response to a need where working together made sense. Continuity of People having the same personnel in place for over 10 or more years. This enabled a historical understanding of the relevant issues which were maybe the most important part of the evolution of the partnership. The partnership has had problems and setbacks when a new individual comes to the table who has no institutional knowledge or history of the issues and the partnership itself. They don't understand what the partnership went through to get to the present point in time. 73. Having Partners that can accomplish projects on the ground. 74. Partnering with individuals who exhibit a deep dedication to accomplishing goals which directly benefit the resource 75. Patience and support from my supervisors. 76. Having the time to devote to forming relationships 77. Developing a reputation as an honest broker of information. 78. Willing partners 79. Value people 80. Developing trust and credibility with your partners is the one of the most important things you can do from an agency perspective. You must be able to identify the community peer leaders that you need to work with to develop the trust relationship. All good effective partnerships have a project champion or CEO who may have to lead from behind... this can be an agency person or a partner with previous experience at the of bringing people together to address a common goal. In any case you must have tangible concrete results so that success builds success. If a partnership is nothing more than coordination meetings with nothing happening on the ground it will soon fail. Point at which partnership started to break down Breaking point Number Percent p roblem setting (finding or contacting appropriate partners) 7 3.4 direction setting (establishing goals, setting ground rules) 28 13.7 structuring (devising a framework to guide future action, definition of roles, formalization of process) 27 13.2 implementing (project management, activity, production) 50 24.4 assessing outcomes (impact assessment) 6 2.9

PAGE 127

117 Primary incentive behind the formation of the less successful partnership Primary incentive Number Percent To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) 14 6.8 To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality) 57 27.8 To resolve an existing natural resource conflict 14 6.8 To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species) 6 2.9 To establish a new relationship 5 2.4 To improve existing relationships (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors) 6 2.9 Opportunity/circumstance 8 3.9 Other (please specify) 9 4.4 To build and operate a visitor center To resolve common natural resource problems Improve function of the leadership team within office Compliance with the ESA To fulfill a state natural resource mandate Our need with symbiosis To celebrate the anniversary of a major piece of federal resource protection legislation Being assigned to a team (partnership) and conducting a procedural role. Mandate of Agency Other important incentives that led to the formation of the less successful partnership Other incentives Number Percent To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies) 20 10.6 To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality) 35 18.6 To resolve an existing natural resource conflict 23 12.2 To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species) 20 10.6 To establish a new relationship 18 9.6 To improve existing relationships (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors) 37 19.7 Opportunity/circumstance 32 17.0 Other (please specify) 3 1.7 To provide proactive habitat enhancement for listed and candidate species 7 Million Dollars New program of EPA

PAGE 128

118 Partners in less successful example Partners Number Percent Federal Agency(ies) 78 21.25 State Agency(ies) 74 20.16 Local Government(s) 45 12.26 Tribes 16 4.36 Formal/Non-formal Educational Institution(s) 17 4.63 Private Individual(s) 53 14.44 Commercial/Industrial Enterprises 21 5.72 N on-commerical non-governmental organization(s) 56 15.26 Other (please specify) 7 1.92 A group of federal, state, and private entities from a different region that try to dictate what we do in our region FWS leadership team within office NGO Foreign nations All the above Commercial non-gov't 501c3 Academia Number of partners active in the less successful partnership Number of active partners Number Percent 1 8 3.9 2-4 45 22.0 5-9 34 16.6 10-19 21 10.2 20-35 5 2.4 36+ 3 1.5 Number of partners not active in the less successful partnership Number of partners not active Number Percent 0 93 45.4 1-4 43 21.0 5-9 41 20.0 10-19 17 8.3 20-35 8 3.9 36+ 3 1.5 Scale on which the less successful partnership is active Scale Number Percent International 2 1.48 National 8 5.92 Regional 33 24.44 State 33 24.44 Local 59 43.70

PAGE 129

119 Obstacles most responsible for lack of success sorted by mean List of Skills and Abilities Number Sum Mean SD Creating a common goal for the group 205 42 .20 .40 Building trust among group members 205 39 .19 .39 Articulating a shared vision for the group 205 35 .17 .38 Overcoming budget restrictions of partners 205 34 .17 .37 Finding financial resources 205 33 .16 .37 Developing a plan with clear, measurable objectives 205 31 .15 .36 Effectively working with antagonistic partners 205 31 .15 .36 Figuring out how to deal with disparate missions of partners 205 23 .11 .32 Developing a timeline 205 17 .08 .28 Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than your own 205 17 .08 .28 Creating a written agreement for all members 205 16 .08 .27 Identifying appropriate partners 205 16 .08 .27 Finding FWS agency personnel to provide assistance 205 14 .07 .25 Setting aside deeply held opinions 205 14 .07 .25 Defining your role in the partnership 205 14 .07 .25 Accepting different points of view 205 13 .06 .24 Knowing who in the community should be in the partnership 205 13 .06 .24 Knowing partners' roles in the partnership 205 13 .06 .24 Being able to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even if you are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency 205 12 .06 .24 Increasing comfort level for new group members 205 11 .05 .07 Knowing which structure to use for a partnership 205 11 .05 .23 Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource management 205 11 .05 .23 Knowing when the agency can accept compromise 205 10 .05 .22 Accepting compromise willingly 205 10 .05 .22 Not letting difficult situations bother you 205 9 .04 .21 Finding a way to work with individuals who can not speak effectively for their agency/organization 205 9 .04 .21 Conveying technical information to others who do not share your knowledge of the subject 205 9 .04 .21 Participating when you are not the lead agency and/or have no clear authority 205 8 .04 .19 Effectively working with people outside of your agency 205 8 .04 .19 Understanding the influence of the current administration on partnerships 205 8 .04 .19 Knowing what paperwork need to be completed 205 8 .04 .19 Actively listening 205 8 .04 .19 Thorough understanding of your partners background, mission, and goals 205 7 .03 .18 Speaking clearly 205 6 .03 .17 Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant 205 6 .03 .17 Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships 205 4 .02 .14 Having the academic background and/or technical training you need to be an effective member of the partnership 205 4 .02 .14 Controlling your temper in difficult situations 205 3 .01 .12 Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships 205 3 .01 .12 Finding equipment 205 2 .01 .10 Being comfortable in a group setting 205 2 .01 .10

PAGE 130

120 Category of skills and abilities that was the biggest obstacle Category Number Percent Assessing your partners background and goals 31 29.52 Locating agency support 22 20.95 Communication skills ("People skills") 19 18.10 Understanding your role/Service's role in the process 9 8.57 Knowing and applying steps of partnership development 9 8.57 Knowing how to work with a diverse range of partners 8 7.62 Being able to set the people apart from the issue 7 6.67 Other obstacles that contributed to lack of success 1. The answers I could choose from in questions 9. and 10. do not reflect the problem with this partnership. The reason the partnership is strained is that one partner is NOT meeting their obligations. This puts additional pressure on the other partners to provide financial and/or technical resources to take up the slack left by the other partner. 2. Service personnel who were unwilling to set aside time to complete necessary steps to reach the goal. 3. Primarily the partners in this region feel that they continue to accomplish the needed goals to monitor an endangered fish with low impact. However the entities from the other region want specific results that will lead to more detrimental handling and insurmountable financial difficulties. 4. Not having a written agreement with clearly defined goals and objectives, roles and responsibilities, and intended use for available funding. 5. The group was to diverse and had to many diverging goals. Smaller groups with common goals would have met resource and partnership challenges. 6. Lack of pre-project planning, failure to fully investigate other issues which may be a problem for project implementation (i.e. Potential permitting issues), disparity of partner goals leading to conflicts in final design (i.e. Highly managed vs more natural system design accommodating fish passage issues into wetland design). 7. Politics.... 8. different goals group wanted to plan and update plans with less interest in implementation of plan 9. The biggest obstacle is the widespread knowledge that this administration is not willing to aggressively enforce the law so the partners have little incentive to comply with the law. 10. Knowing or not knowing hidden agendas of certain partners. 11. one member with personality disorder who refused to respect ground rules 12. difficulty in communicating with partners all over the world (no common language) lack of funding for meeting travel lack of guidance from chairman to subcommittees 13. Problematic personalities; conflicting understanding of the value of the venture 14. While the partnership had tangible successes it ceased to continue over one specific issue where differences in opinions could not be resolved. 15. Inability to agree on a common goal that could meet everyone's needs 16. The group was too big; included too many members. 2. There was not a consistent facilitator or coordinator of the group. 17. Not having enough time to understand clearing all the issues. Getting past strong personalities and egos. 18. U.S. Forest Service staff was not honest and forthcoming. They were dead set against the project from the outset but pretended to be cooperating while setting up every administrative obstacle they could think of. 19. Lack of personnel on the ground to deliver the program 20. larger political issues within one of the partner's organizations so we were all doing this great project but budget structures program jealousy etc. made it not work the following year 21. It is not uncommon to find that you are trying to develop a partnership with either someone who is not trustworthy or does not fulfill commitments or who as an individual or agency/organization has an

PAGE 131

121 attitude about the agency you are representing (eg. the federal government) because of historic conflicts. 22. I inherited this partnership midway the transition was not smooth. 23. Lack of funding to implement the stated research and monitoring projects. 24. The project leader ignored other partner's concerns and comments included projects to get funding but did not intend to do and refused to finalize a proposal prior to starting the project. 25. Flexibility 26. Ability of partners to commit the time needed for a more successful partnership. 27. time to devote to the partnership was the biggest obstacle. Unable to devote adequate time to a partnership is the biggest contributor to the failure of partnerships in this agency. -Lack of Staff time28. Non-traditional partnerships with turf issues, cultural issues and differences and least informed leadership (Public Facilities District) on vision goals and o project technical skills. 29. Other agencies regulatory requirements were not addressed early in the process. Financial implications of the conservation were greater than the partners were willing to take on. 30. I find that the biggest stumbling block to developing projects through partnerships is simply the work of getting the project done. People start out with loads of energy but then get beset with other priorities. 31. Lack of timely partner involvement at key periods of planning (partner dropping the ball) 32. External agenda setting, non-voting member status for USFWS, after-the-fact agreements. 33. Personal Agendas 34. Getting full participation, follow through, and acceptance of responsibility. 35. Top down approach! We along with some other Federal State and NGO's went into a community and held public meetings prior to building trust and credibility with the local folks. Based on the typical government approach we need to invite everyone to the table to find out what the issues are and then try to solve them. This may work in some areas but certainly not in the rural west. The FWS needs to lead from behind; we need to build trust and credibility prior to ever holding public meetings! The meetings and the structure should come because that is what the locals want to have happen it can't be forced on them, and that is why we failed. 36. Lack of interest 37. Erosion of state-level political support for the partnership based on concerns of commercial entities. 38. We were contacted to become part of a project we signed an agreement to provide technical and financial support another agency had made the initial contact with the private landowner and it was my understanding that the process for the completion of the project had been adequately explained to the landowner. The project was designed and implemented by the Service and partially funded by the Service. When the project was completed problems arose with the landowner following through with the financial re-imbursement of the contractor and it became apparent when I sat down with the landowner that the process had not been adequately explained to the landowner by the agency representative and that I should have done a better job insuring this explanation with the private landowner. 39. Technical skills needed to correct resource problem 40. Lacking a strong leader Partners not committed to the partnership Project area to large and complex. External factors that made the project difficult. 41. Unclear goals unclear responsibilities 42. contracted vendor went bankrupt during project implementation 43. when objective factors point to it being able to get out of a partnership when it no longer benefits you. 44. Incompatible beliefs and goals of partner in relation to other partner's perspectives 45. This is the same partnership I used for an example of a successful partnership. It is successful in that the partners are still actively working toward trying to achieve its mission. On the other hand, it has failed to accomplish its mission in an expedient timely manner. 46. over-rides of partnerships by outside politics or higher agency-level interference with goals agreed upon within the partnership due to politics 47. Essentially leadership changed in at the local level and new partner did not have the same creativity and flexibility. State and Federal partners started dropping out. 48. Not having a local agency presence in the community made it difficult to develop trust and deliver tangible results. You have to put a face on the bureaucracy. Partnerships are like a marriage not a

PAGE 132

122 one-night stand... they take lots of time and nurturing to develop. Often agencies want immediate results or have specific outcomes that need to be accomplished within a fiscal year. Partnerships don't come together because someone wrote a plan that specified the number of outputs to be accomplished within a rigid timeline. Agencies must realize that we need to color outside the lines. 49. Different agendas driving from behind without willingness to compromise. 50. Greed and politics driven by lawyers 51. None of your questions fit my situation. The partnership did not work because the other agency did not commit the staff resources to make it a productive, long term relationship. 52. The partnership was mandated by higher authorities not entered into willingly by all partners. 53. Partner did not want to partner but to take care of their own needs. Partner worked behind our backs and not in collaboration. 54. Highly heated personal issue. 55. State politics Ways to judge whether or not a partnership was successful 1. Partnership continuing and everyone working toward a common goal. 2. a measurable product 3. Goals of partnership were accomplished. 4. On-the-ground conservation benefits and landowner satisfaction 5. Common goal is agreed upon action is taken to achieve the goal and goal is reached. 6. It has become a win/win situation 7. Final outcome of the project is to buy land for the refuge. If we succeeded then we met our goal. Of course in succeeding we worked together in a professional sense, acknowledged each other strengths and weaknesses, and saw where we could help each other protect land. It is advantageous for the FWS to have partners who can help us with our mission since budgets are shrinking and we have land to protect from development. Without partners like NGOs we can't do as much on our own. 8. Are the resource goals met? Can we extend this partnership by increasing the goals? 9. IF fish or wildlife habitat was restored. 10. If habitat restoration/enhancement has been initiated and is leading toward accomplishing goals. 11. Net gain for the resources we are charged with protecting. 12. If the goals are not met the partnership fails. 13. If I built lasting relationships the partnership was successful. I may not meet all of the objectives of any one project but if I can build on even minor success with a partner something good will eventually come. 14. If all partners agree that the project was successful. 15. A good relationship was built; the partnership continues. Partners feel good about the outcome. The resource was protected/restored/conserved. Good cost: benefit ratio for outcome. Long term protection of the outcome. 16. Goals and objectives of the partnership are successfully met; all partners are happy and satisfied--win-win 17. The ability for the group to work together to produce measurable accomplishments. 18. resource objective is accomplished with willing consensus of the stakeholders/affected parties/partners 19. By evaluating the outcomes even the negatives. 20. The success of the partnership can be judged by the relationships developed in the process and the quality and quantity of the projects. 21. If partners are reasonably satisfied with the results. If their needs were addressed in the outcome. If partnership leads to future projects if individuals would agree to work together again If the resource is protected enhanced etc 22. Whether or not our funding timelines were met and project was implemented, resource goals and partner's goals both achieved, cost effectiveness maintained. 23. All partners work well together to ensure that project objectives are met. 24. Doing actions that bring the partnership closer or completion of the established goal. Being able to measure positive changes in issues that caused the partnership to form.

PAGE 133

123 25. Whether a tangible, demonstrable result was reached one that all members of the partnership recognize and agree upon as being the end result of what we set out to do. 26. 1. Parties involved came to conclusion of a common goal. 2. A relationship was established and another partnership can be established on additional goals. 27. whether or not I was able to establish a working relationship with the other group or individual. 28. The group must feel success and see the completion of goals/projects in order to remain in the partnership 29. a completed habitat project 30. tangible habitat accomplishments non-FWS funds leveraged 31. Whether or not we got the job done satisfactorily or not. 32. If the on-the-ground restoration activity is completed and the partners want to take on another similar project it was a success. 33. When something happens on the ground not just talk! 34. Was the goal accomplished? Were the participants satisfied with the outcome? 35. Results either improved communication and trust or on the ground results. 36. A partnership is considered successful based on each agency or group meeting the expectancy of the deliverables. 37. 1. Degree of change in number or make-up partners. An increase in number of partners is healthy. However losing partners from the partnership is not. 2. Meeting discreet goals. Getting something on-the-ground accomplished. 3. The ability to identify new goals or objectives as the partnership ages. New energy into the partnership. 38. If goals of entering partnership are met In the latter case our goal was to develop partnership for habitat conservation group interested in developing a plan and updating plan but not in actual implementation so little was actually accomplished by group other than the agreement that habitat conservation was an important issue and goals developed 39. Whether or not we were able to implement the investigation or activity. 40. Success if dependent upon the partners' ability work cooperatively on a good project proposal to successfully obligate funds, efficient expenditure of funds for stated objectives, measurable results. 41. By the accomplishments whether tangible or not; ie while the partnership may not accomplish the original goal the relationship led to other success. 42. The accomplishment of restoration goals. 43. Tangible benefits plus the condition of our relationship with partners at the end of the project. 44. Did we fully achieve the goals? 45. if habitat improvement objectives are reached in a cost-effective manner. 46. If the partnership continues even though one mission fails, it is a good partnership and after several projects some positive work is done. 47. The results in protecting our environment and wildlife both short term and long term. 48. Was the goal or mission accomplished or were relationships strengthened. 49. We are successful if we achieve the goal or objective for which we were working. 50. Successful restoration on the ground 51. whether there were any benefits at all from the partnership. even if objectives were not achieved if lines of communication remain open then there is at least some success because it may lay the groundwork for a future collaboration 52. Whether the goals and objectives of the partnership were achieved or substantial progress made without significant strife between the partners. 53. I judge the effectiveness of a partnership by the continuing interest (or lact thereof) in the goals of the partnership and continuing willingness to participate. 54. outcome 55. On-the-ground results with satisfied partners and landowners 56. We continue to work together to develop projects under the partnership agreement 57. If the end goal was accomplished and also if new goals for the partnership are developed and attempted. 58. the same problems in communication keep occurring causing delays in producing results; these problems are caused by one person who refuses to cooperate on any but his own terms 59. A successful partnership results in meeting the various goals and objectives of all partners.

PAGE 134

124 60. If it lasts; if it produces results (agreement cessation of antagonism products); if it is more often pleasant than not 61. Completion of a project to the satisfaction of all parties. 62. success was a measure of actual on-the-ground accomplishments and support provided to support the Presidents program budgets 63. Do all partners feel a sense of accomplishment for their respective organizations? 64. Success has a wide range. In some partnerships it may be accomplishing a specific resource objective. In others it may be developing relationships that have future benefits. I consider a partnership non-successful if it did not build better understanding, did not enhance the credibility of the service, did not improve relationships with others, or did not result in resource accomplishments. 65. Does the partnership last? 66. Products 67. do they achieve results 68. 1. Projected is completed 2. Goals of project are met 3. Relationships established in the partnership continue and carry over into other into other areas of work. 4. 69. Feedback from multiple audiences and satisfaction of partners. 70. Whether we accomplish habitat restoration with individual land owners 71. Whether we can make it a win-win situation for most of the partners and do something to help the resource. 72. If we make progress on our objective. 73. if partners want to collaborate again 74. Project was implemented, all goals & objectives were met (according to monitoring activities of recent years). The same partners continued to work on other projects. 75. If our project was built and functioned well enough to accomplish our agreed-upon goals. 76. Implementing projects that meet partnership objectives. Acceptance of projects in the community Evidence of local ownership of the partnership and commitment to continue addressing resource concerns 77. Accomplishing one or more goals through consensus 78. The impact on the resources and relationships and trust developed from the partnership 79. Whether or not the objectives were ultimately achieved. 80. Degree of progress towards achieving the established goals and objectives 81. My partnerships are still being formed (so I haven't had much experience with them yet). I have been an invited speaker to many conservation groups to provide outreach type information. I consider this a beginning success. I expect success within the partnership by having active members complete outreach materials and have them delivered to the public. Increasing the partnership members may also be success. Finally getting volunteers from the partnership to assist with on-the-ground conservation will be a success. 82. The actual restoration of habitat. 83. Based on acres restored/enhanced 84. whether you accomplish the work 85. Did it result in a tangible accomplishment or did it improve relationships to such a degree that something tangible is more likely to occur in the future. 86. Whether or not common goals have been achieved 87. if we accomplished what we set out to accomplish 88. An identified, measurable natural resource outcome has been accomplished. 89. Tangible accomplishments as a result of the partnership, willingness of members to continue working together. 90. On the ground accomplishments; willingness to continue/expand existing partnerships with new or additional goals 91. Ability to identify objectives and identify appropriate partners and the degree to which objectives are accomplished. 92. If the stated goal(s) or objective(s) were accomplished. For example, did the project address the questions that were determined to be of importance? 93. Measurable goals and if partners are interested in working together again. 94. Willingness to continue participation annually 95. results

PAGE 135

125 96. The stated goals are achieved. Meetings are effective and timely. 97. Whether or not the goal of the partnership is achieved. 98. Do the partners understand the desired goal/outcome and their respective roles in achieving that goal. Is any portion of the goal measurable so success can be documented to show partners and potential partners. 99. If goals are accomplished and maintained 100. Management Plan is implemented, on-the-ground projects are conducted, and willing participation by landowners and participating agencies. 101. 1) Accomplishment of stated on-the-ground objectives; 2) Improved relationships among partners; 3) Continued interest in partnership by existing and new partners. 102. Did you accomplish defined objectives 103. It is successful when most members agree the partnership has made a positive impact on natural resources conservation. 104. Was there a product developed which addressed a specific issue-concern 105. Measurable outcomes Willingness by parties to do it again Willingness by all parties to defend the outcome 106. Goals are met and partnerships are sustained to meet new goals. 107. All of the Regional Partnerships are still working (except one)...I don't know the outcome yet. Individual/localized partnerships success was typically defined with the issuance of a endangered species permit. 108. Habitat restoration is completed on-the-ground. 109. Implementation of the restoration project 110. outcome compared to goals/objectives 111. People are excited to meet again and continue. 112. longevity partners still meeting their goals it's not about control flexibility everyone gets to participate like a family dysfunctional at times people are happy 113. I was deemed successful when the goals established by the team were met. 114. Did the partners achieve things together that they were not able to achieve separately? Do the partners want to work together again? 115. Beneficial knowledge gain and if possible successful outcome. 116. By the results obtained from the partnership. 117. If the described outcomes have been reached successfully and agreeably by all parties. 118. If the partnership constructively addresses problems and develops solutions or approaches to issues; communication continues through disagreements or disparity in perspectives; they call me as much as I call them. 119. See notes in previous sections 120. achievement of a goal and sustain the partnership 121. Did we accomplish the mission of developing a Regional Interpretive and Heritage Center and the funds to build it. Did we raise a Phoenix from the ashes of several separate interest groups desires into one larger story. Do we have a greater appreciation and understanding of each other. Synergy 122. Achieved the goals and objectives of the program or project while maintaining a good working relationship with the partners 123. positive feeling from both sides and a product 124. The project is completed, the money spent, and everyone is happy. 125. Were the goals in general met and is the partnership still enacted after the process. 126. Everyone has a win-win attitude and there are no serious complaints and negative dialog. Stated goals and objectives are met or adequate rationale provided. 127. Did the project result in benefits to improving/protecting habitat and did it build partnerships and educate about natural resource values. 128. Meeting the specified objectives and doing so with consensus at each step or at least overall agreement. 129. (1) How quickly common ground is identified. (2) How quickly goals are set plans made. (3) How well goals/plans are implemented. (4) Increased use by trust resources upon completion. (5) Partner satisfaction. 130. Work progressing towards objective

PAGE 136

126 131. If there are natural resource gains made that would not have been made without the partnership and if relationships were formed or strengthened that will help in the future. 132. Accomplishment of stated objectives. 133. 1. bonded by and committed to achieving a common goal 2. bonding was through shared values and mutual interests 3. meaningful involvement 4. staff talent and funding available to nurture the partnership 5. including rather than excluding partners 134. 1. Are all partners committed? 2. Is there a common goal or goals? 3. Were those goals reached (if truly possible? 4. Are the majority of partners still able to work together after involvement in the partnership? 135. If we achieved anything which could not have been done by any partner individually. 136. Many ways but ultimately for the FWS is has to come down to the biology. The only problem with this is sometimes the biological results take years to achieve. Partnerships need tangible results on a yearly basis. So sometimes bringing money in is a success new partners on the ground projects, brochures etc. But always with the long goal of the resource. 137. If we are making progress toward goals that were originally set or if we have successfully identified and taken advantage of new opportunities. 138. On the ground benefit to fish and wildlife resources. 139. Mutually agreed goals and objectives are met (or are being accomplished) 140. Goals are accomplished and partnerships are supportive of accomplishment. 141. Resources are improved for the actual landowners and the improvements benefit the Service's trust species. Also another important 142. Partnership longevity, developing new initiatives, and challenges. Overcoming constant budget problems. 143. tangible results on the ground and customer satisfaction 144. Communication, Progress reports on achieving the common goal. 145. A resource issue was recognized and implemented on the ground. 146. If you got the work done and involved partners are satisfied. 147. Accomplishment of goals How well we work together 148. Achieving set goals 149. If we accomplish our goals. 150. When all partners have been pleased with the habitat restoration results accomplished 151. As these are ongoing projects, it would be inappropriate to judge them overall successful or not. Some things works some don't. 152. If the goals were achieved to some degree, if a majority of parties are satisfied with the outcomes, and/or if the current project ends but relations amongst the partners are good enough to establish other projects in the future. 153. Whether or not the established goals where largely or completely realized. 154. If they take my calls immediately or put me off. 155. Meet the goals of the group. 156. were the goals & objectives satisfied? 157. If you have broad participation from partners who initially you may have felt were the opposition. Inviting only your supporters to the partnership is a critical error. Also the partnership must result in tangible concrete projects getting done that benefit the shared vision or common goal. 158. Acres of habitat protection and restoration. 159. A successful partnership should give the partners a sense of accomplishment from developing a win/win agreement. Everyone should believe that their needs/concerns were heard and addressed. 160. either the partners are continuing to work towards a common goal or the goal has been reached. 161. 1. If the partnership has resolved the issue/issues. 2. If the partnership continues to be active. 3. If the partnership created additional opportunities for partnering. 162. Buy in by the partners, willingness to compromise for the good of a common goal, and measurable results for the resource. 163. Am I seeing results that benefit my agency and also benefit partners 164. Final product. 165. Members that participate, relationships, and outcomes. 166. Outcome did all partners end up with viable solutions or outcome 167. On the ground results improved relationships that have other on the ground result benefits

PAGE 137

127 168. by outcomes realized; whether the relationships formed through the partnerships continue and whether they continue to influence agency. 169. Met objectives developed new professional relationships 170. If there are positive outcomes. 171. Either the established goals were met or the long term relationships developed justifies the time and effort devoted to the project regardless of whether or not the goals were fully met. 172. Completion of a collaboratively developed project. 173. Did it effectively identify goals and then attain them. 174. Whether or not we can retain relationships, accomplish common goals, and benefit the resources with the results of our project. 175. Goals and objectives are met; parties are still interested in participating. 176. Success is defined by the quantity and quality of landscape accomplishments. 177. Were results achieved? It doesn't matter to what extent though. 178. Both sides agree and feel they have contributed toward a worthwhile project. 179. The degree to which partnership members are actively involved and promoting same. 180. If it met the agreed-upon goals and objectives 181. If the goals and objectives of the partnership were achieved in a timely manner. 182. was the stated goal accomplished and are the partners still communicating after the specific project is finished 183. Did you achieve your goals Tools/resources needed 1. Listening 2. funding 3. Limited paperwork. Simple policy. 4. updated training current brochures describing FWS programs 5. interpersonal communications 6. More practice with actual partnerships. I have taken classes but need the actual experiences to build upon. One does need a commitment to the job and the ability to ride with the ups and downs. One does need the ability to work with others outside the agency and within the agency. Often times it is our own agency management which puts restrictions on how much we can do. 7. Agency support (including financial resources) 8. Training 9. Support of the agency. 10. less top down influence 11. Training and specifically more resources that explain the dos and donts of partnerships. 12. Clear goals and objective setting, Timeline, Identification of resources needed and the means to get them (grants donations volunteers) 13. Support from upper management. 14. Good and persistent communication skills Staying on top of the issues-oversight Correcting problems to the satisfaction of all partners in a timely manner 15. trust and credibility 16. training on communication skills, training on team process/facilitation, knowledge of grant/funding programs and how to apply for funds, Partnership training should be mandated for all Service personnel 17. time & energy 18. The people and trust building skills are so important, Having adequate training and mentoring are essential tools, A flexible budget and the support of your agency is critical resource. 19. to be able to understand diverse viewpoints/beliefs, to work together to attempt to achieve a win-win outcome, to step back and de-emotionalize an adverse emotional reaction to a partner's actions 20. More staff time needs to be dedicated to partnership development (new ones) and to ongoing project management. This would enable more strategic (rather than opportunistic) partnership formation and broader involvement of more partners. More Service technical resources need to be available (survey engineering design and geomorphology expertise)

PAGE 138

128 21. People skills. Being given the authority to act on behalf of the FWS with no supervisor changing your decisions or position within the partnership. 22. Less policy restrictions and guidance from the region and Washington. Micromanagement is killing this agency. Bureaucrats cannot comprehend effective partnerships by sitting in front of a computer staring at the results of an anonymous survey -the only way our leadership will ever figure out how things can be effective will be to get out on the ground involved with projects and landowners. Not for a week through and NCTC junket to Wyoming and not from a 20 minute PowerPoint presentation from a Partners program biologist but by doing it themselves. 1. Funding (Agency/Congressional support). 2. Understanding partner(s) background and reasoning for desired result. 3. That compromising on objectives is an option. 4. Ability to present complex ideas or plans (orally and written) at a level that is easily understood by partners. 23. Give up your own/agencies rules and regulations or sense of being in charge in order to gain the common goal. 24. time money travel budget 25. flexibility & creativity effective time-management more discretionary dollars 26. Adequate training, adequate support resources, and a personal commitment to not allow failure to be an option. 27. You need enough time to develop a relationship with the partners. You need to be enough of a people person to get to know the others on a personal level. You need be willing and able to contribute something to help accomplish the goals of the partnership (funding, facilitation, grant writing, etc.). You need to be a resource for the partnership; be able to provide accurate information on all parts of the FWS. If you are asked about something you don't know, say you will find out the answer and get back to them. Then get back to them (follow through). This has happened many times in my experience: a partner gets know you on a personal level, learns to trust you as a competent individual, and thus learns to trust the FWS enough to work with us on a project. Supervisors of employees working on partnerships need to give the employee enough freedom to develop partnerships without demanding instant results. I have been fortunate to have supervisors who realize that more can be accomplished via partnerships than via regulation and that partnership development takes time. 28. It helps to have someone on a committee/board/etc that has experience in successful partnerships. Helps when people park their ego at the door. It is helpful to have a planner or organized person on the committee. Need to have a chairperson or facilitator. Helpful to have funds or ability to raise funds. 29. Time to devote to partnerships 30. Patience 31. A lot of the skills are learned on the job or by actively undertaking a partnership project. 32. 1. Effective formal training. 2. Ability to identify new/appropriate partners. 3. Ability to integrate the partnership into the community. 33. I wanted to comment on questions in first section. I did not answer some because the proper answer would have been both answers; partnerships are both planned and opportunistic; they are both initiated by us and by others; time is spent both sustaining and building new partnerships; I think to be successful one must be able to be as flexible as possible. There is no one size fits all in partnerships... no cookbook. Thanks 34. Verbal and written communications listening skills technical skills 35. Efficiency to comply with federal and state regulations upon the obligation of funds. 36. Training and experience. 37. Adequate funding 38. people skills 39. Time and travel money to meet face to face with partners. 40. For partnerships that evolve because of statutory mandates it is essential that the public know that the administration is prepared to enforce the laws. Examples of successful enforcement become powerful incentives for many other parties to work as partners. 41. Depends on the partnership. For some all of the resources are provided except for enough time in the day. For others, additional funding would help. 42. We need staff to develop and implement partnerships; or at least staff to take care of other daily details so that I can invest time in the partnerships. 43. Time is the biggest factor. Partnerships need a lot of massaging. If there is not enough time to dedicate to a partnership due to other responsibilities your involvement becomes less and less

PAGE 139

129 important to others in the partnership if that partnership was started by others; and if the Service formed the partnership if other commitments are in the way the partnership could fail due to lack of leadership. Enough staff to deliver the goods on the ground is also important. Generating interest on a particular project must net results. If there is a lack of available staff to address the needs of individuals in a partnership, the partnership can quickly falter. Effective training for ALL Service employees. 44. time money and people probably in that order 45. Financial and manpower resources through the support of upper management. 46. I think I need additional training in implementing partnerships. 47. Being a good listener and follow through. That builds trust & trust is what makes partnerships succeed 48. Knowledge of all tools available for fostering and working with partners. 49. Support from above. b. Training in people skills and group dynamics. c. Personality traits which allow for compromise (without giving away the store) and which demonstrate trust, honesty, and integrity. 50. Authority to contribute funds or in-kind services towards the partnership. Authority to make decisions 51. Good communication skills 52. TIME! It takes time to develop and grow partnerships. It can take longer to accomplish resource objectives but in making cases the solutions are more long lasting. Timing of involvement needs to be flexible to meet partners schedules and needs. Not all partnerships will result in immediate results and we need to accept the time commitment up front to invest in relationships for the long term. 53. More time to work with the partners, more staff to assist in working with the partners. 54. Communication skills. People skills. The ability to see what CAN be done rather than to focus on what CANNOT be done. 55. Time Perseverance Ability to build TRUST in your partners Deliver what you promise 1. More training on how to structure a partnership; working with antagonistic people; gaining (our) agency support. 56. Is there a tool/resource for developing patience and compassion? 57. An adequate budget to do the work and spend the time to accomplish the goal. 58. Time I need more time to use the tools and resources I have available. 59. time information facilities 60. A different position 61. This question is too nebulous. I had what I needed except for one idiotic thing---the inability of the FWS to purchase coffee and cookies for meetings-I had to do this out of my pocket. 62. Exchange of information from successful partnerships in other parts of the country. There are obviously more and perhaps better ways to do things...innovative approachesadditional ways to leverage funds as well as sources of funds. 63. TIME which is currently allocated to permitting and other regulatory issues. 64. Ability to make decisions at the field level! 65. An opportunity to participate first in a partnership that is non-threatening in order to gain experience and build confidence in one's self prior to engaging in one likely to be highly controversial and stressful: jumping into a potentially hostile situation without experience and confidence will likely lead to failure for the partner you represent Plenty of opportunity to practice and improve those communication/people skills under various circumstances: unless you are exceptionally gifted it takes time and experience to learn how to maintain good communication skills and an objective point of view in heated/stressful situations 66. Not really sure. 67. Training on the rules of partnerships so that no legal boundaries are violated. 68. FUNDING AND PERSONNEL TO IMPLEMENT 69. time 70. Support from supervisors/leaders within the agency to allow flexibility necessary and at least a minimum amount of financial resources on which to build. 71. Normally lack of funding coupled with the inexperience/ignorance of funding opportunities is the limiting factor in successful partnerships 72. time and people to tend to the partnerships

PAGE 140

130 73. Most skills and abilities are behavioral attributes in nature and therefore difficult to describe in terms of tools or resources. 74. Support of upper level management for field staff to be creative in developing partnerships. 75. Time to build a trusting relationship 76. Partnership building training Public outreach training Communications skills 77. open personality willingness to listen effort to go beyond what is needed avoiding the tragedy of the commons negotiation and compromise 78. time and authority 79. Funding and time 80. training money 81. Time management support. 82. Ability to motivate people to participate and see benefit of participating. 83. Time and staff support 84. Need more assistance. Need full time staff dedicated to a partnership. Need funding and full cooperation by resource agencies. 85. Funding to accomplish objectives through grants (i.e. grant writing skills) as well as the staff time to devote to grant writing/administration More advanced training in partnership development/maintenance (e.g. roundtable discussions of people involved in actual partnerships not just cookie-cutter approaches) 86. Time and money 87. a firm commitment to accomplishing the goal of the partnership is critical 88. Communication training knowing your own style as well as that of others at the table 89. Time to attend formal training sessions. 90. Agency support. 91. Having enough time to commit to the partnerships is a problem.. 92. People skills 93. communication skills psychology skills good business skills diplomacy skills supervisory skills arbitration skills 94. Funding Time Effort on behalf of the partners Support from supervisor 95. Time and Authority 96. I need more money to bring to the table to help to encourage more partnerships. 97. articulate thoughts well listen well write well be enthusiastic be responsible be dependable be positive 98. phone and internet; travel resources to support meetings 99. time money staff 100. staff and money 101. Communication communication communication. People Skills, Active Listening, Compromise, leading from the rear. 102. Programs need to be fully funded so that the Service can bring something to the table (dollars, expertise, etc) staff workload has to be managed so that the FWS has sufficient time to do the job right and in a timely fashion; and training needs to be provided to FWS staff in programs laws partnerships and resource issues such as restoration screens etc). 103. speaking and listening and knowing the paperwork 104. Very unclear question. 105. I didn't indicate any. 106. Negotiation/communication skills; building trust and credibility with partners 107. Many of the skills are personality traits like ability to work with others motivated ability to multitask. This is not the type of stuff you learn in a 4-day class. 108. Funds for travel are crucial and are currently being limited. When we are unable to meet with partners our voice is greatly diminished. Opportunities to pursue technical training to help meet the needs of the project. 109. (1) More understanding of our own responsibility to meet federal state regulations. (2) Team building or facilitation training. 110. working knowledge of service regulations and processes

PAGE 141

131 111. Need the people with the right background and training to engage in the process and need fiscal and human resources to do our core set of tasks before we can devote time and energy to establishing and maintaining partnerships. 112. 1. appropriate staff talent 2. sufficient funding 3. senior-level management support 4. time to nurture the partnership 113. people skills 114. Good people skills and a commitment to the partnership goals. 115. Basic partnership training such as Partnerships in Practice. On-the-ground experience working one on one with partners. Finding a mentor who can spend sometime upfront with new employees and be available for the many questions that they will have over the first 5 plus years. Patience is critical the supervisor has to understand the partnerships take years not weeks or months!!! 116. More training in use of technical tools including GIS etc. 117. More emphasis on the ground results and less on policy and procedure. Policy and procedure is necessary but results should be measured on the ground and not in a file cabinet or hard drive. 118. Flexible decision process and responsive financial commitment. To avoid knee-jerk reactions or inability to respond to opportunities we need enlightened thinking to prepare (i.e. plan) for opportunities that will present themselves. 119. Communication, knowledge of resources, and knowledge of agency policy and guidance. 120. Good people skills and the ability to personal differences aside to accomplish a common goal. All parties have to benefit from the project and the ability to generate or contribute funding or technical assistance is also important. 121. have financial or material resources to bring to the table as a fully engaged partner 122. Technical skill and people skills 123. Flexibility ability to obtain needed equipment persistence 124. Support of the Agency, Flexibility to be responsive to the needs of the partnership 125. TIME AND FUNDING 126. Highly trained staff in a diversity of disciplines funded with resource management funds. 127. More time staff and money 128. Adequate funding to bring something to the table other than my time 129. Available time is always the primary problem. 130. $$$ for travel and to 'prime the pump'. 131. Time is the single most thing agency staff need to develop and foster partnerships. It is difficult for agencies to simply give staff the freedom to go forth and do good things. Typically the agency wants to write a plan then take it out to our partners and sell it. This top-down approach is typically what kills many potential partnerships from developing. 132. A solid background in realistic on-the-ground habitat management and credibility. 133. Clearly articulating the Service's needs/concerns. Actively listening to potential partners' needs/concerns and looking for creative ways to address those issues. 134. time and agency support 135. Time and staffing. 136. Funding is almost always the biggest limitation. 137. Positive attitude not having mind made up willing to find common ground and working from there (ie. focus on what you agree on or have in common first rather than what are the disagreements that cause separation) 138. Facilitation training. 139. Clear messages from within the Service and full support from Management. 140. Agency support Appropriate funding 141. Time can't be proactive when you are tied up with reactive frivolous lawsuits and FOIAs. 142. need ongoing management support 143. Time which equates to enough human resources to take care of the day-to-day responsibilities and adequate technical/scientific support to answer questions 144. Time and money. 145. Funding from the Service is needed for the agency to be viewed by some as a serious partner/stakeholder. 146. Without funding it is difficult to be a real player in many partnerships. 147. Setting common goals and achieving them.

PAGE 142

132 148. Training and time/funds to attend training. An outreach planner/partner position that can devote time to this issue. 149. Time to put into the effort. Too involved with daily tasks due to lack of staff to put needed time into creating and maintaining partnerships. 150. Additional training and total support from the agency leadership. 151. A good neutral facilitator. A supportive agency head/supervisor. A realistic and somewhat flexible budget. 152. Time and good staff Categories of roadblocks sorted by mean Roadblock Mean SD funding 3.88 1.22 time 3.80 1.20 policy/procedure 3.07 1.28 paperwork 2.82 1.27 management support 2.77 1.39 other .56 1.31 What NCTC can offer employees 1. Not sure. 2. Don't know 3. Don't know 4. Don't know. 5. Don't know. 6. Nothing 7. Can't think of anything 8. I will need to give this question additional thought. 9. Since I haven't been in a partnership I'm not sure how NCTC can help fws. 10. I can't answer that because I don't know what the NCTC is offering now since I have not taken any of their courses on creating or maintaining partnerships. 11. Additional partnership building/communication training. 12. Updated training on partnership establishment and coordination that has the ability to be given at different locations around the country. 13. Continue offering classes with representatives from partnership agencies so that we can meet and discuss ways to work together. Brainstorm ideas for meeting common goals. Networking. Sharing weaknesses and strengths of our agency and where they can help. 14. The problems we face are not ones that can necessarily be resolved with more training in partnerships. I believe the best training EVERY field biologist and mid-level supervisor should have are 1. Workings of Congress as it relates to agency budget appropriations and 2. The Service's budget development process. That will be a tall order and should probably left to mid-level supervision and State Coordinators. 15. grant procurement training 16. Grant writing courses are good. A course focusing on the myriad conservation funding opportunities would be helpful. Courses on developing mission statements and planning documents for partnerships would likewise be helpful. 17. training on grants/funding sources; negotiation; and specific partnership categories 18. Redirect resources to on the ground projects 19. Courses in goal setting vision mission values objectives timelines process development people skills funding sources 20. Every case has a different scenario. Communication leading to a compromise that benefits the resource is key. If the compromise is solely to appease one of the entities then this will not work.

PAGE 143

133 21. Continue to offer partnerships-related courses. Offer tuition support for Service staff to attend with their partners. 22. Training that shows successful partnerships and breaks down what works and typically doesn't work in various situations. Hands on exercises to the extent possible. Negotiation training included. 23. Continue to develop interactive training that provides roll playing activities with diverse players. 24. Screening test to assess biologist's personality traits to determine suitability to partnership efforts; what traits do we look for when hiring new personnel; 25. They can offer courses that focus primarily on people skills something close to a salesmanship course. 26. field classes (outside NCTC) offering courses in negotiation training/other sorts of partnership training to diverse groups (not just FWS) 27. I thought the Recovery Implementation course was a good one; it emphasized that the responsibility for overcoming problems was ours at an individual level and that making good things happen was dependent on our ability to be creative. 28. In conducting training clearly outline the Service's policy in various partnerships. Provide priority partnership needs specific to each Region. 29. Educate administrators that building partnerships takes people with the right attitude, personality, and skills. Hiring someone just because they met OPM standard hiring policy does not ensure the person has the right personality for the specific culture he or she is working in. 30. 2 things come to mind One, an extended training course based upon the advanced partnerships course but one that lasts several weeks where the attendees actually develop a partnership and get something done on the ground. Second, a training program for administrators/program directors taught by landowners who have been involved in successful partnerships. Maybe if the powers-that-be hear it from the landowners rather than the budget or personnel office it will sink in. The overall message from the landowners to the policy people should be why their experience was good/bad. 31. Classes on establishing and maintaining partnerships for managers or creators of the partnerships but also for other personnel working on the partnerships. 32. Train NEWLY employed Service staff how to develop and maintain partnerships. Recovery/prevention of listings and the myriad of goals that the Service is trying to accomplish can NOT be accomplished by the Service alone. We need the wealth of knowledge and energy that other partners possess in order to meet our lofty goals. 33. train facilitation use facility for partnership meetings facilitate partnership meetings teach effective communication 34. inreach opportunities for upper level managers effective partnership training 35. NCTC could offer a course that provides students with the following (not in priority order): 1. Basic info on the various funding sources available (FWS funding as well as other sources: NRCS, NOAA, EPA, State, local, & private foundations, etc.). 2. A basic understanding of the FWS funding paperwork needed (cooperative agreements, grants, purchase order, etc.). 3. A working understanding of the federal compliance requirements for habitat restoration projects (NEPA, ESA, NHPA) as well as an overview of State and local compliance and permits required. For the latter, just giving the students an idea of what kinds of requirements to expect and where to find more specific info for each state would be enough. 4. Some background on conservation planning: deciding which projects are the highest priorities in your area rather than letting opportunity determine the projects you work on. What kinds of things are people in the FWS (and other conservation organizations) using to prioritize projects? 5. A mechanism for developing a network of people in the FWS who are working on partnerships that can provide advice when needed. 6. An introduction to facilitation so that students can learn how to find the common ground in a diverse group and define goals clearly. 7. Some kind of people skills training that includes active listening. 8. An introduction to project planning so that once an on-the-ground project is agreed upon it will get implemented in a timely manner. 9. A session on writing a good habitat restoration project proposal. 10. A session on workload prioritization. There are many different activities involved in partnership work. How do you know what to do when? 11. A session on outreach and media relations. 12. Lots of case studies and lessons learned. These are a great way for students to understand how non-linear partnership building can be that it usually takes longer to accomplish something than you anticipate and that each partnership is unique.

PAGE 144

134 36. The Basics course was very well done and the large case studies are great examples of the potential to accomplish big tasks. However the course should take time to illustrate (with examples) how much difference the many small partnerships involving individuals or local organizations can make in the success of an office's mission. 37. Concentrate on developing the basic communication skills which is the foundation to developing partnerships. 38. Continue to develop effective training in the partnership and gateway community arena. 39. More training on information on authorities of Service for entering partnerships e.g. fw coord act, etc. with examples. e.g. assisting other purchase land for habitat protection through NAWCA Coastal Program or there's more ways to permanently protect fish and wildlife habitat than establishing a NWRefugeNCTC already offers EXCELLENT courses through introductions leadership training program training and especially NCTC partnership training and excellent (probably best in world) advanced partnership roundtable training opportunities. Keep it up These are very important ... 40. Continue course OUT8118 41. Develop localized/regional workshops with local/regional PFW coordinators. 42. Develop material for broadcasting to a wider audience. 43. Workshop oriented classes dealing with Partnerships where successful partnerships are presented and discussed. 44. Continue to offer the Conservation Partnerships class. I learned a lot and met several people who provided interesting and exciting examples of how partnerships have worked for them. 45. NCTC at its Foundations training and perhaps other trainings does a very poor job of training FWS employees to recognize that they are regulators, not just people who work with partners. By not educating Service employees of the Service's statutory obligations and the obligations of the regulated public, Service employees are easily mislead by those who are regulated. This lack of education or Service support empowers the regulated to offer very little in partnerships. One timber official indicated in my class that if not for examples where the Service was willing to enforce the law the examples of great partnerships' may never have happened there wouldn't have been an incentive. 46. Offer training across the country and include the partners in the training 47. The training center can develop courses similar to an ecosystem approach to conservation to help develop the people skills necessary to recognize how to lead a group of people with different backgrounds towards a common goal. NCTC can also develop appropriate educational materials which speak to preserving biodiversity and why that should be important to Mr. and Mrs. Jones who live on 50 acres in Outoftheway County USA. We need a better message than what we are promoting as an agency now. 48. Im not sure since I am skeptical that partnership skills can be taught. In my experience you either have it or you don't. I think it is more important to be able to identify those traits in recruiting than it is to find a skilled biologist and try to train them in partnering. Perhaps providing a forum to share ideas/successes/failures would be good. 49. Provide more information on how field stations may acquire more personnel, funding, and administrative support to pursue partnerships. 50. I think NCTC could offer additional courses dealing specifically with implementing partnerships and getting the word out to potential students. 51. How to hold/build partnerships in an era when FWS budgets are not provided to field offices until well into the field season sometimes when the Fiscal Year is half over! 52. Change the mindset of most of the Service employees who think they can do it all themselves. 53. Offer a wider variety of partnership courses. The one I took was on large regional partnerships, but I work on smaller ones every day. For example partnerships with HCP's issuing permits, working with folks applying for and receiving non-traditional section 6 grants etc... Or, at least incorporate smaller examples into the training. 54. NCTC already has numerous training opportunities to develop partnership skills. Elements of these should be included in specific modules for leadership development courses (e.g. SUTL, ALD, etc.). 55. Teach Service employees how to publicly speak; continue to teach how to listen; continue to teach how to facilitate 56. Update Service employees on outcomes from previous Partnership Roundtable workshops. Whatever came out of the workshops held in TX amd MT? We had heard that the Service Director requested a

PAGE 145

135 priority listing of actions items that he could do both within and outside of policy to push partnerships to a new level in the Service? 57. Ecosystem Course Grant writing course 58. The most important aspect of a partnership is to know how to initiate the partnership and what tools and funding are available. A course that covers these basic but important aspects would be important. 59. Forums where folks can learn from each other. Training in risk assessment and how to deal with uncertainty. How to set up and implement an effective Adaptive Management Program. 60. Set up internships for new people to work with experienced practitioners. 61. Focus on providing training for those individuals who are not outgoing/not extroverts/not focused upon working with a team. Get them out of their cave and on the team pulling with the group. 62. Teach how to approach situations. USE EXAMPLES dont try and do it in the abstract. Get folks in who have done it. Teach negotiation skills, accountability training. 63. 1. More courses on creating partnerships and how to work with partners. 2. Make the courses as hands-on as possible e.g. incorporate field trips to partnership projects etc. 3. Create a FWS Partnership Network where employees who work with partners could have access to each other and share the benefits of experience and collaboration. 64. team and facilitator training. 65. How to find funding and leverage funds to do the work. 66. The Hans Bleiker training was excellent-anything similar to that. Also training in negotiation and conflict resolution. 67. Partnership training that covers the range of skills and tools that characterize effective partnerships. 68. Training for the endangered species folks that seem to always be wearing their combat boots We need to work on providing Service in a positive way to the public and the resource as our name implies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 69. Any class that provides opportunities to learn: how to communicate well under stressful/heated circumstances; how to keep listening objectively to others who may be hostile to FWS; how to talk with others outside of your comfort zone without talking down to them. 70. Help clarify the role and responsibilities of service representatives working with partners. 71. Training on the rules of partnerships so that no legal boundaries are violated. 72. Continued training 73. grant writing courses and other support to find funding 74. A mentoring program specific to this issue. 75. Online training; short job-aids that would have helpful hints, things to watch out for, etc. 76. do a web course 77. Let partners identify FWS employees in successful partnerships identify the employees behavioral traits and look for FWS employees with like traits. The fallacy may be that this can be taught. 78. Perhaps something on conference/symposium planning (agenda development facilitation resources etc.); annual report development and tools/tricks of trade in informing public boss partners about successes of the partnership 79. Provide biologists courses on funding opportunities, grant writing, and short courses on MOAs, MOUs, and other partnership agreements. 80. Provide examples to inspire people and educate them on the time required and responsibilities one takes when we start working with partners outside our agency. 81. more field training ops 82. Provide support for managing a partnership and help submit grants for funding a partnership. 83. Continue to offer training on complex environmental negotiations; training on group dynamics and group problem solving; training on meeting facilitation 84. Continue to offer appropriate formal training courses. Offer condensed courses in a centralized location in the Southeast Region. 85. Educate higher managers on the need for support of the 1st line staff and how important it is for us to be able to be decision-makers (when it comes to negotiations). 86. continue to provide courses on successful partnership building 87. People skills 88. Offer a course located on the site of a partnership(s) to use as a case study. 89. Training on establishment of partnerships Lobby for additional funding

PAGE 146

136 90. Advisors that could come in and access a partnership and develop a report to improve or develop a partnership. 91. NCTC can continue to work with national refuge friends groups to ensure that they are informed about how to create and sustain partnerships designed to assist in protecting and managing refuges. 92. Train us to hire the right individuals. But in addition, training on people skills and how to compromise would be helpful. 93. Provide high quality training with real world examples of what worked and what didn't. There is no cookbook for this stuff because each one has it own life circumstances unique to that time and place. Should be some lessons learned or golden nuggets to glean from what went right and what went wrong and why. Sometimes it is just circumstance. 94. I think NCTC does a great job the Conservation Partnerships in Practice Workshop was excellent. I recommend that training that includes specific information on useful tools would be good (for example: good conservation easements and MOUs). 95. procedures personal skills 96. Continue to offer good training on negotiation; examples of successful partnerships-analyzed 97. Networking is one of the most important functions NCTC could facilitate to get others together who work with partnerships and let them share info. 98. NCTC could provide training in meeting and project facilitation. I also think the Service's training options need to focus more on higher level science and analysis. I don't see NCTC dong this directly but perhaps establishing a cooperative effort with universities that offer the appropriate classes. For example the modeling and statistics course are very general and remedial when compared to the type of work we are involved with. In my opinion what we are able to offer the partnership is the most important factor. In some cases it is capital while in others it is the expertise and ability of individuals. 99. A short course on all regulatory responsibilities perhaps in conjunction with development of a standardized tool kit for dealing with our own regulatory responsibilities. 100. Continue good courses on partnerships such as the Blackfoot Challenge example. Continue or incorporate importance of partnerships into existing courses where partnerships are important e.g. HCP training. 101. First need to identify and define partnerships and how different partnerships that are formed through different FWS program areas apply and are being utilized. Some training in the utility and applicability of partnerships would be helpful. Any training of the rank-and-file should be supplemented by speakers with field experience. 102. Continue to offer entry level and advance partnership courses. Hire good course leaders who are engaged and have great people skills. Continue to look for new ways for the service to look/work outside the traditional box. Programs like Walk a mile in my Boots is a great example. The FWS has tremendous experience and background in biology but natural resource management in the 21st century has very little to do with biology and everything to do with people skills. Anything NCTC can do to better teach people skills and being a team player the better off the resource and the Service will be. 103. Classes using examples of successful & unsuccessful partnerships with all the steps (increments) broken down. Would be great if some of the partnership projects could be visited by the class participants. 104. Training on the rules and regulations affecting partnerships would be helpful but some guidance on the people skill necessary to go along with them would even be better. Much of what it takes to maintain a good partnership depends on the people you are dealing with and some can't be officially taught in a class. Also it will vary from administration to administration. A class for administrators and politicians on reduced policy and procedures and increased support for the field would be nice. 105. A realistic approach to partnership training. Successful partnerships are a result of need not convenience. They demand work, time, and the ability and willingness to compromise. Too often I see the FWS vision of partnership is getting someone else's money to do our work. Sorry that just doesn't cut it. 106. Assess availability of program funds to carryout partnerships, if sufficient funds are available; then provide training to Service and non-Service partners. 107. Possibly provide some on line training. 108. Train field biologists in the art of the deal!

PAGE 147

137 109. Technical skill to put a project on the ground Guidance on filling out the paperwork Finding sources on non-federal match 110. Develop a better questionnaire than this one. 111. I really don't believe the elements that make an effective on-the-ground partnership work can be provided through training. However, courses that illustrate the value and accomplishments of partnerships can be motivating to Service employees predisposing them to seek involvement in productive partnerships when and where opportunities arise in that employee's work environment. 112. Teach future leaders that partnerships do not work well when forced on someone Teach future leaders that developing partnerships just for the sake of partnering is a waste of time. There must be a need/benefit 113. Provide more technical training courses (in water quality, fluvial geomorphology applications, habitat assessment, etc.) to better prepare Service staff to offer skills and knowledge to our partners. 114. Continue to provide opportunities to interact with effective partnerships out on the ground rather trying to teach the concepts in the classroom. Hearing from actual partners with the Service about what works and what doesn't is the best way to convey the science and art of developing partnerships. We have done this with NCTC in western Montana with a partnership called the Blackfoot Challenge. 115. In my experience the Service's failure of partnerships is due to their failure to hire qualified and motivated people. Selections are made on EEO grounds which just doe not work! 116. courses in group facilitation 117. They are doing a great job they need to keep up the good work. 118. Not familiar with existing training. 119. We understand the importance of partnerships. It would be helpful if instructors could participate in a meeting or so doing early stages to share information with all participants and not just Service employees. It may help participants to start and/or continue to function at a similar level. 120. Provide classes/training based on Service employee needs rather than an agenda devised to provide full utilization of the facility 121. Bring short course to the field regularly like Interest Based Negotiating. Provide full-time facilitators when requested. Fund partnership coordinators not hampered by the brush fire regulatory assignments. 122. promote courses that help build skills for effective partnerships...look for ways to identify how a variety of NCTC's courses might assist in building skills that will help us realize successful partnerships 123. Selected consultation on specific partnership issues ex. customized training and/or facilitation for a formative or floundering partnership 124. Education opportunities which include presentations by effective partnerships. Good examples are the best teachers. 125. Correspondence course or short instructional video on building partnerships. (This may be already available and I'm just not aware of it.) 126. Training, hands-on models. 127. Need to advertise available courses and do some serious outreach about what the course is all about, who should take it, benefits, etc., and STRONGLY ENCOURAGE supervisors to send their folks to it. Training is becoming more limited as dollars grow scarcer and there are always lots of other training needs out there to compete with partnership training so a strong case needs to be made for promoting this type of training. Believe me, if faced with taking a natural resources training versus a partnership training course, I'd invariably choose the former. Someone needs to emphasize the importance of the latter however.

PAGE 148

LIST OF REFERENCES Abrams, K.S., Gladwin, H., Matthews, M.J., and McCabe, B.C. 1995. The east Everglade planning study in Porter, D.R. and Salvesen, D.A., Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife: Issues and examples. Island Press, Wash., DC. 243 p. Agresti, A., and Finlay, B. 1997. Statistical methods for the social sciences. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Anderson, M. G., Fowler R. B., and Nelson, J. W. 1995. Northern grassland conservation and the prairie joint ventures. Transactions of the 60th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Wash., DC. Arnold, M. B., and Long, F. J. 1993. Environmental partnership agreements: Not business as usual. Environmental Law and Practice. 1: 30-38. Brown, H. I. 1977. Perception, theory, and commitment. Precedent Publishing Inc., Chicago. Carroll, S.J., and Tosi, H.L. 1977. Organizational Behavior. St. Clair Press, Chicago. 570 p. Clower, C.M., Forren, J.D., Rawson, J.W., and Bonner, K.J. 1993. Cannan Valley: A watershed protection approach. Proceedings of watershed 93: A national conference on watershed management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alexandria, VA. Conley, A., and Moote, M. A. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources. 16: 371-386. Conservation Partnership for the Northern Plains. 1996. Stewardship of the Plains: A partnership strategic plan to conserve and sustain our natural resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource Conservation Service, Wash., DC. Darrow, C. V., and Vaske, J. J. 1995. Partnerships in natural resources agencies: A conceptual framework. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research. San Diego, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service PSW. 22-27. 138

PAGE 149

139 Darrow, C. V., Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., and Dingman, S. 1993. Public/private partnerships in natural resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report NE. 185: 103-108. Dent, S. 1999. Partnering intelligence: creating value for your business by building smart alliances. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., New York. Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Eng, M. 1994. Partnerships and cooperation on the Olympic Peninsula. Washington Sea Grant Program, Seattle. Friendly, A., Jr., ed. 1993. Partnerships to progress: The report of the President's commission on environmental quality. President's Commission on Environmental Quality, Wash., DC. Gibson, E. J. 1970. The development of perception as an adaptive process. American Scientist 58(1): 98. Gibson, E. J. 1988. Exploratory behavior in the development of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology 39: 1-41. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-party problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Kusler, J. A. 1994. Federal, state, and local government roles and partnerships for fair, flexible, and effective wetland regulation. Association of State Wetland Managers, New York. Litwin, M. S. 2003. How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Long, F. L., and Arnold, M. B. 1995. The power of environmental partnerships. Dryden Press, Fort Worth. McNeeley, J. A., ed. 1995. Expanding partnerships in conservation. Island Press, Wash., DC. Morgan, S. E., Reicher, T., and Harrison, T. R. 2002. From numbers to words: Reporting statistical results for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Northwest Michigan RC& D Council Inc. 1994. Developing partnership agreements: A process to resolve resource management issues in the 1990's. NW Michigan RC&D Council Inc., Ann Arbor. Pallant, J. 2001. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (Version 10). Open University Press, Philadelphia.

PAGE 150

140 Porter, D. R., and Salvesen, D.A., eds. 1995. Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife: Issues and examples. Island Press, Wash., DC. Robertshaw, F., Mauthe, M., Molinaro H., and Molinaro, L. 1993. Conservation partnerships: A field guide to public-private partnering for natural resource conservation. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Wash., DC. Rocha, L. M. 1998. Partnerships for conservation: protected areas and nongovernmental organizations in Brazil. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26(4): 937-946. Sample, V. A., Cheng, A. S., Enzer, M. J., and Moote, M. A. 1995. Building partnerships for ecosystem management on mixed ownership landscapes. Forest Policy Center, Wash., DC. Sawhill, J.C. 1996. Creating biodiversity partnerships: The Nature Conservancy's perspective. Environmental Management. 20: 789-792. Selin, S., and Beason, K. 1991. Interorganizational relations in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 18: 639-652. Selin, S., and Chavez, D. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management. 19: 189-195. Selin, S. and Chavez, D. 1993. Recreation partnerships and the USDA Forest Service: Managers' perceptions of the impact of the national recreation strategy. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration. 11: 1-8. Schrage, M. 1990. Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. Random House, New York. 153 p. Tilghman, B. N., and Murray, R. 1995. Seeking common ground: Establishing interpark partnerships. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PSW. 156: 93-97. Trauger, D. L., Tilt, W. C., and Hatcher, C. B. 1995. Partnerships: Innovative strategies for wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23: 114-119. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System. Visions for wildlife, habitat, people, and leadership. U.S. Department of the Interior; Wash, DC. Whaley, R. S. 1993. Working partnerships: Elements for success. Journal of Forestry. 91(3): 10-11. Williams, E. M., and Ellefson, P. V. 1996. Natural resource partnerships: Factors leading to cooperative success in the management of landscape level ecosystems involving mixed ownership. University of Minnesota Agriculture Experiment Station, St. Paul.

PAGE 151

141 Wondolleck, J.M. 1988. Public lands conflict and resolution. Plenum Press, New York. Wondolleck, J. M., and Yaffee, S. L. 2000. Making collaboration work. Island Press, Wash., DC.

PAGE 152

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kristy Bender was born in Reston, VA on September 23, 1980. She graduated with a bachelors degree in natural resource recreation from Virginia Tech in the spring of 2002. Kristy began her masters work in forest resources and conservation at the University of Florida in the fall of 2002. While at UF she worked on a variety of rewarding projects including the state 4H forest ecology contest. After graduation she looks forward to working in the southeast and sharing with others her wonder and appreciation for all things wild. 142


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110115_AAAAFT INGEST_TIME 2011-01-16T04:21:47Z PACKAGE UFE0008941_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8423998 DFID F20110115_AADSIG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bender_k_Page_142.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e62af8b9fdb6b39919e8e1f53f9cdd08
SHA-1
cf2c2d82e8594339505e8faf5d57143e4271950c
2321 F20110115_AADTLI bender_k_Page_149.txt
882efd91e002214013ca1343dcca3c29
96086bb237a82d0576f1bf3ef4a5675f544ab525
3909 F20110115_AADTKU bender_k_Page_135.txt
694fbaababb25efbd7c572fbc3e132f6
71b6af10525a2ff5f9b9e64585c4b218fdc3b0d4
78323 F20110115_AADSIH bender_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
6a8929f817c66a136fe9fb65e4477bbe
3f6504c4fa61a5d043fefaadbf846f1544f6310b
2484 F20110115_AADTLJ bender_k_Page_150.txt
6d3f5be4e136ed7c3040142b022a155b
5df6e9095c6749ec0bb44b985f6c617c2bc19b2a
4211 F20110115_AADTKV bender_k_Page_136.txt
36bb79a3530f5f409e859d13e2bd6c2f
98ee425b17250864f825498eb7ff91798f33d463
213413 F20110115_AADSII bender_k_Page_013.jpg
b40ac88ad0007edde459105b8d9c7f03
3cfbf5b88cca044e68c5d6e9b36498290e8d7f8a
246 F20110115_AADTLK bender_k_Page_151.txt
1ec9f6f12661aa3a7e958485d319728b
6cfb775c53e2a467830a3927f98f28c3209c7abb
3609 F20110115_AADTKW bender_k_Page_137.txt
52c0dc1e20f24194902d2704a537cb64
7acd39d21acf8903b4b85fe67ef6cceb5958664e
103260 F20110115_AADSIJ bender_k_Page_141.pro
946fced5690651a0b2d5161aff06bb39
ecb4904f3f34f6fc47b8f93982ec37a7a57a1c7a
634 F20110115_AADTLL bender_k_Page_152.txt
107af0c8d3d0162120cd0f3bc109cd0d
a02d021c73dda6cc6159bfef53fa6c2341bf1924
4707 F20110115_AADTKX bender_k_Page_138.txt
f8660ea49b05d3ebf0be37ce3906bf2e
6175bc2ea5ced347928e09c01a6d7b15a8608fef
61963 F20110115_AADTMA bender_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
c197024168b100f6f6ae743a7afd4234
0247417711e8befbfcc06e14b5d29f11ea5737e7
1053954 F20110115_AADSIK bender_k_Page_061.tif
c23d2413ae5c9fe3fa7d76599b9b7078
af07fbce80a16f2e1a8cf71862416ad3503244ca
1655973 F20110115_AADTLM bender_k.pdf
2c6ca792dcb3d1454cf658e44a838b3e
fca6a35d0ec47e23082ded6c9da8ad18d40ba79f
4227 F20110115_AADTKY bender_k_Page_139.txt
0d4e43c52c3d5604770628a5ca26007e
75981a65303436a482ee4412bc54ed762500d855
31936 F20110115_AADTMB bender_k_Page_140thm.jpg
beaa384cd27b6712d4d30d0f928c0ef7
4091655f13fe48e6195af62439e79afec4910696
24159 F20110115_AADSIL bender_k_Page_073thm.jpg
c286d2fae6092ac6ac176ec5fa3e5bde
e7e4a4b0f1f03b0939c94dced6f21a1f75a4db76
28514 F20110115_AADTLN bender_k_Page_143thm.jpg
6c2e6fc3d2fc8e56812b1e41ec7ff0c0
5396a82483dba1152aa107a4347f48da5868fb06
3390 F20110115_AADTKZ bender_k_Page_140.txt
8b86013c9f600f948f8c0ac344fd93b0
c86551104d1cdbb131001ad9fca257e1e64d4cc5
F20110115_AADSJA bender_k_Page_064.tif
32a84be47112c9ffd0fa2c1f4c7db224
9d49229506840a17696ff730fb7833dd59ae3bb5
83519 F20110115_AADTMC bender_k_Page_137.QC.jpg
99d9192821bfcf33d84095596591d021
62bd9fb99fc0c7cd6705bd8de8e4aaeb208f6c95
49207 F20110115_AADSIM bender_k_Page_077.pro
c5de8fed91788af3bb9e0af2edcc4533
f4c6edd8f40720b413070ee7c53805e1e7740b26
52067 F20110115_AADTLO bender_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
1f48880d9a869010146a2a13172250aa
c8a93659b016d0945e126dcbff6c117d9a99839d
175183 F20110115_AADSHY bender_k_Page_055.jpg
95353c027a4d459c154021ea533dc3bc
7685dee3f730b777042b759db864f7f58ec6d8fb
208537 F20110115_AADSJB bender_k_Page_047.jpg
3bdd06d93deb8a991d1f13e34bf3d208
4ba58759bf333b279aa73d5e6c8b1986e3d3c008
15904 F20110115_AADTMD bender_k_Page_128thm.jpg
a82c12ada841717289adf4dfb492e659
dad24f1f2240523dd66c5af61cc134547d75eb9f
80415 F20110115_AADTME bender_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
22b8beacec1b44b35095970823325184
5d6886c61683e8be4e0bef68665a08e59d100c19
1454 F20110115_AADSIN bender_k_Page_081.txt
71a921520865db62cb809149b03c12ef
5d684b3c8303e707cb24304d490b02d248f22202
60761 F20110115_AADTLP bender_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
3e65578456c8b4e3067db4301b1f0ce9
117ebbb35a9bb7adf7d6e0ab4ac834078a50bd39
51709 F20110115_AADSHZ bender_k_Page_028.pro
571380e26522a98ea071fc107873fb5a
452ef0732e0ea99b7185689d94b460e3946e6fef
175410 F20110115_AADSJC UFE0008941_00001.mets FULL
db32d06ccd6b8e63e8590e6b41db15e6
8aa82b1809e0b82698c0f8b66fc1d13b7b151b78
30782 F20110115_AADTMF bender_k_Page_066thm.jpg
ec5336fe53c674d0450b42ff09d70d72
b920e49635956ebe19a23151b4d08e340e1be05e
47688 F20110115_AADSIO bender_k_Page_035.pro
7989f1bcbddd007a21a7037a05d8494c
49d64562671de9034166fa978561d4d2c86e1d0c
94592 F20110115_AADTLQ bender_k_Page_136.QC.jpg
e96b4c424b2a17975eaa4be72b434eaa
aac15267d8c36a14e71b9fadc5bf61c52c704177
222340 F20110115_AADSIP bender_k_Page_083.jpg
d2edf09a9cd327bf1cddae9ebf1cc141
6c7fe6a8ad9daf7522699dd8543614c027809d5e
81658 F20110115_AADTLR bender_k_Page_118.QC.jpg
9c1bfea40e5df2d9232c4ec0e2d0702c
0e5dafe07b3ba8f467dc8eb715fd72c1c6869ddd
27871 F20110115_AADTMG bender_k_Page_146thm.jpg
0361c81632ec22bfa154ac6650e95162
a037308258353f436dd81bf9c98aa86e4bbfd236
109460 F20110115_AADSIQ bender_k_Page_138.QC.jpg
7dc01d5d4697ed1f9de25df9fc094085
6dd406c4d0e60b433e0aa86ce904d5634362436b
88371 F20110115_AADTLS bender_k_Page_134.QC.jpg
17ec3e58d010637ad48a72549c1307df
ad6967bf00ff46b16f7361e90a36e896e1bdc1b7
78090 F20110115_AADTMH bender_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
c355f163ac4f64cbf9cf344675f63c29
077110dc452fd993cc6b6fae9bc5e3b8b2333021
38574 F20110115_AADSIR bender_k_Page_017.pro
03aa3ecd4f3e42cca1fea688f7d26564
12389def11b932f8ddcc653903d6d1c041ede5b9
25819 F20110115_AADTLT bender_k_Page_135thm.jpg
a73c1e5b19eea7e48deb02c7cad55363
1ec52ed0d8887c29170162d44a29d41f397e3451
57927 F20110115_AADSJF bender_k_Page_001.jpg
65c2ac5037e40090efce7b374de9e45f
8d7ba0951e432aa9aafd76a95bdc0a6cb61efbbf
36198 F20110115_AADTMI bender_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
d07fceb4529d6139f567ce05fb498e46
d9275e03b7577a2fac1f8d120554f4ae69421861
51983 F20110115_AADSIS bender_k_Page_055.pro
931edccaa40ec94ac1fdf09e7abc28c7
b81ce8fae52b07786746f34660de56dcc1a83ce9
52209 F20110115_AADTLU bender_k_Page_116.QC.jpg
490e9f059fa81b8b59e0f6573ad0ac4f
5fa284624d90231287dfe2a06ff53667d2f3fea4
14094 F20110115_AADSJG bender_k_Page_002.jpg
3ea7bed434ebda1275e1a81913899373
51760b42bb0bd9fa43c80694bbe9c9f9755957e8
93041 F20110115_AADTMJ bender_k_Page_130.QC.jpg
862e4de80c68a50866d7f729611087ea
f5540f88ef620d53e63d3cd286638ebd0f51163f
25927 F20110115_AADSIT bender_k_Page_134thm.jpg
16f72ed68808ff4819c7c55b4cd4b62b
ea481bdb307f04365b9923b7ebd9a65da95463b2
20656 F20110115_AADTLV bender_k_Page_030thm.jpg
70b9f3ccbdf30dfc12a847321bb7afa2
6e78c15476799f1ec1a927c81afc4314fab38ad2
90881 F20110115_AADSJH bender_k_Page_003.jpg
d3d150998a4c432989445a3326fb626c
77f2db776b1ce2d3d8ed065f4b334f8970998218
83006 F20110115_AADTMK bender_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
d7d149a1c84edc7bdc12e4a92dcd6279
3b695a3a440dd58ab8657dc658b292a63e9651d0
F20110115_AADSIU bender_k_Page_093.tif
123ebc64332519fd94876ce67e219074
b3b3247aec360b0de5302868a440dcf25c960c49
67780 F20110115_AADTLW bender_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
5f50e0ba3f7093e7af0eec11be1b673c
35866b17e341915d437d53f13e40ed7961653a3b
243861 F20110115_AADSJI bender_k_Page_004.jpg
5d07e8052d41cf6260b3c621a398d5e0
32409c08b933ad2236f822f0223c2d53ae98537c
36551 F20110115_AADTNA bender_k_Page_114.QC.jpg
ad853041215e8d46b7aa3043b565dd33
75d7e16805755e7a3e3e721ecc64d73bfab8e195
93851 F20110115_AADTML bender_k_Page_112.QC.jpg
c16fe51b46324f27c0f9d39e7ee1aa6f
eb92af49adeeaaa83a4d16cf364bd40b71c3c9cd
232770 F20110115_AADSIV bender_k_Page_006.jp2
4782ef08b14dcb4fc9ae465d82f970a6
4cd1b4478886b40848189cb7f85481b6b8ed463e
26650 F20110115_AADTLX bender_k_Page_130thm.jpg
f7e699c00a6e023d990ff25653c11c6c
ef6cb986fc8072e125d7b9a2d3488b94f6cbabec
349127 F20110115_AADSJJ bender_k_Page_005.jpg
e88336116db78832a329fa0e8aae34eb
93a3497a322ca25535dbe86afb21168bb0447cb5
25552 F20110115_AADTNB bender_k_Page_013thm.jpg
109fde66cab58989650dc3a589a0a0a7
57e0742f881dd619d38b2c411c9b22d1d2b90a75
24624 F20110115_AADTMM bender_k_Page_027thm.jpg
3741391018ef59bd7f50df859de1b1cd
de69a4e8d9bfc8a600d5e301c6bd965c070b38c3
F20110115_AADSIW bender_k_Page_062.tif
9246865366e953e415a5f6414f64b396
7898296f004599cb056b3dd26458fdf1c08d752e
19369 F20110115_AADTLY bender_k_Page_083thm.jpg
680a088808a2e80f570b106023802861
c8b15086e22b6105fcc96a1aa12b39af7557658f
63385 F20110115_AADSJK bender_k_Page_006.jpg
affebbdd8eaa299abcb652916b473d57
a8d6c320d01954cfeb701da4acf747b9097bb3a8
13232 F20110115_AADTNC bender_k_Page_117thm.jpg
3fe0950408a1309918e5464120b049fd
602dec6b35d08a47feeab41692a0257fc96ab961
69536 F20110115_AADTMN bender_k_Page_120.QC.jpg
330a8ef1743d3f3e472118ced1277d83
b3e0335cae6dfaa0c7ddc32ce63efd74bafae8bf
46657 F20110115_AADSIX bender_k_Page_066.pro
300c41b6122f0ccbff6c4372b031b78e
0f1f484a281432e1ac41b367bbf944707f8a856d
72720 F20110115_AADTLZ bender_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
594a9ff81b9d36ffa46883ccc8913dd6
a9042391c3b0dec0d671f102741e8724d3698993
208592 F20110115_AADSKA bender_k_Page_023.jpg
61ecb25efcb8ed4025c687fbc55178a2
7db9d591f655eff48f552a00de68ccf26b419ee2
254605 F20110115_AADSJL bender_k_Page_007.jpg
4394e2dc3e211ccf3310a68d1ffffac1
f28a89e7a9f4db65fde7247c484be695697a45aa
21056 F20110115_AADTND bender_k_Page_041thm.jpg
ec33f4b4710235c3b2cbc0a30ba1f813
d2ff36d0758777606d2afc41933d12a723021423
25089 F20110115_AADTMO bender_k_Page_071thm.jpg
92afebc7cf6a68a7c5653ff06d43e53b
dcb433cf801b4a7881717ab7ec29786deba8abb5
F20110115_AADSIY bender_k_Page_036.tif
39c1f8236261d5eeeb8178cb0dd5ae64
27e1ffdf7f8517d33396e5177f29a200cb6024db
207284 F20110115_AADSKB bender_k_Page_024.jpg
fc2455ffad6723de21184599c40534ad
4059bb712b12a52bd7a8cba60a73a3ada66f9ea7
138658 F20110115_AADSJM bender_k_Page_008.jpg
9090ab0db023c824ab835a291f7fee6a
bcd702b4ac1ac99d2d3f6747c13f5f3c4eec0bc8
21939 F20110115_AADTNE bender_k_Page_011thm.jpg
05233a1ab16bb0091138cfa52502e97e
db9378c3b82cbdb7af41af1720161ecab9b52cf7
25163 F20110115_AADTMP bender_k_Page_032thm.jpg
10066424fbf5c14b99937683718203fe
869db72949ba83564d848cb210d0d59196fbdd85
1293 F20110115_AADSIZ bender_k_Page_109.txt
a9b171f0945108414d060daa2db4edf8
16bcef0c26bff02f69bdc1f54027126a97130e79
213682 F20110115_AADSKC bender_k_Page_025.jpg
39e6a2aafd54b5bb3a6cdf9d95b997fc
2d200d6a350d93c02ece26bd1e730838125adbd4
169048 F20110115_AADSJN bender_k_Page_009.jpg
6311a958006088f05b3e709d2f381c3d
dd02f613caeb7334015dfc865af14e58d1aad1b4
50683 F20110115_AADTNF bender_k_Page_005thm.jpg
f0a073b5fe2a754c4815a36c4064a274
2daca1a153b2a479bd5c2037b48fec4a8b779b65
76501 F20110115_AADTMQ bender_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
d18408003130f0864d0ce45d06208184
4e7a9d771395cc1a94f2bd4d2974a06314a6e85b
199457 F20110115_AADSKD bender_k_Page_026.jpg
a13830007ab4b4aaa1865537b293cc3d
357f31533711ac50b5ccad39a78bc23ce0a25316
211028 F20110115_AADSJO bender_k_Page_010.jpg
a6bde4445ca59a152f17e174251898b0
d7de0dbf7a417356e0ee3a1ec116809742a9e07d
27958 F20110115_AADTNG bender_k_Page_152.QC.jpg
4ceeba90b6f43b1ca08f192965d31dfa
1e3736cb91cfc4a130793767cc29320e77f997b9
80136 F20110115_AADTMR bender_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
bc5c7790c224022f485d1ec3c88742c4
6551217a87133f872afab27a05e4970d479caba4
216238 F20110115_AADSKE bender_k_Page_027.jpg
5261e032f4c7d6fe7707f41463932e61
81cc47b6048328b438dfac0daa0553da431facd5
179379 F20110115_AADSJP bender_k_Page_011.jpg
c6dfc52bf26150bd8fc7fb44cfd67200
bb925d386c4527263e62d0015a8364eeb8f1838f
80023 F20110115_AADTMS bender_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
28760e67057aa8ae4f9837f5b98aeb2d
04d80ebb6467dff1ec2259ed67365c22eb0f2a35
221931 F20110115_AADSJQ bender_k_Page_012.jpg
222489364503399552b084fde8599895
8c517968d39a675dc16825361542e1de926f4518
21058 F20110115_AADTNH bender_k_Page_127thm.jpg
5fb7147b06d7889a647bbf37894d6610
714530f3f6f234bc281b91bed72d0dbda51b82cf
79513 F20110115_AADTMT bender_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
74590d25265655c9a0224f2d01d17cc9
802c2549fd7f38cbd9308a96d5cabe09a169018a
212652 F20110115_AADSKF bender_k_Page_028.jpg
538a196d072851aa9d6b85982d4fb78c
b9111a7e6379e447915cc5880c448a5f4042f8d3
207031 F20110115_AADSJR bender_k_Page_014.jpg
535d6ac52fad581463936f89911163c1
792a40d0256a84d4b6e3516d52a679dca31177b0
35674 F20110115_AADTNI bender_k_Page_138thm.jpg
0de16c34567fa8bf076568764160f56a
99ba2350efcbdeb43345e37e98c93917a9385c12
23923 F20110115_AADTMU bender_k_Page_075thm.jpg
edfe29a039e0cfb43cc404b9698273a4
802e4b8abd464c6df709ced708f867260d7e1bb3
197482 F20110115_AADSKG bender_k_Page_029.jpg
1552f54201ef9b3500f4575d7c9c28c1
8cb8b8e051f3cb3cf2664a3e04f2e9bbb78063a0
192805 F20110115_AADSJS bender_k_Page_015.jpg
5b41a3ad77f957c5629585ae31934ef6
36d9bcda45cc719d23ec7a4eda8464a08dc685e9
78952 F20110115_AADTNJ bender_k_Page_142.QC.jpg
b9f067df8e05179a1f9a4781a2a3816e
165a1171eaccbf5141840ffdf8d74e974604ffca
78048 F20110115_AADTMV bender_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
e0dd492b2007ba7bfa6c6046ce743dc5
b294821dc107626daec0ca2625811988ab5ef1e8
164820 F20110115_AADSKH bender_k_Page_030.jpg
4a48005d292de470f65560abdc5835bf
4d5b4100d9bceedf16c0cd2f48c8a3a87afa3113
84133 F20110115_AADSJT bender_k_Page_016.jpg
07e70c7f08cdb5068c3b610f43176d06
e4b668637fc84a068444e68c160d5154e35eb237
17948 F20110115_AADTNK bender_k_Page_067thm.jpg
01dd60e86a03c62f61cd3c8c51b1a9eb
4957bb1da83d48611baa976a387c2b3e74383a29
21819 F20110115_AADTMW bender_k_Page_070thm.jpg
4ff201f2f72e1ef1dc725b73dfc3567d
21dbbf954c4444f0cc16df7f6a3c219d4587d003
210357 F20110115_AADSKI bender_k_Page_031.jpg
0316c3854d5c737eb6046ff2093197d8
4c079b146ad894aa137246fe9f51d59744fbd0e2
164699 F20110115_AADSJU bender_k_Page_017.jpg
24c8106ac7f6d5105a66723a62144e9a
1a142e6fc5cb6815ffaf7a108b99b1d21ce40c09
31355 F20110115_AADTOA bender_k_Page_068thm.jpg
82ac82ab10c9b1177de903c349e28a82
16633d7744e613afbde6996064bbf54d6c7e19b9
30969 F20110115_AADTNL bender_k_Page_053thm.jpg
fef94a1671acb350f5406d1efe9de06b
f460e1c9a0fd64944cd51910aab080053a59070f
24501 F20110115_AADTMX bender_k_Page_024thm.jpg
92124abc7d1deed774c2c6a2b8d0f343
2de5d6444f661cb01a6834a2950f21a055a43a2b
204496 F20110115_AADSKJ bender_k_Page_032.jpg
e6ab9161343a90f976d1bab8eb08f0b3
e186ed3a8f66701d809b5044fb6e04ecee207e6a
200137 F20110115_AADSJV bender_k_Page_018.jpg
8a9a1233f3807ebb68e1196be4e6729a
fa99ef03b3600f3b361d161c514f0a851e40a9f7
42760 F20110115_AADTOB bender_k_Page_105thm.jpg
d9b3351301734b321205a7e69a535df5
eed604c3eed619722a3206e38f6a73cee6965d6d
92200 F20110115_AADTNM bender_k_Page_125.QC.jpg
9b078691c22b48404af3922a090c4229
f99fb92b467f3837b5f8aff94198ebc07a9458ae
46924 F20110115_AADTMY bender_k_Page_046thm.jpg
2df163db55f6dae5b0ac2dba96d91c9b
71a8dc4544895af55cfcd101c89588cfaf74efa3
206554 F20110115_AADSKK bender_k_Page_033.jpg
977e1b0688cee20678499c07941fb0ee
fc6e935af2203be52ce098e57aba5e697d2fa3ea
200483 F20110115_AADSJW bender_k_Page_019.jpg
9136f306df5bbbe44e203d74ab25fab7
974404aaae2fcac43e000d7de48afef987c79a78
2895 F20110115_AADTOC bender_k_Page_106thm.jpg
7aa72f33feed0e472df3b6f34809ba9e
3d6b269fd1be96854e410921177fae929d63d9cd
24894 F20110115_AADTNN bender_k_Page_023thm.jpg
06aa0c67cfbf4fb2d711d25a255956ad
ac08fab1898cd3c4d3132dfe77b8fb2e1b2f3611
59109 F20110115_AADTMZ bender_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
308ea2815c39f6256760cfbd41358988
eba384a3028758616bf2f5a987189c647f2a684f
265214 F20110115_AADSKL bender_k_Page_034.jpg
9f56c0a8ecb8ae0dd4f17cd0c765c20c
013cc0d6543927ff6fa0dfc0466f3bb7f124a263
213237 F20110115_AADSJX bender_k_Page_020.jpg
59687b8c358e611ebc2b206a61ed032e
e845f1da48848402f4af905d560073471dc5dcfb
198346 F20110115_AADSLA bender_k_Page_050.jpg
92e193326437c36daf7995a75923d26e
7c9e2c1712050d4b25c4f3230a1b540ac5ee2363
79053 F20110115_AADTOD bender_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
55c811a84215bc7ab6dad5a7302901da
4662f61dd5fb04efe68d355f0b052edcdb4dbcc2
78002 F20110115_AADTNO bender_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
9e802e3eabc625899a59ceb738dee5eb
54136707bb7fe6dc4acfcbb6452ef6f8d3412a82
200602 F20110115_AADSKM bender_k_Page_035.jpg
d046d4132340d2fefa5abe014131615b
a94e145b49478d4c7b93cea740a60d90f96936a5
206533 F20110115_AADSJY bender_k_Page_021.jpg
2b6765e9111a779dd837a282d43d44b5
8a840e35e4e0c2cdb4f74e8125a7c69471ede44b
211376 F20110115_AADSLB bender_k_Page_051.jpg
d5a23666edbf41843b573b8d7b2b60e5
0c9f0d939b052b6615c0020fe5bb8d4d9f307087
79512 F20110115_AADTOE bender_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
1d9cab41878de339896fcf90e091d686
39e56f1e5322587c6572215c18b53dfacadead63
29053 F20110115_AADTNP bender_k_Page_142thm.jpg
7ac08b0399e338d0e3fa834f09305ec0
05f7df37788156d223403f73a99f4905157fccce
206745 F20110115_AADSKN bender_k_Page_036.jpg
52bce54676377eb7f872a503c840bd09
85b266e2f77826aa5253da570017c76bc644ef9d
195086 F20110115_AADSJZ bender_k_Page_022.jpg
be4d0b157aedbf58381d25e78a2fd180
cf8f3400f9e44f5763dd08ca56163236812f8ca1
190825 F20110115_AADSLC bender_k_Page_052.jpg
87a9e01ac50b43513968053e716c198b
45c606fd5663a2f177973300d1d5bc01030df6e7
77937 F20110115_AADTOF bender_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
ccf0bb62919acc795c6a01aba16ad501
1f3eb532b162479e3d0e595322bdaca4ea047381
91159 F20110115_AADTNQ bender_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
5d9d7aef0ccefa12dac700db790696e4
50fc7ba01e1d39fc9daf51614a42a7633a0ec119
208621 F20110115_AADSKO bender_k_Page_037.jpg
b4b65d6ec2e3f968de28031123aa1f0f
61509dd84d5d75321102e6919400fe212d95a982
212826 F20110115_AADSLD bender_k_Page_053.jpg
72c5b7b6c3db01a3373daa269d5ae70f
1045ab91656b5bd61fb46ddac297b06d08d82be4
96774 F20110115_AADTOG bender_k_Page_133.QC.jpg
cf4c7574e53ba03803819492526448fe
ae2157c835b765c5f86f059f4eeeea12840d758f
81611 F20110115_AADTNR bender_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
eb851a69b7b295fba4341085a1732baf
29a82897b7bbe07a3dee73b801858c8edd25f4e3
210452 F20110115_AADSKP bender_k_Page_038.jpg
aff612c0763d34fe66c641c7b4301f92
d3e8134be0e076599a194ad724c18f45aabbd7d3
220722 F20110115_AADSLE bender_k_Page_054.jpg
36ee576045dbf50f2f746bc269058a10
3273a3668386f45618fb26028ced765c8bdc4849
30110 F20110115_AADTOH bender_k_Page_050thm.jpg
14e2a5bdd0ea1d0ac2a43f7f69580660
d35bc10d601660ede0a2f155663fbbeded32084c
83380 F20110115_AADTNS bender_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
2dc06cbf44aed286dff92ec3cb6a8eb8
9c84105e0f5be8774a702f5b7206416d50e38cde
202262 F20110115_AADSKQ bender_k_Page_039.jpg
e628d8688c6a1f08a666e13b34134f1f
9a30420d3a9c9eb58a20bdadbe5c8a6363e5da28
216813 F20110115_AADSLF bender_k_Page_056.jpg
95d81697a9c72b07d22d755cbbcec7c8
486cd6eeb4b5732c785183a9439d40014740b785
70672 F20110115_AADTNT bender_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
0dff426ef662aebfa0873457810918d1
b2994217b41b3208824f94213285031985a08423
190598 F20110115_AADSKR bender_k_Page_040.jpg
9e2cdcbaa40cbfc3ebe5181f9d03e01f
eb6435370620dd26bfd55eecc78e7c596e258849
105012 F20110115_AADTOI bender_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
109154bf99c2a4d9c5995bbe75486e56
ec20c5412f22b47b8371b955e6a8a47aaa5f2a8d
29719 F20110115_AADTNU bender_k_Page_059thm.jpg
72962fdec66a90244ebb6f82ab01197f
be18e5fe1725647c6b6ca82c1f9b5060d679eb31
178382 F20110115_AADSKS bender_k_Page_041.jpg
c29e6b1cf0ec0165cd89cf3d516faba5
4bec234e320be1bc7960fbac9fa446390b4c6a32
187900 F20110115_AADSLG bender_k_Page_057.jpg
ec1153d90ad817075aad1f8c2a6360d6
fef78a34e84cc946825eb7031cd0f67ec0a203cd
85683 F20110115_AADTOJ bender_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
b910bd043ac4286113954754665ccbd3
747b23a3b867840bfc5f10988df1189ef995fa31
88476 F20110115_AADTNV bender_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
efa90901ede2c03c611935d8287254af
1764744d81e130aa88d2c61cd18115e5f0cfc2b4
224360 F20110115_AADSKT bender_k_Page_042.jpg
9e7e3d125662c17ac10fe68f86b7b735
8f1d26d10f3d10c55271258e8d60e8714c794e95
226900 F20110115_AADSLH bender_k_Page_058.jpg
459b7ccfd2c182c142fb0947a5045627
2de62b542396ae4666d1f36298a075aad15913f1
34156 F20110115_AADTOK bender_k_Page_139thm.jpg
9f546295db50ccd75cfde250dbc62a0f
9753f8c147826a759df948e597065de90a2ef693
24171 F20110115_AADTNW bender_k_Page_038thm.jpg
3723205839b54bd56f82177147d09fa5
a57fc4a73067ab360f9e6ca8cca9f58c200f0681
188567 F20110115_AADSKU bender_k_Page_043.jpg
16ea4062a9c37dd01ca42afd7790f090
a6442f37d431395610402a86a28d3519d5b33b9a
200224 F20110115_AADSLI bender_k_Page_059.jpg
c21776e0f3f1f0a10f43613a3b80260a
e1c8a22be43c13bae78a9fa0291bb3a34dfb9055
86996 F20110115_AADTPA bender_k_Page_129.QC.jpg
aa3298a135bc6568e34d910718cba3a2
934d00ccf201f684568948685260f92d78337c9e
71301 F20110115_AADTOL bender_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
4111289141bc7c78a6c8a58422ab0f36
260cc8b27be8d55e5ebe449f3bb76b51785a1f2e
23716 F20110115_AADTNX bender_k_Page_021thm.jpg
ffac5f5df7a7fa90e5d556e208c4fdf5
edc789675f7419cf7a1a20965325aea906b2bee5
192994 F20110115_AADSKV bender_k_Page_044.jpg
63b38d2d5ff66c1e8a8d78db05670b36
da0e0bf5438e18f10860edb0deb6f6e40eadea79
177377 F20110115_AADSLJ bender_k_Page_060.jpg
21b2753ae711ef3542bdeebfe2a45228
4aa1085350d313b75953696e4f99fa81177fc86e
32682 F20110115_AADTPB bender_k_Page_149thm.jpg
987b2bff1e780121e2bb36f54a6667f7
17835e1ebb33a4147a9a4f2289e416c9aa898e92
59288 F20110115_AADTOM bender_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
0de0d4c0486754150a2e823f50c2549c
a4a84120dbbf3487470abbdd485d8d873a382619
48948 F20110115_AADTNY bender_k_Page_007thm.jpg
18414a8b381c98e0ea5c5083773df848
23e94b9c2f0a10302ea958d958c36b99ed8e6102
169664 F20110115_AADSKW bender_k_Page_045.jpg
614f6a8ee0858ab4b5f1e9aef153acee
b45e025cd7908f65c3dad1303c332e7a37631ec4
201993 F20110115_AADSLK bender_k_Page_062.jpg
8b17433f1c75e012adbba5ca3f5e8960
abd53a26d6d896ecd5995483ec8a7d7a29a71492
11055 F20110115_AADTPC bender_k_Page_109thm.jpg
861d3d5717da0cab3d02e41d1531efe2
01c90e77a07bcce4ac04a5ca4306a05f7dfff8ab
23660 F20110115_AADTON bender_k_Page_064thm.jpg
dab0e82f06b8f383f57e50a0b146dc30
6ac8124978295e2c4c94d0a43118bf86446a7386
5571 F20110115_AADTNZ bender_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
d56e845d0a6310a4d33c31481b115599
20c652ded736bcac97d6b25224f7dbc8f7e0b2a5
208466 F20110115_AADSKX bender_k_Page_046.jpg
af379002697c47e00b1c281921e0fa99
a9f0c4ec5a48df45f26008f57556ce87ee889e76
197856 F20110115_AADSMA bender_k_Page_078.jpg
e1237aa10bf512d1fcb170dfd7c5e3e0
03da08847924ae010af75f84258eed803ca68542
218682 F20110115_AADSLL bender_k_Page_063.jpg
8c78358fbf76568d128e73b7eae6bf45
86a893120285ad9c1a7f841eaf813b24496b0bf6
12360 F20110115_AADTPD bender_k_Page_082thm.jpg
73283b18a79da3e206fef331181f8c10
0f1b4f1e541e853fe08c7a4ffe8afd997bf51581
19238 F20110115_AADTOO bender_k_Page_017thm.jpg
15bdadf698e72e5351b71ea50691cd05
d17d83cf769918f34cdf4c9c0af03bac42af7305
164736 F20110115_AADSKY bender_k_Page_048.jpg
0560025e5f4fb32b15fa7927933168a9
7acad2af09f9d305a15b35a80750a478f6db7b74
179625 F20110115_AADSMB bender_k_Page_079.jpg
05f1104a562fe804d541e984c8357936
e3cc0cb59c0fb9d1faf602410af180c53b96029f
201886 F20110115_AADSLM bender_k_Page_064.jpg
233b07de23bc8823bfea21c9dab24f3a
b5bb1628544f0ecc00fbe4ab2b28d06b6b0c1e94
25112 F20110115_AADTPE bender_k_Page_074thm.jpg
1a4b3bcc2e1529784518f040cb4dc5cc
5d4097dc13bb45647dc7a987ab464490b1df743d
52849 F20110115_AADTOP bender_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
77b29af6dfdc390ba53c285600205cdb
57d4185fc431bbdb956bebeadb28b34eae05d7a9
273271 F20110115_AADSKZ bender_k_Page_049.jpg
929cf75307cdb230e0cf0ee42994ce3f
af339b15664d5c4425657aab8694122dadb1e9df
15546 F20110115_AADSMC bender_k_Page_080.jpg
66d7f721eb2c4e51a52880fcc88a38dd
7942a20ab41b94f98759c7c40f9c748042445ffa
172878 F20110115_AADSLN bender_k_Page_065.jpg
d6a2f742634496fef2d8fa3b2e42b7e5
e2e988d8af4b02d601e386d7a47cac0afb667f56
70050 F20110115_AADTPF bender_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
0b678f251db5ea63f8d4340f21b3cb83
015844db17a347df78fa49ff4f6f26b4693938da
91085 F20110115_AADTOQ bender_k_Page_150.QC.jpg
96adc179ff78590199a3b77f725384da
cdd182fb7f43aa26f05c322aeebe2573c6442424
155598 F20110115_AADSMD bender_k_Page_081.jpg
169c5456f2ad459057ceb08ecb2cccb6
1ccbdcd6f3e0002a7b5fd442e434e847e3aa2c47
205184 F20110115_AADSLO bender_k_Page_066.jpg
9e9455c09fd34303507887b5a3c991c7
75c18b1f2cdf3934b8eb901faaaeaa9faff8e40b
23744 F20110115_AADTPG bender_k_Page_039thm.jpg
e7b71c04bdd3c77be0f4d2ac0c4db7ad
f1e8e09ce90c399d9aecb5aa627317839785f93d
26555 F20110115_AADTOR bender_k_Page_125thm.jpg
dd0b3cf5b9855236208b8453fa834b65
a2bfc7eee35c4cb50fe40edd5f69dc5c861e060a
125026 F20110115_AADSME bender_k_Page_082.jpg
f63d211e213c04f3cc8aac5ec56758b2
521649a2041f96965f30a648dd6680aef7f0a5bd
147663 F20110115_AADSLP bender_k_Page_067.jpg
49f9967e841eb6ef25888a716c44dc55
3a107f7389a6b9eed47f742030e6a1e24604d6d6
9442 F20110115_AADTPH bender_k_Page_016thm.jpg
4f62645c5cc3ec657047dd3270c5a0d5
83ff9d45ac83730a3433a392163d91a0fab82df5
24570 F20110115_AADTOS bender_k_Page_010thm.jpg
29f06e9b559cff3f8485dfe6cb210f7a
4ddd14cb2ba257ef4fc7f52f799c61c4068b6523
252731 F20110115_AADSMF bender_k_Page_084.jpg
c1c0bdd1249d6d1d020afe5a1fe1f59f
1a3cae96b269e6dbe06753685dc73fa5da777016
274564 F20110115_AADSLQ bender_k_Page_068.jpg
d8b3a7d44bfed649c151cc773cd46bda
ffb03e74bc18c565c305ce3eb68ac721a9124efc
31614 F20110115_AADTPI bender_k_Page_122thm.jpg
0a87bb3e4e331a19a78211b2f2ad5935
42b8c5ac646ef98c38f5e24503c45d013a9c711b
88260 F20110115_AADTOT bender_k_Page_132.QC.jpg
a289301aaee28b0c8575067d73518e6e
1c50dcb03f3b27a62f08035cf48fca7e6d0f8104
215845 F20110115_AADSMG bender_k_Page_085.jpg
cc0a18b79e05eb30e8b7311d2058126c
8635196ea631df046d15c96be92d78e0176ea16a
66908 F20110115_AADSLR bender_k_Page_069.jpg
e51a26fd4521cdcd76983baba79bbec1
8c85d57bf7bf2bb37e697e380c1b36183cef4daa
89820 F20110115_AADTOU bender_k_Page_135.QC.jpg
0597f4fcea4b32b7926904f0b752f3d0
3b79e5c24fb2fa0901551e163abeea6208f53444
183451 F20110115_AADSLS bender_k_Page_070.jpg
40e13db8bc1ffb98e8f43c796a546a36
1f77f6e187eb0239eef1c71c6cf150a47b6de4e8
99041 F20110115_AADTPJ bender_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
e25b95abe21d30b1a8c9d5de6e9d521c
940ff057dc3a371e6981b6fb7f135fc756c66c8a
99585 F20110115_AADTOV bender_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
6c3cd14c315078f49fb69826ce358f1d
c10f9743d355cddbb5a645782c7b2600acd160a6
116409 F20110115_AADSMH bender_k_Page_086.jpg
ab81b0e3fd3650bd674a4f4619356fb4
26d20d332cbb9ac6829385004d200c0692103909
214965 F20110115_AADSLT bender_k_Page_071.jpg
c4408f587680ddbf999fb8b89c6a1ca8
00b2ddbf4da0ec543c1e93c7f31ac1fc3e00ba92
227481 F20110115_AADTPK UFE0008941_00001.xml
c51670753925521230042e4b31e22896
72f2a77aadac94282fe50a740f405a4b32c81964
24323 F20110115_AADTOW bender_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
ff0e692e6b01682a927a64ddf74b0035
7a7fb4b8347ff0bcdfd57e4dcbcd42287398f343
181439 F20110115_AADSMI bender_k_Page_087.jpg
94863493ebb5186debb092c20776da89
c8350b262955cc51cb3613a85ab8c2c2ab790569
215920 F20110115_AADSLU bender_k_Page_072.jpg
d642407c19a05536d17c1a08ae0caabd
63b26bbc05441fa391df0b8cc4d02d7d734423b6
75460 F20110115_AADTQA bender_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
1b0166d5995a233d9263132afb3ae11c
abe10ca37fd131dfad8e01f91f071096c60dc713
7309 F20110115_AADTPL bender_k_Page_001thm.jpg
6ad388ca96297d317ed924152ff4bf98
1003d15066bf5eac3ebc9fb2315eaf154eb9f011
37651 F20110115_AADTOX bender_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
474d380933268caf62c903e2cae9bd05
d1b6475ae93650ce40610885513517ff1d46d06c
181756 F20110115_AADSMJ bender_k_Page_088.jpg
26316eb3231193085c90a2963ced809a
98a244c55ca7fbb3c19f4f572840eab9c676fde8
208197 F20110115_AADSLV bender_k_Page_073.jpg
0e10a3c5cb10e20368daecf0d293f82d
afd07c6f0c533df79e0fd44d9759b420dcf2fb0c
21313 F20110115_AADTQB bender_k_Page_015thm.jpg
f5928e823cfbe0400eef3b6ca8e4ab6e
7d4aeede9d04383acb3cbbfbb6b70554c2dd80ae
20038 F20110115_AADTPM bender_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
6529cd4d0a85e83708d49a47118b2d69
cc6981215a7928686674151ec61ad8125ea9b1f6
75222 F20110115_AADTOY bender_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
b370f4d6c047e3609a1db73f295abb43
17011ae5c1ba7e6930b16015b0f6c300d4893350
108541 F20110115_AADSMK bender_k_Page_089.jpg
c9dec1e75918916029fc0271d5615c63
66df563061152fbe7a557fb1634e31b2a6d67971
213797 F20110115_AADSLW bender_k_Page_074.jpg
05e3d468a2ab450774bbfb5bfbeb6162
b0a4fc1e5e6481559f3299d006b09b21f74105eb
27811 F20110115_AADTQC bender_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
0751f0225c79cf3aa0375e484bbe04ce
5002cd83cf915f89c7b46b622b560491add5cc33
3110 F20110115_AADTPN bender_k_Page_002thm.jpg
7453ba3484d460fbb1894e264b8b3543
9f152d552c4ff663aea3422c3feee960bdaf1b19
25615 F20110115_AADTOZ bender_k_Page_076thm.jpg
37503b3a2b6fa735fa4132561f650265
8489a79fef6b66b2ad79f5e117a0914c630e9b2f
176722 F20110115_AADSNA bender_k_Page_105.jpg
13f4e68fd00fd0ecb29a4156731b7767
6b3e4108e8081cf27517ff5fcfce3f35c36666e8
73958 F20110115_AADSML bender_k_Page_090.jpg
e7925d8471c38e7dc24bc8c6ca623890
af60dbdc650cb97b77e1918e5a4bb31a4a492288
207667 F20110115_AADSLX bender_k_Page_075.jpg
815246337ca7160c0cabf3b80d605218
e75e86f405a2e644c823f0791509a776bd984ce2
60860 F20110115_AADTQD bender_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
14ad85c3e31018aba9faa70627a68680
0340124ab711bd2f1b7b7152c372ca6ff11fa68d
11938 F20110115_AADTPO bender_k_Page_003thm.jpg
78288d0a7dabd57d78a7ca4aa0b44893
4c4dead0846fceb468bd3008c35552fae297c727
14868 F20110115_AADSNB bender_k_Page_106.jpg
4709e6f8f1a49469beb289224d411c86
6c6e540c831606ea0d3b22b60e94f8345a64c31d
17597 F20110115_AADSMM bender_k_Page_091.jpg
c946ea305ab5ac84661722ff16062da0
4bff0e6002367a7c0b362d1579385955e2940187
211664 F20110115_AADSLY bender_k_Page_076.jpg
6aecc2790b6813d7c425738569a06762
4c6f4e1f0ced33cbf307c61010478d32736191f7
23883 F20110115_AADTQE bender_k_Page_018thm.jpg
66431057d96df12e2ec95f01e5bc3fe1
2063af5c4dcb63ccd2ff2b72cd54214704ef9fd6
44350 F20110115_AADTPP bender_k_Page_004thm.jpg
7a0aa49547b732ea6aaf82f7cc1f741b
3521028fdf975e8071a2acea205754fd7d64c63f
111761 F20110115_AADSNC bender_k_Page_107.jpg
edee07fbc42a330340fb2d664f7462bc
9d92742d8ef394852c6f75ba77ef35cd01a58b47
163895 F20110115_AADSMN bender_k_Page_092.jpg
8fe201ba6d665db8f50509f60a6afb13
24b014ff482d29aa7e7bb776e79c63b3ac3ae582
201904 F20110115_AADSLZ bender_k_Page_077.jpg
bbdae90d153cbbfd066ad65068302c47
80aff3faf992ae94a509d3a6e1117b0e3cfa202e
75499 F20110115_AADTQF bender_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
6550cf3a9948ab4fbd4e0c9d395bddda
0a6c2c8d764fb2ab8e11d80521ef0a286b901751
118812 F20110115_AADTPQ bender_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
acb20c4778595e7c6ede9d667bcb2803
948448f86b51d3ad67bf55781d16189d628245ae
123228 F20110115_AADSND bender_k_Page_108.jpg
dc87cb4c54fd50091af1cceaa03c07d9
72915d104d5cbf8d824447e08bf84fa85ad8f162
152547 F20110115_AADSMO bender_k_Page_093.jpg
9f2b4933401f49ea89c4f4194617053c
09f32867da88590033d613b3319814dd4a78bfa6
23219 F20110115_AADTQG bender_k_Page_019thm.jpg
19470f73c947a247e2c3d2e724207e2b
0b8007241ab0229c7a109886d359884a41e052fd
30024 F20110115_AADTPR bender_k_Page_006thm.jpg
50e474a8eca3908d030ee8881aa48bde
7c64a9ec0313ef6657cc5c3f2309804dbfaee647
116072 F20110115_AADSNE bender_k_Page_109.jpg
124a21803b863fa83f38a4e3504f9662
6eb17b363590c05d55742f2c3d2422b4816131d6
107925 F20110115_AADSMP bender_k_Page_094.jpg
da798edfe62cd0de1d2267697608ecf1
a1ce4fd01936473e762d4c22c423c6befd3690fe
75155 F20110115_AADTQH bender_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
05ffc4fd2c92887643932eee46a1434b
ad38eca40dffcc5b1fccd711bc8c9c3d1c5e9082
37028 F20110115_AADTPS bender_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
72e8a895b0c7af1b9fc43b4dbe8af1ee
f346b5ec784a97cbda178aa1fac56878251009de
107569 F20110115_AADSNF bender_k_Page_110.jpg
cf6fb0d8731a1c533298e7e90bf2a112
e8a9940be81e7008ae5ced63ed5bf0c7168ec019
211964 F20110115_AADSMQ bender_k_Page_095.jpg
e453c57996084ecf9148758e6fdde9e2
2841c285d96d86195dfdc64af339034c4e1dfdd1
24938 F20110115_AADTQI bender_k_Page_020thm.jpg
189cb27a0e49ae8d5641cc3a1e471f11
e86583f257c503145275162d76ecd4cadd4b5e39
37366 F20110115_AADTPT bender_k_Page_008thm.jpg
2aed95e91c30ddf648da6c3256e50df4
f8b6cffc98a685fe1b8f506cfa6b36c4216d5392
170672 F20110115_AADSNG bender_k_Page_111.jpg
7773c3623418be5ac42156037f5a906b
66ed16b5ac93789c9cd23a46385d7695be25ecb9
131156 F20110115_AADSMR bender_k_Page_096.jpg
6ae1a449a42713e41ca650c528e1a4dd
97e90a3fe2f80cb8806ae56a28e5a6e707c28cd0
78290 F20110115_AADTQJ bender_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
ade2edff93489e8cd5a940f1c48ac78c
7584fd31e0d3cf1dcb487267a09a5fe90577f353
63104 F20110115_AADTPU bender_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
1a639843b7e958e7be7e86297fea49e5
05c380c1c480c67a81f131bb35f02c8b4d772974
303792 F20110115_AADSNH bender_k_Page_112.jpg
2219e89127554fa39dfbd7f25765792f
3dd743da5e1453116e7e101459d4042da25f915c
209171 F20110115_AADSMS bender_k_Page_097.jpg
fa5ab7676ef79e11d1dd2590ec1b2f01
67123faa1dc7495e6d485d1d564c71cb2cecf6c3
18264 F20110115_AADTPV bender_k_Page_009thm.jpg
de049011691a5bc19b7619b9d0b77c2d
c8e255a9e3292ee31a2d97b8ff52c3affee3ca9e
152843 F20110115_AADSMT bender_k_Page_098.jpg
915b3306ecf7e90554151ace6b8e63f2
496659805d3ae25eb5aa7c2c0693461d677d8327
76377 F20110115_AADTQK bender_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
9184875bb89aedff1a0ea6c75866b5f1
9fbd696bfbcd4e76df0355e7b0d8ec4afe735030
67177 F20110115_AADTPW bender_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
8ec69be0fc479f363b5bc5f4bb91f7c5
fab40364db001d3276e632462f152b4cd086df43
271887 F20110115_AADSNI bender_k_Page_113.jpg
4321f45e62f37d62db498ca0f1284c9f
4545e2c3dc646fbff95f4fc6a0a2123bb095dbff
167077 F20110115_AADSMU bender_k_Page_099.jpg
733f348eaeaa1f24385a6ad5cb9bd1c1
72fa0b9df85db180fa9bd95939223c9c2de66174
74203 F20110115_AADTRA bender_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
81df6a77bf4cb49f74ba131a1bedeb40
cf89831af83809f04d3469a0bb2ec31ec6eaa276
23431 F20110115_AADTQL bender_k_Page_022thm.jpg
a3ad24548fbc72748d1aae3c522e3938
9f0c1c092816b0525feff4b3981c5309850fbbe1
25443 F20110115_AADTPX bender_k_Page_012thm.jpg
df8c562f4ce560651616ea9d504bd8b3
366a97d88857086b43fd7c1d0488917263099678
121484 F20110115_AADSNJ bender_k_Page_114.jpg
9f4d04304dc4feacd5a739936a128079
ad2831514a97dbb8269df9d973e2dbf9627eeb96
199118 F20110115_AADSMV bender_k_Page_100.jpg
d3c4db2254bccf8997f614e4b8a9bdd7
6ab8cc68ee48a309730284a32aa2b20a9535ea21
25151 F20110115_AADTRB bender_k_Page_036thm.jpg
9211afcf3895b9803725f2be71e58311
d3cfa55fa7330ee7102a3887ab7aee10fb2275c0
79731 F20110115_AADTQM bender_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
1cec5b8805cb76342e639caf07abef26
059c9ccf960f0934629ebe88eb4b67681d0b42bc
84122 F20110115_AADTPY bender_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
db9f1c28eef99cc7fdafd4587e9fde25
8538937bcdc026d21f0f2b8828da2a0bbe1c9e75
155638 F20110115_AADSNK bender_k_Page_115.jpg
235422407578ab3bb8f4d2ff9e132c70
2c6f71f3005db0aeb8f155a59d2ff3dacc1c1eb2
145564 F20110115_AADSMW bender_k_Page_101.jpg
c44d245d67fea192b8ac0cc3d9092fcd
233b287e28bee22080b6f5c6c9cfc954f7aefcf8
24917 F20110115_AADTRC bender_k_Page_037thm.jpg
5f43d5b4d01e81dd5be87d056ab9b095
e6a13bd4e721d8164b756536e4c29ee94c91e10a
77562 F20110115_AADTQN bender_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
9125cf4407ca3803e7b62c27142ece0f
d1b871392b75c4a65eff5db8db3ccc1d02ea0fc3
24481 F20110115_AADTPZ bender_k_Page_014thm.jpg
0f02d5110f0a6612cc05b44afef28116
a5c0696f36ef019cffc19fe89a40faaf27161223
167786 F20110115_AADSNL bender_k_Page_116.jpg
d84a4d96988cfc4b770d312e23a23302
3658cfaa161e6876807ee9a21c888af693a460e2
227891 F20110115_AADSMX bender_k_Page_102.jpg
957570bfd94b19a6224aa161b57b2046
ec7579f68235fd2105eb6f060ef346cd8c77414b
352287 F20110115_AADSOA bender_k_Page_131.jpg
ca78363030ff9328b9bc30125ed260da
3a05830ff021a71d4edb9b55711ead917f68c402
76948 F20110115_AADTRD bender_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
1531eca5ca712b1816955d8a4f8d2ac0
97fae0f0664dd1a3db9801436c2840948353eef9
25506 F20110115_AADTQO bender_k_Page_025thm.jpg
0227de8db6594f8399747f9ff3ce1507
1e737ed9bef58bb8fc50b85d42286d76fad3373e
113303 F20110115_AADSNM bender_k_Page_117.jpg
b51d3b8032bc7a724695a008012987bc
5d29771107634a01627ee1e2bb75659c00abebf5
158117 F20110115_AADSMY bender_k_Page_103.jpg
307aeb96751d002ab9f35b1d0140266e
46158dfe5c550cc9619886b5a22eb5b78491eea5
304186 F20110115_AADSOB bender_k_Page_132.jpg
e6989956c0e2d75977c6c1dd1dd2fd5b
05d1d41eff35948b5f767e00fabf863d4e849b5a
22458 F20110115_AADTRE bender_k_Page_040thm.jpg
40b59f0fc391eda91534911bd6f63491
6bd2d1f7e4534a7fb06786fd79aa2dfe74b70986
23488 F20110115_AADTQP bender_k_Page_026thm.jpg
555be479bcb80fc675bf01e551b64516
ea439bf26d8674cc9edeb2b63a425299043944bf
233921 F20110115_AADSNN bender_k_Page_118.jpg
8ae960690f01eacce90a5e2c113d0d06
d2e477f3106d097f2337634191c96232d5595456
205193 F20110115_AADSMZ bender_k_Page_104.jpg
97e5833972de239302cc6cfeed5733b1
c38c80ecb2edced5e0d68e7349217741489824cf
323670 F20110115_AADSOC bender_k_Page_133.jpg
c3e9136d68a1e863297a653c2911516f
3a806855345778090448ede6d9d3007ffacb8304
63368 F20110115_AADTRF bender_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
4c15fa77c1ec37a3f1cb998d902b76b8
8976dcfef86fcd77b4729bcf74bf95bd8449acc1
76881 F20110115_AADTQQ bender_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
077bbdc3a8d620d070268d3ed81fb8a9
70d78d2f4eb6741b777ef4359453877dca919bc6
205790 F20110115_AADSNO bender_k_Page_119.jpg
42dbdf3e55236a4cc5ad7a740694f311
e4657c47ffa8c8febedf5d260d7ede4a3feeaa26
293067 F20110115_AADSOD bender_k_Page_134.jpg
70c8b1306aace39d407d96b2f3d19679
b70a64d511ef35d50e1163033618bb965117c5c7
49528 F20110115_AADTRG bender_k_Page_042thm.jpg
d0d22c43830a3ed1b3d9da30d5b711f2
cf1b92fdabc22392e19a1ddc8f8826c9f33fcdff
24779 F20110115_AADTQR bender_k_Page_028thm.jpg
3ae0939f92792b9e1646b9e465e2a768
8387728c6e52e96d8e2d2884438f06ac1cdc9e07
209322 F20110115_AADSNP bender_k_Page_120.jpg
70336bc378b8c80c1a43103204733025
74b2788ccb2ad7896c2e2cd8226cadd290852f7b
297287 F20110115_AADSOE bender_k_Page_135.jpg
ac6a95a4681e91c26374992c1b356f32
3db17086f188f54790590a7782584bedae095b91
20239 F20110115_AADTRH bender_k_Page_043thm.jpg
655acf3a7ebc1a3030bab62d2d43a405
80142bd59d47930af2c58a523226ae1000a01e33
79955 F20110115_AADTQS bender_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
ffdffe5e75c1c073b73da9ab72439ec2
a006198bc72cc17e48324120f70cb311fd5e3934
81373 F20110115_AADSNQ bender_k_Page_121.jpg
fd42d03a24fb39a2e997dfb8cc3e9463
4fa4169a4c42d1b5903ad42113cc92247d77f1d9
317035 F20110115_AADSOF bender_k_Page_136.jpg
ac16fba46c65b6a8ddbfbb94a4a347d9
4427fd4eb97fb4b70da580061bff2e2b185bea41
63838 F20110115_AADTRI bender_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
b65598a4c8824a8de230df9fd73b0613
88f25c5ff4429d1b7b33726eb7329b94f2145234
22967 F20110115_AADTQT bender_k_Page_029thm.jpg
f326e1737478f4a55f94db2d4b78ce19
fe759d16d56bc6cb32167ee9123ca8cbd2cb4b91
276888 F20110115_AADSNR bender_k_Page_122.jpg
1ed1db4311f7dba920a75746f3b4cdbc
a500c267cd344e14b2b67dc38aa1be141ed1780a
278432 F20110115_AADSOG bender_k_Page_137.jpg
68fbe4d1d32fbbaa49eea6c74498d124
2ca11bfa4ea48511d826c8742e7a6b58178f1638
21399 F20110115_AADTRJ bender_k_Page_044thm.jpg
60d0c5d39768e610a2f105203e86fccb
c714cf5c2bb90dbb299f4a39f2e0059310be35ca
74396 F20110115_AADTQU bender_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
8466e611b71050b0c578142ea64f2d2a
b5817c49c930399b436d359f8866c2872fda1018
247643 F20110115_AADSNS bender_k_Page_123.jpg
ef384d5cda452f30f584e5beec14f3e8
1ee226adb702f879c39046b3f8b9ad537af927e3
360156 F20110115_AADSOH bender_k_Page_138.jpg
3fdd17fa4b712125e797e36127a95278
8fd888973d169998cd17d8e83340e9a7a3b4362d
65771 F20110115_AADTRK bender_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
b730fa871be0dd2937fad63a83a1b74c
f978dc638e9405f93dbad04e11a1299647069dc7
24442 F20110115_AADTQV bender_k_Page_031thm.jpg
b23c47054fb5eb4e67bfc5ff6d4e4c4a
beef0b3e27d44ab8590728656c29d08c2dade3af
263907 F20110115_AADSNT bender_k_Page_124.jpg
4d257946e6348cad043711707f10cb76
3224396dd25dd797c7a75a893139d493de5d0012
328425 F20110115_AADSOI bender_k_Page_139.jpg
7dff344727b41810b593a37c56af5a03
724264460e5c4e9f510e054d1f32c9620df0ca81
24447 F20110115_AADTQW bender_k_Page_033thm.jpg
e77ecdeb1b2f41b39165f300dd138284
0c0755982544d5aae1e3b17717e9cc2cd635d43e
311280 F20110115_AADSNU bender_k_Page_125.jpg
83fc53d55de6b56efc3194466e1c8765
0b396fe6e91123d3e3a5a1e1c673126e47d90006
25356 F20110115_AADTSA bender_k_Page_054thm.jpg
d2cb4b05c0bf02f992fd0cc77df2abd2
113fae4f480ba530bdf62b6758097422fa005873
20004 F20110115_AADTRL bender_k_Page_045thm.jpg
22c4eb5e3d74128439abe9a424e724dd
c4c6b1abe628132efb386eb008b9f8b9f3a34854
79271 F20110115_AADTQX bender_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
a1438c714e7ad8c3b98c954d2db22618
3ccc4190e28507473af66ed50782cc1a8efc68f9
283116 F20110115_AADSNV bender_k_Page_126.jpg
703248643bcd1c0887d8aa3d2ce2bbfb
8f3a113f80a9d647eb3b0f02d753b39cdc434cca
261593 F20110115_AADSOJ bender_k_Page_140.jpg
f3f72f05ea7f5376e537176ecc238985
bb9f11b8a291beabb0208d55997f750669148f98
82673 F20110115_AADTSB bender_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
4569ce766a54156c001310119a63808f
37cc29ec1cb46d95f9fb8879303f151ca35ad8de
62038 F20110115_AADTRM bender_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
d343f3fb0a731f95cde019dfd020c356
ea40d197d1ae41dc50a46271e7f64299802c909b
24748 F20110115_AADTQY bender_k_Page_034thm.jpg
72a558009c31ab33705b906f88f7559e
1423f51a6064e53edd1f07a6c4485985f3789a34
211019 F20110115_AADSNW bender_k_Page_127.jpg
ab515cacccdd37fa3bafc2b4866f3e72
14c6aa6d57b3f6477228729ec650ee27ac00e179
308088 F20110115_AADSOK bender_k_Page_141.jpg
9f9bf9d1cf0dd962e19cabd0e2970e6b
127a30123c1c7b45878986c5c7f20004491f5f54
29256 F20110115_AADTSC bender_k_Page_055thm.jpg
d9efe3a426cca993942bbe77851dcf13
831585d2b09cbc9136fe8bdba0ada278743fabe4
91589 F20110115_AADTRN bender_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
7b3f8a5bfd7dc77dedf6e8c1550bae80
ac24a03e022ed5689d2a52062dd7915e1c4b1a49
23575 F20110115_AADTQZ bender_k_Page_035thm.jpg
1ae02df3b63a808dc12953d18aa8b9d3
a226b08ca6a43a60f1afb05e1ae0596dd00faa0b
1051913 F20110115_AADSPA bender_k_Page_005.jp2
e945977e745ad78d550eeb9e1a2c45af
23833fa9684b83055cf97eaae81892b2a7dd4c26
240875 F20110115_AADSOL bender_k_Page_142.jpg
f2bd704f8b781175a306252c4b0c9acd
0a8d90e68b2841b999c138eb2c69ad4e318be88a
151485 F20110115_AADSNX bender_k_Page_128.jpg
9c3ce4fe5ce4a4227db0b281772b1bfa
694f74469ed7a5bd8df608aa4753219ed5f64a99
70842 F20110115_AADTSD bender_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
1e1a4806966e943f6c33a045a805b038
0fa83d08447f1035e55e7a20135030ee5c955156
44223 F20110115_AADTRO bender_k_Page_047thm.jpg
007b508b7ac16fd9a2aa867ba32e8f90
624a814c4a17b8bc1e45f55455d6f016081d5d7e
1051965 F20110115_AADSPB bender_k_Page_007.jp2
9a430c5bd046fdbccab05199935233a6
63a9baaa4f099ff08998f2eeeaea7ff522c06d07
374409 F20110115_AADSOM bender_k_Page_143.jpg
e14a458c94dc5b951704eaf0a6d9f36f
b14ac8dfd5025b77ac42e9ffa6a264b60debdb44
272343 F20110115_AADSNY bender_k_Page_129.jpg
eb79ab8d89bc5e8d3dab2dcde6580383
922a79f77f27f71e751f255ffee76896085c5895
31794 F20110115_AADTSE bender_k_Page_056thm.jpg
f6480ed32e0557a268c1f32fab91c8f2
b828cbed1b78151926850ab9301916205f3f719f
87310 F20110115_AADTRP bender_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
1672a59146c707caf1c106b7dce08950
b5382bcdcb658dc3434b83799330330703f0dd0e
938568 F20110115_AADSPC bender_k_Page_008.jp2
605cf0488457a9abfdd96f73761372b5
0965b064a16d1d96784c5055b51627932f484c7a
365163 F20110115_AADSON bender_k_Page_144.jpg
1a6bcf3a1726f77f69531b3ee846054f
88ace19c6695e1bac3b14d486e047ade1a983735
311530 F20110115_AADSNZ bender_k_Page_130.jpg
fb973498c879c57c260d6043c1fed3e7
297056ffc3746bd46d24a3f15b261c0688f019e9
22051 F20110115_AADTSF bender_k_Page_057thm.jpg
64ca60603355f741401eab55ec2ba375
ebdebbd68e67ab0c828fc068294bad701b78a2fa
18988 F20110115_AADTRQ bender_k_Page_048thm.jpg
eb2363c3326eb437fa742bf6339376d7
1e5551aaccf2ca0aaaffcd2769b23f26b8857172
84895 F20110115_AADSPD bender_k_Page_009.jp2
2745b0b97551483d07f025744f83ae20
0576671abf53d6786608481984e2653eead74649
325644 F20110115_AADSOO bender_k_Page_145.jpg
f6a5eb08689e4b55119a7102ffd0c048
9b793860226c9a26e26aae4f2889c80f50968b19
69600 F20110115_AADTSG bender_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
cda19a649c946a9fd4110748eda52a74
29149b32ae5f2c304c93ee4218e42391ae0d573e
60432 F20110115_AADTRR bender_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
2f510bd9566ddeed97f3d0c50d90275b
56cdef659f3b45ffdc31f7f1f00234ed07fe18f1
109247 F20110115_AADSPE bender_k_Page_010.jp2
5959d7108ffe3bb7263270475108a1da
c1d4324f7e94d2a046ea2f89cc16367a27913ee1
355384 F20110115_AADSOP bender_k_Page_146.jpg
906cd0c8eea5c2f93a8758c1eb74a79a
25989d466feb98ca23a998b0fc271cc2d81a331e
48886 F20110115_AADTSH bender_k_Page_058thm.jpg
4e578b84f69b58c3a3e3f9232c72dd0c
f79d5c35123b52806e3c218ee4a0ea470dda4397
32394 F20110115_AADTRS bender_k_Page_049thm.jpg
ff068b9a1ecf0bd8eddb1a436d7e2987
94a6c3c77d3fe5ba37f83dacf911ee2c00341d1e
95523 F20110115_AADSPF bender_k_Page_011.jp2
431616bbb101de1f7e4867bd5283551b
aed238080062a65eb8cedfd0dab84db3aa7f9610
284012 F20110115_AADSOQ bender_k_Page_147.jpg
4997791dded4f8f3d514c1e5d5de9d70
0e373736f25f15d01d1d5fba83453800afea8e0a
100114 F20110115_AADTSI bender_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
b296cbbd693c688498fc13222ebf994f
e66a31ce6b5b07a37e6f0c81f989f519a66a81d5
92963 F20110115_AADTRT bender_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
5cf123b739d0010c3fce0ddef44da3d8
9c4bbd1b46f936d344e98f83e725c4a287613d6d
116914 F20110115_AADSPG bender_k_Page_012.jp2
515f5c3a7e6d5a626cbe30bcd36a608a
656d2004bbd3eddd4432eab5313dab356e92a76d
206984 F20110115_AADSOR bender_k_Page_148.jpg
15272784d7c05d7ad7f2e830f6078e6c
912a3ddc67e31c7ca53cfcb426145bc2e93c7e3f
19730 F20110115_AADTSJ bender_k_Page_060thm.jpg
0bb4ff4f004971ef675969fafb3eb8b7
b0b95891c0b5fc32e87575a923f1110f9661ed4e
75940 F20110115_AADTRU bender_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
96bb31974ad32808c578c1c8079e84a6
526db0b2fb12e92cb8af4a6eff642e2df68cd9cf
111478 F20110115_AADSPH bender_k_Page_013.jp2
1a1dd1097c0cd5356e66daa385bca7e5
9cf810dfd2e2971cc6be04dcdd3ba42c71e2d37e
226082 F20110115_AADSOS bender_k_Page_149.jpg
86134e06b8d73c8cab2eb65cd4a556b1
d908cedf833c486144842f5d015fb115ed6b05b4
56784 F20110115_AADTSK bender_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
c253813ac33c50f6cbfd09edb1df8d1b
23be67e7d1f447e466a36f384885d6fbe49cd245
25133 F20110115_AADTRV bender_k_Page_051thm.jpg
19226bfe79da024783ec8b34bf27a9ad
ea3f9c0483f4dd392b565aa756cea14b97db0d8d
108153 F20110115_AADSPI bender_k_Page_014.jp2
bc54e12f20cd84314512b0438b209a88
8c6bdd0efa86726d4a31414ac9f8c2e576364c8a
258642 F20110115_AADSOT bender_k_Page_150.jpg
fecb43266a49ecfd0e74d39b028e5fcb
fb030fd227d36b13b27d33347d5de5bc939e4406
20435 F20110115_AADTSL bender_k_Page_061thm.jpg
86935e6076a7093c22b10cad0711c776
c86644a8abd4c0f5d9fe9194a57d872ee004d604
80567 F20110115_AADTRW bender_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
222dd92e0ab1c37f481ef6dd9e8295ec
d7d55086a476a20ca59a9cde47d01d68f7660ba3
98098 F20110115_AADSPJ bender_k_Page_015.jp2
013d4b88727109c21dd75fe4f56ecd3a
251b8b3896477615f6d61bd678496069235a1ff1
28278 F20110115_AADSOU bender_k_Page_151.jpg
1397815ecdd8ffdb00abb1c74ccad279
830e3b54a7a77242bba6847622ee3d72fca4a3d2
76592 F20110115_AADTTA bender_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
db1561032d2a96f759d5566b88ad961a
2e5bc78889c7bf4608392a03d81424461c3d4747
23002 F20110115_AADTRX bender_k_Page_052thm.jpg
d82a728bc2457056a495dd270d71ef55
83acce3f028f70342459fae545eaa630aee7ab61
70722 F20110115_AADSOV bender_k_Page_152.jpg
db2b40e7c6bd6dd48469a158a01fd46b
cdb1ede2ddb09375975f3818f4d2cd0c75857836
23819 F20110115_AADTTB bender_k_Page_077thm.jpg
8ac36a765b48bbdbfefd74ee150eeed1
7cfc49c95385328a75c20a215d6ce38358ff721e
58205 F20110115_AADTSM bender_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
e75119fd164481c6a98fecbd79ad621a
c75b9cb4c7589fedd55fb7359554143a6719578c
72128 F20110115_AADTRY bender_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
e38a77acc81e43dd704164af4b865546
569b67dac1a1b6f27bf6b060259dbc304088d265
41222 F20110115_AADSPK bender_k_Page_016.jp2
932180042bc3cb4c967a0ba2ef162073
b61fd58e8adbdfd32a9ca7fe070b0827158cae1f
24863 F20110115_AADSOW bender_k_Page_001.jp2
ae25583a3ca83e35c54f19136f3b1bca
f1c9195450aeba01107cd01fe19e12ad353645c5
23311 F20110115_AADTTC bender_k_Page_078thm.jpg
b4091a24fedd99832c1261fb554fe29f
4b3cc8c1041af220a4265bfec50acbc1418027c3
30880 F20110115_AADTSN bender_k_Page_062thm.jpg
21a04ccf6762b7f4f5f8e5b1ec275a1d
f43fea6e0259027b89313d9ce2f425a683b16f33
79327 F20110115_AADTRZ bender_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
a997003ee201564ff4d26ee21ca115d2
7e676d92adff4c2cde750c91cef125fda9f8866e
85223 F20110115_AADSPL bender_k_Page_017.jp2
c8f227fd8a7a381b592d8fe7e70a4951
8fa1842ba5f4225c02143b6b7992516777bebffc
5671 F20110115_AADSOX bender_k_Page_002.jp2
356b5eda55e12ba92ffd1586eb7eaf8f
423aff80ef26c9e17a8f11d82f15a8af606756b9
107101 F20110115_AADSQA bender_k_Page_032.jp2
b19f9cb2dac3f646498d11da02e85681
ae80c25c7bb815b7c6f74462ddb340606f5ea025
21985 F20110115_AADTTD bender_k_Page_079thm.jpg
43ae65c9951f6a2ef58766972ddfa4eb
248b953dd8af28f993379007322bd9198496eee6
80061 F20110115_AADTSO bender_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
0562146b30f95339c25a4b80cd06ec53
15778eac9a95e6eb7e118629b427c4656573e0ad
104038 F20110115_AADSPM bender_k_Page_018.jp2
e28611523be79701d6125d9c275ea386
7df14c78197b07b58c3f11740efc17871ad78231
46019 F20110115_AADSOY bender_k_Page_003.jp2
0c21248dad9df4121cfb073bd44c61a2
4266b0e52dd7c8b094f7414d734fe8d277b5c414
108760 F20110115_AADSQB bender_k_Page_033.jp2
0c477f4d7e0fe07c67295b26ea72a0f4
30756fb59486da414230cbb55a0bb3eb154b0a77
66940 F20110115_AADTTE bender_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
fe64f09887a874d4640c9e6bd9b77c26
6af9bb459df3df9443b0890bfe410a60f9024f05
31102 F20110115_AADTSP bender_k_Page_063thm.jpg
bcb8c17d57e1e840ec221513ef959afd
28ccf849a752cf146fc3f569b7061d28dc10cdb4
105438 F20110115_AADSPN bender_k_Page_019.jp2
3292e6c0a6e4fcac47c388ad96100e79
c25e0338dca73be0359ea1b5294dfb5b5f0ea64d
1051976 F20110115_AADSOZ bender_k_Page_004.jp2
a115a4eebe3e4774658b4b25c6900d9f
1c22cb090f563cb7a210e64d746cf2428dacc9b0
135123 F20110115_AADSQC bender_k_Page_034.jp2
65065c2eff754de0a8342e847b094ea1
6d52d2975dc0a8d3b190083524858f36946e87e6
2785 F20110115_AADTTF bender_k_Page_080thm.jpg
ec3422caf3f73dfd5950fe308bf03b66
a1ad3d27cdc6d48b225ee33785cf743b353eef52
80389 F20110115_AADTSQ bender_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
3c48b16bb6121e2ab24938e082b012c4
76b611a2bc0ce7b0e371977b0401343099a55e68
111013 F20110115_AADSPO bender_k_Page_020.jp2
017edc328c33ff56eeaea2243e043e2c
e776b76bd24d1a1c116dcad9fccd2ae184b9d5da
104142 F20110115_AADSQD bender_k_Page_035.jp2
b967a42452b768f9c92e238ec13bf105
e9f565cfabdf227429ace1e0847c4c98f495f5ec
6164 F20110115_AADTTG bender_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
8efb0b52bd0d7e3da41ebbd8632297ee
9ebf437be1c06a36b6012a817284f1965271eaf8
76327 F20110115_AADTSR bender_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
6e6dfd650874ecb8f295aaeecfcf8e78
7647a6b52698e12a4fe9adaaf98d5fa3c844baaa
108717 F20110115_AADSPP bender_k_Page_021.jp2
9874c324bd8262d3225888615f16f46b
39eb116247648b0d6413c2670025973ea6b21929
107382 F20110115_AADSQE bender_k_Page_036.jp2
499de295047c9760a8f3582f35ae2d89
c0ba660d8fd8d608328f6758febf3821d8f3c93b
15356 F20110115_AADTTH bender_k_Page_081thm.jpg
3a75adb8cdf1e7e51afa4ea0a02ec0e9
d9289f5812244301702e17714ccd9ecab2cd3085
20809 F20110115_AADTSS bender_k_Page_065thm.jpg
c00214873ec32f82caaf0c3f2dec1c1a
35ee2c54947e0649716aec61cfb36e53bed654ce
101634 F20110115_AADSPQ bender_k_Page_022.jp2
5f1161b2a0c6befe7facc5324a0dd528
b5427e210dd0cb5a06e1aa7de498571882194952
107450 F20110115_AADSQF bender_k_Page_037.jp2
ada50c1be55bf73531ed153046228350
557e95ef881f6b2f87c5088e8599bb06466c7074
38283 F20110115_AADTTI bender_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
cac3f767361b119f07a2f4a882310343
03dd7218353955b2fc0586c53c6c24d303fd42dc
78983 F20110115_AADTST bender_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
dff8025d097c65361822594ea4d92bed
d4a0c2361b1675eea2239cbd2128b438b1e7d25e
109369 F20110115_AADSPR bender_k_Page_023.jp2
84657a640ceaa5921b4699fac01df0b8
4727680a7f91678b5cfb9b013efa35eaa15a01cf
107670 F20110115_AADSQG bender_k_Page_038.jp2
3a22094b6c8916d4a58e85a9fbeebece
4c81e370dca3b30e348b916e25e48f4fef7940f2
46461 F20110115_AADTTJ bender_k_Page_084thm.jpg
3e128b698dc41cf07be600c639db6da6
8ad5c99193c10eaa020cd58acc92fce17299481e
83861 F20110115_AADTSU bender_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
ef7e1db8a17ed827319c11c7faa82c21
c54fcac270f43c51e40385b599015f205122fc4c
108307 F20110115_AADSPS bender_k_Page_024.jp2
867c7908d3bb3e1432d2caeed8d0198c
f689142547a671684a0813725f91bd6bbdd7b04d
105996 F20110115_AADSQH bender_k_Page_039.jp2
81dba7ffad4e1dd1fcc3417b8980d826
3e1c5973e993993745c74111f2f1ef85ba2d81d7
20104 F20110115_AADTTK bender_k_Page_085thm.jpg
7ff7a7b6be04991ced983ec332111e06
85868c2742ae7fdbb695910b258e1ba0904f75a2
9200 F20110115_AADTSV bender_k_Page_069thm.jpg
4ed310e435eb581c59420f75c293c725
4261c483785270229ce0c19470ddddf0f12c0476
111161 F20110115_AADSPT bender_k_Page_025.jp2
ab2620e1c7514fd16bb7c1fe23fa8d1e
e0800ada4793ba83f7240adb71009c1776cec71a
99264 F20110115_AADSQI bender_k_Page_040.jp2
aadb741114749f3e03cd18f5604259cb
5420e04d66714bfb7f4c5de04b7f38cf2dbefd80
66780 F20110115_AADTTL bender_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
d67b5f96367eee87ebbf8bce9131c449
b526851faf9f75825ee137ee8c194b34991a0de1
67640 F20110115_AADTSW bender_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
1e865aac6bfa78f1601a56a3d02d40fd
df1bca725e564f3b5c0acb1f59a169ff4d1edbe3
103588 F20110115_AADSPU bender_k_Page_026.jp2
863d90ad99025f210fcbd4d23c28619e
f456b6d3e03dfb7636daeaf274590e89bd2ab69b
90825 F20110115_AADSQJ bender_k_Page_041.jp2
48abff1004b816d285bf533adc31b612
37be6195e4a5fcd2124eb388f39883648eeba252
58952 F20110115_AADTUA bender_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
962be3639e727d69467aafdba9705e22
f87ad3750efd716a67cf52ae33a865a61c274e76
12537 F20110115_AADTTM bender_k_Page_086thm.jpg
217f60350176380ccaac6ed15d4e86e2
ea6cbaf1203bbfa14c686ccc374cbb753ca8a2f6
25078 F20110115_AADTSX bender_k_Page_072thm.jpg
4e692705cd97cc74f4af44cc8537fa00
57d4284a1fa1dd803b6d5c8ddedfd6d5d35929a9
112079 F20110115_AADSPV bender_k_Page_027.jp2
200ebbc6629ca67384703a6f074fed63
ab67d5e868a001ec909f5e559ab7f49487172531
1050084 F20110115_AADSQK bender_k_Page_042.jp2
da8d0653d728d528d11b40faf4d2a105
f05eb10c90c879e07e0f2218c7541d557c9085c9
35538 F20110115_AADTUB bender_k_Page_094thm.jpg
e0d7f9f433ad00e8827f23fc3b267b95
366dc2d062d6fd962e66a2b076fa7422a51a0c49
74817 F20110115_AADTSY bender_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
9ed2275c6fa263fc2af8b56f92f1c44e
c4251a7fef6fecb98d6e7c63289cb65e9736f5b2
111958 F20110115_AADSPW bender_k_Page_028.jp2
76e7ff86de0465f7f8bb6e2e545b6377
5c6523654a67e55e85d3599411d261f5ee74d735
54438 F20110115_AADTUC bender_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
45516033c7de317b601021f5c70611eb
70b5fe23fdf9381c80c15568d4c99c9cb720bc11
18106 F20110115_AADTTN bender_k_Page_087thm.jpg
5755412870a28a5d4963af41a22bb1ca
63616c9e1b97a3558b0b268467adb2db074fa62c
81031 F20110115_AADTSZ bender_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
44002982f2a1e92f2d8ef959b3d0f29b
6269de74b814f59a330d0300f1934c5d4894a26b
103477 F20110115_AADSPX bender_k_Page_029.jp2
7a028d8357227e968bc404bfa0558885
f71a078875f08e867aed0161cee3dd5d7417550f
1039743 F20110115_AADSRA bender_k_Page_058.jp2
a3205ec665140ae0ec02e15c3c061155
15a64b844fbf2957823c7340b4af7ac1c4818298
91723 F20110115_AADSQL bender_k_Page_043.jp2
8214e275eaf04554b76ea17ca2306808
de997353ce2f2fcd93164c00de00eea38719d7fd
44588 F20110115_AADTUD bender_k_Page_095thm.jpg
4dbbf86a04f4c5d066251ce3280e84c9
ec26cf4571ce8b5579b6a1ed1f5ef9c92e5de7e4
56528 F20110115_AADTTO bender_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
35ff8ace784e1e5849b2ab2f8136b816
fdc7cc432cc1fd96a1b68a820dd8f5423e119cd0
85890 F20110115_AADSPY bender_k_Page_030.jp2
af6ef4db1ad268fc4f62c46f71e2d77f
7deb5ba4a65a3443be6b3599d7d8e4a5420d112c
1020915 F20110115_AADSRB bender_k_Page_059.jp2
f41661b832f6de05748e31de0c1e3db5
c8dcede78cca39de7a1c0e01c1e70fbff66c59e4
95551 F20110115_AADSQM bender_k_Page_044.jp2
7bf882a7123930eb0f006c2cf5250529
45c068d95492a20855a1d7640482c25e92f860b1
87104 F20110115_AADTUE bender_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
bb726e8af5333a5954f72d1602c52657
6a1f29315d4af425fb53038221d5808c685b3d0b
17704 F20110115_AADTTP bender_k_Page_088thm.jpg
33e2c0059df2a70ba375e8deace4d69a
9b501bcdc837b060d5377469b2d71733b1b254a0
110476 F20110115_AADSPZ bender_k_Page_031.jp2
4dcc426c9a4153eaf2e94cd9a43be5fd
71126db38aada03c7f831265ec7068b1e7a34dd8
97133 F20110115_AADSRC bender_k_Page_060.jp2
f2351bab21158cdc8576ab5f23c65fc4
181d6e2cadf940d2f0c7d1ae857465223eaa5dd9
85988 F20110115_AADSQN bender_k_Page_045.jp2
0d77970be755f43c3986940c736a7b0a
d1f1647633d1c2ae3b88a71f053aff4bb68b9bb5
37001 F20110115_AADTUF bender_k_Page_096thm.jpg
eb4845f3295e26014faf6fb204f2a7f4
c38a589a81c28f036c1095e9e33e5623da7e63f7
57022 F20110115_AADTTQ bender_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
b81bc53010cc0c1d68a1320237c94c71
ee87adb867e2636c130ae14816d7277d2855187a
98189 F20110115_AADSRD bender_k_Page_061.jp2
853a418c1bffc25cf06d6f62780724d6
40bc2cdf71b07e80c5a2cdeef8838183357e8eb4
958778 F20110115_AADSQO bender_k_Page_046.jp2
80a1bb738d252b1a4ea989fe4fd2be4e
9c8fe829ad3ac1ec61aa379ce5c06f3dde48fe59
59718 F20110115_AADTUG bender_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
ff923bfc1a53b4e5d0352abf9e1bdf66
59dd875118d3fa1bb1945f94007a65942d62e59b
10372 F20110115_AADTTR bender_k_Page_089thm.jpg
d8245931ac8597d96e50439c556f8d49
7598229c1fb705a9200b22eed5d13efd29a55e01
1051102 F20110115_AADSRE bender_k_Page_062.jp2
eacce154191c3f7d37ec81f70d89ee08
7dbf48636b2418d46a7a8eb4d29880427eb9ca21
936073 F20110115_AADSQP bender_k_Page_047.jp2
3ddb8a5b2e53a0580b7ce6258c41731a
04c5cf9641f513d8f7e243e297265daa55be9d7a
43728 F20110115_AADTUH bender_k_Page_097thm.jpg
53fe9c0bd9f86122f73151b5550569ec
7e334ee3d945b2325f287c4bfa0c74e269a6bb9d
33912 F20110115_AADTTS bender_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
f0f740961ebc3c6e4174cb55e57c905c
0bb7786e46fd92eec6d961841bb2086e39d0d176
1051975 F20110115_AADSRF bender_k_Page_063.jp2
5d1916a2048baa63e53eb44facbbf2a1
f2a853cf9f2732ee64a50b5aacfcf8078c4d8192
82031 F20110115_AADSQQ bender_k_Page_048.jp2
d877b93f5595eeabddc30992737960f5
112918e4eb9fcd0cc0d1f4c3e6e8ee54ba4e580a
81584 F20110115_AADTUI bender_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
87b729de59ba01e9af24196ab1cec321
ac1a6105a9995d39721594ae3459db2fd72954f5
9471 F20110115_AADTTT bender_k_Page_090thm.jpg
f9a5d80e3e7c42e90954e5fa9d0d10cb
5d57d4c88e8ca1f6c491db8c014b221654b0b1d0
103668 F20110115_AADSRG bender_k_Page_064.jp2
85c65d312f3c3dbb6a12878b76c5d927
5dfe93bc0da93d9dca61004879b8d442191c6ee4
F20110115_AADSQR bender_k_Page_049.jp2
0c8b8bb54035dbb38bf9be2d1da1c0dc
4829cf1db8570ff0e091713825c2695927416594
23673 F20110115_AADTUJ bender_k_Page_098thm.jpg
214ca38bcf523e3ca0ee72e61fd6782e
d6b811ea010d16339cfe71562267f379540053c1
28478 F20110115_AADTTU bender_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
54b839a26be50f15889f9eb52d43584f
0e9a42e7054d1924830d66fef52f9d6088a4a57c
93465 F20110115_AADSRH bender_k_Page_065.jp2
4e7dd73c8ed762b31dffe71101168aaf
99c773b9436217a56234a05eaab1dcb567d61adb
981971 F20110115_AADSQS bender_k_Page_050.jp2
04d21a9aa798fa03e0248f8f0f01240e
0dac87463df2711c9dbe359b0f4f0fd66288e28a
25054 F20110115_AADTUK bender_k_Page_099thm.jpg
60bc6e8b1e8229fba6eeaa4eb9510920
b6d4524da3a21abb256660979bd756b11491d454
3125 F20110115_AADTTV bender_k_Page_091thm.jpg
efaa27b31315110045a4f0cfb8d30bcf
7c7a072530ee76277c2aecf79978436d8d5faa3d
1036921 F20110115_AADSRI bender_k_Page_066.jp2
e18aec98f9cff718b96393d08f5da9fa
b9d139b5e5c59d184b1223cc2777af3b362876b2
112047 F20110115_AADSQT bender_k_Page_051.jp2
80f664d5e05c5d3ce5b51db3c0a9ef62
1f04de5f40781a6a4783084a6a3f4c041c506337
62381 F20110115_AADTUL bender_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
58bb366b954ba3d16197a4fa71b58099
4d260ba5d2686fd88eb7fa17d7fe222b61cfa19e
7080 F20110115_AADTTW bender_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
93773b1376ccd820ad4dafbd03198eb1
e96684efc75858592cfd21b0a2eb917d5a8586d7
77135 F20110115_AADSRJ bender_k_Page_067.jp2
d052239fda78f5ec209f401dddda7acf
ee20206ec2276972e6591161d72b33fc2e509f9d
101179 F20110115_AADSQU bender_k_Page_052.jp2
3d06c98b3b4d89f3c3ca5c53184c3ec5
7074669d85d8e85e4195d8bddfac90132971a4c6
11981 F20110115_AADTVA bender_k_Page_110thm.jpg
1a6f5ce6a13dbc5920c85f6fb56e63e8
c323334692790486203ab12c57209cb0359bf4d6
25177 F20110115_AADTUM bender_k_Page_100thm.jpg
682fb1c7259fabbefbc4ade7dbdf7aed
cb7f7f4fe2d33fc7ab1ca33455bb09ccd8c42a65
40826 F20110115_AADTTX bender_k_Page_092thm.jpg
52164c7e6f543c7796cf56710c7b85a8
e57d3c38186b31049df209d4df0e3d449bfb402e
1051955 F20110115_AADSRK bender_k_Page_068.jp2
de549b0f10336405af54d2e7ff158126
be806ca2e00b32d80d91611eba509671a45874a8
1040647 F20110115_AADSQV bender_k_Page_053.jp2
7749918dc840adac961967a01b4c6453
90c54b4afd3cfd8ac2f2285f6ffb4eaeba38be2b
36109 F20110115_AADTVB bender_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
fb3d509a7d72f146d8fbe1a9e8b97526
2b502e62acae0aaa513de6662e6abb020cac28c0
37003 F20110115_AADTUN bender_k_Page_101thm.jpg
25800deccb20002777d9d29890568d5e
9b6182fdb7426a1d98c0245f1b34fe14c31f7a34
71468 F20110115_AADTTY bender_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
1cdd8bfb38ba7907a79d2f07769e7790
280d886271cdd91163855f71d871259a6cbae479
30905 F20110115_AADSRL bender_k_Page_069.jp2
d0ef8ddc6229f58e9c8bcbc804a50f79
72177799ffe14d1315f70e91b58c10ec6851fe4b
113981 F20110115_AADSQW bender_k_Page_054.jp2
729f7844fd3d332f15a014a61bafc7a0
38f1bf453db5cc846af0cf5dcbf6771dce8b27d0
14959 F20110115_AADTVC bender_k_Page_111thm.jpg
b6e16694d2f23107e736b6da75b5f573
0ca6496cd93c2a6e3f1d9829b1472cfac4781fe0
25160 F20110115_AADTTZ bender_k_Page_093thm.jpg
6f3959f6f445ef309bcbf4bf35bf74b4
64caf2325bdaf9fb583c5c97c63f6b16a5e036c7
1051973 F20110115_AADSSA bender_k_Page_084.jp2
d1af311d4496d97ce668f3f837e1bf7e
a362e0ab2d23bc5a3562dce1ce8a6a7f6f9530e8
908786 F20110115_AADSQX bender_k_Page_055.jp2
9d0c62850f204a70624a4fa7c2ed7502
21d47569ab53334d04c318e70a006fe64c962962
49914 F20110115_AADTVD bender_k_Page_111.QC.jpg
9b5d479993e8536d6d1e2c130c322c00
3634a42ee58010f385682c3ef76db15f5e6f84a6
62920 F20110115_AADTUO bender_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
19c52c24d6b81e88b69097922858895d
5853f05f9d8af6e3e96324b4912070099d4779f1
109613 F20110115_AADSSB bender_k_Page_085.jp2
dce4776e52fd3e3a1f6c0a990598ee44
e9f2f0576e676541d1e844742a7054cbd6866dbf
94907 F20110115_AADSRM bender_k_Page_070.jp2
6c59181ee28134b09bfa27fa36a8390c
0737c98eff645b028caf9361b23ff24fce58a551
1051905 F20110115_AADSQY bender_k_Page_056.jp2
fe39424a7f167e5160b9b1bc3a0e4888
f1955690dda87a412af5eee1d2a80102e1f07a72
26627 F20110115_AADTVE bender_k_Page_112thm.jpg
f6bf141cd31d6dd469579b16e0078cea
81ed3b90afebca726f3a165bdefb7220c1be6258
45009 F20110115_AADTUP bender_k_Page_102thm.jpg
b0a2584f71cbc8b427932671e3a544f8
712dc4ae8cdb2abacb5e88c3421fc4437ed539bb
56745 F20110115_AADSSC bender_k_Page_086.jp2
cba0ec5bff2b2edc1c74811f7d48348b
6a6c4b18d6ffe68101e8c81e9fcbdc6036577f13
F20110115_AADSRN bender_k_Page_071.jp2
3093ddd13c8da498feb37bdad7b35d5a
61151d99b18c54d5e762c88315525a01d14e8c02
94762 F20110115_AADSQZ bender_k_Page_057.jp2
f7ea260c3c02a2cd6f480f2b5a3ae42a
fdf3f31e2885215b633adcafde7119fe6f3e58a0
22423 F20110115_AADTVF bender_k_Page_113thm.jpg
f9fd42925234f9ad4ccb0a73213a1e6a
aa9767b48ec56040abbe760b50b3babecb6c3c46
23387 F20110115_AADTUQ bender_k_Page_103thm.jpg
c222d3d9d742cf98bfdd1e259d69182d
96049c9156f0e43016b2a4d882e77a61344d0b03
92016 F20110115_AADSSD bender_k_Page_087.jp2
1757a9875feb3a28cdb45a2aa1acaec0
b12f6fa0e593cd4d929beb35dede7c6541ef3975
112381 F20110115_AADSRO bender_k_Page_072.jp2
28f9218f0c21066fcbe82d5e39b0787e
66daf955d9937f5fbd659a5dc223c3408f7db45d
78193 F20110115_AADTVG bender_k_Page_113.QC.jpg
2092d99e3f0e0b6e61dabb44d67c0347
ef22c56ce4c3e54df990e40bfb91c625867f6e03
59175 F20110115_AADTUR bender_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
e222dc7b61d423dba7e15b04dee3d0c4
53878444e08419ec2acb10e55b80a07f2a75556b
91901 F20110115_AADSSE bender_k_Page_088.jp2
a4636a8f1d567ad4e66457d72691869d
03f44370d2057425b2e44a694660d84c63079249
106998 F20110115_AADSRP bender_k_Page_073.jp2
99b715c558a3732d1004bf28b2e44841
8e319d1f517cb1e043f432c4b67755d0ed7dcb7b
11654 F20110115_AADTVH bender_k_Page_114thm.jpg
d969d28f50fadda23fa2df3bdcf9bc4c
cc89390d31359a7cb3df452ee49f356612234bcd
41825 F20110115_AADTUS bender_k_Page_104thm.jpg
ea3913faa64fc5c818e6c39e8a072074
c590dcdce57fa3f1142f2b2f0a85944f2366c827
55906 F20110115_AADSSF bender_k_Page_089.jp2
a1eae65604405d3516279911eb496a33
fbeb9f5b816b951b5186979d6999f01533e3e82f
109714 F20110115_AADSRQ bender_k_Page_074.jp2
1053e0b829befa58e7c0343b4f1f0cbd
0043c0ed80e363bf50c637b5e9fb5b5300fea242
15934 F20110115_AADTVI bender_k_Page_115thm.jpg
3fc2a5e473bec20b6d4ab2eb4a4c5516
63078803e397587790450f5199668c50664425d1
74890 F20110115_AADTUT bender_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
a0085a73e0c21611ebbd40fa8f8f9802
0272a9f927c4b37747197541e1e3b43be146ac5d
36368 F20110115_AADSSG bender_k_Page_090.jp2
eb69e35e19624b040865a31ff1085b15
0410d46086e8c5e0294aacc0fb179413d49a0532
109314 F20110115_AADSRR bender_k_Page_075.jp2
0232485f8da2eb57336cb0b9e682af30
c573574704b106501c8b643f7f4ebd61d449285b
47523 F20110115_AADTVJ bender_k_Page_115.QC.jpg
531d709f17e1d55c4293b8e19f05b104
ab1edcbae01b7b368c897dd00112b0d0d810e362
5839 F20110115_AADTUU bender_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
26bccea97ede87deddd049755e887a52
694c3c0b0d6fd3c383eec61db1ec8e00929e6ced
6971 F20110115_AADSSH bender_k_Page_091.jp2
1b5cdb655038025cc87c55561b883a0d
7cce20113b90c683b77aadcba7f0c49bd8efd1ba
110444 F20110115_AADSRS bender_k_Page_076.jp2
ecccee3349856fb06a584969944bb114
3646f95e0f8c5d3ab5217364809beb31ee9057c1
16335 F20110115_AADTVK bender_k_Page_116thm.jpg
1cb42329d52a5e64c7e5f63f54f209f8
70670058a0ed7cf788b8955ecabb2bdbac657956
18544 F20110115_AADTUV bender_k_Page_107thm.jpg
237235f4798ec5cbc4fa1824090eed85
0ee465c976457589862ed3b336662cb4a7c6a848
720237 F20110115_AADSSI bender_k_Page_092.jp2
d513b02a770d9353d06b36945619b27b
c1904f692a32a0a2d2763ba0dd5c980225780506
105517 F20110115_AADSRT bender_k_Page_077.jp2
4f9421f3c30d0d00186abf0a14c633c4
86b1fc24827ca4ada6c23645f3cdd81161d15dd7
39362 F20110115_AADTVL bender_k_Page_117.QC.jpg
f197b8dcd73e97fdccd629d8e4a88d29
e2f29c2ca1e5de3c7898929d0d0ce518511bb331
39538 F20110115_AADTUW bender_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
8c57de76bc03a654ce137c631d3b4d95
825f347bd338ad14c254a0baf8f3ba453ac3c40f
774538 F20110115_AADSSJ bender_k_Page_093.jp2
8986a57adbc0f23af215493f04155a8f
388fd4692de8b4f369fc5d8a81cfda0fe7c34501
103174 F20110115_AADSRU bender_k_Page_078.jp2
ac3c51def6a399dc62d75db7a61e498a
0302b824b375464798e72c60451d8193a43393c7
49960 F20110115_AADTWA bender_k_Page_128.QC.jpg
2358f8a9a554c314265a9c0b13ea3f2b
55efa04b018ec30af689338cdb662660c6de6b93
28716 F20110115_AADTVM bender_k_Page_118thm.jpg
d4fcf9564476acf9c9579ac712614811
bf71ea3c47d20d1b9acb480046449514853c983e
12027 F20110115_AADTUX bender_k_Page_108thm.jpg
7fe7c99f84c90a7cbd4a8192e7b21cf3
88266fd2ea00ac258bb545c358c3b23a82078cf1
453280 F20110115_AADSSK bender_k_Page_094.jp2
98c57fa731dcd377d5d044697ee7ffb1
14e714717a83904b2f93367c70d559e40b5f75fa
95121 F20110115_AADSRV bender_k_Page_079.jp2
286a52b393f13f9d59ee8675ddd596b1
165b46191979a135da91bff5234c4e9cf62b45ed
23928 F20110115_AADTWB bender_k_Page_129thm.jpg
2f5023bc9575596146dded0a2e536819
9099e956b36e1e7c3ecfd1402da792c8f3820626
28851 F20110115_AADTVN bender_k_Page_119thm.jpg
beacbce0bc937f6c685851f16bc079bc
2deab69fe11634b2ef0a58aadb4de002cf60af92
F20110115_AADTUY bender_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
3e126cb330d3cd034903a644249707f2
0daf3ed06ca70528a32bf88f5f978cedd35ac638
987611 F20110115_AADSSL bender_k_Page_095.jp2
483869fe5615416deda27ce6d3f02ae2
5f65bb2275bf9f3853ba8d292cce09aaebc7d4f2
6096 F20110115_AADSRW bender_k_Page_080.jp2
e6e68be7079f6916676a2d2d93f91276
24a9d01c85226b3fda8f093a6015cc8627e380e3
27178 F20110115_AADTWC bender_k_Page_131thm.jpg
339670c9176c5b802ff74f1ba990d243
0c02c6bd597068063cd789ab3c6169743d11fc49
75575 F20110115_AADTVO bender_k_Page_119.QC.jpg
9bfe00ecdb51b97903867bc73a29aaa3
fd7793ac500c20fe24ea9188331fc2938f340215
34944 F20110115_AADTUZ bender_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
24bbb4ff70ce28e6b0121c16bf94a47e
3bce9fe3547140a1295e1d34142d17ea52fef8e5
539462 F20110115_AADSSM bender_k_Page_096.jp2
1a5e642f31dca69554b32031b75af8d3
a7c0ca86470529a6cb3cf66e01aa20cd8f9ad6ba
78132 F20110115_AADSRX bender_k_Page_081.jp2
8ae430aaa2e62a3814c0c7ef2b42bd48
8f2f7ab8dd9780d38b84b8a4bd3181ce14e223f3
54141 F20110115_AADSTA bender_k_Page_110.jp2
45f7acf89e512f3020eb88a82dfa38bf
34a8a27fcb37e48a4aa14bfe03c8ff7b8eaa6a29
101697 F20110115_AADTWD bender_k_Page_131.QC.jpg
fe3a75fdb0f43cc06b48688d941df286
1b5b4225a107ceb98b38783260d5a113f9906046
63134 F20110115_AADSRY bender_k_Page_082.jp2
41092a53c12969b7c1f95c5b961c3edc
5a8a0557d39a6f225c368f63135087469122f501
86626 F20110115_AADSTB bender_k_Page_111.jp2
498e9df938fcd189dda14fd9181f42e8
9ef1ad1586add1253f7b789f58e7f513b66bad18
26176 F20110115_AADTWE bender_k_Page_132thm.jpg
999c7091efd5f3c4c43675efe6491306
f74862c9a0434891bddac049f93992702a6fcac1
25968 F20110115_AADTVP bender_k_Page_120thm.jpg
4fc18493a715e4afd8a8040e5a904752
56f8e4e6c27ac8208c08613ed258ab0e5b2e5649
963059 F20110115_AADSSN bender_k_Page_097.jp2
a349a115c79a7201f24745d9f2e34a39
0a09817bf345ad180967a169be25560624af38b0
109158 F20110115_AADSRZ bender_k_Page_083.jp2
c090e81e83eb86424fcba43245b5f866
4e9e774a80983f12faa66cbd885c8dde3ea837e3
157911 F20110115_AADSTC bender_k_Page_112.jp2
f27ba8431be8d09093444bf96b16ccad
78570a66bce38ae8990ced389844d4874485cc4c
27002 F20110115_AADTWF bender_k_Page_133thm.jpg
51e8a8fd379cdb2b5b8caea008c20cc0
d024f1bd89268b05fd3e25cea1d52792e28dc2f8
9853 F20110115_AADTVQ bender_k_Page_121thm.jpg
3084338234dd94582a0106a00cec91f8
88a4a84279ec9c55b3107035d4e667806465200a
750455 F20110115_AADSSO bender_k_Page_098.jp2
f6badf18b1afa978be2c44fba1134fbf
66428204a7a702b72ac19b267253afee2bbf0f86
142239 F20110115_AADSTD bender_k_Page_113.jp2
547f06c9a490d5c75733054f78eb44bc
f1ccd6dbb6708d44a8705ad77e70f235cfe94bfc
26162 F20110115_AADTWG bender_k_Page_136thm.jpg
7d1b0869e240b6cb3ac26b1ed3f7e2fd
52a27f84ffbdf3e33e7dfe15374f96355e582aec
26976 F20110115_AADTVR bender_k_Page_121.QC.jpg
97d6ab9fb3152878bdf558ce6df20456
46290a948c5b9e50e15c7d625317065f3789fe10
847439 F20110115_AADSSP bender_k_Page_099.jp2
1e90153c44a68d2c6b4f5e2da1442159
baac233d73bdc90f5b6ff0d18b491afc00912285
68604 F20110115_AADSTE bender_k_Page_114.jp2
54e74d3f76292a4abf132043c11ad67b
a7c1e21fd148f6c1f5b016360f8aabe3e287f3f9
24181 F20110115_AADTWH bender_k_Page_137thm.jpg
7de7f746c766b508c70ae7ff750487ad
d762d70b2ebc7c8b62e678906a00b942e58321a6
88404 F20110115_AADTVS bender_k_Page_122.QC.jpg
401714239c79626d20931d91ba3d1942
b9e6252fb69c16b02b1675006ec873761394c61f
1024701 F20110115_AADSSQ bender_k_Page_100.jp2
cb56f83abf69e6613c1e43402bccbf20
bc5ef680a4ddd955312f3cd8bfc5f37162e44f36
74906 F20110115_AADSTF bender_k_Page_115.jp2
495d9f3681d2af2d92da050c4b401f3e
559257f7c198e3846381c2e53e83359adb8b3da5
103154 F20110115_AADTWI bender_k_Page_139.QC.jpg
2469ebb6e3308e39c4e83da595b823b8
2b3dd1348e8c055acae6e0bdb5b97351f2d1f8c0
28265 F20110115_AADTVT bender_k_Page_123thm.jpg
f9dd5c0a5766994abd9c39678ef386d3
710a86143f866fc545576bc6307d225fbe6c63b9
644756 F20110115_AADSSR bender_k_Page_101.jp2
4a441a63919cd85d015ea5a0da74df76
e1841c7afd67f5db3845d312fe21cda2d5a4b2a8
79028 F20110115_AADSTG bender_k_Page_116.jp2
f1a98d76f17966e8c03e5335bde82181
fff0b9293e21edc2e38c80e6ac2047ace452dc19
88180 F20110115_AADTWJ bender_k_Page_140.QC.jpg
9c8a259f186df6c7a466a420b849fc87
9322189511a16d5957890d6a3901abc7199afd6f
80915 F20110115_AADTVU bender_k_Page_123.QC.jpg
ff4cb02dbcba2722ef98f52a69b928fc
de1e05a6829665fc71f5cf4a008b2201931229d9
1051901 F20110115_AADSSS bender_k_Page_102.jp2
11540b9fcf2208fbf1c601f30d8f7bac
9c576b60a0f001a546a45890ddbdde74aa06f032
52583 F20110115_AADSTH bender_k_Page_117.jp2
c952db8c7a5225d6e3b45f2010f4f6d2
469c7f3caee9a64ecc0bd849dba1148459f5e682
33899 F20110115_AADTWK bender_k_Page_141thm.jpg
3302cff920db5be73a4ff0bfcbcd7ac4
fe58c5c1a28537751a9b6b3d04bba559f736011d
23758 F20110115_AADTVV bender_k_Page_124thm.jpg
adf8ad6a82026325ef27223f0fc89ded
5493e4f64e6c8fb2606ffca7204213f101677535
815216 F20110115_AADSST bender_k_Page_103.jp2
da1fb1a035a512e848c17606d92d1afd
0f54ab262f9af219addaaf90b407f91faf56a6e9
1051959 F20110115_AADSTI bender_k_Page_118.jp2
d3ecdab9282c7df193a26e5d87224ffb
32f2757da983d12e3763a61db670df6adf4b7d62
97190 F20110115_AADTWL bender_k_Page_141.QC.jpg
a3b49e87180de1339f400a90835de142
a73b4f69f7b5984998bb5f187919b5c2fa5e9fe9
79198 F20110115_AADTVW bender_k_Page_124.QC.jpg
2f8791371d9d18ddcdba9448b0ffd157
2885a241f7621e8695622d8864d59fb17a40334b
1051961 F20110115_AADSTJ bender_k_Page_119.jp2
f76caf5be7f0eb6e269b0ddb976df1a5
29bc9d218b64b70043f43b2df21e2ee3e3ef02af
962422 F20110115_AADSSU bender_k_Page_104.jp2
a82abdf9b7fcea2a790c32d8a944e13a
c3f96b20845fe71a4a087c9c9b771c073d4e11fd
9081 F20110115_AADTXA bender_k_Page_152thm.jpg
064b9802a4f05b1b778e8859452690bb
b873bf4430c070d40392ea9e55754ac249516d38
106982 F20110115_AADTWM bender_k_Page_143.QC.jpg
4e7ccd028097438572f28e5daece530d
d842cf94c76fff5ea9cf590eb5e04e37d5d955b0
23882 F20110115_AADTVX bender_k_Page_126thm.jpg
19328990db7da178d37a64f9401f4f59
a6e05da8cff0f8012b11a84ce15eaa3c8e99bf01
1051759 F20110115_AADSTK bender_k_Page_120.jp2
6614363bc74a0c9611e4dd3e0e61b562
0b2869f73167a848d945423d26d57e78ea3fe651
770087 F20110115_AADSSV bender_k_Page_105.jp2
ee19aeebc258808934858b2af3aec868
7bbd4e41818badd833a1be2a5de0d72da550bb9d
28491 F20110115_AADTWN bender_k_Page_144thm.jpg
7c8f7f698f42857f9f923709d891b4b9
2c78efe12c5834b312e7e4c186eafa270b9a9d64
83959 F20110115_AADTVY bender_k_Page_126.QC.jpg
0aa1b575a7590b0d237cc14d0c80033d
4c376eaaec978bf43b1502544266afec65b483df
35479 F20110115_AADSTL bender_k_Page_121.jp2
e0b6e138652d7260423af031ca643aed
9a368bc99b6a5a5e13668490cf91ecbfa9e752f1
5645 F20110115_AADSSW bender_k_Page_106.jp2
2cec0a4ca1521afa046ece098b02f120
ff8f5819ef7e41565217e4ee94599afcd6009a0d
104925 F20110115_AADTWO bender_k_Page_144.QC.jpg
d9869e559cfdf0014a56f51bdf1f3310
4d5f42f76bdd4f08d0775d5f9a2e823752d130cd
68923 F20110115_AADTVZ bender_k_Page_127.QC.jpg
8f645d7acecea0455fa29e80f731aaf6
8c4db3752e58dbef07c2665e8e5ed016e9eb4722
147558 F20110115_AADSUA bender_k_Page_137.jp2
21be7f8b2e95ab8d10ff7a9b4ac489a7
5e583707d12ddfc62712763c641037d064128607
1051977 F20110115_AADSTM bender_k_Page_122.jp2
23588ea1bb15b1bc788b7e6f426b88d0
2a6940ca99ec900f85a94284127a9ba06a08a4de
546903 F20110115_AADSSX bender_k_Page_107.jp2
f8870fc8f0c4d1c0d958873621abee80
738daac673d2c8fe0918f83fbc6644d1250c3ca1
26917 F20110115_AADTWP bender_k_Page_145thm.jpg
b3b0a2f68d31139f337fff721980e059
2e581a00385ea45d1065573da88a696edf1f001e
1051983 F20110115_AADSUB bender_k_Page_138.jp2
f06021fc4315d3f973249443851a0cd1
4a423f1c416bd8ed4a965566e1dc302d691c51c0
1051978 F20110115_AADSTN bender_k_Page_123.jp2
14800faea0f85e04b310f8835bb6eeb9
ccb789ca591088bd781e1cdf26e3089a1487faf9
68830 F20110115_AADSSY bender_k_Page_108.jp2
7db48c80fa66736b3361240f3be4e8a2
218b83049b782f3527c30c4350ac020c3f0cd7e9
1051971 F20110115_AADSUC bender_k_Page_139.jp2
914340f2ab9267bbb66a6fed9c989764
2301fd9fda6e7f6dfb9b0c3e92483e64b64274b9
63714 F20110115_AADSSZ bender_k_Page_109.jp2
25015b00b97c5a26584011cb8e4c690b
3e435a9314213e4bb2fbbe8634fe5cdc93752667
95966 F20110115_AADTWQ bender_k_Page_145.QC.jpg
c14dba888731766d12e007b409c9dbc2
25b81d6fcd7aa53c3caef0b4758fec5af5fbccb9
F20110115_AADSUD bender_k_Page_140.jp2
907f61fda70736c285cadc0256fd726d
3931e1911cd389ba6e3f4489fee44488080b46ae
135587 F20110115_AADSTO bender_k_Page_124.jp2
03f3c0eb52c9e38b755b34a19994e5f1
f83228caf3742d65b7b2130fa6edb6b864dc2edb
104754 F20110115_AADTWR bender_k_Page_146.QC.jpg
70b0139ebc282dee8aed1821ae314951
3a6125a681088cd028b2c324e1df083f621f6a78
1051938 F20110115_AADSUE bender_k_Page_141.jp2
af0e783f48ed7a766fc3263716769da0
fe7d06de51168300ca232655d16d5db654846984
167375 F20110115_AADSTP bender_k_Page_125.jp2
9a4e8f507449bf7788e49ac182c99518
dfe77fe4c5cf99305aa07381fcaf38a1b9d9a0d3
23494 F20110115_AADTWS bender_k_Page_147thm.jpg
eefaaac2ac29a9a6ea5fac15a1916e9e
3d261589a8208964455bb500b765703aaff4c03d
1051962 F20110115_AADSUF bender_k_Page_142.jp2
dfa300021fe6d125660e68c99ed9da37
643f54ccc0a4a5aa2413610c2d754d1fe06bfcf8
147894 F20110115_AADSTQ bender_k_Page_126.jp2
18ec754b8a163076dc3d2f0b1e9b311d
2a53bf8c4fe437bb9c8350e157414851baa5f243
83915 F20110115_AADTWT bender_k_Page_147.QC.jpg
30b31ccc67d8f34b5b0fc817440ae14b
d7f3cde3837bb61008dfab4e01bb6d36d321f2fe
199150 F20110115_AADSUG bender_k_Page_143.jp2
8af7149d7b737801d63cf5b925f86ae7
574e69a7c16ae3646cce4ee630359de95141283b
103998 F20110115_AADSTR bender_k_Page_127.jp2
7152b440a08239354b31b3d776dbb856
1d24921135a81677a4bc2a87d465deb892ac668e
F20110115_AADTAA bender_k_Page_149.tif
aa2308d16de984fb6b11011da3440823
68ddac91700de59d77e664ec0ebf4b201414c063
28501 F20110115_AADTWU bender_k_Page_148thm.jpg
af564550def2ca4e97a3f3e7d01e47ed
c8c675e76669f1a5c1deb80135d8bbcf58d87478
195554 F20110115_AADSUH bender_k_Page_144.jp2
0fed7f2ad427b0a27c278dbebb72e165
bd31ed755d9c3269861fdc71ea2ee09b0c325cd4
68099 F20110115_AADSTS bender_k_Page_128.jp2
1662808c50df1fda7343b970268b2840
9b2dddc94cc9604870e01bd60d7e875ae8338581
F20110115_AADTAB bender_k_Page_150.tif
bc8f4cbd92f1ce9efe1d69f79ce263cf
3af2f4b1ed41a493bfda82b214e9196ce5076817
74836 F20110115_AADTWV bender_k_Page_148.QC.jpg
ff5e66ad05572a644e5a17130426a6d2
07b0ac2c73f7f4bcc4ee0dbc3c7a1399fce77423
174339 F20110115_AADSUI bender_k_Page_145.jp2
a6416dd75eeddd6be97d9e51b75742ae
44cf36c43659b8d4ec48760e72b941f1cf36d559
140612 F20110115_AADSTT bender_k_Page_129.jp2
7e93e90dedf2d96f43b43adbac229048
b02c0d5d36fe6e2bc4a2d8d2c605d02d4fbd3bbc
F20110115_AADTAC bender_k_Page_151.tif
9dacc254e5717b3cf2a767114f120ee8
f1b30a3a92fccea5d0e88a5b8ce6ba28490e970e
84444 F20110115_AADTWW bender_k_Page_149.QC.jpg
05447abb9f0ebcff2aeb56b4c8f3f9bf
b48f9819a84be8871262f0f502749820ff4c02a6
188886 F20110115_AADSUJ bender_k_Page_146.jp2
d4f067fa0578c7c02ab9b1906fd7dbc1
b5e2eb393321366dca77b88a2bc33271e334ab17
163449 F20110115_AADSTU bender_k_Page_130.jp2
8a371a8b6acdf9f63ad978bb582c8a07
8f2d751931eac7d7067f837ce8671a7de270fec0
F20110115_AADTAD bender_k_Page_152.tif
f302399516626de2b5b209e4220b6ce7
24019b15fa9802accb4c9ba3c31be4f902c0525f
32625 F20110115_AADTWX bender_k_Page_150thm.jpg
14a537afbaf742f481c6b1fd1b0b3052
2d10c26f3460da488fc129472e8ef989ab4a3325
1041312 F20110115_AADSUK bender_k_Page_148.jp2
8c0cfa40afa1685dd130fec3b0914d5f
8e97ffed955b128abcb9122cd0906d321520b6fc
161385 F20110115_AADSTV bender_k_Page_132.jp2
6dfa633efdb82299633a74e1de9d008b
9ba20d5f21a82bd65290aa90e77d34277f2815a8
8646 F20110115_AADTAE bender_k_Page_001.pro
2a53de5d6d4220f226f479482465d7d6
fa98a801ca7b7d258f59c571f9e4984574fa1ded
4718 F20110115_AADTWY bender_k_Page_151thm.jpg
84dc56e11cd0ce34962f6153c017b982
a95c763e9da1801c23a96f871c816c85584dbbda
1051981 F20110115_AADSUL bender_k_Page_149.jp2
16443d540cc64d9ebadf52e1abe23e81
b31e1a74e2d45a84c25f88ed0cf1258beed0258d
172018 F20110115_AADSTW bender_k_Page_133.jp2
c4a284358396decf7c37548522781591
e29daef78dfc059fcf64dbaa1950f22837718af1
1201 F20110115_AADTAF bender_k_Page_002.pro
228899d7fcdf79efed56e4407177867d
06b5eab7b51afdece27503f2832436531c3522b0
11375 F20110115_AADTWZ bender_k_Page_151.QC.jpg
7b239d8b69c556bde738b234636e6e1f
031d56f9ee9b7685d9cff3ddfc715e02038d0a85
1051835 F20110115_AADSUM bender_k_Page_150.jp2
6fb1b6e83ca8c28bf556b5bf6328d404
cd368171d9ef73961f4ba38dca55c8b6b172213d
160346 F20110115_AADSTX bender_k_Page_134.jp2
c7296c6e956c1beb274bcec4a373f456
a6ee9fd40ee53d5123780793a7a1bb00b31e15f3
19741 F20110115_AADTAG bender_k_Page_003.pro
dd7f0314f8ebd82124ea68045fd6bb84
2dcd3cf30f3c4100efe0e997c4c40a9d8bda29c2
F20110115_AADSVA bender_k_Page_012.tif
837fd7ae06fe5aa6da79bad777bc534e
1c8f76ad75ce7e50696afa2b84b091f9e61cd4a3
13823 F20110115_AADSUN bender_k_Page_151.jp2
4f307ce7f5d84c9f30e5744d4bd5cec6
6de5654f72d3d11d9de04317528060153d341fba
161426 F20110115_AADSTY bender_k_Page_135.jp2
8a7209fe37fa6afdec25ea9de9ba1504
bc36a164c494997e6ad0bea6384db0315191021b
75917 F20110115_AADTAH bender_k_Page_004.pro
3025c237976bb1bdbfe3395821e32885
54a38b025e74791eed3935017da67a61be20a96e
F20110115_AADSVB bender_k_Page_013.tif
78dc90f15bd631ac95373813f3448a34
8651ac1fd588d110faba96d35627457712ba14b1
35712 F20110115_AADSUO bender_k_Page_152.jp2
1e73b5969332f5c7c02f3517a384128e
88b9adc7562c3a08a133a6c2acc83c4c94e59e53
170332 F20110115_AADSTZ bender_k_Page_136.jp2
074127acbc38c69042f56319699b7556
e1d4787f4350c82b3cb396d0975f879eefc45ce7
95540 F20110115_AADTAI bender_k_Page_005.pro
82d6077b6dfa259f027d3d4499780550
fcba6737ae831dd48a54e01974e1fb784cfe71cc
F20110115_AADSVC bender_k_Page_014.tif
4f812f00a5c772e13844d9007c98a127
09667a127f8f4e3a182e524a8d86e0fc2a346abe
9353 F20110115_AADTAJ bender_k_Page_006.pro
86a1f64425f970897b6d6c7383a298e2
40f98eed3b762583f9f39c9632f9b7c0f8cbf18e
F20110115_AADSVD bender_k_Page_015.tif
07d4d2db8b36e81da81a4337ae0be553
1d3f779adc251cb03f652b62fa0f418c542b3024
F20110115_AADSUP bender_k_Page_001.tif
91e90905507a714311a051093f1aeeae
eae97c026e4c69b4a465df487d663fa3583172c6
55613 F20110115_AADTAK bender_k_Page_007.pro
823f25856246b0a06aa389284560233a
c13a7da055846676a2c851698c0f0607e9e94799
F20110115_AADSVE bender_k_Page_016.tif
f3a0756f36a3bd30a7c5999d56cbbef2
35f9a953dbe65dd4ceb23d55dc26dfe8b65b8566
F20110115_AADSUQ bender_k_Page_002.tif
0aa6b194ab92c59ba849e5735e8c5c4b
4ff6e00d32fa8ae40a08315ca8411a38c95c0fd5
25621 F20110115_AADTAL bender_k_Page_008.pro
c5ede20602c8ccc52d0c1a0c9b589f17
0cb1f092fd7cb9b1c94963c98a2de6bace1e5762
F20110115_AADSVF bender_k_Page_017.tif
4dde3e2f6d526c64eb999929df87c546
8389267964b3e7d466789f99eae075b8b8c094c9
F20110115_AADSUR bender_k_Page_003.tif
4a47ba1957be24a94176da14b5d1caa1
798e7c19cb76069f7a26b1a26d1ac8ffaec29b7a
50197 F20110115_AADTBA bender_k_Page_024.pro
dacddd1da96e63b4f205a7a691d33c99
c207445bea712fb35294677e3590cff6f2a5ba3a
37475 F20110115_AADTAM bender_k_Page_009.pro
13876f6596510b623fa193a15c7e3c66
baf5ecef531d401606f37bc8a2829fe1fd408638
F20110115_AADSVG bender_k_Page_018.tif
a92d89a854ad80501a3ad8ef369e0cda
e63bce421ffcb7a96bc0ff1de80dfa7103c63a33
25271604 F20110115_AADSUS bender_k_Page_004.tif
860feb1738bb7b7d77b6866ae9111956
82ac4b1e9639ec38e44b76d8d421420d8f8a67af
51674 F20110115_AADTBB bender_k_Page_025.pro
c470e1289aea6ad406b5a7b17348030e
80074959ed476daa84da97b0a3f44924b2b52aa2
49716 F20110115_AADTAN bender_k_Page_010.pro
6158d339fd5a572cbd1d9106b2cdcedc
978451d23309f8f19187730f36e9a12774e54ccb
F20110115_AADSVH bender_k_Page_019.tif
5ec6fa08a901505a7e724c6cd99fca22
fd64e221f035409a71ab2ddea55fac4ccebdc764
F20110115_AADSUT bender_k_Page_005.tif
cfad0e4b8f2e5e3b583f6febb2245c54
7bae753fb6aab27d98290ecb2735ff1502ce9806
47325 F20110115_AADTBC bender_k_Page_026.pro
0da7d7b3bbe40da3b7663e5d8582a82b
119e17bdb36d2ffbd252ec4703f96666ad79389c
42109 F20110115_AADTAO bender_k_Page_011.pro
f99f5c7d58fe610a0eead8aff920f57a
96179777a6cecf416b185dfff9264252e0374bc4
F20110115_AADSVI bender_k_Page_020.tif
38281345b9e00ce5800e7b98f7d33dbd
22e3ac9a64fda893c6f14514bc815d40f9dcbc5c
F20110115_AADSUU bender_k_Page_006.tif
9543454dc541a868f5e34ad8f862a462
6d21576794261b789962e1c2f26f92399713433d
52213 F20110115_AADTBD bender_k_Page_027.pro
10f4aafb4c0ecfc721e32869c65e24b7
092d62b8aef2b6cb1497229c7edbbe812084cc64
52828 F20110115_AADTAP bender_k_Page_012.pro
74d492c5172e2a27845097f3d1c87747
f3b216465cbd8caaee022601e5de7e68ecb7cf81
F20110115_AADSVJ bender_k_Page_021.tif
0adc06251214df6b693fccf3470d9847
560ee612000e7e192baf7d0bf6cbebc94fcbeae8
F20110115_AADSUV bender_k_Page_007.tif
af00d40a8ff4ef04607c59310d597507
7ea180cb611b3da05511ef7bcf11240b9825cd5e
48063 F20110115_AADTBE bender_k_Page_029.pro
612e50bccc126377b99e38ee78b56aa8
f6fb05b565fb8b87356555dd6a5ffacff94bc13d
51187 F20110115_AADTAQ bender_k_Page_013.pro
1317e9a2856a91a1e2f6d109ab014396
b799e4233c5791f728483a96c4dd4d93af2f9431
F20110115_AADSVK bender_k_Page_022.tif
a8e3b0027d0cc3d7031f2975c922cedc
4bbd9ab914bd79f5e82d8a3be16f147d88f89e93
F20110115_AADSUW bender_k_Page_008.tif
9e05815ca14d9ef465392f1717b21a69
d6f1aeb4cca83411645425ae3d6fa7b0a7c68b63
39527 F20110115_AADTBF bender_k_Page_030.pro
4eebb8835150b1126186992542815cae
98112fe033384ba5d8d9842948ce2cc094be2a1c
49502 F20110115_AADTAR bender_k_Page_014.pro
9a27b0b5a52f186233f3e9819aa83cf2
c0f0ce3611570444cf991725d34c9e76fd395fc1
F20110115_AADSVL bender_k_Page_023.tif
f0411b194c62b7af7490277398abbe62
967b7d8934c395253767fe446dc8183efa7a8091
F20110115_AADSUX bender_k_Page_009.tif
3c369a2992a68b892ac35b8f299e36b1
53ec50d92618909f51717d46b5033f8313d45ead
50161 F20110115_AADTBG bender_k_Page_031.pro
ec8e7100a2601172bf30492a2a41e5af
5ac174d99b219c4875d097ad43007536e18f99f0
F20110115_AADSWA bender_k_Page_039.tif
61eb7200147b95213684b45cbbbb80b9
9dd4e191c06c4121be9d386cfdfabf25771c39fc
45340 F20110115_AADTAS bender_k_Page_015.pro
da80a2c85ea5a13a9084d36ee0c7d4b6
63be11dea32ed25220c0c8410196c3962a3ab53a
F20110115_AADSVM bender_k_Page_024.tif
e594bb84cbbf3eaa7003e91e090982c0
070090bed3aea38627ab672016c15f1362c4a137
F20110115_AADSUY bender_k_Page_010.tif
0029c54f61042d00c78705d3d390c3f9
8424484e9e85408b581bd3a2e53cafd6f016196f
49405 F20110115_AADTBH bender_k_Page_032.pro
295b8f5bb9fda33e9b0bf44bcef2878c
06c434ab9b029db34ea491831b5f49543bd4e8f3
F20110115_AADSWB bender_k_Page_040.tif
956c75f7732e076968bbc6fe8f42fa59
eceaa9e53df91b21afb1f0fea1a181d951eb94e5
17866 F20110115_AADTAT bender_k_Page_016.pro
d6986f56a36dd3757fc2cddddf65a08f
80cfd991048ba2964b776cfa6b22e6bc9b51fd38
F20110115_AADSVN bender_k_Page_025.tif
fdbe955878fe315b54a82f5ebf6d578f
849c10b600a1b47f4b97c784efcb254c8b9ff892
F20110115_AADSUZ bender_k_Page_011.tif
e05da5c4262b690022d21400233769c6
7ed7b6966fc47e77918e79b1fdccaf3f72af3d7f
50560 F20110115_AADTBI bender_k_Page_033.pro
426b0de63a00b1f84bb6ccd74fb3c159
9ce6717a158dbb6438f3ece20c505d2aae1c7b37
F20110115_AADSWC bender_k_Page_041.tif
3c6fe9aa25aaa45a542da9309e006782
61a77fcdbb02ab07c01ce46c22677b9f52803dfc
47533 F20110115_AADTAU bender_k_Page_018.pro
d31faa0e141060197cc66522aeabead3
b6df4e7653dcbedcfa342c6418ac1fdfadf9d3d4
F20110115_AADSVO bender_k_Page_026.tif
38ca83fa9f74d0a329d1416bf54fe234
8274e779515e4ef6a5bef06ef9e1a833f369ab10
65949 F20110115_AADTBJ bender_k_Page_034.pro
5828434ccfad4e305ed9c8865fcaf7de
9107d33973434c6872d4c9a01e4029501c151819
F20110115_AADSWD bender_k_Page_042.tif
8fa418a7b98b79dc4bfa8f505adda69c
3d9f99dabdc3b445e605e71eb72c8f2a8fa2209f
47520 F20110115_AADTAV bender_k_Page_019.pro
9c97a9ec5d27cc8197a5e23eda4b14fa
960ad6981e12e6fadf058ae6ec6096a36bd78d63
F20110115_AADSVP bender_k_Page_027.tif
0528008f63d5b64a385abedf6802e5b9
286d1777cd4f6d045bba01a54783815eb6326518
49820 F20110115_AADTBK bender_k_Page_036.pro
f5fef8db9139fe7ae518e8c2202065cd
aec49a3d0fc7a6bade94b6936e1e6a9bb17117d5
F20110115_AADSWE bender_k_Page_043.tif
f748c13ec7018b43fec0a8426e970ea8
b61eb4267eaa980ae82f00a4e01930b1c3e8ba33
50699 F20110115_AADTAW bender_k_Page_020.pro
0f27c2dc0dde6ae961aaa0316617f8de
2e960b543ae71d59450318d63ddf732b4421303a
49623 F20110115_AADTBL bender_k_Page_037.pro
54f87a6bdf5713a86a8cb5e7e3ad77ad
65951c4b852e17b47bb5022ad997571b61ea428a
F20110115_AADSWF bender_k_Page_045.tif
82642ccd8482e36514b32474a6e1a916
278c657b37761d13b7c540669b2ec15a425637fd
50760 F20110115_AADTAX bender_k_Page_021.pro
c5621d27007f5e2032a5b8999c0e313a
0f7c96ff9a47fed3127e4f4e0d6b369c269e3633
F20110115_AADSVQ bender_k_Page_028.tif
ae6701fbd162d93cc5d1e203f1fc1eb6
9372b9c073c068281464a15c2aa633a4dc06d294
48857 F20110115_AADTBM bender_k_Page_038.pro
4b5a32480699ae84dda5c43adf32108c
65170781b287a91b46ac4e313862a1ebc37eeda1
F20110115_AADSWG bender_k_Page_046.tif
b905cff717fbb593db25ff0dd067bef7
e30fb98de06c753acd2d661fa5b064a02589aee9
47314 F20110115_AADTAY bender_k_Page_022.pro
ad6306300cda08d25679cd720bcd7c87
d2a450b80816ff3bf02fc29ec933c70e9332edc4
F20110115_AADSVR bender_k_Page_029.tif
461fb0285e638cf9fb0952d12c4a4b5b
67a35fb8b93243957e60a028020b4b1ef4b7140d
51074 F20110115_AADTCA bender_k_Page_052.pro
a92052f163d9834de0498ffd2a9fcf46
a49b5f5126a9dfcadd77ac47f86e4dd64e0c1867
48411 F20110115_AADTBN bender_k_Page_039.pro
e3fbd96ec6f0cae74d5383455bc96aed
4fbce8f88bdb707029bf57df35a03a249ce9c794
F20110115_AADSWH bender_k_Page_047.tif
964d686ea344b5a00d182c3af5c30d34
04897f245e1fa8dc3c356fd2906320eece8b91cb
49705 F20110115_AADTAZ bender_k_Page_023.pro
3229f2d4db620c8fb3ce2940b675416d
b3d1fc3819cd692939565e8f298c3b079ed40e11
F20110115_AADSVS bender_k_Page_030.tif
1f201f0a172b8741b12b33c2f7f33aba
3b09e30c52b185df1e74afe21c0b14c89359f15c
47136 F20110115_AADTCB bender_k_Page_053.pro
35bf90a96c861db0c9236ead5abad5ee
25a6053c967d4e36a45d3643ef70fbd5d22d0e6e
45593 F20110115_AADTBO bender_k_Page_040.pro
26d9fe4f1d13a96ee08726b92ff6d0c1
9d8e4519724f018a4fda27acdbad1c2cd6ac580b
F20110115_AADSWI bender_k_Page_048.tif
781887536a9c60965b620f5e48778e45
7e9b9e8e2b1839f83ffc0a0e45912dbba365b367
F20110115_AADSVT bender_k_Page_031.tif
469779a311186df1527c6845ab74d767
2483ab0de037c36f82bfdd81aa9216268ab1ed46
53547 F20110115_AADTCC bender_k_Page_054.pro
47604ec3ae343088361cf32d64e14bb1
3b457f63e33ae7267538d81c2fae46a7e5606838
41013 F20110115_AADTBP bender_k_Page_041.pro
9f26ede1232a29a3106ec227a4566f11
5a734138372ff287b8cc89199347cd73b0613cf1
F20110115_AADSWJ bender_k_Page_049.tif
0d1f822f0cb9bac6578e4e56d6dd4404
cde822147235c8c31bed804117e9db47d06b51f9
F20110115_AADSVU bender_k_Page_032.tif
4b2be4b4c937f79981d2a0b515e39f7c
57b992df94453bb02c3afaca6a05496a23a58766
49198 F20110115_AADTCD bender_k_Page_056.pro
4447952e278d82300c089865129248bf
3ded8c818d05d6df0725cce03529ab7b3ec822b3
46109 F20110115_AADTBQ bender_k_Page_042.pro
d1b259b22e348091d0f8a7ac48b78280
48a2dd1b94d0c3a665ab5904e831e213cf4dcf77
F20110115_AADSWK bender_k_Page_050.tif
ff20a713c5f662dace43c0622d6460ff
b0ee4c00fa3ce073f83a44cf50185ca21d45980b
F20110115_AADSVV bender_k_Page_033.tif
37d986d8f9cf61ac84f2cbbbff96affa
40d9a64b07c2cfaa39b6cb6a7971052b897ed5aa
43553 F20110115_AADTCE bender_k_Page_057.pro
958fa86e09bc3e619f19e7ea0a67c6c0
fabdfd659915037b71aa88e3c4a73dc971eb9ab0
45357 F20110115_AADTBR bender_k_Page_043.pro
5f39bf29a30346ab01998009af7e5066
8f5efff37c13e3c44a91d090dd034e0a29e998f3
F20110115_AADSWL bender_k_Page_051.tif
23f0586f738e7026988f118a4543efdc
2ee306c2f5b94007bf01b899595ded08f90b766a
F20110115_AADSVW bender_k_Page_034.tif
74f21aa4f246148d8ee541cd34ffeae9
57d72df59bbb4c7c86c9563927b2c34ac69b74f1
47146 F20110115_AADTCF bender_k_Page_058.pro
8c772547875ac2517f020d0e5888c22e
54fc4a8dfb61f12d12d3b28ceaaad66e8bce0c93
F20110115_AADSXA bender_k_Page_069.tif
8e08e73e62808dfdb9168b77416a873c
8e1a63581ab9ac52b2321338af918542a63a0268
46318 F20110115_AADTBS bender_k_Page_044.pro
1508fa505297502d04dcfcdea48857b9
614acc000641787a7c3faf42a23a84d0ffdb541f
F20110115_AADSWM bender_k_Page_052.tif
a5f2e58b51c1035a64109cd7dfb03b92
03d28c52d283ee7a3244fdae5dd7da7659b5e305
F20110115_AADSVX bender_k_Page_035.tif
812cae60cd3400fe3c310b79c3fb37cd
af7dcdb736c85df000f2d8f80c9ccec71458c799
49704 F20110115_AADTCG bender_k_Page_059.pro
75bb62e13e2a4e548033ff6ba8c097e3
45dd933a1a828f14928a6e99b689d46395fbbbd1
F20110115_AADSXB bender_k_Page_070.tif
df2b0c292821c600abc39dc5c722ee9a
5762b59844a308bf4d231b7582bc948086ca76c9
41430 F20110115_AADTBT bender_k_Page_045.pro
c3484410b7b7bd0e81e9549f89b4b6a4
b993ac0d277ffb102295f759e5fced7a5ff90587
F20110115_AADSWN bender_k_Page_053.tif
d6d097683ede2627b7a3c6fef7c04e32
59f8cc3df0b93244e5be85437c245f2ef1ddc238
F20110115_AADSVY bender_k_Page_037.tif
987f4924bfaf50b8120fc9cc1fd9394f
b4dc4eeca6f42407953b1607d08335f01e7332dc
79176 F20110115_AADTCH bender_k_Page_060.pro
9ce36aa22ad73e8d93cc18ed87f2a98e
39be8eed9231cebd5d41798d7d38ad0e956fc6a8
F20110115_AADSXC bender_k_Page_071.tif
9d62c25d8813094551c0545a1391c456
b56c70202670c4e4e6a6ff7db17c05856320d698
43026 F20110115_AADTBU bender_k_Page_046.pro
286c58cd265331cea00f69a523b3d4eb
6d41f59f49ef90eeeb0f51527c973fef68d1f96a
F20110115_AADSWO bender_k_Page_054.tif
b13d10f6c55035acfe46003847e2e5e6
f3315d7bc10047987b452f6c44720dcfffb90ac4
F20110115_AADSVZ bender_k_Page_038.tif
8406ced54a69ebe8d8a7302e57cf8505
71e89ba013b83b64c7a9c62c618fa553c08dfe2a
80515 F20110115_AADTCI bender_k_Page_061.pro
cd34e7f2fe5b3bcd7e79c4515ff1f615
7b4d31aec49b6a5b301b930454d84053894a43bb
F20110115_AADSXD bender_k_Page_072.tif
dcfa94d83b8be1aa9b5e1ab4f817bfdf
7b73249ead28c21c1175051170ed5b38c0948dee
43083 F20110115_AADTBV bender_k_Page_047.pro
ebcccce3a00a25203dc8d7866191e6f5
f15c312067e52884182e941b01354ad84b020182
F20110115_AADSWP bender_k_Page_055.tif
35bc420d0fce3d02e39c520610bc4064
c09d133020de84c901fd142260f06eefb25bb4d3
47298 F20110115_AADTCJ bender_k_Page_062.pro
589c588dbd9a53049e82c73eb816dc3e
040955fe9b03588693efade3654cc0c05a6ec17e
F20110115_AADSXE bender_k_Page_073.tif
d3dae3234fd1b4ad48f2f5d8bebfdb6d
df05f948402f780066a5c1ba3373efb5668006c6
39928 F20110115_AADTBW bender_k_Page_048.pro
108866f7e2770a53383b33af5a777490
898f8e848d705909989da24eac11a64cc5c4cca4
F20110115_AADSWQ bender_k_Page_056.tif
886cc0db5ab8c857fa8453ef4c3484eb
eeaa7c730507213ec701b9348aebb950f1ae60ba
52419 F20110115_AADTCK bender_k_Page_063.pro
b76ce20d5dac1e8203af2cfc1db5fb7f
0184139dbc5e420f68dbdbd4d9733693acda4224
F20110115_AADSXF bender_k_Page_074.tif
372d944a5dac877f31ac4f95ea8447ca
96135264373abde6870b142f33ffe332d5233551
76247 F20110115_AADTBX bender_k_Page_049.pro
a0879a0d91708365827dc8c0c5e43506
c058745679a028a5d7e3fbe3b52ae9cdf60b45e6
48921 F20110115_AADTCL bender_k_Page_064.pro
fad047e7cfec5fa212f5a19998ccbfef
b96d5412ba50dd20424033cc4c96b7929e0f075d
F20110115_AADSXG bender_k_Page_075.tif
3a5bd995dc20a96ebd0bfb05765ed574
d6cef8d5dd4cfc13bc6f71b4bddda378f3ffdc50
48413 F20110115_AADTBY bender_k_Page_050.pro
7f88c26d168cdcfbc33d698a66885f96
c35696363c07d7a23bc8cc219f2a418bc5a7939a
F20110115_AADSWR bender_k_Page_057.tif
3925b8c85db7c3b74a2da604668e3db7
35ddb3f422776ae9b8afa6a459f0c2f9e5b0d61d
28914 F20110115_AADTDA bender_k_Page_082.pro
f6bfcf9a2ca5fb5a310031bc76c8ada0
6828e715fca8332e79da2b77dc4f978bedfa3be7
43144 F20110115_AADTCM bender_k_Page_065.pro
4bfa776465345332f111a884c13cdee0
cf5d9aed24e00646d4ab532f6512be56ff6840e7
F20110115_AADSXH bender_k_Page_076.tif
7557ed82f93827396dec4bce9b805ad0
dca0d02b4f7cefcf4f03bab4cabd2d7b8f8d90c8
51412 F20110115_AADTBZ bender_k_Page_051.pro
9cd178ca7c73714bdb9871d126f5106f
a25c4e1c2b698e520e5e60c4d640cdec75e87374
F20110115_AADSWS bender_k_Page_058.tif
415d6854622fde40024f78d355bff0e4
232e90ec6036998a25c8b162691841252b2aacfd
51613 F20110115_AADTDB bender_k_Page_083.pro
22ebbe6f05e990d5f5f0a2c7c3dc04ee
ee855d41893bc98b883eaf0c4da03f69b3ec9d5b
34354 F20110115_AADTCN bender_k_Page_067.pro
3b9291fc0512799c98bad027d3ca5293
70cb45e036a9235fceba488a46836851f277884d
F20110115_AADSXI bender_k_Page_077.tif
ce9d546f27e45cad6b4dbee127ad3059
58731daef64d48f812457674646712d49ba8811a
F20110115_AADSWT bender_k_Page_059.tif
08c843fa0e56bec61e980536a7a8da1a
c66ad89684a6a86434a7289987a491ef5098c902
56776 F20110115_AADTDC bender_k_Page_084.pro
ddca511acc5e4ec75f46a2fa2102660b
eaef1a3891db09dcf0884568565f13c6e1fdd1bc
87887 F20110115_AADTCO bender_k_Page_068.pro
8f45f895a99351b1a4527155db7034b1
34396b3ea71c1a79e1afb5dbee2aa3f1b0b8a232
F20110115_AADSXJ bender_k_Page_078.tif
42fb9a6c99721c60c48bbe7d21f4b69d
a2370f0aad360167bd4aa296e046efdedc7aa3cb
F20110115_AADSWU bender_k_Page_060.tif
a9e3b2aff111bf690610f7e22e27f81e
34a2ef12710c714f24aebb18d56950a5fe23eb3f
51460 F20110115_AADTDD bender_k_Page_085.pro
dd7335d2e418c865e3f0cf62a60937b3
eca1d065564b99e02cc5fe4150521bb9c8858728
14447 F20110115_AADTCP bender_k_Page_069.pro
e1508a794a1540c8dc36fdb43a3be802
fe53e2fcbc2508b708c4da0acc8fdeac3f8da88b
F20110115_AADSXK bender_k_Page_079.tif
bd9613665be7837c63280d4ecdfa8ab5
f908158493d3164878b2c10cceb8453ecc830bcd
F20110115_AADSWV bender_k_Page_063.tif
d967ecf1736b80bb474eeb6538b6e49c
1b813d7e90945083d8f1117bca826f62a98524c5
25208 F20110115_AADTDE bender_k_Page_086.pro
2b68d598868c6719c158238ff6ccb0b8
72f07377835d37c851ab0a97d0a8b8c7772e192b
43244 F20110115_AADTCQ bender_k_Page_070.pro
cd700524b526c59f2189ece6c8c4d937
630e0ca7a5f991c4467d880d61eb8c48a5aaadf0
F20110115_AADSXL bender_k_Page_080.tif
a702d594f148a8f5af2422bb97de9fbc
7822d8fa5015359a12fd75047c6ac7b257792784
F20110115_AADSWW bender_k_Page_065.tif
e1b83083199026a0567c4f80212165d7
226ffb1b57ee3f4d4b902ae32abb447b2e266d30
42786 F20110115_AADTDF bender_k_Page_087.pro
5502f47fb619f36b32174cd8c279246f
5a18763b2d74725c522be2ed9052f11fe38faf3b
51459 F20110115_AADTCR bender_k_Page_071.pro
696be8dbd59be5d0de37273e30640301
585abcc7d9a2573753cd482fe9db6013c8a0ce83
F20110115_AADSXM bender_k_Page_081.tif
3529cbf41da0b695ddc4a3198820dcad
084d999859fa7c8cf6e16667f11989b459cfec8d
F20110115_AADSWX bender_k_Page_066.tif
4330fb4f0b43dfd42b9f1c2b16574f11
fa4557280287d5a2c11455768fdb519031fd4419
42581 F20110115_AADTDG bender_k_Page_088.pro
fcb84e2d51f2df005f6c2cc433895bbe
b473af3aadb273961b2d93361a49a96dc9f5e879
F20110115_AADSYA bender_k_Page_096.tif
bf452d2334ccb1ca9560b4f9ca1ea6d8
084375b9bb34984a6196d8e1699ff60b6bc8da5c
52495 F20110115_AADTCS bender_k_Page_072.pro
12e306014c4488384429a039a0575f5d
b778baacd01754468af7c25abbffb19f8b0243b8
F20110115_AADSXN bender_k_Page_082.tif
4064f451174b1a327580c76bcaad6f28
3aedd12dfdc7946789d7ecc0d52e9d9649781f66
F20110115_AADSWY bender_k_Page_067.tif
3c5175c7a25a82a8dbe1bb6fa8fea2bd
dd67b5471dca4b7a67a7239ea806b7c2c2211580
25369 F20110115_AADTDH bender_k_Page_089.pro
d0cdb586d2235c9ebf1a17b52a5a76d8
433dfd4346e70c05792ffba6aa178c7ff7f9a74a
F20110115_AADSYB bender_k_Page_097.tif
a9409bb271d730cd7f700cdd483f2170
10467fc1bc87f8c0b386885d254b928dab807425
49321 F20110115_AADTCT bender_k_Page_073.pro
2d11e47e32d2c280dc1a12ce0933d3f6
c50f148b85a167062fe86e4b2f71e20ea3cdf969
F20110115_AADSXO bender_k_Page_083.tif
bf3e1d3b7733840994b09054c33d87b1
a654d0ce2326ccc8d5daf18011575813130b25d6
F20110115_AADSWZ bender_k_Page_068.tif
4c5dbabd86a536ec0720b12886cf9f1a
449b00d93e675d3ba7ff4fca16c060dedf79698d
14633 F20110115_AADTDI bender_k_Page_090.pro
b7ffdafec27421c5183e93e14714f8aa
db7bc7342109376e7ca50ed0ffe8ee98fdb8e7ec
F20110115_AADSYC bender_k_Page_098.tif
a718f88f04d40bc5a8c990b802ed5087
dc606d42a9b151a13ddc72524bcdc38593ed39ce
51781 F20110115_AADTCU bender_k_Page_074.pro
62d2742d7ecd40189da257eb776ad78e
f2ab2699854931018e97f6246614c86955ff361c
F20110115_AADSXP bender_k_Page_084.tif
5abeab662444bbbcd76aa6a35ed8783f
3f79f4b0c1cd13c3e4bb77445533c6810f897379
1550 F20110115_AADTDJ bender_k_Page_091.pro
01d1bf2a91d40e1ef50688a498252d61
e17e126e221dfbbb561adb134a54bcc8fdc44e62
F20110115_AADSYD bender_k_Page_099.tif
0c0a1f88f2ca380f6b459647c406035c
42088b48f17030f386e0bf7b2a863b021f98d247
51289 F20110115_AADTCV bender_k_Page_076.pro
f0e36dcf137f7de01d6768ab5e14231a
166e263a8692a9d281521c70b7875bb7a3607080
F20110115_AADSXQ bender_k_Page_085.tif
9741d34bc729c4d17abe70263617df47
7519cc7c2f6e37ec2976f28ee41deb1e12fb5f7a
30568 F20110115_AADTDK bender_k_Page_092.pro
180ad95db32659e925abd8c217eaa1d3
97c0d81ba74a77366bae7b91960d0237ffbaab6b
F20110115_AADSYE bender_k_Page_100.tif
6a318a49fb0e88a80811ae46ab1ef3a5
7d78f56bcbefc844e6ec95a69fa37c9e6465360b
47267 F20110115_AADTCW bender_k_Page_078.pro
78aa0dd269c42e51d77ffec0e93b1e36
3e0880569bc0b39c0ae32657273386232c64a287
F20110115_AADSXR bender_k_Page_086.tif
a31c10d0489f349390b85fea79da1c4b
bb51b4cd6f8d2d23b7629bf49bf87001e7a0447e
40321 F20110115_AADTDL bender_k_Page_093.pro
00169cbab1c9eaefb1d3e03255b510ec
59fb446d680586b48925cf61f6417f4f71796195
F20110115_AADSYF bender_k_Page_101.tif
2086026a0507f80b761e125b108ab171
eb0cc7ffe14bb75a14ed24e27cdd2b832cc7058c
42345 F20110115_AADTCX bender_k_Page_079.pro
9c7e2f50b9e24251b36a9dd0219629ea
21fae088ae97377f05d11da980bc8fd1f98195a0
35163 F20110115_AADTEA bender_k_Page_108.pro
bc3939579dd1e2725269f4d6e817d56c
0770840a35b7037dd1137c81ce71d9a84d202877
22287 F20110115_AADTDM bender_k_Page_094.pro
a647eef13cc3c73984f3cc4759da8c09
35a8fbcfbc8945f8db4e5a91b5e247632696b4d2
F20110115_AADSYG bender_k_Page_102.tif
1f0dbd1e157c0fbfe326e8ba5a150057
03fcd2e63dc06d5400964ffb646340b014c2a7a1
1212 F20110115_AADTCY bender_k_Page_080.pro
e4fc93cafe8ddfd74465c351b5069f32
f717d2aa67aa1e95740acdc27da2314d82f765cb
32866 F20110115_AADTEB bender_k_Page_109.pro
b5cea530ca6c0b1ab0181910d5ee1394
3c014f769bb1e860b141ec491b03f7a9b81ccf0e
43919 F20110115_AADTDN bender_k_Page_095.pro
374e57d36a44bf9d085b1ee7a2231d4d
e7be7cd8be3f868ae7100a9d3e26d925890fd839
F20110115_AADSYH bender_k_Page_103.tif
3a7c5472f468d038126b3a9ea8ad8c28
22ace276fc3a89176168c5fc89b89bfb53227040
36322 F20110115_AADTCZ bender_k_Page_081.pro
dca591cc7271355b1771ad3f60f9d347
2a5c34028e652098fc7adacb0708df706c2f4080
F20110115_AADSXS bender_k_Page_087.tif
09d0f3158ef6d094003a80113c4d10ea
19c0a7471ebdb15be44538434b31ef79081156f5
28213 F20110115_AADTEC bender_k_Page_110.pro
387712cdc9594f1aadcab99c5fdf01b1
b9b569ea2a3fc6ccefc62e00d207c8a46fd13a07
24184 F20110115_AADTDO bender_k_Page_096.pro
682dc65f2c218c1d49a9168db8aed2ba
075ec1fabbff2a11d5aa9247b8ebe8a7fd65433d
F20110115_AADSYI bender_k_Page_104.tif
18c47b11d6a65b7e96dafb0b1ecdd468
d49afbfb9dabfddd0375a96b776435686201ac2f
F20110115_AADSXT bender_k_Page_088.tif
a98e4cde5c57559b3d8f0826048cfd4a
6f1d5d0042c337a83327ee73fc8c512f77554877
38864 F20110115_AADTED bender_k_Page_111.pro
e1fa34b28ca5b0d65d21dc7f025465e5
bd1434cd3d156a53265861229b2eb5d18bbda746
46679 F20110115_AADTDP bender_k_Page_097.pro
cb9ab82d9f5c34505f8783437094ab3a
a8c4a759d684360da555bdbed17d1a4cf4c02fcd
F20110115_AADSYJ bender_k_Page_105.tif
8d65c61d44ca951d4c18f7fac2de8a1e
c2795d918f35bf4e1829bbb6ff12dacdecf20eef
F20110115_AADSXU bender_k_Page_089.tif
dca648bf173282b3bd2e2bd6d9e2f460
24da75ec10d55b8312ca9ee3a53b621778a2f5cd
85613 F20110115_AADTEE bender_k_Page_112.pro
3abe8244095238376c7ac9e08d086fc2
68f5361325683402afb57af9f21477e88e5a01a5
36922 F20110115_AADTDQ bender_k_Page_098.pro
0ced76cbf76b8354b8c689a0f54094d4
73c4547c4230e54ae744487f9bf8e5bd5ab90b90
F20110115_AADSYK bender_k_Page_106.tif
2a529654e5fccaf7baa7b6d6a0cab8b8
8af6a8c81425688ea7cb5033cb1128cadf191518
F20110115_AADSXV bender_k_Page_090.tif
c49a8e6fbe507383fe487e259c718bef
6b9b99afa3b85f645b04db40bc6841d996481ed6
78561 F20110115_AADTEF bender_k_Page_113.pro
43920f3045fd19aa76820340281ff782
002802d5c3b5b06e3a64bc9dad8798b5aa37c742
40446 F20110115_AADTDR bender_k_Page_099.pro
bfd97e89f31dcb7a600453f76f8bf8e9
e85aa696bf66ef9cc6fb86920d1456af6157e020
F20110115_AADSYL bender_k_Page_107.tif
627523e28b890e6d04e073c4174c590d
bd5d4aa200bd7d532c8d3b9fc81ce162bc5955ba
F20110115_AADSXW bender_k_Page_091.tif
7ebe3945232e4e20280fc4789303b190
781015c425560ab232b3fbff43acc4537166fcc3
37985 F20110115_AADTEG bender_k_Page_114.pro
7b6ccef59884c0036739529e51463f75
774381e7abb168e745c2c533199759d7cc76e20b
F20110115_AADSZA bender_k_Page_122.tif
c1dc2b6e39e409476f4d7291585c3788
4c4f2882abb40c1e47c2f3450859da04a17f5ebc
53232 F20110115_AADTDS bender_k_Page_100.pro
7dd76992d1b2ba3165ee6323d24658d7
b8d49169687a4adc06685cea0c47869fd83ef7f6
F20110115_AADSYM bender_k_Page_108.tif
7d10c4fe649c50d72a1e4b83b5e82974
06f44033dd77b79831278195cad3f180a7bed52a
F20110115_AADSXX bender_k_Page_092.tif
8dd460b30aae065d1d0ec1c9619a5289
dc1e8874504ae998938afe92436749172a76d435
40257 F20110115_AADTEH bender_k_Page_115.pro
db66fadf190015ec39f3a4cdc3907f2e
84d3a24966882967c051d93e7f749ee3378ce308
F20110115_AADSZB bender_k_Page_123.tif
8f8340fef971bd34c604976edd85acb4
5b7e897b7488778454650fcfd9d8697f627d7b23
33404 F20110115_AADTDT bender_k_Page_101.pro
c341f68aa4f62c021738dfc74dc8d79e
9a938eab6401ab29c4c3b793911f211fd8feeedd
F20110115_AADSYN bender_k_Page_109.tif
382a80c3fa8ff49011d0c0b59b1f9f12
df7ed972fac8f4b396fdbf543cb61ebfcbb9ed91
F20110115_AADSXY bender_k_Page_094.tif
662d04f141ac237db5ce63cc48ed51cb
62fa45a256161e8fc62f41619a24160cd099b045
43392 F20110115_AADTEI bender_k_Page_116.pro
ee3a8d91e3f61a3cfea25c22cdb78a63
110f67ef9375a093026d5500fd48e3c0c3fefa2f
F20110115_AADSZC bender_k_Page_124.tif
e07972d47429af3d49172dd7d231209e
23fbf7882a8d9906eba4f62a9daf8bdace434649
51572 F20110115_AADTDU bender_k_Page_102.pro
bf128af1d492cfeeef81574184a74293
319a0bd6ac414a640f039ab7f5327b5f2bad228e
F20110115_AADSYO bender_k_Page_110.tif
c23e289d7649e36ebd69355ce29efaa7
d1f5f999f2ffb7bd1dd344ebeff25b71305f9ceb
F20110115_AADSXZ bender_k_Page_095.tif
927417ad8dfce0a155eafa3b6b2ed771
209e225c28c20dfa6b09144ca1b9b8791781d733
27310 F20110115_AADTEJ bender_k_Page_117.pro
28239effcd455d4904aeb449d9059705
23c50b5b62bfe27b0443deb789aa864f9bb4890d
F20110115_AADSZD bender_k_Page_125.tif
7b618f1b628f9886696eb2a5c4d10596
7487cc9aeb84c1033a56cee934180caaad6fe836
42931 F20110115_AADTDV bender_k_Page_103.pro
94a4175f6c475ae62f65f7a96793ee15
e4d3003ef043afbb3c5f546671666f62b809817a
F20110115_AADSYP bender_k_Page_111.tif
b2e7f59e8c80539a42552c6139a31839
546d6860911d3b6d34a1447d0c1f5b470a3c41c1
75141 F20110115_AADTEK bender_k_Page_118.pro
88c06a7fc6fd309a2117167236cc79cf
c79e6b2e2501bdb0ab9f37c0e10f508952637dd7
F20110115_AADSZE bender_k_Page_126.tif
75e38ae719969871727e5f4c30ade375
054e939795f891dbac83422b20a4c4ee7ddc5da4
49519 F20110115_AADTDW bender_k_Page_104.pro
97ac529ee87cb219cd308d33ad821a83
f7ccd9e87408d28f5aafdb177f3282d43c4dd51c
F20110115_AADSYQ bender_k_Page_112.tif
55a879de1bee6b0ef80dde1d818fdfe7
455008a77b10971bb9cba41fe2ba218c8af44abc
62463 F20110115_AADTEL bender_k_Page_119.pro
10875b5143a11aee923e9802e278375f
24d1d79c2d4bdb83e6a069538b385f8f8b8ea5f7
F20110115_AADSZF bender_k_Page_127.tif
25fc7b7209c0cc8fb82d7ab34587258d
fc03b4b5aa576f5cea4d1668ae4e1589fd58c11a
33735 F20110115_AADTDX bender_k_Page_105.pro
b8c56c941cefdb5d24e5f9a5556cd26c
7029bc440bef680e71476904d2ef55133adde50f
F20110115_AADSYR bender_k_Page_113.tif
b5c56c5fec18b995f2f12add98a7c196
92e2b43bcf1308b270eebd5f5cb1c2e9e3f5b9be
63854 F20110115_AADTEM bender_k_Page_120.pro
86805c0d08d407a995d1a4466023b6f5
29cef8d6cf0593e19dd0dc9af7fc6e404770cde6
F20110115_AADSZG bender_k_Page_128.tif
0a29f738b2d5fb6633e87817f4219a08
766bc7c4e5da966ddfd24b0804b16fb725918b8e
1108 F20110115_AADTDY bender_k_Page_106.pro
5ceac555f0f3bc65f0ccff8417ae573e
32e3ef8fd547424868e701ae3e74e2f2afe05c08
F20110115_AADSYS bender_k_Page_114.tif
b00be32906f633d6ab5d8e1c9b4a4868
c647edb721d4a62e756ce9924813c808b68546dd
99727 F20110115_AADTFA bender_k_Page_134.pro
546066960bc24f98d0d1752727e76cb9
77ffacca887404599520ec53a0a86b92d825b0e5
17515 F20110115_AADTEN bender_k_Page_121.pro
99bfdd3c0cecf39b2c9ec9b5b8ee2dd6
c1c681d31005df110e710140461861ebee550eac
F20110115_AADSZH bender_k_Page_129.tif
302e6d49ea15877609e8f84568a04eb3
1ee4de65a3c06d29397ccca2c258c36cf768da70
23952 F20110115_AADTDZ bender_k_Page_107.pro
e59fbcdd3b4838cbb0134349c9217087
6129b6bb1a163b1a6809e879fc8b0e91879c68db
99831 F20110115_AADTFB bender_k_Page_135.pro
9e5489b2aaf55dac7a11890d8f97de79
b7cb20481db255cf449b6e187ad61c89e3ebc8e0
90356 F20110115_AADTEO bender_k_Page_122.pro
30c28f1b068e1884a4b41e40965bb3ad
563141c6c2ee030d1ef5d83633df8a8582b79af8
F20110115_AADSZI bender_k_Page_130.tif
2e2a9d2e4c5d1023e6dd22498a4d3f8d
7edcea7a17234212ce39cfa1619dd7c2988307d8
F20110115_AADSYT bender_k_Page_115.tif
29561289883cc0d752fd2377fd6ed01f
38c17a2ec8b66985bd067ea9b993281501a527df
108050 F20110115_AADTFC bender_k_Page_136.pro
586d50e54cd12cd40269b6354b332937
e1055c95174e1d7a5e7fa582e22d8b0e27af3d15
F20110115_AADSZJ bender_k_Page_131.tif
0b7578c382140cf86f1b2dc2a9e282d3
63576c7dae0451d15b80015ce904029cc57ead48
F20110115_AADSYU bender_k_Page_116.tif
947658b34b9a6d0e2b9ff094d978d0b0
62a34792a13dec20585324b8da99cbc6983a3714
92492 F20110115_AADTFD bender_k_Page_137.pro
430a76bc359374252fe508fac269ee4e
ded9e8bd56972a6227bc98bfdcf95716e626b4da
86920 F20110115_AADTEP bender_k_Page_123.pro
15992081a73cc854b948d528a426e677
d6af0d326adf16a57027e6452e1d74e977d3e692
F20110115_AADSZK bender_k_Page_132.tif
ff855528bd07889365955bdfe7f8654c
e4838fbafa83e28995697703dfa2bd39dffa80da
F20110115_AADSYV bender_k_Page_117.tif
2ffe272054c446f5c4364d94ff4d8206
15b953435bb3976fecfc30f6dac6401e527e66e6
119793 F20110115_AADTFE bender_k_Page_138.pro
283cb3e9662b8fb679b584eb78f43cb0
d966796619548532aff4f7c713380eb8512f3778
81718 F20110115_AADTEQ bender_k_Page_124.pro
1f59cde8bd4285ed8db8f7c860ff6ff0
94c3cb2a7dc428fd691436f4b40c26377e41b109
F20110115_AADSZL bender_k_Page_133.tif
90e3fc59ed5a936e088bf4b6b4c259f0
cac46c188ae9e17c1ce4a5271019b2b55293339d
F20110115_AADSYW bender_k_Page_118.tif
810a632dd65ba0fdbb8b59573c27c384
3d6d78ffa067453dab5ed48f90db574e83dc93e4
107349 F20110115_AADTFF bender_k_Page_139.pro
50d367483ccf899a0ffed6fac4391f5a
b0131560434feb57e056778b1ede4f6ce4ee2dfe
104336 F20110115_AADTER bender_k_Page_125.pro
c92770d63176786f7a6611cea49856b0
6aafe356f4357b9e1f8a6ce9c5678b3f08fc7e87
F20110115_AADSZM bender_k_Page_134.tif
1606a8c466ef3dfcea8529d466cb9edc
fc50142a14f1cd70a08b07ce8a4487599228831c
F20110115_AADSYX bender_k_Page_119.tif
00f814fb46cf95a7a6b1b6320c6bd1fc
860d0d8626e38b93fdcb4c5ce3cd91adb33fca39
86829 F20110115_AADTFG bender_k_Page_140.pro
b3b796757b5f9da5738b4f6d8f3afb3e
00e8d23c26d0023eabef8fd24567eb29d9396e05
91054 F20110115_AADTES bender_k_Page_126.pro
f7e80b791bd503bf50ef6cfa578e0ee8
bbe38915606593e9a1389bc739448e9438dbee2b
F20110115_AADSZN bender_k_Page_135.tif
652f63f1d4f6675476a49b1ce89da261
dd57f6f3f554fea8ee64d193d0c225780b1f5dd4
F20110115_AADSYY bender_k_Page_120.tif
f86f11cfee8629dedf050afae62a5d3a
fc896fb019d1f1a481cc7f126f3a162d655ff8b6
74946 F20110115_AADTFH bender_k_Page_142.pro
e1cd4ed96ffc8828390bfb5ebd08b63d
64a31d50849bebeef8bed3d8cd2c4bf09766747d
52898 F20110115_AADTET bender_k_Page_127.pro
e48006dff6f8f96454cb0d6b565a4cb4
d4147211e67b3fa0ce06ec6c427ffa2b3601cd6e
F20110115_AADSZO bender_k_Page_136.tif
c883abee4cdff7f48045207ab1aebf98
727cc5100ab3eaf9f1e753a84ffdb1d322da7a64
F20110115_AADSYZ bender_k_Page_121.tif
226e5ca1e4a0b17d0d913e821b5b483e
c9ef3d506f5e372e2db6e92488251dd338a7d0dc
127063 F20110115_AADTFI bender_k_Page_143.pro
75058dee9e2c5ad3d84b38f9a8760507
e4e05abcc8cbce9c458aad51aa79918287d95f9c
40838 F20110115_AADTEU bender_k_Page_128.pro
cbd27eebabe5b0c6f556f303b8ff4c71
b72079e481eea64f3b80bc12562189efe03993fd
F20110115_AADSZP bender_k_Page_137.tif
d2a5b0af81633fd8f5a1ad2bbe069658
059f7ec4adf01c012599ee81294f079f07fd4f09
123188 F20110115_AADTFJ bender_k_Page_144.pro
5767f9a42bfb16832a8ff1c1f2f00986
2734425edbf1513bdb6f15ad500c55f099d08a5c
88998 F20110115_AADTEV bender_k_Page_129.pro
676fa4fb0951f93b68c24c090486f071
c0f14bb653883c1ca72da9398de7c2e941742c8c
F20110115_AADSZQ bender_k_Page_138.tif
7970421b4d8e84d05ad459aadee49858
fde279bd1b82aee781b04da5a2fbc45ea5f9c044
110535 F20110115_AADTFK bender_k_Page_145.pro
094a7708936a8c14ab88b7cbe1260b3c
c956d101b4abcd42202c2e354738f216912b3878
100740 F20110115_AADTEW bender_k_Page_130.pro
9dd39effef51c3394b80f35cc7371465
b8ecd510349f21c2d5e1f950e635008fc814eda1
F20110115_AADSZR bender_k_Page_139.tif
45f982247d7665a4686f7a23bfefe4cc
80c06ea25392aaa38579ef08ad9b4aef11ef4431
120341 F20110115_AADTFL bender_k_Page_146.pro
5ad46bcd3708836556136fbe342a1491
0b850273a4137c161b687e840083fc3e57858f95
120554 F20110115_AADTEX bender_k_Page_131.pro
42d8ed57b008159f6a4f9fcdf81c0bfd
0e2fccc5f52e4e45572d4c13456998900f29f219
F20110115_AADSZS bender_k_Page_140.tif
aef2df2f23c2759e66d7bbf4edbca62a
6156f2bca906f55b8776969f10f6c7b71ad32670
1664 F20110115_AADTGA bender_k_Page_009.txt
41904509d1dc9efc1849eecf0c5a038a
382e4da5e308ccd33af82e093406c8a8fdd2d9e1
95708 F20110115_AADTFM bender_k_Page_147.pro
949edd485cacc95eec7f8d25d4fdc9d0
bc2b5aa3f0e9da2115200b96ac8fea18c8fac6f7
102546 F20110115_AADTEY bender_k_Page_132.pro
0debb0e0317c4c28072c58960ccda1ee
42df4899f344d30c611fdba28a27174e9d9d6973
F20110115_AADSZT bender_k_Page_141.tif
6f20d5541216fbd6b1fd57a1269dd02a
9333282aa14efdd8189f1c54093e888f33917146
1964 F20110115_AADTGB bender_k_Page_010.txt
ef9e5d0e28d3a97b9d38837c843dd6b8
9345e0ea9d7063593ba4933ce1a4e256ceee1df1
48198 F20110115_AADTFN bender_k_Page_148.pro
c08df37127c68a1768a661fa6de3652e
cbf8d1cfcf43083d0b70debff33f013cef5e580c
108754 F20110115_AADTEZ bender_k_Page_133.pro
46969bf373663f4c8769af5d88121a44
84fa2944c9ca5f4969a6f73cbb60bd98a86ec481
1746 F20110115_AADTGC bender_k_Page_011.txt
7e234d8ec561aff56dd2f51777a3112f
e18d203611188f74f75340a26e3fb534bcfdac24
56224 F20110115_AADTFO bender_k_Page_149.pro
8456ac9264c6264cb12856e5f0449b33
e9b4d47c69607426f291dd563630c2404f6e264c
F20110115_AADSZU bender_k_Page_143.tif
ae9b146157c5b5061cf5aa00ef5aa09e
b483fe1279121e4cad68877603ebef94533ba1d2
2099 F20110115_AADTGD bender_k_Page_012.txt
6f72f289a12e395fe0a8acfa1a025a31
8a26bd648ba2949a6dbbee9fd25e8497cbc4ea2c
61217 F20110115_AADTFP bender_k_Page_150.pro
176c31364ac80bd7c37ea2e9def3c6f2
0937b262511b9d341adced5fa50e18e1cc6b37d0
F20110115_AADSZV bender_k_Page_144.tif
a8d00aae71643b90f0e39662c20cda3d
c1aba95326dbfacfe886acd502b97cc742928679
2021 F20110115_AADTGE bender_k_Page_013.txt
a46e66274872f4ba6a38e8c40907c2b9
fa8b0e3486ca18cd8cb0b4eba702259f196867d8
5081 F20110115_AADTFQ bender_k_Page_151.pro
dee96b62b9ca2f211997a95aa650ffa7
8d22002c45a916926d7094424243509dc200ab28
F20110115_AADSZW bender_k_Page_145.tif
fa2e8db8d50707c2a23e034b800e3e51
3584d6f5829c31ba92aa26d1dfc3f807ef9e848f
1956 F20110115_AADTGF bender_k_Page_014.txt
7fe62d3c26a0d5c798e30acf1b94c819
837508d89dfd8721a522a0846537df494965f79e
14692 F20110115_AADTFR bender_k_Page_152.pro
b41817c90cdd32fd13e5cad313b798b6
f695c281334513f9e44cdb2a7f283326659455a2
F20110115_AADSZX bender_k_Page_146.tif
45a7c9b9f558563457683f7907026c7d
46ac5031247b15da4acdc93d83219ffa5791158c
1831 F20110115_AADTGG bender_k_Page_015.txt
5fd7ae6d634b22853c57aac88edc3a4d
41ffd8565cb6dba59ffb58eed1c25b58aee90090
464 F20110115_AADTFS bender_k_Page_001.txt
7487960132817d56dadd24d5e140ce15
8a6c096c677673420a034f032c0e14894ea4e627
F20110115_AADSZY bender_k_Page_147.tif
58f929341d793bdd7b0479baeaab6122
ae5cdf1d274af0d65f0d9719f1133f01da6e7929
777 F20110115_AADTGH bender_k_Page_016.txt
ca1c1dfe300e0bad5d336a17aa25fe65
8bc5d84db0c3c79f86748225d485d6137e09cb54
101 F20110115_AADTFT bender_k_Page_002.txt
7a8a36d3919fcbef9a5d4024795a1393
c70f0cef12d5040d925ab03cd992df4e866e4c12
F20110115_AADSZZ bender_k_Page_148.tif
2da3a7ba3e681ddd2cd308a0b039fc6a
5a517902c0e6675f8c67e329a7fc770be20b2370
1644 F20110115_AADTGI bender_k_Page_017.txt
9777d469b1280f1138eb2c3b8a023f8a
bf12f0ebe32b12707209f359ecc119f805c6f898
843 F20110115_AADTFU bender_k_Page_003.txt
5e53fbcf7b5ab178df66b0742735ebce
51c8d1d9d905043181627f6b6837e1ce96016083
1896 F20110115_AADTGJ bender_k_Page_018.txt
6c924fa50d3352698e48068242d186fa
e8e231450c9c78cebd664d23dd3114295c1637a3
3134 F20110115_AADTFV bender_k_Page_004.txt
9610360e1aea344dc52fa3d23b856b4b
7b7d3ab1c30b9d55d7edcf188f479ed8a779396e
1882 F20110115_AADTGK bender_k_Page_019.txt
585e80b09c0857ec1d5392504961a929
43361c7c12100c76217ecb5471c940e4cdca3bf2
3982 F20110115_AADTFW bender_k_Page_005.txt
439d882fac24cc80a66512bdd7862512
ce27576fd819cd57fbf85bff2a245ea82678258f
1992 F20110115_AADTGL bender_k_Page_020.txt
0469a970e162258e5f564e8153dfd9e2
506c4f6b705c2d89e0b8885c1cd6b7116424fe80
369 F20110115_AADTFX bender_k_Page_006.txt
6a908f284eb12253365de1d74f04c71b
65239a7682b9861e6a7aed78d811b3864ac32f09
1955 F20110115_AADTHA bender_k_Page_035.txt
144a90d003d1b4e7ac590202593a6ce6
325a289a6f4bf7e2145295a216740eec27dc2268
F20110115_AADTGM bender_k_Page_021.txt
6048afb69a877bf721276a6324d00239
7167c9bb4171f6d253fcce40e3fae085b1e0de68
2213 F20110115_AADTFY bender_k_Page_007.txt
72a3ea242ad20ec68ad03917ea47ae4e
a46cb8e7d7bee38b863bb22eedac7dcde4e51da5
1869 F20110115_AADTGN bender_k_Page_022.txt
46f066dbb9074d021d2f9fd90c5adf51
a5fb66516ee110dd80978cefa660bac165da26c9
1015 F20110115_AADTFZ bender_k_Page_008.txt
b3d64e366fdb6549e9acdb5ab0fef8fc
d8d3ad53053eb11fffa55bc674aacbcbf2a71b8e
1970 F20110115_AADTHB bender_k_Page_036.txt
1a3e8c6e2e07e75f7d5155297676742c
3374bbee0effc322a81c39d1d581e20ff000f8fe
1994 F20110115_AADTGO bender_k_Page_023.txt
a639c2d2fcaf43f0edacda6473ead9ed
ce0a5b0ecdd07b8f0543ee7d5c147bda8637fa5a
1986 F20110115_AADTHC bender_k_Page_037.txt
ef6fd9ecb04fa46c3adceff762508c22
fd2196c3672a3953b8cba124d72970cb37115558
1977 F20110115_AADTGP bender_k_Page_024.txt
2bf99a3f0fd7c229a70033897486274f
e5554e37a69742edc522129401b0150a433a61d6
1974 F20110115_AADTHD bender_k_Page_038.txt
d8d25aa5ae77ad7718c2abb5324f46ea
79414f428257516c839b862adab72e3b02ac3c11
2027 F20110115_AADTGQ bender_k_Page_025.txt
7f9c89435ee6d56c9fe76494b8f74c0c
eaefff7c972e232613588028dd7dd251ac0ebd5e
1932 F20110115_AADTHE bender_k_Page_039.txt
b495906c280465ab56003c20b07f7232
2cfaa1802daf39a29c46fab76adc31dc1016aa44
1900 F20110115_AADTGR bender_k_Page_026.txt
1a84f1f3ddc76d2ab0c696941b1675d3
acd3369569bc4a409fa4a413c60932ec1c7667f3
1809 F20110115_AADTHF bender_k_Page_040.txt
b43d46d3606116d4dd5d93e23552b028
3e3651bbe9af95230a0f0eaeb8e251fbe8be63e1
2055 F20110115_AADTGS bender_k_Page_027.txt
d030cd5138f757517484f20625d79c50
a90a0d4f04fedc9841ef72a5086c0071f03c313d
1749 F20110115_AADTHG bender_k_Page_041.txt
9a2d9289d656099af08263b5945c3a7b
9bfa5a5b94cf49e80656922fa179cf4ebadd6c8b
2062 F20110115_AADTGT bender_k_Page_028.txt
a0630e8995d5c7abf62c9912f297dfb2
5d1ca66366ce26b7cf9c674ad4b68b4c5b4d5412
1865 F20110115_AADTHH bender_k_Page_042.txt
5b9cd36ee752fbbf3dab1b12f1f623b8
8b49a07ae39b459dc201dd97e4f5f3ef536326ae
1902 F20110115_AADTGU bender_k_Page_029.txt
b43567564ad47ad0ea2437b6cfcf0436
57ba49e5412a1b8d4faf76777d826e5d87f39245
2035 F20110115_AADTHI bender_k_Page_043.txt
e8bbfc8bbc24e2cd90e5075e3539ebb2
09d170127eae644e94a23635501306a6ecab1cb1
1734 F20110115_AADTGV bender_k_Page_030.txt
9ce930d1932eceb6fe132aba7073500d
23a5e74eb1f04dbc82c8aad219ff9348d2ff3cde
2149 F20110115_AADTHJ bender_k_Page_044.txt
cfa54c0cdd3c4145005f2071bba2e3dd
28d2afccdcb174f2061b601ebb4af16b46722e2e
2003 F20110115_AADTGW bender_k_Page_031.txt
180e653a58dd786947d5341a316c467f
f13da02f6259fd3834845c8ced4fba63e57f82e3
1846 F20110115_AADTHK bender_k_Page_045.txt
d136c6d2ec19308f85ae9f9aa4fa276e
d4ee1a315a5698111e3fe41f689c5021c41d304e
1951 F20110115_AADTGX bender_k_Page_032.txt
a9ba6d1d6f0ee27acb2d8085b40aec92
d9d1fed53fdf384e57545b4c4ad58895e93882e5
5123 F20110115_AADTIA bender_k_Page_061.txt
c1abf1cf044934eb53f79450ef927536
d8cfda931dd4131a6bd968793373ca2e54631182
1796 F20110115_AADTHL bender_k_Page_046.txt
662dc4ac5bfe8ac10c1c38dd1e1022e5
4b453234cde7129858a6233c915cf1cd1abeeb5a
2031 F20110115_AADTGY bender_k_Page_033.txt
1b13d0df9a8f5d15834c87629b16dbf3
dba6225207a6a7c198dec6752ac51d84b7c21e95
1978 F20110115_AADTIB bender_k_Page_062.txt
4d2ea179e0736a879806fc66008c2ffe
4cc8dd366f5544835af54cf75bfb4d62f1248d94
1917 F20110115_AADTHM bender_k_Page_047.txt
c9f928882015d70c7e682cfe03f457eb
a45b678c7c7ab1459b88ff6a9fa198898bfdc7ed
2714 F20110115_AADTGZ bender_k_Page_034.txt
b46fab159d2184c3579c98fb544c5aa9
2f7d82e021375380410d49903da227b2a04d1b07
1825 F20110115_AADTHN bender_k_Page_048.txt
b48714b417d508c5deb6e6ce43d7e9b7
7266332a45a4e8cf5602d0f86d3bdc4a24f07983
2302 F20110115_AADTIC bender_k_Page_063.txt
0090781f435d40bcf9d932174abf6ad4
7e8b3465006255e0a561a12ed28ec8a1d606c376
3225 F20110115_AADTHO bender_k_Page_049.txt
79eb4849c728ca9b91f5654a20b1d4cf
59b463dcdd4317d21c0cedb8b9b4a2cf2c3fa46c
1933 F20110115_AADTID bender_k_Page_064.txt
6fc0e002f1c2193ccc503f409dc2d8af
3bc64d9b06aa49e03300507472d67a85f7f91333
2154 F20110115_AADTHP bender_k_Page_050.txt
60f9d4ba631bf6b1b8e1ddf2f8e4d5dc
6c18e2c7a53dd9231d5988a1be72d32b6d36c097
F20110115_AADTIE bender_k_Page_065.txt
de4463a7dc206563034f4baf144a5765
1f1abf20219eab6abe2a58c7c7403d81978b1ff6
2028 F20110115_AADTHQ bender_k_Page_051.txt
ed7528ee34ff787b64ee7901c977ad81
8dfd0b9b7e875bf4ede85a4d6d343988c18fb08f
2039 F20110115_AADTIF bender_k_Page_066.txt
a6dcca460b86a0a5ad7d9c856d954047
ad6f5b41fa3ecc832b6e541fa8ea48ad036ed6ad
2375 F20110115_AADTHR bender_k_Page_052.txt
417ce5561547f18ffb858abb5eeaa19b
f57d57ca1e0b79f1918bc1b596aec486cf5ff79d
1404 F20110115_AADTIG bender_k_Page_067.txt
60c4acc54b299f0706fb3de9e16862c9
4b3dd1a9128b3975111bc16bdad916013ad80c5c
2040 F20110115_AADTHS bender_k_Page_053.txt
b71babf1fc06c4056ea047443dbb32fc
db9746ea987f1134ae8a613143082594f924bc2d
4235 F20110115_AADTIH bender_k_Page_068.txt
72cda8cd977d9a1ab1fe0241bad9c76a
0e70fcbb0c25717c308dc6e096a8ac03beff5a90
2109 F20110115_AADTHT bender_k_Page_054.txt
5b93ba8cf9228950d90c4706e243da4b
62623ee7317f4af65550ce3f2656b190ef7109b4
755 F20110115_AADTII bender_k_Page_069.txt
54b3abcb0aac4a7914aba07e7ad338fe
a2431db2b6e5bba8ece2be48457a140c36ebd74b
2238 F20110115_AADTHU bender_k_Page_055.txt
510b28184ee1ffe90824115c19d36899
f9c3515d9fd495f62a1132fb5236fbb2674905d1
1802 F20110115_AADTIJ bender_k_Page_070.txt
463d5354cda97cfa83c768f0c4c2a151
a54e0270abc1ff833ee03af90b6511209ef233c8
2054 F20110115_AADTHV bender_k_Page_056.txt
18b5374e895a738de1ab39b0e6a58e3b
8f2154d65e135ee480fb48f9d33289b1c9423331
2025 F20110115_AADTIK bender_k_Page_071.txt
575dfe11d3ce28f5c87e179bdb5fd6fd
66bd8e46dfd0586cc8cfb46223dabd595c94d586
1988 F20110115_AADTHW bender_k_Page_057.txt
023de2b08b01537aa0b3d6f55ff92c8c
22eb330f2fdd6ba8e81b5dc80ca4fd8d6b39bff0
1683 F20110115_AADTJA bender_k_Page_088.txt
fb3f5cdbc5dafdcc726e5814fe8224a8
5b7f4647e75f7c94d9349b4c86f768d32f9532bb
2082 F20110115_AADTIL bender_k_Page_072.txt
9697cab28b2e5dc6440b8f14872d10ee
ff08ae8244dcf72cba893db18dd3055d58b7c973
1962 F20110115_AADTHX bender_k_Page_058.txt
e580747a68b3c7a9ce159374c69f21a7
ae897e5fb1e5754e705f9ff6b3d8a9151e1450dd
990 F20110115_AADTJB bender_k_Page_089.txt
ea57cfb497ed5eb30d0592e38c98679b
c22b46f23123a4351ebab997864b5c7bf7e4f049
2009 F20110115_AADTIM bender_k_Page_073.txt
66e5e92f04e34d8b8e2ed4b6415fee5a
bd3f69411da2445dca5e39664f993510d46744bf
2057 F20110115_AADTHY bender_k_Page_059.txt
50af5cce19d737aeb6c36a736fa64346
6391d2d62c7475b1759be3dbe73a6699d66d746d
693 F20110115_AADTJC bender_k_Page_090.txt
b01746fa52612e38390b77c34bc5f4a1
ae7a5954e574bae5820fef9787d3eb11472dcdbc
2030 F20110115_AADTIN bender_k_Page_074.txt
260ce7ddf4c03d6ec67b13cc20470031
45d93e9337c0eeb12a0e995980a39690b3dbb323
4967 F20110115_AADTHZ bender_k_Page_060.txt
f79458029708abe8cb9fe78470661ebd
5b24ce9a5878a68f1dc980e1a1fc31fe621ae83c
1983 F20110115_AADTIO bender_k_Page_075.txt
74917539ec7ae8a1d22aa50a2bb5c6c9
ebfd4e7d7e792b0349387e37507064946a32cad1
91 F20110115_AADTJD bender_k_Page_091.txt
10b70c6e7ea796f7bc807af20aa2a265
3115f62d52f4d190f3e6be5647a2dd92a36ad8d8
2032 F20110115_AADTIP bender_k_Page_076.txt
78049074f5788e2ca93f77fbfb389c05
6493c13d6ebdb4c77a42d05385bd105cd3b4ce5d
1298 F20110115_AADTJE bender_k_Page_092.txt
3985a1f5211a5a58d9b9d573a7254675
35446fd1626f4eb47dc5854420812ac4d0794a36
1969 F20110115_AADTIQ bender_k_Page_077.txt
c480c4d548eb6a14a89a648de6795d27
4d0bb49ae9f778a8ff8aa419c09ac6cd6e5a8857
1765 F20110115_AADTJF bender_k_Page_093.txt
f8e550ba8a7824f5f9f8333a103de22b
3df71e06445e7a96544477b1bd905df619c0c9a7
1881 F20110115_AADTIR bender_k_Page_078.txt
91f6f7a591f557a74d66c2df1cc97583
df58af115ab2d85762ac2e12a3fa41da18da8a0f
1005 F20110115_AADTJG bender_k_Page_094.txt
cd8e28b4474e2cd396982c0b4fc27523
52aece27977626b56f138c224dcb3b68942c2961
1720 F20110115_AADTIS bender_k_Page_079.txt
3dbf4472977059e940e9c9d07ddef732
8eb8cbc74ad1c4e7d82bdc2c48045d0dc6bdbcaf
F20110115_AADTJH bender_k_Page_095.txt
22472ce2785a650dbf677fc107f63211
7788b36c057c39f3559ee11ab1f274ae405af3b5
72 F20110115_AADTIT bender_k_Page_080.txt
0d2652aeefcac6137acbf33a72154fd3
4f065a01f7ef12ef7bad5787b5fd8787e73f521b
1132 F20110115_AADTJI bender_k_Page_096.txt
c729b675c23c949a57171e7643955d22
4b6ba9774b34c6e8c7558035be7d1980522199fd
1129 F20110115_AADTIU bender_k_Page_082.txt
f01701ad1d2553bd292eb97f76aaf675
db6cc22c3a3ecc619c54415e7f2329af5d70948c
2005 F20110115_AADTJJ bender_k_Page_097.txt
14ae5bcc97ffb89f195ae4909dc9c04b
47a75f737f952f79baa1d3ee04b440eb1a7800b2
2026 F20110115_AADTIV bender_k_Page_083.txt
de27852a9811dbc3743c96cf647a9f86
6b14896685a3024f005ef12772168a321f4fb653
1738 F20110115_AADTJK bender_k_Page_098.txt
b88aa05d0053a22cbcac51c4a23add72
b930e51fb6fbaafa76a0497b7f5c240a39b65a16
2430 F20110115_AADTIW bender_k_Page_084.txt
3dc30b4959fec6d0ed86af59ed91fdca
4855557058902cb0ea1ca263f7b391778bc3bce7
1780 F20110115_AADTJL bender_k_Page_099.txt
e1ca62a421b30cdabc23c11048bfc771
41f8a25468185f05f4edc02d3b34a761dd82c4f0
2017 F20110115_AADTIX bender_k_Page_085.txt
ec4659157e47110b442c315836a9d0d1
92452dd79feb139d146970bfb8ae92d8eae5c578
2004 F20110115_AADTKA bender_k_Page_115.txt
a6da132418983d37898caaecf1002475
faaf396126d86a060e05c2a35cab21ad3b58d64f
1009 F20110115_AADTIY bender_k_Page_086.txt
828ce67df66bd4b80315e50426999033
cbd6e0cef5da682c4c5f9c039e1ef0f47f9fc175
2000 F20110115_AADTKB bender_k_Page_116.txt
43d063eccb163bb1588017603a6157c5
db3e786915f99915bd972571e61f3c021e83cb6e
2560 F20110115_AADTJM bender_k_Page_100.txt
849b44718296878614418a6c4daac86b
45342f842c5f811089459d9d1dbb06cd8f266bbf
1699 F20110115_AADTIZ bender_k_Page_087.txt
747546f2e1a5cced36145eb70c3be06a
0e24177ef890f0d80ad40d783d169744937abe5e
1384 F20110115_AADTKC bender_k_Page_117.txt
ed5bda3ca95c0e53f19e034823dbbba7
3773dfa0b2c0343a63d9f8fffb1dbf5514de6058
1455 F20110115_AADTJN bender_k_Page_101.txt
32c4867bd61e827c08c395c98267128f
0e515f7400c1a4ab9840eb2760b8ad429288e529
3479 F20110115_AADTKD bender_k_Page_118.txt
15a15da083263845c0e8bb9fa22c096f
dfbbe651e87c37d8e42a67cc843a765c6960654e
2170 F20110115_AADTJO bender_k_Page_102.txt
c2d71bb78cead5244ffc67ff127a1d74
b532121534875ef16469c1806c420a32df8f7e98
1943 F20110115_AADTJP bender_k_Page_103.txt
65d7515a0ff571a69e93ed567e51e742
6f9ca242238a73af172795ffdcf4333752c7114c
2809 F20110115_AADTKE bender_k_Page_119.txt
344c930bc1ae67e603ee0a0007ca0114
82d9004a3aac1c47610866076eed4edf8483fdcd
2178 F20110115_AADTJQ bender_k_Page_104.txt
ce0d04a73840b4aa09c36a627c1fe325
c2c4b301e2c84845ee0bc1d818e14567b4f8933e
2834 F20110115_AADTKF bender_k_Page_120.txt
074f21be601475acc5232abbb99f3119
dbcd51e8d9535a1dfb2026094cb60da94a153ce5
1403 F20110115_AADTJR bender_k_Page_105.txt
22a917ef36f0a913bb58ba9d4d6bc6b7
1bb184f2f228264f1ce520e3519eeecdb7d31964
931 F20110115_AADTKG bender_k_Page_121.txt
cfd590c947b5e6550e516f775ac761dd
d56c67eb6e895fb208cfa210410a5a59ac53a168
66 F20110115_AADTJS bender_k_Page_106.txt
236227c5e4782eaadb7dc301165d4d93
94530f3ad485e4af256c3d7774b2bca9c6cfdd07
4175 F20110115_AADTKH bender_k_Page_122.txt
4464befb6437e7a4a0e9ced76f584b54
69c509e320e25fc6d80e135fced986f4bbaf4150
945 F20110115_AADTJT bender_k_Page_107.txt
213a15243cfcd1433aadec06da31dd8a
f3f5d44e2557bfa235ddd0fdb000241a18356934
4142 F20110115_AADTKI bender_k_Page_123.txt
3efad523dbb9d0827e69a85fdab31771
70b6c80d5b00658c790d8957cdab24f4602eed2b
1417 F20110115_AADTJU bender_k_Page_108.txt
2e56efeea9131e2b9891fe1ebbf407a6
5171e6d625d8b8c793010489871833035837dbd8
3343 F20110115_AADTKJ bender_k_Page_124.txt
33438a7b37a0c377f72f0e2c48ed434f
aff88b44c9d0a3121d7e6778620ec1ffedc780ab
1351 F20110115_AADTJV bender_k_Page_110.txt
f27179f64a32cab1de4a2e9e0ecefc15
68de22b1b95c6233e5b8c5e580f029a2201a36c4
4077 F20110115_AADTKK bender_k_Page_125.txt
7e89d30908148fbbf05088a0f119ba28
c0976ec08434c5b42cde881ad337f218f8e3b78d
1501 F20110115_AADTJW bender_k_Page_111.txt
e267b9358b0babc1036ce7049f99d3df
b50d1ec64fd070d55ea06f4c788514d00e1f1099
4040 F20110115_AADTLA bender_k_Page_141.txt
143db5ef8190205f96d75e13ee0a9f4a
8904701bb760497aae13a04e263ae765f36810eb
3723 F20110115_AADTKL bender_k_Page_126.txt
feacee1e5e02cd7405489a079defa573
f82537a46027bac947787f738a880a4749eda90d
3430 F20110115_AADTJX bender_k_Page_112.txt
04cfecb37153d6f36f7b9b51a807eea9
c7d05f6e137e93029716aa25f3e1de942e6f7894
3042 F20110115_AADTLB bender_k_Page_142.txt
b0cd809e84e5b2431499325db789bda5
3fd94d43a6bd597da17032c4ee24fb369b590182
2297 F20110115_AADTKM bender_k_Page_127.txt
3b628e5c74a2a1afd67cc620efc05088
681fc16e018ad18224bcd5afbda9e6b8730257c3
3138 F20110115_AADTJY bender_k_Page_113.txt
a7d66eaaf33211a1259efde9014a6711
a57e3f8b053219ec09e276957ad809b894259937
187208 F20110115_AADSIA bender_k_Page_131.jp2
acfb0fe26bc24296ae725eb22a45080d
4b58b9c222b5511e90e1b9e08ba718d28e9f974d
5017 F20110115_AADTLC bender_k_Page_143.txt
3037ea2c74734d34e7f68c35671a5c17
7e3ae3af8b651ad3fc70b47a7aae15f8625ba28d
F20110115_AADTKN bender_k_Page_128.txt
9c8e9f9cd9751b3df4d2f848c672d9ab
958f57fe0fba192be5444653405f871d1403fe11
1477 F20110115_AADTJZ bender_k_Page_114.txt
6c1aab9994a5d78d7f3c4ce232205aa3
f6f876650225aaa8377d2cb917fcbacc642c1fd9
152356 F20110115_AADSIB bender_k_Page_147.jp2
55e5b2ab9982bdee37249f760b3e700c
baa97c4ebc3b3f31320e6eec7cca97bb9ccfecfe
4848 F20110115_AADTLD bender_k_Page_144.txt
49ae713c92674a3468c8ab5351c1ff1d
e52ad854397bc78fe6f687d44c1a30f93404d059
4064 F20110115_AADTKO bender_k_Page_129.txt
0304d91a80c6793cce97a1256d3fbbe0
2b0bb68e9888cf552a053989212b21efeb569bf3
F20110115_AADSIC bender_k_Page_044.tif
4aff307c541c0b8d7774082eaefc900c
97a950d42bcd18b1b31f55a6a577f25070412831
4328 F20110115_AADTLE bender_k_Page_145.txt
27f4dfca851a4a9013854850950cc39d
96d90ae250dba189a3ee1513ecf6e9714a7c52e3
4074 F20110115_AADTKP bender_k_Page_130.txt
aa5a96cf78663c976a9d6e67bbd8a80b
500bfb75671f92c58e5f30add595fdd68749204b
4729 F20110115_AADTKQ bender_k_Page_131.txt
b0b9c7784a7c7774d735519c22ec1cf6
02fa15c6e655ca48204a8170af1f5e7056a30bbb
68302 F20110115_AADSID bender_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
ec1f7a0823d96a917720ee56cac62606
277897a3d83466d61722300261ec2d83e12b73a9
4752 F20110115_AADTLF bender_k_Page_146.txt
c1d0b17646c0711ef89ce91a1b8d721a
6deef872237b928ac3e20e80c97cc69d24153068
4011 F20110115_AADTKR bender_k_Page_132.txt
3ff555f3b14baa67f9a4f823f50aea19
d631888a356fee9668dc89ab2c43e0a7ad961166
49409 F20110115_AADSIE bender_k_Page_075.pro
bc7e84956738e80f76af5116b627f122
0369f6573a31dcf587286b52165f555a08303020
3819 F20110115_AADTLG bender_k_Page_147.txt
7c878218c8543d51765de1e10ec4886d
ef4720697094b2969b69eeb24901ea68f8ff6923
4249 F20110115_AADTKS bender_k_Page_133.txt
3ff391594e4218c1e59865aa3967b888
d320935405877f0ea80ae13469dc7777cbd32738
179402 F20110115_AADSIF bender_k_Page_061.jpg
5d301c0787f41d154299e53572124bf6
852afc9db06c97d9912a05f53b786bf8dba5959f
1972 F20110115_AADTLH bender_k_Page_148.txt
96dc3541d52adac6ce98c619b90d5b0d
a2eedd27335dc6fdccd21df01008060df1f12aec
3907 F20110115_AADTKT bender_k_Page_134.txt
c698db315ff29db2ca07729ee303933f
2a984fa36d860b60164a94dacaff32b3c9fa4a70


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008941/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluating Agency Perceptions of Partnerships: Lessons Learned from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0008941:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008941/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluating Agency Perceptions of Partnerships: Lessons Learned from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0008941:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EVALUATING AGENCY PERCEPTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS:
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE















By

KRISTY A. BENDER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004




























Copyright 2004

by

Kristy A. Bender















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my thesis committee for their time, insight, and instruction:

Dr. Martha Monroe, faculty advisor and committee chair; Dr. Taylor Stein; and Dr. Susan

Jacobson. The support provided to me by my committee and other faculty and staff at the

School of Forest Resources and Conservation has been invaluable.

I also wish to acknowledge Dawn Lagrotteria at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Conservation Training Center for assisting in every stage of this process. I

thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their financial support.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to my family for their endless

patience and encouragement, despite the bugs encountered during this thesis process.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... .................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ............... ............................... ... .................. vii

ABSTRACT .............. ......................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

State ent of Problem ..................................................... ................ .2
P purpose and O bjectiv es.............................................................................. ........ ..5
Research Questions and H ypotheses ........................................ ........................ 6

2 LITER A TU R E REV IEW ............................................................. ....................... 7

Introduction.................. .................. ... ............................ ..........
Defining the Goal and Purpose of Partnering............................................................8
D efin itio n ............................................. 8
W ay s to C lassify ................................................................................. 9
W hy Agencies Choose to Partner............................................... ................... 10
Characteristics of Successful Partnerships ................................................................11
O obstacles to Success ...................................................... ... .. ..........13
Evaluation M methods .................. ................................... .. .. ............... 16
G oal A ttainm ent .......................................... .. .. .... ........ .. .. .... 16
Phases of Partnerships ............................................................ ............... 17
S u m m ary ...................................... .................................................. 18

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 2 0

Study Process................................................. 20
S a m p le ................................................................2 0
Initial Interview s ................................. ................................ ....... 21
Survey Design............................................. 23
R liability and Content V alidity .......................................................... .. .....24
R response B ias .........................................................................................................25
P ilot T estin g ................................................................................ 2 5
Survey Distribution....................................27









Data Analysis.............................................. 28
Study Challenges and Limitations.. .. ......................... .....................29

4 RESULTS AND DISCU SSION ........................................... .......................... 31

Survey Response ............................................................................. ...... ......... ......... 31
P participant B background ..................................................................... ...................32
P personal H history .................. .................... .............. ............. ... 32
Job Characteristics .......... ..... ................ .. ...... .......... .. ............ 34
Partnership Characteristics ............................................................................ 36
O overall P exceptions ................ ................................ .. .... ........ .... .. .. 38
Perceptions by Background Variables.................................... ........................ 40
Effects of Personal History on Perception.............. .... .................41
Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................41
Formal training versus no formal training.................................................42
Effects of Job Characteristics on Perception....................................................44
Degree to which job goals are related to the success of partnerships ..........44
O office versus office/field........................................ .......................... 45
Supervisors versus non-supervisors .................................. ............... 47
Effects of Partnership Characteristics on Perception ....................................48
Number of partnerships....... ................. ............... ..... .......... 48
Average number of hours per week ............................. ........ .......... 49
Average number of weeks per year........ ................. ................. 49
Spend more time creating versus sustaining ............................................. 52
Majority of partnerships are established by them versus by someone else..53
Planned versus opportunistic.................... ..... .......................... 55
Extension to Skills and A bilities........................................... .......................... 57

5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION.............................................. 60

Perceptions Not Widely Shared.................. ... ...... ................... 60
How Time Spent In Partnerships Affects Perception...................................62
W ho A attends Training ...................................... ................. .... ....... 63
T raining R elationships........ ................................................................. ... .... ....... 63
Significant V ariables ........................................ ....... ....................65
Background Variables With Little or No Significance.................. ...............66
A additional R research Possibilities ........................................ .......................... 67
C onclu sion ......... .................. ..................................... ...........................69

APPENDIX

A EM PLOYEE CON TACT LETTERS .............................................. .....................70

B INITIAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
PAR TN ER SH IP SU RVEY ............................................... ............................. 80

C PAPER COPY OF FINAL ELECTRONIC SURVEY ...........................................81


v









D COM PLETE SU RVEY D A TA ............................................................ ..............96

LIST OF REFEREN CES ............................................. ........................ ............... 138

B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ETCH ......... ................. ..........................................................142
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Years with the U .S. Fish and W wildlife Service ................................ ............... 33

4-2 Training A attendance ........................................................... ............... ..33

4-3 Definition of partnerships in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................33

4-4 R respondents by region ................................................. ................................ 34

4-5 Degree to which job goals are related to partnership success.............................35

4-6 Dichotom ous job characteristic variables ..................................... .................35

4-7 Number of partnerships involved with while working for the U.S. Fish and
W wildlife S erv ice ............................................................................... ............... 3 6

4-8 Prim ary expected outcome of partnerships ......................................... ...............37

4-9 Average number of hours per week spent on partnerships .................. ...............37

4-10 Approximate number of weeks per year actively involved in partnerships............38

4-11 Dichotomous partnership characteristic variables........................................38

4-13 Perception variables with twenty-five percent or more respondents in minority.....39

4-14 Perception versus years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................42

4-16 Perception versus degree to which job goals related to partnership success............45

4-17 W ork type versus perceptions ............................................................................ 46

4-18 Work type by degree to which job goals are related to partnership success............47

4-19 Time spent in partnership activity versus work type.................... .. ............. 47

4-20 Supervisory role versus perceptions...................... .... .......................... 48

4-21 Perception versus number of partnerships involved with ...................... ........ 49









4-22 Perception versus hours per week and weeks per year ........................................50

4-23 Creating/Sustaining versus perceptions ....................................... ............... 52

4-24 Who establishes partnerships versus perceptions................................ ...............53

4-25 Who establishes partnerships by degree to which job goals are related to
partnership success .......................................................... .. .......... 55

4-26 Time spent in partnership activity versus who establishes partnership ...................55

4-27 Planned/Opportunistic versus perceptions .................................... ............... 56

4-28 Planned/Opportunistic by training ...................... ............................56

4-29 List of skills and abilities sorted by mean.............. ....... ....................58

4-30 Training attendance versus skills and abilities responsible for success...................59















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EVALUATING AGENCY PERCEPTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS:
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

By

Kristy A. Bender

December 2004

Chair: Martha Monroe
Major Department: Forest Resources and Conservation

In response to increasingly complex natural resource issues, collaborative

approaches to natural resource management are being promoted as an effective way to

achieve conservation goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that creating

partnerships will strengthen and broaden support, create new allies, and aid in complex

decision making and problem solving. As partnerships become more prevalent and are

integrated into agency policies, it becomes increasingly important to develop a clear

understanding of what variables influence their effectiveness.

This study examined the relationship between perceptions of partnerships and

employees' personal history, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics. After

initial interviews and pilot testing, a final survey was administered to 354 Service

employees. Respondents answered 16 questions regarding their background and one

question with 32 items on their perceptions of partnerships. Data collection took place

between September 2002 and August 2004.









Using SPSS 10.0, independent t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Spearman's rank order

correlation, and chi-square tests for independence were used to analyze the quantitative

data. Twenty-five of the 32 perception variables could be explained by an employee's

background. The background variables with the most explanatory power on perceptions

were attendance at partnership training, who establishes their partnerships, degree to

which job goals are related to partnership success, and amount of time spent partnering.

Employees who have attended partnership training, establish their own partnerships, have

a high correlation between job goals and partnership success, and spend a significant

amount of time partnering share several perceptions. They view partnering as a flexible

process dependent more on relationships than on formalities that can lead to greater

success than individual efforts. They are comfortable with their level of training and

believe they have the skills they need to feel confident representing the Service.

Employees who have not attended training, work mainly in partnerships established by

someone else, have a low correlation between job goals and partnership success, and

spend little time partnering tend to view partnerships as a time consuming venture where

outcomes are all or nothing that receives little support from their supervisors.

Background variables with no explanatory power on perceptions include number of

partnerships worked on, supervisory role, years with the Service, and job location.

The results of this study indicate that perceptions of partnerships vary across

agency employees. By addressing perceptions and the role background plays in how

employees approach partnerships, Service managers and educators have a better

understanding of what gaps to expect in their audience and who might benefit the most

from training.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

A new style of problem solving and management is under development in the

United States (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Government agencies, communities, and

private groups are building bridges to one another that enable them to deal with common

problems, work through conflicts, and develop forward-thinking strategies for regional

protection and development. Over the past several decades, these collaborative solutions

have emerged to solve problems in every sector of society business, government, labor,

and the environment (Gray 1989). From management partnerships and interagency

cooperation to educational outreach and collaborative problem solving, this new style of

management is developing organically in many places in response to shared problems

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

Collaborative efforts are proliferating for many reasons. Some efforts are a direct

response to problems caused by past public policies and the top-down management

practices of government agencies that have tended to disempower landowners and local

interest groups (McNeely 1995, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Others reflect the current

organizational and social context of management (Selin and Chavez 1995, Whaley 1993).

Still others spring from new ideas and energies (Darrow and Vaske 1995). In

combination, these factors have provided an impetus for the growth of collaborative

initiatives.

Collaborative management has several key advantages. Collaboration can help

create networks of relationships that overcome administrative and political boundaries. It









can assist in the development of rich pools of knowledge that draw from diverse sources

and provide frameworks for interdisciplinary learning and problem solving (Robertshaw

et al. 1993). Building bridges between public and private parties can generate a diversity

of ideas and approaches, so that decision makers have a menu of responses to deal with

changing conditions, problems, and values. It can also help administrative agencies stay

in touch with changing public values (McNeely 1995). Collaborative processes can help

parties understand each other, while providing a decision-making framework that

involves groups in a way that builds support and ownership. They also can help provide

structures through which post-decision monitoring and evaluation can take place (Darrow

and Vaske 1995). Images of successful collaboration can help motivate agency staff and

citizens alike. In the best of worlds, it can also help create a dialogue about shared values

and problems and assist in rebuilding a sense of individual responsibility for collective

problems. While not the goal of resource management, collaboration can be a helpful

stepping stone to more effective management (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

Statement of Problem

Among resource management agencies searching for solutions to complex natural

resource problems, there has been a growing interest in collaborative approaches to

decision making (Selin and Chavez 1995). Collaboration is an umbrella term for the

establishment of a formal or informal relationship or structure and can include

partnerships, multiparty working groups, interagency information networks, and simple

relationships such as an agency staff member participating in community-based

development discussions. Collaboration provides an opportunity to link natural resource

agencies with other agencies, organizations, communities, and individuals (Wondolleck

and Yaffee 2000). Partnerships, one form of collaborative management, can provide









vehicles for sharing expertise and ideas as public agencies reinvent themselves for the

management challenges of the next century and communities diversify their economic

bases and social values. They provide an avenue for otherwise unconnected parties to

share in strategic planning and decision making processes.

On one hand, this new approach to the management of resources is revolutionary.

It responds directly to the problems inherent in traditional management that has

emphasized narrow objectives, top-down control, tight boundaries, and extensive rules

and formal structures to institutionalize public policies. On the other hand, a style of

management that emphasizes people getting together to cooperatively solve shared

problems seems almost like common sense (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

A 1999 report on the National Wildlife Refuge System indicates that for many

years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enjoyed partnerships with states and tribes in the

stewardship of fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. A more recent phenomenon is a

concentrated effort to build partnerships with members of local business communities

and the corporate community at large (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The Service

recognizes that productive interagency and organizational partnerships help accomplish

their conservation goals more effectively. Yet partnerships are not created by agencies,

they are formed by staff. For this form of collaboration to be successful, their employees

must work with both supporters and nontraditional alliances to forge new partnerships.

It is possible for agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take

specific action to enable staff members to build positive relationships with other parties.

By enabling and encouraging employees through training, modeling, mentoring, and

shifting responsibilities, agency leaders can provide a foundation for more effective









partnering. To facilitate collaboration, the Service is actively training their employees to

form, manage, and effectively participate in partnerships.

For training to be effective and for employees to practice their new skills, however,

it may be important for agency leaders to understand barriers to partnering. While people

may represent organizations, agencies, or occupations in a partnership, they are

fundamentally human beings. The relationships that form the core of collaborative

partnerships are between those individuals, not between organizations. A partnership is

not only at the organizational level, but also at the individual level, where perceptions and

personalities can pose challenges to effective collaboration (Wondolleck and Yaffee

2000). Thus, an individual's perceptions of agency partnerships must be acknowledged

as one factor that can help or hinder collaboration.

It is possible that employees vary in their perceptions of what constitutes a

successful partnership, be it within or beyond agency walls. For example, some

employees may view partnerships as a relationship based venture where there are mutual

benefits by the organizations involved reflecting a high level of cooperation among the

parties (termed exchange theory). Others, however, may view partnerships as

interactions that are motivated less by anticipated mutual benefits than by a desire to

attain resources, frequently at the expense of other organizations (termed resource

dependence theory) (Selin and Beason 1991).

Although extensive studies have determined situations that facilitate cooperation

(Arnold and Long 1993, Kusler 1994, McNeeley 1995, Sawhill 1996), which group

dynamics contribute to success and failure (Anderson et al. 1995, Darrow et al. 1993, Eng

1994, Friendly 1993, Selin and Chavez 1995, Segil et al. 2003), and the phases through









which partnerships pass (Darrow and Vaske 1995, Dent 1999), there is a lack of

information about individual variables that could influence overall perception of

partnerships. Preliminary interviews with agency employees conducted for this study to

enhance literature findings support the idea that differences in perceptions may be the

result of individual variables such as time spent in the agency, job position and location,

training received, and previous experience. If differences in perception exist, it is

important for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address these perceptions at training

sessions in an effort to improve employees' ability to use partnerships. It is also

important for supervisors to understand these perceptions when assigning tasks to

employees. Outcomes of partnerships could well depend on the personalities and

perceptions that are assembled around the table.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this survey was to assess what factors U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service employees perceive to be critical to developing successful partnerships; and to

identify the tools and resources that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees feel will

provide them with the foundation they need to be effective. This study, based on a subset

of the survey questions, was designed to go beyond traditional studies of the role that

employees' skills play in partnerships, to determine if differences exist in employees'

perceptions of partnering. Objectives of this study were as follows:

* To contribute to the partnership research base

* To impact partnership training provided to employees by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and to provide recommendations for future research.









Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions were addressed in this study:

1. Do perceptions of requirements for and results of successful partnerships vary
across agency employees?

2. Do perceptions of partnerships vary in a predictable way when considering
personal characteristics, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics?

The research hypotheses for this study were as follows:

1. Perceptions of partnerships will vary across agency employees.

2. Perceptions of partnerships will vary in a predictable way. Training attendance,
supervisory role, and years with the Service will be the variables with the most
explanatory power.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Perception is the way we assimilate and organize the information that surrounds us.

Individuals notice only certain aspects of their environment. Each person's perception of

the same situation may be different because of this selective perception. Each of several

individuals in a group will have a somewhat different perception of the group (Carroll

1977).

Perception is an active process and there are no static forms of understanding or

perception (Gibson 1970). The process however does not look like disconnected shoots

growing out in different directions, but rather like a spiraling course evolving with the

individual (Gibson 1988). Perception as a whole includes all that is experienced as well

as the history of the experience and the way they experience. Each person has a

different angle of vision which touches upon a common world (Brown 1977). For

example, although two employees from the Service may be working on the same

partnership, their approach and goals may vary due to differing backgrounds such as the

amount of time spent in partnerships.

Although different perceptions among partners are an important consideration, the

purpose of this study is to assess differences within one agency. With regard to

partnerships, perception differences might exist on four levels: the definition, the

characteristics of successful partnerships, the obstacles to success, and the evaluation









methods. There is extensive literature available on each of these topics, the most relevant

of which is reviewed here.

Defining the Goal and Purpose of Partnering

Definition

Defining the specific scope of partnerships is complicated given the diversity of

situations and actors. However, it is generally accepted in literature that a key aspect of

partnerships is a situation where power, responsibility, and resources are shared (Friendly

1993, Selin and Chavez 1993, Trauger et al. 1995, Whaley 1993). Not surprisingly, a

word common to most partnership definitions is cooperation.

In defining partnerships, several authors focus on the voluntary aspect (Robertshaw

et al. 1993, Arnold and Long 1993, Long and Arnold 1995) where agencies, individuals,

businesses, and other organized groups work together to improve environmental quality

or natural resource utilization. Others focus on the joining of independent parties where

power is shared and stakeholders take collective responsibility for their actions and

subsequent outcomes (Selin and Chavez 1993). The idea of unifying diverse interests

(Northwest Michigan RC&D Council Inc. 1994) indicates that actors are working

together to solve problems that they cannot solve on their own. While some definitions

refer to the resolution of a specific project in a definite timeframe (Trauger et al. 1995)

others are vague and include any cooperative effort among organizations working

towards a common goal and say nothing about the timeframe or the need to establish

specific goals for the project (Robertshaw et al. 1993). Several definitions do not

mention the idea of collaboration at all while others view partnerships as a subset of a

larger framework of collaboration that also includes transactive planning, open decision









making, and comanagement (Selin and Chavez 1995). Still others use the terms

partnership and collaboration interchangeably (Whaley 1993).

Ways to Classify

There are numerous ways to classify partnerships, the most basic of which is to

look at the broad goal of the partnership (Eng 1994, Long and Arnold 1995). Each

partnership is developed for a specific purpose and can be classified based on the

principles of that purpose (Arnold and Long 1993). These purposes or goals may include

one or more of the following: technical assistance; information dissemination; and

resource conservation (Conservation Partnership for the Northern Plains 1996). In cases

where goals are used to evaluate success, categories focus on the degree to which that

goal was met. For example, partnerships designed to solve a resource conflict would be

evaluated based on the extent to which the conflict has been ameliorated and would not

be subjected to other analysis such as the amount of funding required or the time spent

working towards such objectives.

Partnerships can also be classified according to types of participants (Arnold and

Long 1993). For example, if an agency such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

seeking to classify their partnership according to participants, they could place their

partnerships into categories of intergovernmental, interagency, federal, state, tribal, local

government, community, college/university, and non-profit. The effectiveness of a

partnership could then be evaluated within those categories.

Other ways to classify partnerships include mode of formation, ranging from

completely voluntary to judicially mandated, administrative organization structure by

level of formalization, time span, project type, and the degree to which the partnership









goal is relevant to the organizational mission (Williams and Ellefson 1996, Darrow et al.

1993).

Why Agencies Choose to Partner

Creating partnerships is not itself an end. Rather, it is a mean to several ends:

building understanding, building support, and building capacity (Wondolleck and Yaffee

2000). By developing interpersonal and interorganizational linkages, agencies can be

better informed and make choices about future direction that are more likely to solve the

problems at hand. Programs are more likely to be implemented successfully if they are

supported and owned by affected groups. In addition, on-the-ground partnerships can

enhance the capacity of agencies and communities to deal with problems in the future

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Rocha and Jacobson 1998).

Specific goals of partnerships depend on the underlying motivation. Agencies are

motivated to partner when there is a task or issue at hand that cannot be resolved

internally. In those cases, partners expect some element of mutual benefit, whether it is

financial, environmental, or otherwise (Sawhill 1996). For large federal agencies in the

United States, concerns revolve around shrinking agency budgets, increased demand on

natural resources (McNeeley 1995), and the specific threat of regulatory and therefore

litigious conflict (Arnold and Long 1993). These agencies may also be interested in

addressing issues beyond federal regulatory control (Kusler 1994) such as regional

planning efforts. There is also the desire to pool diverse expertise (Anderson et al. 1995)

by working with partners who can provide a range of information and experience.

Concerns that drive the establishment of conservation partnerships in other parts of the

world, such as South America, include insufficient infrastructure and management, the

exclusion of local communities or inhabitants of protected areas from management of









natural resources, and geographic isolation of protected areas in a matrix of human land

use (Rocha and Jacobson 1998).

The specific definition, classification, and reason for partnering are, in

combination, all good ways to define a partnership. If there is variation in how

employees think about a partnership it could make for difficulty in communication, at a

minimum.

Characteristics of Successful Partnerships

The literature suggests there are many specific factors that contribute to successful

partnerships. It would be important for members of an agency to have similar ideas about

success, or if not identical strategies, the ability and support to pursue those factors they

believe are most important. The most prominent characteristic of success in the literature

is a shared vision or a common goal that unites all of the parties such as habitat

conservation (Friendly 1993). Even if the represented parties have disparate missions,

finding a common ground has to be the first step in any partnering process (Sample et al.

1995). For example, the Mill Creek Canyon management partnership between Salt Lake

County, Utah and the U.S. Forest Service was built on shared goals. Prior to the

partnership, the canyon experienced heavy recreational use, vandalism, and water quality

degradation. Critical to the development of the innovative resource-sharing arrangement

that raised funds and allowed for better management of the canyon was the perception of

shared goals among disparate federal and local agencies (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

For a shared vision to exist, the partnering process has to allow for substantive

involvement by each member. Rather than seeing outside involvement as a mandate,

partnering efforts that view the ideas of each partner as integral to finding an effective

solution are more likely to result in positive outcomes. This involvement is facilitated by









consensus decision-making where all interests have a say in the process and the

decisions.

Another factor is the involvement of a range of partners representing each

stakeholder group. Leaving a partner out, whether unintentionally or deliberately, poses

a serious threat to the validity and integrity of the outcome (Darrow et al. 1993). It is not

uncommon for group members to use personal appeals to aggressively press other groups

to participate. At other times, strategies have been used to try to represent interests that

were important to the partnering process but that were held by those who would not

participate on their own. For example, in Nevada's Clark County Partnership, ranchers

chose not to participate in a partnership with the county since it was likely that preserving

habitat for the desert tortoise would mean losing grazing rights on public lands. In

response, the county hired an attorney who was trusted by ranchers to serve as a rural

community representative and unofficially represent livestock interests in the partnership

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Such involvement strengthens the commitment to

outcomes reached during the process.

It is critical that partners share an understanding of what is expected from the

process (Kusler 1994). This process of creating a unified goal for the group despite

organizational differences requires basic communication and interpersonal skills (Eng

1994). Open communication and the willingness to share risks and benefits facilitate the

development of trust that is critical to the functioning of a partnership (Sawhill 1996).

Successful collaborations don't require friendship between collaborators. However, there

must be a minimum threshold of mutual respect, tolerance, and trust for any collaboration









to succeed (Schrage 1990). Successful collaborations do not try to sidestep a lack of trust

but instead begin taking steps to build that trust (p. 57, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

Obstacles to Success

Partnering is counter to traditional management and can be feared by both agencies

and employees for a variety of reasons including losing the ability to protect and control

their organizational turf (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). The dominant centralized,

rational-comprehensive planning process of agencies along with characteristic inertia that

hinders large government bureaucracies are often cited as impeding collaboration.

Additionally, many of these organizations view compromise as watering down their

mission. Some agencies feel an obligation to set clear environmental objectives and

pursue them with as much vigor and resolve as their opponent (Selin and Chavez 1995).

For example, the establishment of a multistate recovery program for the endangered

black-footed ferret was hindered by actions taken by the Wyoming Department of Game

and Fish which wished to maintain control over the program (Wondolleck and Yaffee

2000).

How we think often affects how we act. Our thinking, as a result of both

institutional norms and traditional training, is often biased against collaboration

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Additionally, there are substantial relational obstacles,

such as management support and the need for control, to collaboration in the

environmental management field (Selin and Chavez 1995). It is possible that these

factors play a role in employee perceptions of partnerships.

Relational obstacles reflect the attitudes and perceptions held by individuals,

groups, and organizations that often push people apart rather than foster cooperation.

While some think political power is essential to accomplishing goals (Porter and Salvesen









1995) others believe that the differences in power structure created when one partner has

disproportionate control over resources causes tension which disrupts the group dynamic

and leads to failure (Selin and Chavez 1995). This struggle for power within a group

can exaggerate the rivalries that exist among players (Kusler 1994) and enforce

stereotyped "us-them" images that lead to polarization. For example, members of the

public participating in a collaborative effort as volunteers may struggle to find the time to

do the background research and reading that representatives of agencies and businesses

can do as a part of their daily job. A small landowner participant in the planning process

for the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan summed it up by saying: "To be a

participant, fight back, and protect our interests took all of our spare time, evenings, and

weekends. It was irritating to look around and see all these people were getting paid to

do this, especially when their decisions were affecting our land and a lot of other people."

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

An unbalanced power structure can also heighten the sense of distrust in a newly

formed group (Friendly 1993). This distrust is common if the partners involved in the

collaboration have historical differences that have not been resolved (Selin and Chavez

1995). Another obstacle is the non-binding nature of the results. This can cause a lack of

motivation and interest that may lead to failure regardless of whether or not trust exists

(Anderson et al. 1995).

Distrust can also occur when dealing with parties of varying backgrounds and

interests. This distrust is primarily due to conflicting missions, goals, and a lack of

common culture which includes terminology and values (Arnold and Long 1993). Even

among agencies that ought to be on the "same side" slight differences in mission can









create differences in perspective, priorities, and objectives. These differences can make

trusting each other and partnerships challenging. For example, the management of the

water resources of South Florida involves numerous agencies with conflicting missions.

The South Florida Water Management District is charged with supplying drinking and

irrigation water and flood control to the public and commercial interests. The mission of

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is to ensure water quality

and wetlands protection. Those differences in missions have led to different priorities for

various restoration activities. The FDEP argued that the long-term monitoring of

agricultural operations was essential, while the water management district pointed to

studies that found no evidence of farming-induced aquifer pollution. Even after joint

monitoring showed negligible amounts of herbicides and pesticides in the East

Everglades water, FDEP remained skeptical of the results (Wondolleck 1988). This lack

of common perspective makes communication and trust building more difficult and more

critical. In combination, these factors lead to fear of committing to partnering because it

requires new and potentially risky behavior.

Obstacles can also exist within an agency as a function of supervisor/employee

relationships. Organizations are largely made up of people and their relationships with

each other. These relationships include both vertical and horizontal relationships within

the organization. The quality of relationships in this complex web of interconnections

largely determines the quality and effectiveness of the organization. If employees are

uncooperative, untruthful, angry, uncaring, or unduly constrained, the organization will

be unable to coordinate internally. The highest quality relationships are those of

partnership, mutual support, and mutual respect for autonomy, not those in which one









party dominates another (Segil et al. 2003). Thus, if employees feel that their partnering

efforts are not supported by their supervisor or their agency, the quality of the partnership

may be negatively affected.

A study in the National Park Service revealed that agency level coordination is

needed to invigorate park-to-park as well as agency-to-agency programmatic cooperation.

From the headquarters level, through the park superintendents to the maintenance

foreman and the trail crew bosses, all must be empowered to work together. To be most

effective at successive levels, cooperation must start on a day-to-day basis at the

superintendent's level with positive direction and oversight from headquarters providing

incentive and accountability (Tilghman and Murray 1995).

Evaluation Methods

Goal Attainment

Partnerships are generally evaluated based on the degree to which goals were met.

However, goals may vary from one partnership to another and from one individual to

another. Therefore, there are two primary measures of success. For some, success may

be defined as the creation or maintenance of a relationship between partners and not

necessarily working towards or reaching a specific target (Williams and Ellefson 1996).

Thus, evaluation of success may include the willingness of partners to continue working

together. However, in situations where the partnership was established to tackle a

specific task, an evaluation would assess the achievement of those specific goals (Long

and Arnold 1995). This can include both environmental and process goals. It would be

important for all parties at the table to have common goals for the partnership, or at least

an understanding of how their goals differ and the effect it will have on procedures and

outcomes.









Phases of Partnerships

It is widely accepted that there are a number of phases through which partnerships

pass. An understanding of these phases may impact an employee's level of comfort and

perception of the process. People are most familiar, and therefore comfortable, with the

stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing (Dent 1999); however there are

two other descriptions of phases that are also common.

The second model, which is structurally similar to the first model but uses different

labels, identifies three phases through which successful partnerships pass: initiation,

planning, and implementation/evaluation (Darrow and Vaske 1995). For each phase,

there are important issues such as motivation, activities, and indicators of success. The

initiation phase involves activities such as partner selection. Indicators of success include

the ability to identify key resources and to forecast potential problems. Activities such as

formal meetings and clarification of partner roles occur during the planning phase.

Indicators of success during this phase include development of a strategic plan and the

creation of an information system. The implementation/ evaluation phase includes

creating a strategy for termination, with success indicated by the use of ongoing

evaluation and monitoring (Darrow and Vaske 1995).

A third perspective on partnerships, which is qualitatively different than the other

two descriptions of phases, suggests they emerge out of an environmental context, or

antecedent, and then proceed sequentially through problem-setting, direction-setting, and

structuring phases which result in some set of outcomes. In this model, antecedents are

reasons for partnering such as crisis or legal mandate. In the problem-setting stage,

participants realize that problem resolution will require collective action and consensus is

reached on who has a legitimate stake in an issue. Direction setting is where goals are









established, ground rules are set, and joint information searching begins (Selin and

Chavez 1995). Wondolleck (1988) attributed much of the conflict over forest

management plans to a lack of opportunity for different groups to jointly determine

where and how timber resources are available and with what consequences. This

represents a breakdown in the direction setting phase. The structuring stage involves

institutionalizing the shared meaning of the group and devising a regulatory framework to

guide future collective action and assure collective compliance to the goals of the group,

similar to that of the norming stage in the first model. Structuring is where agencies may

formalize the process through memorandums of understanding. This phase can be

illustrated with a watershed planning example from Canaan Valley, West Virginia.

Concern over development impacts in the Canaan Valley led the Environmental

Protection Agency to convene a series of meeting to develop a resource protection plan

for the valley. These meetings led to the establishment of the Canaan Valley Task Force,

an informal partnership without a legal charter, to implement the strategy. Through the

structuring process, participants formalized their roles by defining their responsibilities

and assuming mutual control over the resolution of the watershed issues that confronted

them (Clower 1993). Assessing outcomes, the final stage in this model, involves

implementation and impact assessment (Selin and Chavez 1995).

Summary

The literature suggests multiple elements that might be important to the success of

partnerships. These variables include: having a shared vision or a common goal that

unites all of the parties, consensus decision making, a formalized agreement, the

involvement of a range of partners representing each stakeholder group, the ability to

create a unified goal for the group, basic communication and interpersonal skills, the









development of trust among parties, shared power, and the support of a supervisor and/or

the agency.

How an employee approaches partnerships is a function of perception. These

perceptions may be a function of training and, therefore, are likely to change. However,

they could be a function of experience or academic background and, therefore, harder to

change in the short term but may inform the hiring process. Therefore it is important to

find out how background affects perception of the factors that make partnerships

successful.

If staff hold different ideas about what makes partnerships successful, it could be

more difficult for the agency to move toward improved partnerships. While differences

in perception are not necessarily problematic and may simply indicate a difference in

approach or partnership style, it may be that there are some items where agreement is

more important than others. For example, if the Service is expecting a specific

measurable product from each partnership, lack of agreement for a variable such as "It is

critical to have concrete results from your involvement in the partnership" may represent

a perception that is a target for future Service-wide communication and training.

While the list of variables suggested by the literature as important to the success of

partnerships seems thorough, it is heavily weighted toward specific measurable skills. It

is possible that there are other factors important to successful partnerships that have not

yet been researched or perhaps are common sense and, therefore, not given much

attention in the literature. Interviews were conducted with employees of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to serve as a supplement to the literature review in an effort to

develop an exhaustive list of elements important to success.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This chapter provides an explanation of the study process. It covers the sample,

initial interviews, survey design, reliability and content validity, response bias, pilot

testing, survey distribution, and data analysis. Study challenges and limitations are

addressed at the end of the chapter.

Study Process

This survey was originally requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

explore the skills and abilities critical to successful partnerships to come up with tools

and resources to meet their changing outreach needs. As a result of preliminary work, the

survey evolved into a much broader instrument encompassing not only skills and abilities

but also perception and background variables. This study was divided into three phases;

initial interviews, pilot testing, and the final survey. Each stage of the survey process is

reviewed and significant changes resulting from the first two stages are included below.

Sample

Due to agency restrictions, the sample for each stage of the study was selected by

staff from the Division of Education Outreach of the National Conservation Training

Center, a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They provided a list of names and

corresponding contact information for staff for the initial interviews, pilot test, and survey

population.

For the initial interviews, ten employees who the Division of Education Outreach

staff felt had significant experience in partnering were contacted. The pilot test









participants were split into two groups including 25 employees from the Washington

office and 20 employees from various field offices. The staff from the Washington office

was comprised mostly of employees working on a recently developed partnership team.

The field office group represents employees who are the target audience for the Division

of Education Outreach's training courses. The sample for the final survey was generated

though a list of employees who have attended educational courses at the National

Conservation Training Center and/or were involved Ecoteams for the Service. All eight

regions were represented in each part of the process.

Initial Interviews

Ten U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees were selected by the agency from a

range of field offices, wildlife refuges, and the agency's headquarters office to participate

in the initial interview process. A staff member from the Division of Education Outreach

contacted each of these employees via e-mail to request their participation in the study

(Appendix A). Upon their approval, an e-mail was sent by the researcher to the

employee requesting to schedule an interview time. Subsequently, each of the ten

employees was contacted via telephone during September and October of 2002. Each

employee was asked a series of eight open-ended questions (Appendix B). These

questions asked participants to draw on their experience working with partnerships as

natural resource professionals. Participants were asked to characterize the types of

partnerships they are involved with, describe why their successful partnerships have

worked and what challenges they have faced, and list the types of skills, knowledge, and

attitudes that staff have or need to have to make partnerships successful. This discussion

is based on responses to what makes partnerships successful since that is the focus of this

study.









Some responses emphasized common sense such as, "Personalities are always key

to success," and are supported, or at least mentioned, in the literature. Other examples of

this type of response include the ability to create a shared vision for group, a clear

timeline, a goal/ultimate desired outcome in advance, strong communication and

interpersonal skills, and the ability to build trust with other parties. When several people

provided the same perception, a statement was added to the survey to discover how

widespread this impression is.

Other responses brought out new ideas that were not revealed in the literature

review. For example, several responses including, "The best partnerships occur when

people come together naturally and not when someone binds their hands together," and

"Partners felt more comfortable without a formalized agreement. You have to be open to

just letting the process evolve," focused on the need for a sense of freedom. Another

example of this type of response is "Experience is vital to success and if you fail once

you probably won't have any interest in working on another partnership." While these

perceptions seemed highly pertinent to some, others viewed them as less significant.

When perceptions such as these were mentioned several times, statements were added to

determine agreement.

Finally, some answers given were in direct contradiction to what other interviewees

stated. For example, one employee stated that, "You have to recognize and understand

that as biology, forestry, chemistry, etc. are considered a "science", collaboration is just

as much of a science. You need to know that there is a right and wrong way to go about

things. Training provides you with the skills you need to be successful." However when

asked the same set of questions another employee stated that, "Partnerships are not a









"cookbook recipe" that can be taught. Even if you are trained in all of the skills deemed

necessary, your partnerships may still fail." These polarized statements strengthened the

hypothesis that a difference in perception of partnerships exists and prompted the

addition of several statements to identify how universal these perceptions are across the

sample population. For example, as a result of these interviews, the statements "Engaging

in a partnership is a process with a set of steps and tasks it is a science," and "Engaging

in a partnership is a flexible process with a basic goal but no structure it is an art" were

added to the survey.

While the interview questions were geared towards eliciting specific measurable

skills that contribute to success, the focus of many interviews seemed to be about the way

people perceive success. These interviews prompted the researcher to ask two separate

questions: one on perceptions, the other on skills and abilities that contribute to success.

The skills and abilities section focuses on concrete skills that employees may use when

partnering whereas the perception section focuses not on direct actions but on the way

people think about requirements for successful partnerships.

Survey Design

Based on the responses received during the interviews and a thorough literature

review, an on-line survey was developed (Appendix C). The survey design followed

standard procedures to construct simple questions that would elicit accurate results

(Dillman 2000). The decision to use an electronic survey was encouraged by the Service

in an effort to reduce the amount of paper, an ongoing concern of the agency, and

increase the response rate by increasing convenience.

Lists of skills and abilities generated through the interview process were cross-

checked against variables previously identified in literature as critical to successful









partnerships to ensure the completeness of the survey. The background and perception

questions were also formed from a combination of interviews and literature searches.

Although no interview questions were specifically geared towards perception, it became

clear through the interview process that there were differences among participants that

could be explored.

The survey included five sections:

1. Background information There were 16 questions in this section comprised of 11
categorical and five open ended questions. Questions included academic training,
time spent in the agency, position in the agency, training received, partnership
experience, and primary expected outcome of their partnerships.

2. Perceptions of various aspects of partnership There was one question in this
section which included 32 variables. Each variable was measured on a four point
Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This section sought to
measure employee perceptions on a wide range of partnership inputs and outcomes.

3. Experience with and reasons for successful partnerships This section had 11
questions including nine categorical, one scaled, and one open ended question. The
questions were designed to elicit which specific skills are used in successful
partnerships and which of those skills have the most influence over success.

4. Experience with and reasons for less successful partnerships This part of the
survey also included 11 questions, 10 of which were categorical and one of which
was open ended. These questions were aimed to determine what specific skills are
lacking in less successful partnerships and which of those skills have the most
influence over the success.

5. Tools and resources required for success There were five questions in this
section. This included four open ended questions and one categorical question.
This section sought to determine major roadblocks to success and asked employees
to suggest tools and resources they could use to enhance their ability to develop and
implement partnerships. Respondents were invited to provide a name and contact
information so that they could be contacted to provide additional insight.

Reliability and Content Validity

An instrument is reliable if it provides consistent measurements and it is valid if it

measures what it is intended to measure (Litwin 2003). Reliability of scales in surveys is

commonly measured by internal consistency. Since the perception statements in this









survey were not measuring the same general construct and items could not be summed

across to obtain a total score, there was no accurate way to estimate the reliability of this

scale.

Content validity is a subjective measure of how appropriate items or scales seem to

a set of reviewers who have some knowledge of the subject matter. The assessment of

content validity typically involves an organized review of the survey's contents to ensure

that it includes everything it should and does not include anything it should not (Litwin

2003). To ensure content validity, pilot test participants who are veterans in partnership

development were asked to rate the scales for appropriateness, relevance, and

completeness. Alterations to scale items were made accordingly. Thorough literature

reviews also increased the validity of the survey.

Response Bias

Several of the perception statements were deliberately written in negative form to

ensure that participants were actually reading the survey rather than simply marking

answers. For example, the phrase "The success of partnerships depends on personalities"

was reversed to "The success of partnerships does not depend on personalities." The

direction of each perception statement was determined randomly.

Pilot Testing

Forty-five Service employees, including 25 employees from the Washington office

and 20 employees from field offices were chosen as pilot test participants by the Division

of Education Outreach. On August 1, 2003 a staff member from that unit e-mailed a

message to each of the employees identified asking them to participate in the study. A

cover letter which included an electronic link to the pilot test was e-mailed by the

researcher to participants on August 2, 2003. Twenty of the 45 employees completed the









pilot test. All 20 of these employees were interviewed via telephone. The main purpose

of the pilot test was to identify problematic questions in the survey, look for areas of poor

question and instruction wording, and identify the participants' general impressions of the

survey's thoroughness. Participants were also asked to evaluate the ease of use of the

website.

Response to the pilot test was generally positive and the majority of comments

focused on refining questions in order to improve clarity. No technical problems were

reported. Modifications, including the addition of questions, were made to both survey

directions and questions based on the results of the pilot test. For example, the order of

sections was rearranged in response to comments that the previous order seemed to jump

from general questions to specific and then back to general. Additionally, a question

regarding the point at which the partnership broke down was added to the less successful

section to determine the stage at which the majority of problems are occurring.

During these interviews it became clear that there were several other perceptions

that had not been addressed that employees felt were critical to success. For example,

one respondent stated that, "When you want to do something and your partners don't you

are likely to fail. You have to be motivated to overcome failure." Another employee

said, "It is critical to take off the agency patch when you work with people. You have to

overlook your personal feelings." These answers prompted the addition of several

statements to the perception section.

Similar to the initial interviews, several contradicting interview responses appeared

to result from differences in overall partnership philosophy such as: What is the goal of

partnerships relationships or a concrete product? and, Are partnerships viewed as an art









or as a science? For example, one employee stated that "Forming relationships should

not be the goal. Addressing the conservation issue should be the goal." Another

employee stated that "For a lot of the work you do you will have nothing to show for it.

It's in the good will and relationship you have developed that the secrets to success exist.

Partnerships can be of significance even if there is no direct tangible output." When

these statements were made by multiple employees, additional statements such as "It is

critical to have concrete results from your involvement in the partnership," and "The

most important outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with partners."

were added in an attempt to determine agreement.

Survey Distribution

An e-mail explaining the purpose of the survey was sent to each of the regional

chiefs by a staff member from the Division of Education Outreach on March 3, 2004.

This emailed provided the names of all employees from that region who were selected to

receive the survey in addition to a copy of a memo from the assistant director of external

affairs requesting participation (Appendix A). Regional chiefs were asked to encourage

those employees to participate in the study.

The final survey was administered to 354 Service employees in March and April of

2004 (Appendix C). A tailored design technique was used to administer the survey

(Dillman 2000). On March 15, 2004 each participant received an e-mail that was

designed to serve as a cover letter (Appendix A). In addition to including a hyperlink to

the survey website, the e-mail explained participants' rights as mandated by the

University of Florida's Institutional Review Board (protocol number 2004-U-224). The

e-mail also explained the general purpose of the survey and informed participants that

their identity would remain anonymous.









Due to an Internet shutdown within the Department of Interior on the day following

the first request to complete the survey a second e-mail was sent to participants on March

25, 2004 reminding them of the survey and encouraging them to participate. Two

additional follow-up e-mails were sent on April 6, 2004 and April 26, 2004 in accordance

with standard survey procedures (Dillman 2000) thanking those who had already

participated and encouraging those who had not yet responded to do so in an effort to

increase the response rate (Appendix A). On August 27, 2004 a final e-mail was sent to

non-respondents by a staff member form the Division of Education Outreach in an effort

to obtain their job title and region. Responses were forwarded to the researcher and it

was determined that there was no clear pattern of non-response.

Data Analysis

The data presented in this paper focus on the effect of an employee's background

on their perception of requirements for and results of a successful partnership. The

complete study results are available in Appendix D.

Raw data were downloaded from the survey website directly into Excel software.

The data were then imported into an SPSS 10.0 software package for statistical analysis.

The data were checked for missing values and outliers. Questions that were not answered

generated missing totals for that variable, which SPSS identified as missing systemss.

Preliminary analysis included reports of frequency distributions, central tendency and

dispersion.

Independent t-tests were conducted to identify significant differences in mean

scores between dichotomous background variables and perceptions. Significance

differences were determined using an alpha level of 0.05. Chi-square test for

independence were used to determine if two categorical variables such as who establishes









the majority of their partnerships and their supervisory role are related by comparing the

frequency of cases found in the various categories of one variable across the different

categories of a second variable. Significances were determined at the 0.05 alpha level.

One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc tests were performed to

identify significant differences in mean scores between scaled background variables and

perceptions. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were used to report F values. The

Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength of relationships

between several categorical variables such as perception and years with the Service,

average hours spent per week on partnership activities, and average weeks spent per year

on partnership activities. Two-tailed significance were determined at the 0.05 alpha

level.

Study Challenges and Limitations

While using a web survey provided the opportunity to reach a large audience in a

short period of time, it also created some unique challenges. In addition to the survey

website periodically being unavailable, the Department of the Interior was offline for one

week immediately following the distribution of the first e-mail requesting participation.

This prompted additional follow-up contacts with participants that are not standard

procedure with mailed surveys.

An additional challenge with using a web based survey is the number of incomplete

surveys. With standard mail surveys people generally complete the entire survey and

return it or simply do not respond (Dillman 2000). Thirteen respondents to this survey

answered only part of one or two sections and skipped the remainder of the survey. This

could be due to the discovery of length or a forgotten intention to return and finish it at a









later point. These responses had to be removed so that the data set would not be

compromised.

Despite an advance notice from the Division of Education Outreach to the regions,

there was some confusion about the legitimacy since the survey was administered outside

of the agency. Several phone calls were received by the Division about the authenticity

of the survey. Aside from the letter sent by the Division of Education Outreach to the

regional chiefs, it is impossible to know which employees received advance notice of the

survey. It is possible, therefore, that some employees received no advance notification

and were hesitant to participate. While this limitation probably did not alter the results

that were received, it certainly reduced the response rate.

Finally, due to agency restrictions the survey was not sent to a random sample of

agency employees. Thus, the results of this survey could not be extrapolated to the entire

population of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff. However, there was substantial

diversity in the responses and there did not appear to be a non-response bias. Response

rate by region ranged from 40 to 84 percent. Fifty-three non-respondents replied to an e-

mail from the Division requesting their job title. Responses range from Regional Partners

for Fish and Wildlife Program Coordinator to Refuge Manager to Fish and Wildlife

Biologist and indicate no response bias on the basis of job title. Due to Agency

restrictions, no additional information about non-respondents could be requested or

attained. Assuming no bias, non-response would randomly reduce response rate and the

effect of this on the survey data would be minimal as it only affects frequencies and

averages.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section includes data analysis and discussion for participant background,

overall perceptions, and the effect of background on perceptions of partnerships.

Relevant discussion is included in each section with the focus on the research questions

identified in Chapter 1:

1. Do perceptions of requirements for and results of successful partnerships vary
across agency employees?

2. Do perceptions of partnerships vary in a predictable way when considering
personal characteristics, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics?

Survey Response

The contact list provided by the Division of Education Outreach for the final survey

included 354 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees. This list was comprised mainly

of employees who have attended courses at the National Conservation Training Center or

worked as Ecoteam leaders in the Service. Thirty-four of these people were not

contacted, due to bounced e-mails and departures from the Service, so the effective

population was 320. Two hundred and thirty two responses were received. The response

rate, calculated as a percentage of number of responses per number of responses plus

number of refusals, was 72.5%. Thirteen surveys in which participants failed to answer

more than just the background section were determined to be incomplete and were

removed from the data set.

Upon the completion of survey data collection an e-mail was sent to non-

respondents by a staff member from the Division of Education Outreach in an effort to









obtain their job title and region. Responses were forwarded to the researcher to

determine if there was a pattern of non-response. Fifty-three non-respondents replied to

the e-mail from the Division. Responses range from Regional Partners for Fish and

Wildlife Program Coordinator to Refuge Manager to Fish and Wildlife Biologist which

covered the same range as the respondents, indicating no response bias on the basis of

position in the agency (Appendix D). Additionally, there were respondents were from all

8 regions within the service, with response rate by region ranging from 40 to 83%,

indicating no response bias by region.

Participant Background

Reponses to the background section are critical to this study in that the purpose of

this study was to explore relationships between background and perception. The

background section contains sixteen questions, including four questions about personal

history, four questions about job characteristics, and seven questions about partnership

characteristics. Responses to these questions are addressed by category.

Personal History

Academic training of respondents ranged from biology to human resources and

environmental management and planning. A majority, however, had some type of

natural resource academic background. Respondents also ranged in level of education

from some college to doctorate degrees (Appendix D).

The number of years that respondents have been with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service ranged from 1 to 36 (x=15.6, S=9.9). There were at least two people in each

year from 1 to 20 (Table 4-1).

One hundred and thirty-two respondents (61%) reported that they have had no

formal partnership training, while 85 (39%) have attended some type of training









(Table 4-2). Respondents who indicated that they have received formal training listed a

wide range of classes taught by the National Conservation Training Center (Appendix D).

Table 4-1: Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Years with Service Number Percent
1-5 52 24.07
6-10 16 7.41
11-15 48 22.22
16-20 29 13.43
21-25 24 11.11
26-30 37 17.13
31+ 10 4.63


Mean = 13.6
Standard Deviation = 9.9

Table 4-2: Training Attendance
Background variable Number Percentage

Attended formal partnership training:
No 132 60.8
Yes 85 39.2

The definition of partnering that most respondents selected was "a voluntary

collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals on a

specific project within a definite time" (56.9%). A majority of the 34 people who did not

select one of the three given definitions indicated that their definition is a combination of

all the three choices, depending on the specific partnership (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3: Definition of partnerships in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Definition Number Percent
A mandated project where you are assigned to work with 0 0
another individual or organization.
Any voluntary collaboration among organizations working 60 27.5
toward a common objective.
A voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or 124 56.9
both to achieve common goals on a specific project within a
definite time.
If none of these completely capture your sense of the 34 15.6
partnerships you work with, please provide your definition
below.









Job Characteristics

Participants represented a wide range of job titles and positions within the agency.

Included in this study among others were 81 biologists, 43 refuge managers, 17 state and

national level program coordinators, 17 specialists (covering everything from training to

realty), and 3 division chiefs. Although the agency has a formalized system of job

classification, it is not consistently used and, therefore, no attempt was made to

categorize participants by their specific job title (Appendix D).

There were respondents from all eight regions within the service. Since

information about region of nonrespondents was available, calculations could be made

about overall response rate. Response rate by region ranged from 40% to 83%. The

highest rate of return was from Region 1 (Pacific) at 83.3%. The lowest rate of return

was from Region 9 (Headquarters) with 40.1%. Region 4 was sent the largest number of

surveys (80) and was also the region that contributed the greatest number of responses

(58) (Table 4-4).

Table 4-4: Respondents by region
Region # Surveys Number Percent Percent Number Percent
sent out responded responded of all missing missing
responses
1 36 30 83.3 13.8 6 16.7
2 34 21 61.8 9.7 13 38.2
3 27 19 70.4 8.8 8 29.6
4 80 58 72.5 26.7 22 27.5
5 69 46 66.7 21.2 23 33.3
6 41 22 53.7 10.1 19 46.3
7 20 12 60.0 5.5 8 40.0
9 22 9 40.1 4.1 13 59.1

Responses to the question about the degree to which the accomplishment of job

goals are related to the success of their partnerships were spread out across all four









response options, with the greatest response at both extremes. While 31.9% of

respondents indicated that the degree to which the accomplishment of their job goals are

related to the success of their partnerships is 0-25% an almost equivalent amount (31.5%)

fell into the 76-100% response option (Table 4-5).

Table 4-5: Degree to which job goals are related to partnership success
Degree to which job goals Frequency Percent
relate to partnership
success (%)
0-25 69 31.9
26-50 30 13.9
51-75 49 22.7
76-100 68 31.5

One hundred forty-five respondents (68%) indicated that they spend the majority

of their time in an office setting. Sixty-nine, or 32%, spend a fairly equal amount of time

in both a field setting and an office setting. Only four people indicated that they spend

the majority of their time in a field setting. The "field" sample size was not sufficient

enough to conduct statistical analysis and therefore only the office and split office/field

categories were included and the variable is considered dichotomous (Table 4-6). When

asked if they were a supervisor in their current position, 125 answered yes while 91

answered no (Table 4-6).

Table 4-6: Dichotomous job characteristic variables
Background variable Number Percentage

The majority of work time is spent:
In a field setting 4 1.8
In an office setting 145 66.5
Split between the office and field 69 31.7
Currently a supervisor:
Yes 125 57.9
No 91 42.1









Partnership Characteristics

When asked to categorize the number of partnerships they have been involved with

while working for the USFWS, 92 people (42.2%) indicated that they had been involved

in 25 or more. At the other extreme, nine people (4.1%) marked that they have not been

involved in any partnerships while working for the service (Table 4-7). Although this

doesn't necessarily mean that they have never been a part of any partnership activity

(since the survey doesn't ask about previous work experience), it is possible that some of

these respondents are basing their perception on ideas and not experience.

Table 4-7: Number of partnerships involved with while working for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Number of Number Percent
partnerships
0 9 4.1
1 4 1.8
2-5 38 17.4
6-10 37 17.0
11-24 38 17.4
25+ 92 42.2

When asked about the primary expected outcome of partnerships they were

involved with almost half of the respondents chose habitat conservation/restoration

(46%). Two outcomes were chosen by fewer than 5 people: new or improved

relationships (.9%) and prevention of a natural resource conflict (.5%). Almost all of the

29 people who selected the "other" category and wrote in their own answer responded

that the primary expected outcome of their partnerships included most or all of the

choices and they were unable to select just one (Table 4-8).

The range of hours per week spent on partnership activities was from one to 40

(Z=16.25, S=12.6). Ten, twenty, and fourty hours each contained at least ten percent of

the respondents (Table 4-9).









Table 4-8: Primary expected outcome of partnerships
Expected outcome Number Percent
Promote Educational Programs 12 5.6
Building Community Support 12 5.6
Habitat Conservation/Restoration 98 46.0
Endangered Species Protection/Management 23 10.8
Controlling Exotic Species 6 2.8
Other Species Protection/Management 9 4.2
New or Improved Relationships 2 0.9
Resolution of a Natural Resource Conflict 7 3.3
Prevention of a Natural Resource Conflict 1 0.5
General Resource Conservation 14 6.6
Other 29 13.6

Table 4-9: Average number of hours per week spent on partnerships


Hours
per week


Number


Percent


1-5 55 27.77
6-10 49 24.75
11-15 11 5.56
16-20 26 13.13
21-30 26 13.13
31-40 31 15.66
Mean = 16.25
Standard Deviation = 12.6

Approximate weeks per year actively spent on partnership activities ranged from

one to 52 (Z=28.1, S=19.7). Forty-five percent of the respondents answered 40 or above.

Although there is no way to be certain, it is possible that those people that answered 45

weeks may have been thinking every week of the federal work year which for many

employees is 45 weeks (Table 4-10).

Forty-five people (21%) spend more of their time creating new partnerships

whereas one hundred and sixty-nine (79%) spend more time sustaining existing

partnerships (Table 4-11). One hundred and sixteen people (55%) indicated that they

establish the majority of partnerships they work with. Ninety-three (45%) responded that









the majority of their partnerships are established by someone else (Table 4-11). Of those

who responded, about half (117) indicated that the majority of their partnerships are

planned as opposed to opportunistic (94) (Table 4-11).

Table 4-10: Approximate number of weeks per year actively involved in partnerships
Weeks Number Percent
per year
1-8 55 27.92
9-16 22 11.17
17-24 9 4.57
25-32 20 10.15
33-40 2 1.02
41-48 37 18.78
49+ 52 26.39
Mean = 28.1
Standard Deviation = 19.7

Table 4-11: Dichotomous partnership characteristic variables
Background variable Number Percentage
More time is spent:
Creating new partnership 45 21.0
Sustaining existing partnerships 169 79.0
The majority of partnerships are established:
By me 116 55.5
By someone else 93 44.5
The majority of partnerships are:
Planned 117 55.5
Opportunistic 94 44.5

This section reveals the diversity of types of partnerships and backgrounds of the

respondents. While not a random sample, the above data clearly speak to the inclusion of

individuals from a wide representation of backgrounds and partnering opportunities.

Overall Perceptions

The survey contained 32 perception variables in which participants were asked to

classify their perception on a 4-point Likert scale where strongly disagree, 2=disagree,

3=agree, and 4=strongly agree (Table 4-12).










Table 4-12: List of perception variables sorted by mean
Perception Mean SD
We can accomplish a great deal more in partnerships than we can accomplish 3.52 .62
alone
Ican effectively represent my agency in a partnership 3.47 .59
The most successful partnerships occur when partners come together naturally 3.40 .59
and are not forced into cooperation
Partnerships are easier when the partners can meet face to face 3.32 .60
I have the skills I need to be a good team member in a partnership setting 3.30 .52
Very successful partnerships can occur with an informal and unofficial 3.29 .62
agreement
Success is mostly due to the personalities of the active partners 3.23 .67
My supervisor approves the time I need to make my partnerships effective 3.20 .71
I know how to locate and contact appropriate partners 3.15 .61
My motivation can overcome the challenges of partnerships 3.11 .53
I'm comfortable taking responsibility for a partnership someone else 3.07 .59
established
I am comfortable when working with partners with disparate missions or goals 3.07 .57
Engaging in a partnership is a flexible process with a basic goal but no structure 2.95 .61
- it is an art
It is important to develop relationships with other partners on a personal level 2.93 .65
The most important outcome from partnerships is the tangible benefits unique 2.90 .56
to each partnership
Iam able to allocate the time I need to devote to the partnership 2.85 .75
I have the necessary training to effectively develop and implement a 2.84 .70
partnership
It is critical to have concrete results from your involvement in the partnership 2.70 .68
The most important outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with 2.64 .68
partners
Most challenges to successful partnerships occur within the agency 2.57 .68
Partnerships have no definitive end 2.52 .65
Success is mostly due to the skill of the facilitator 2.51 .65
Partnerships are likely to fail if the partners have no experience working in 2.25 .60
similar situations
Engaging in a partnership is a process with a set of steps and tasks it is a 2.09 .61
science
It is easiest to work with people in your own agency 2.06 .60
People can't be taught how to create successful partnerships 1.91 .58
The success of partnerships does not depend on personalities 1.82 .63
f I fail once in a partnership I have little interest in working on another 1.57 .57
partnership
My supervisor doesn't support my efforts in partnerships 1.55 .58
Partnerships are a win/lose situation 1.53 .56
Partnerships take much more time than they are worth 1.64 .58
Feel that I have nothing to offer in a partnership setting 1.47 .68










For each perception variable, the "strongly disagree" and "disagree" categories

were combined into one group and the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories were

combined into a second grouping. This revealed that for eight of the 32 perception

variables, 25% or more of the respondents did not share the same response as the

majority (Table 4-13).

These are perceptions that, regardless of other variables, are not widely shared by

employees. It is possible that employees are either getting mixed messages about the

nature of USFWS partnerships or that these perceptions are not currently addressed in

Service-wide communications. These perceptions will be explored further in the

following sections.

Table 4-13: Perception variables with twenty-five percent or more respondents in
minority
Perception variable Total number Number Percent Number Percent
of disagree disagree agree agree
respondents
Likely to fail if partners have 218 159 72.94 59 27.06
no experience
Success is mostly due to the 215 111 51.63 104 48.37
facilitator
Most challenges occur within 217 111 51.15 106 48.85
the agency
Partnerships have no definitive 212 105 49.53 107 50.47
end
Most important outcome is 215 96 44.65 119 55.35
relationships
Critical to have concrete results 217 80 36.87 137 63.13
I have the necessary training 218 66 30.28 152 69.72
I have the time I need 214 58 27.10 156 72.90


Perceptions by Background Variables

Analysis of the effect of background variables on perception is split into three

sections to address the three types of background variables separately. These three

sections include personal history, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics.









Independent t-tests were run to compare mean scores within each of the six

dichotomous background questions including: office versus office/field, supervisor

versus non-supervisor, training versus no training, creating versus sustaining, planned

versus opportunistic, and established by them versus established by someone else. These

tests were run to determine if any of the above affect the perception variables. One-way

between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted to explore the

impact of both the number of partnerships involved with and job goals (both categorical

variables) on perceptions of partnerships, as measured by the 32 perception variables.

Spearman's rank order correlation is used to calculate the strength of the relationship

between two continuous variables. The relationships between perception of partnerships

(where strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, and 4=strongly agree) and years with

the Service, average number of hours spent per week on partnerships, and average

number of weeks per year spent on partnership were investigated using this method. Chi-

square test for independence were used to determine if two categorical variables such as

who establishes the majority of their partnerships and their supervisory role are related by

comparing the frequency of cases found in the carious categories of one variable across

the different categories of a second variable.

Effects of Personal History on Perception

Years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The number of years spent working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was

negatively correlated with only two perception variables. More time spent with the

Service is associated with lower values of those perceptions (Table 4-14).

Overall, the influence of time spent in the agency on perception appears very small.

While there are two statistically significant negative correlations indicating that the less










time an employee has spent in the agency the more likely they were to agree with the

statement, the strength of both correlations is relatively weak. While there are some

aspects of lengthy employment that probably enhance perception of partnering such as a

greater sense of organizational flexibility there are also elements which probably inhibit

partnering such as a negative attitude towards those who do not share similar values.

Since time spent in the Service has both positive and negative influences on perception

the overall influence is reduced.

Table 4-14: Perception versus years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Perception Correlation between
variable perception and years with
USFWS
Success is due to skill of facilitator Correlation Coefficient -.151*
Sig. (2-tailed) .027
N 213
Partnerships have no definitive end Correlation Coefficient -.203**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
N 210
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

Formal training versus no formal training

There was a significant difference in means for eight perception variables between

those respondents who have not had formal partnership training versus those that have

(Table 4-15).

Training appears to have increased respondents' sense of value of partnerships, as

they were more likely to agree that they can accomplish more with partnerships than by

working alone. Those with training also were more confident in their abilities to locate

partners and work through difficult situations. Those respondents who have had no

formal training appear to have a more negativistic attitude towards partnering than those

who have had training. They are more likely to agree that partnerships are a win/lose

situation and are not worth the amount of time involved. While it is possible that those









respondents who attended some form of training had a more positive attitude from the

start and that is why they chose to attend, the above data are an indication that those

employees who have attended partnership training share more positive perceptions of

partnerships than those who have not attended training.

Table 4-15: Training versus perceptions
No training Training
Perception N=132 N=85
variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p
We accomplish more in 3.42 .66 3.67 .54 -3.00 202 .003
partnerships than alone
I can locate and contact partners 3.05 .66 3.32 .47 -3.20 214 .002
I have the necessary training 2.64 .69 3.15 .61 -5.71 195 .000
I am comfortable with partners 2.99 .61 3.19 .48 -2.51 213 .013
with disparate mission
My motivation can overcome 3.05 .54 3.21 .52 -2.21 175 .029
the challenges
My supervisor doesn't support 1.61 .57 1.45 .59 1.96 208 .050
my efforts
Partnerships are a win/lose 1.61 .58 1.41 .52 2.58 214 .011
situation
Partnerships take more time 1.73 .57 1.48 .57 3.11 211 .002
than they are worth

When comparing the means between those employees who indicated that the

partnership training they have attended was specifically geared towards partnerships such

as "Conservation Partnerships in Practice" versus those who indicated that the

partnership training they received has been incorporated into other training sessions such

as "Stepping up to Leadership" there were no perceptions that were significantly

different. In other words, training sessions specifically designed to enable partnering do

not appear to have influenced perceptions of partnerships any differently than those

courses that simply included partnerships as a sub-topic.









Effects of Job Characteristics on Perception

Degree to which job goals are related to the success of partnerships

Respondents placed themselves into one of four groups according to the degree to

which the accomplishment of job goals are related to the success of partnerships in which

they work (Group 1: 0-25%, Group 2: 26-50%, Group 3: 51-75%, Group 4: 76-100%).

There were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for ten of the perception

variables. However, while results are statistically significant for ten variables, there are

only five variables where the mean values are in continuum. For each of these five

variables the mean value consistently increases or decreases from Group 1 to Group 4,

making those variables more meaningful (Table 4-16).

The more important partnership are to an employees' job goals, the more confident

respondents are in their training but it is unclear if this formalized training or simply on-

the-job experience. The idea that respondents whose job goals are highly associated with

partnership success are more likely to disagree that "partnerships are a win/lose situation"

can be explained by the fact that as the importance of successful partnerships increases so

does the commitment to making a partnership succeed and the desire to look for positives

even when a partnership may be struggling. It follows then that the more important

partnerships are to their job goals, the more likely they are to agree that more can be

accomplished in partnerships than individually. The fact that groups whose job relies

more on partnership success feel like they have greater supervisor support is not unusual.

Although the means for the other perception variables such as "Partnerships take

much more time than they are worth" are not in continuum, it is important to note that

those employees whose job goals were least related to partnerships were significantly

more likely to agree with the statement than all of the groups. It follows then that those










people whose jobs are least dependent on the success of partnerships have a more

negative attitude towards partnerships and are more likely to give up after one failure

than to pursue another partnership. In contrast, those whose job goals are highly related

to partnership success were more likely to indicate that they are able to contact

appropriate partners and effectively represent the agency which may be due to the fact

that they spend more time working in partnerships.

Table 4-16: Perception versus degree to which job goals related to partnership success
Perception Overall Mean Mean Mean Mean ANOVA Tukey
variable mean* 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% (F-test) PostHoc

Most challenges occur 2.57 2.51 2.80 2.35 2.69 3.83 2>3
within the agency

Partnerships are 1.53 1.71 1.50 1.48 1.40 3.95 1>4
a win/lose situation

We accomplish more in 3.52 3.28 3.47 3.59 3.74 6.65 4>1
partnerships than alone

Partnerships take more 1.63 1.90 1.48 1.55 1.49 7.76 1>2,3,4
time than they are worth

I can effectively 3.48 3.30 3.57 3.38 3.69 5.97 4>3,1
represent my agency

I can locate and 3.16 2.90 3.27 3.15 3.38 8.45 2,4>1
contact partners

I have the necessary training 2.84 2.52 2.70 3.00 3.12 10.74 3>1; 4>2

If I fail once I have little 1.57 1.78 1.46 1.58 1.40 5.91 1>4,2
interest in other p'ships

My supervisor approves 3.20 2.94 3.13 3.27 3.44 6.15 4>1
the time I need

My supervisor doesn't 1.55 1.77 1.63 1.44 1.36 6.89 1>3,4
support my efforts
p<.05
*l=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree

Office versus office/field

There was a significant difference in means for four perception variables between

those who spend most of their time in the office versus those that spend a fairly equal

amount of time in the office and the field. In each of those cases, the office/field group









had a mean that was significantly higher and therefore in more likely to agree with the

perception statements than the office only group (Table 4-17).

Table 4-17: Work type versus perceptions
Office Field/Office
Perception N=142 N=69
variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p
Success when partners 3.33 .61 3.54 .53 -2.39 212 .018
come together naturally
We accomplish more in 3.44 .66 3.66 .54 -2.64 158 .009
partnerships than alone
Partnerships have no 2.44 .61 2.70 .70 -2.72 206 .007
definitive end
I have the time I need 2.75 .76 3.03 .69 -2.62 145 .010

Those people who spend a fairly equal amount of time in the office and in the field

agreed more frequently that they have time to devote to partnership activity. While both

groups agree that partnerships work better when partners come together naturally and are

not forced into a situation, the office/field group scored higher for that variable and

showed stronger support for the idea that their agency can accomplish more through

partnerships than they can alone. Since there was not enough data to test the group that

spends the majority of their time in the field it is not known if this is a trend that increases

as one spends more time in the field and less time in the office.

Three of the significant variables, accomplishing more, no definitive end, and

having time, relate to productivity. This leads to the question are partnerships inherently

different for the office and the office/field groups? To attempt to answer this question,

the background variable of office versus office/field was compared to the degree to which

job goals are related to partnership success, the number of partnerships they have been

involved with, and time spent of partnerships (including approximate number of hours

per week and weeks per year).









Although the comparison to number of partnerships was not significant (p = .78),

the degree to which job goals are related to partnership success (Table 4-18), and time

spent of partnerships (Table 4-19) both had statistically significant results.

Table 4-18: Work type by degree to which job goals are related to partnership success
0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total
N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)
Office 55(38) 18(13) 33(23) 38(26 144(68)

Office/Field 13(19) 11(16) 16(24) 28(41) 68(32)

Total N (%) 68(32) 29(14) 49(23) 66(31) 212(100)
2 = 8.95, df =3, p= .03

Table 4-19: Time spent in partnership activity versus work ty e
Office Office/Field
N=127 N=67

Mean SD Mean SD t df p
Hours per week 14.01 11.36 20.10 13.50 -3.15 116 .002
Weeks per year 25.88 19.48 32.08 19.49 -2.10 191 .037


Those employees who split their time between the office and field indicated that

they average more time spent on partnerships and that the degree to which their job goals

depend on partnership success tends to be greater. The amount of partnership training

that those who split their time between the office and field have had is not significantly

different than those who work mainly in the office (P = .42). It seems as though the

employees who spend more time on partnering and whose job goals are highly correlated

with partnership success would be targets for training.

Supervisors versus non-supervisors

There was a significant difference in means for two perception variables between

supervisors and non-supervisors (Table 4-20).









Table 4-20: Supervisory role versus perceptions
Supervisor Not a supervisor
Perception N=125 N=91
variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p
I can locate and 3.22 .62 3.06 .59 1.94 197 .050
contact partners
I have the time I need 2.76 .78 2.98 .68 -2.15 199 .033

Results are similar to what one might expect. Supervisors were more confident in

their ability to seek out partners however they feel they have less time to devote to

partnership activities. Supervisors increased confidence may be a result of time spent in

the agency. Supervisors had a significantly higher mean (_=19.87, S=8.92) than non-

supervisors (-=9.67, S=8.14) when comparing time spent with the Service (t(214)= -

8.57, p<.01). It is important to remember, however, that supervision does not correlate

with training. There is no significant difference between supervisors and non-supervisors

in the amount of training they have attended (P = .88).

Effects of Partnership Characteristics on Perception

Number of partnerships

Respondents divided themselves into six groups according to the number of

partnerships they have been involved with while working for the Service (0, 1, 2-5, 6-10,

11-24, and 25+). There were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for

two of the perception variables (Table 4-21).

Both of the variables appear to increase with experience. Relationship building

may become more important the more partnerships an employee works with in order to

maintain future contacts. Additionally, the more partnerships an employee works with

the greater their confidence and ability to seek out appropriate partners, which is to be

expected. The number of partnerships is positively correlated with length of Service










(r=.436, p<.01) indicating that the more time spent the Service, the more partnerships an

employee has been involved with.

Table 4-21: Perception versus number of partnerships involved with
Perception Overall Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean ANOVA Tukey
variable mean* 0 1 2-5 6-10 11-24 25+ (F test) Post Hoc
p'ships p'ships p'ships p'ships p'ships p'ships
Developing personal 2.93 3.11 2.25 2.95 2.72 2.84 3.04 2.56 1>2
relationships with
partners is important

I can locate and 3.15 2.56 2.75 2.89 2.97 3.18 3.39 8.07 5>1; 6>2
contact partners
p<.05
*l=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree

Average number of hours per week

The average number of hours per week spent on partnership activities was

positively correlated to 11 perception variables (Table 4-22).

While it appears as though the more time an employee spends in partnership

activity the more comfortable they are in that role, that idea may be misleading. It is

possible that the more comfortable they are, the more time they spend or the more often

they are assigned to partnerships. They have a positive attitude towards partnering and

feel that they have had the training and possess the skills to be effective. Additionally,

the more time spent in partnership activity, the more important the relationship aspect of

partnerships become. Hours spent per week is positively correlated with the perceptions

that it is important to develop relationships with other partners on a personal level and

that partnering is an art with a basic goal but a flexible process.

Average number of weeks per year

The approximate number of weeks per year spent doing partnership related activity

was positively correlated with ten perception variables. Eight of these variables were

also significant for average number of hours per week spent on partnerships (Table 4-22).







50



Table 4-22: Perception versus hours per week and weeks per year spent partnering
Perception Correlation between Correlation between
variable perception and hours per perception and weeks per
week spent on partnering year spent partnering
Success is due to Correlation Coefficient .055 .055
personalities of partners Sig. (2-tailed) .443 .443
N 196 195
Success is due to skill of Correlation Coefficient -.013 .036
facilitator Sig. (2-tailed) .853 .612
N 196 195
Success when partners come Correlation Coefficient -.045 .037
together naturally Sig. (2-tailed) .525 .603
N 198 197
Most challenges occur within Correlation Coefficient .144* .120
the agency Sig. (2-tailed) .044 .095
N 197 196
Likely to fail if partners have Correlation Coefficient -.083 -.099
no experience Sig. (2-tailed) .244 .167
N 198 197
Success does not depend on Correlation Coefficient -.032 -.059
personalities Sig. (2-tailed) .655 .410
N 197 196
People can't be taught to Correlation Coefficient .084 .053
create successful partnerships Sig. (2-tailed) .239 .460
N 198 197
t is critical to have concrete Correlation Coefficient .015 .036
results Sig. (2-tailed) .831 .612
N 197 196
Success can occur with an Correlation Coefficient .134 .244**
informal agreement Sig. (2-tailed) .061 .001
N 197 196
The most important outcome Correlation Coefficient .028 .041
is relationships Sig. (2-tailed) .699 .570
N 196 195
The most important outcome Correlation Coefficient .036 -.045
is the tangible benefits Sig. (2-tailed) .621 .533
N 196 195
Developing personal Correlation Coefficient .167* .138
relationships with partners is Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .053
important N 198 196
Partnerships are a win/lose Correlation Coefficient -.148* -.241**
situation Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .001
N 198 197
We accomplish more in Correlation Coefficient .190** .190**
partnerships than alone Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .008
N 197 195
Partnerships take more time Correlation Coefficient -.202** -.261**
than they are worth Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000
N 195 193
Engaging in a partnership is a Correlation Coefficient -.133 -.124
science Sig. (2-tailed) .064 .084
N 196 195











Table 4-22: Continued
Correlation between Correlation between
Perception perception and hours per perception and weeks per
variable week spent partnering year spent partnering
Engaging in a partnerships is Correlation Coefficient .177* .252**
an art Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .000
N 196 195
Partnerships have no Correlation Coefficient .097 .024
definitive end Sig. (2-tailed) .176 .737
N 195 193
Partnerships are easier when Correlation Coefficient .068 .114
partners meet face to face Sig. (2-tailed) .339 .112
N 197 196
Easiest to work with people Correlation Coefficient -.143* -.190**
in your own agency Sig. (2-tailed) .044 .007
N 198 197
feel that I have nothing to Correlation Coefficient -.192** -.250**
offer in a partnership setting Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .000
N 197 195
can effectively represent my Correlation Coefficient .229** .236**
agency Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001
N 197 196
'm comfortable taking over Correlation Coefficient .026 .066
a partnership someone else Sig. (2-tailed) .712 .357
established N 197 196
can locate and contact Correlation Coefficient .268** .274**
partners Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 197 196
have the necessary training Correlation Coefficient .340** .378**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 198 197
have the skills I need to be a Correlation Coefficient .211** .190**
good team member Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .008
N 197 196
am comfortable with Correlation Coefficient .211** .285**
partners with disparate Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000
mission N 195 194
My motivation can Correlation Coefficient .192** .167*
overcome the challenges Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .020
N 195 194
fI fail once I have little Correlation Coefficient -.171* -.267**
interest in working on Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .000
another one N 195 194
My supervisor approves the Correlation Coefficient .096 .152*
time I need Sig. (2-tailed) .180 .034
N 197 195
My supervisor doesn't Correlation Coefficient -.142* -.204**
support my efforts Sig. (2-tailed) .046 .004
N 197 195
have the time I need Correlation Coefficient .150* .065
Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .362
N 198 196
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)









The results of average number of weeks per year are nearly identical to those of

the average number of hours per week background variable. Time spent on partnerships,

whether measured in hours or weeks, appears to have a similar effect on perceptions. It is

possible, therefore, that those employees that spend 40 hours per week for three weeks

per year but less for the rest of the year were not captured due to the averaging of hours.

Spend more time creating versus sustaining

There was a significant difference in means for two perception variables between

those people who spend more of their time creating new partnerships versus those who

spend more time sustaining existing partnerships. In both of those cases, the group who

spends more time creating new partnerships had a mean that was significantly higher than

the group who spends more time sustaining existing partnerships (Table 4-23).

Table 4-23: Creating/Sustaining versus perceptions
Creating Sustaining
Perception N=45 N=214
variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p
I have the necessary 3.04 .71 2.79 .69 2.17 212 .031
training
I have the time I 3.09 .73 2.79 .74 2.40 211 .018
need

Respondents who spend more time creating new partnerships believe they have

both the available time and necessary training to do so. Those who spend their time

sustaining existing partnerships could be doing so because they are either constrained by

time or because they feel they lack the necessary skills provided in training to locate and

contact partners. Although the perception variables identified here are similar to those

identified in the supervisor versus non-supervisor analysis, a chi-square test showed no

significant relationship between the two variables (p = .30).










Majority of partnerships are established by them versus by someone else

There was a significant difference in means for nine perception variables between

those people who establish the majority of their partnership for themselves versus those

who partnerships are primarily established by someone else (Table 4-24).

Table 4-24: Who establishes partnerships versus perceptions
Established Established by
Perception by me someone else
variable N=116 N=93
Mean SD Mean SD t df p
Success does not depend 1.76 .67 1.95 .56 -2.23 206 .027
on personalities
Success can occur with an 3.40 .60 3.16 .63 2.71 206 .007
informal agreement
Engaging in a partnership 1.98 .59 2.24 .62 -3.01 192 .003
is a science
Engaging in a partnership 3.04 .58 2.83 .62 2.46 188 .014
is an art
Easiest to work with 1.98 .59 2.15 .62 -1.99 207 .048
people in your own agency
I can effectively represent 3.57 .59 3.38 .57 2.32 206 .021
my agency
I can locate and contact 3.27 .58 3.03 .60 2.85 206 .005
partners
I have the necessary 2.99 .63 2.65 .73 3.62 181 .000
training
My motivation can 3.19 .50 2.99 .57 2.76 202 .006
overcome the challenges

The focus of the results in this section appear to pertain to the role that relationships

play in partnerships. Those respondents who spend the majority of their time working in

partnerships established by someone else scored higher on "the success of partnerships

does not depend on personalities" and on the idea that engaging in a partnership is a

science with a set of steps and tasks than their counterparts. It appears as though those

people who fall into partnerships that someone else has created have missed the trust and

relationship building stages of the process and therefore do not see partnerships as an art

form where personalities have to be carefully considered. Or, it is possible that they









simply have the type of personality that allows them to carry on with whatever task is at

hand. It is not a surprise that they also were more likely to disagree that a partnership can

occur with an informal agreement because at the point where they join the partnerships,

partners are already locked into place. Additionally, informal partnerships are not as

likely to be handed off to another person due to the fact that the partnership exists

because of some element of trust or respect between two individuals so if an employee

usually works on partnerships that someone else has established, they are likely to be

formalized.

Those individuals who work mostly in partnerships that they have established are

more confident in their level of training, their ability to locate partners, and their ability to

represent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are also more likely to view

partnerships as an art where the process is flexible. These results indicate that this group

of employees has either had more training, spend more time in partnership related

activity, or have positions that depend heavily on the success of partnerships.

Upon analyzing the data further, tests revealed no significant relationship between

whether or not they establish the majority of their partnerships and their supervisory role

(p = .24), years with the Service (p = .99), and whether or not they have attended training

(p = .35). Employees who work mostly in partnerships that they have established for

themselves are more confident in their level of training even though they have not

received more training. It is possible that they have gotten more out of their training or

have been more effective in putting their training to use. However, significant

relationships do exist between who establishes their partnerships and degree to which job









goals are related to partnership success (Table 4-25) and time spent in partnership activity

(Table 4-26).

Table 4-25: Who establishes partnerships by degree to which job goals are related to
partnership success
0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total (N)
N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)
Me 28(25) 8(7) 33(29) 45(39) 114(56)

Someone else 34(38) 21(23) 15(17) 20(22) 90(44)

Total N (%) 62(30) 29(14) 48(24) 65(32) 204(100)
X2 = 20.23, df=3, p <.001

Table 4-26: Time spent in partnership activity versus who establishes partnership
Established Established by
by me someone else
N=109 N=81
Mean SD Mean SD t df p
Hours per week 18.76 12.35 12.69 11.60 3.44 188 .001
Weeks per year 32.90 18.80 21.89 19.04 3.96 187 .000

Those employees whose job goals are highly related to partnership success are

more likely to be establishing their own partnerships than those whose job goals are not

highly dependent on partnership success. Additionally, those people who average more

time, including both hours per week and weeks per year on partnership related activity,

working on partnerships are more likely to be establishing their own partnerships. It is

possible that this is related to the time it takes to establish the necessary connections to

form a partnership.

Planned versus opportunistic

There was a significant difference in means for two perception variables between

those people whose partnership activity is mostly planned versus those respondents

whose partnership activity is mostly opportunistic (Table 4-27).









Table 4-27: Planned/Opportunistic versus perceptions
Planned Opportunistic
Perception N=117 N=94
variable Mean SD Mean SD t df p
The most important 2.55 .64 2.77 .72 -2.36 207 .019
outcome is relationships
I have the necessary 2.97 .67 2.67 .69 3.13 196 .002
training

This is the first background variable to address the anticipated outcome of

partnerships. It is possible that those that spend more time working in opportunistic

partnerships find themselves working in situations where the partnerships form through

relationship and trust building whereas those respondents who are working in planned

partnerships are not as concerned with relationship building as they are about a

predetermined set of objectives and goals. It is also conceivable that partnerships are not

a primary objective for those who spend more time in opportunistic partnerships and

therefore, there is less need to have concrete results. Additionally, those people who

spent more time in planned partnerships agree more frequently that they have the

necessary training indicating that employee training may have a positive effect on the

ability to plan partnerships. In fact, chi-square tests indicated a relationship between

training and the planned versus opportunistic variable that supports this (Table 4-28).

Table 4-28: Planned/Opportunistic by training
Not trained Trained Total
N(%) N(%) N(%)
Planned 63(54) 53(46) 116(55)

Opportunistic 65(69) 29(31) 94(45)

Total N (%) 128(61) 82(39) 210(100)
2 = 4.2, df=l, p= .04

Employees who work mainly in planned partnerships have attended training more

than what would be expected if there was no relationship between the variables whereas









those who work mainly in opportunistic partnerships have attended less training than

expected.

Extension to Skills and Abilities

Part of the survey that employees completed asked them to think about a successful

partnership that they have been involved with. After identifying various characteristics

about the scope of the partnership, respondents were asked to review a list of 41 skills

and abilities that may be necessary for successful partnerships and select those that were

most responsible for their success (Table 4-29). These variables were treated as

dichotomous and therefore were entered into SPSS as "1" for important if selected by the

respondent and "0" for not important if not selected.

To take the data analysis one step beyond the original research question, the

background variable "have you had any formal partnership training" was compared

against the skills and abilities that respondents indicated as critical to their successful

partnerships to see if there are some skills/abilities that are more commonly associated

with those employees who have had training versus those who have not. There was a

significant difference in means for four items from the skills and abilities list between

those respondents who have attended training versus those that have not (Table 4-30).










Table 4-29: List of skills and abilities sorted by mean
Skill/Ability Mean SD
Building trust among group members .69 .46
Actively listening .67 .47
Creating a common goal for the group .65 .48
Identifying appropriate partners .63 .48
Effectively working with people outside of your agency .61 .49
Finding financial resources .58 .49
Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource .50 .50
management
Accepting different points of view .48 .50
Having the academic background and/or technical training you need to be an .48 .50
effective member of the partnership
Defining your role in the partnership .47 .50
Knowing who in the community should be in the partnership .47 .50
Conveying technical information to others who do not share your knowledge of the .47 .50
subject
Knowing partners' roles in the partnership .46 .50
Articulating a shared vision for the group .46 .50
Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than .44 .50
your own
Developing a plan with clear, measurable objectives .43 .50
Being comfortable in a group setting .43 .50
Speaking clearly .40 .49
Overcoming budget restrictions of partners .37 .48
Finding FWS agency personnel to provide assistance .37 .48
Thorough understanding of your partners' background, mission, and goals .36 .48
Not letting difficult situations bother you .35 .48
Knowing when the agency can accept compromise .33 .47
Figuring out how to deal with disparate missions of partners .32 .47
Effectively working with antagonistic partners .28 .45
Being able to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even .28 .45
if you are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency
Creating a written agreement for all members .27 .44
Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed .27 .45
Accepting compromise willingly .26 .44
Participating when you are not the lead agency and/or have no clear authority .25 .43
Increasing comfort level for new group members .22 .41
Developing a timeline .22 .41
Finding equipment .21 .40
Finding a way to work with individuals who can not speak effectively for their .19 .40
agency/organization
Controlling your temper in difficult situations .19 .40
Setting aside deeply held opinions .18 .38
Understanding the influence of the current administration on partnerships .18 .38
Knowing which structure to use for a partnership .17 .38
Understanding the influence of the media on partnerships .16 .37
Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant .14 .34
Understanding the influence of Congress on partnerships .14 .35






59


Table 4-30: Training attendance versus skills and abilities responsible for success
Not trained Trained
Skill/Ability N=109 N=80
variable Mean SD Mean SD T df p
Having the training you .05 .23 .25 .44 -3.65 111 .00
need to be effective
Knowing who should be .39 .49 .56 .50 -2.31 187 .02
in the partnership
Not letting difficult .28 .45 .43 .50 -1.99 161 .05
situations bother you
Dealing with disparate .25 .43 .40 .49 -2.21 157 .03
missions of partners














CHAPTER 5
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The objectives of this study were to add to the partnership research base, to impact

partnership training provided to employees by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and to

provide recommendations for future research by understanding the perspectives that

employees have about partnerships. The following section addresses these objectives

while providing answers to the research questions and hypotheses posed in Chapter 1.

Perceptions Not Widely Shared

Partnerships are meant to be creative solutions to aid in decision making and

resource management and each employee will have a slightly different way of

accomplishing things. The fact that perception differences exist does not indicate an

immediate need to change the way things are done, it simply indicates a need for

awareness that the way people define the inputs and outcomes is not necessarily similar.

In looking at one perception statement at a time, Service managers can determine if

employee thinking is in line with the Service's expectations and goals. If there are

perceptions where employees seem to be off track with the Service, strategies can be

developed accordingly.

Perhaps a first step is looking at what perceptions are not widely shared,

irrespective of background. Variables such as "most important outcome is relationships"

and "critical to have concrete results" that do not have broad agreement indicate that not

all employees share a common vision for partnerships. It could also be that people are

involved in different types of partnerships and we cannot treat all partnerships the same.









Although on the surface these seem like opposite perspectives, 72 of the 118 respondents

agreed with both perceptions. Additionally, there were 31 respondents that disagreed

with both statements. It may be of use to the Service to know how those employees who

agreed with both struck a balance between them, particularly when working with partners

with disparate missions. The Service may also be interested in the goals and desired

outcomes of those employees that disagreed with both perceptions.

If the Service thinks that these perceptions are important perspectives to better

quality partnerships, then these perceptions are potential targets of outreach and

education efforts. For example, some employees think that the most challenges occur

within the agency while others feel that outside challenges are greater. If employees feel

that the challenges they face within their own agency are too great, their willingness to

partner may be limited. Training could address challenges faced in the agency such as

funding and paperwork (the two barriers identified most by employees in a later section

of the survey) and help employees work through these issues by exploring alternative

avenues of support. Additionally, if some employees in the same partnership think the

Service wants them to develop relationships with partners on a personal level while

others are less focused on a relationship and more interested in a final product, there may

be disagreement on approach. As a result of employee conflict, partners could be getting

mixed messages causing a heightened sense of distrust.

Thirty percent of employees surveyed perceive that they do not have the necessary

training. A later section of the survey asked employees what support the National

Conservation Training Center could offer employees and an overwhelming majority of

responses focused on training, including requests to improve and expand existing training









courses to cover funding, paperwork, regulations, and the Services' role (Appendix D).

These employees and the significant number of training related suggestions represent a

gap that needs to be filled and demonstrate a desire for enhanced training opportunities.

However, it is important to determine whether these employees have been to a training

session and still feel that they lack the necessary skills or if they simply have not attended

training. The barriers to their participation in existing training courses was not explored.

How Time Spent In Partnerships Affects Perception

Four background variables addressed the amount of time spent and the degree to

which the employee is involved in partnership activity. It may be of value to the Service

to look at how those people who spend a lot of time in partnering answered to see if their

perceptions are in line with what the Service deems important.

Those who spend more time in partnerships and whose jobs are highly correlated

with partnership success have several commonalities. These respondents have a positive

attitude towards partnerships and believe they are a flexible, relationship-rich endeavor

that succeeds, in part, because of the skills and personal motivation these staff bring to

the job. Those employees who spend less time in partnerships or whose job goals are not

highly related to partnership success were more likely to have a vision of partnerships

that is more onerous and troublesome, and that they would have nothing to contribute.

Given the dichotomy in perceptions it appears as though there is a gap in the way these

two groups of employees view the benefits of and their contribution to partnerships.

Therefore those employees who do not partner represent potential targets for training if

this is something that would enhance their job and site. These results should not be

confused with years of employment with the Service, as this variable had little impact on

perception.









Who Attends Training

Employees who split their time between the office and field indicated that they

average more time spent on partnerships and that the degree to which their job goals

depend on partnership success tends to be greater than those who spend all of their time

in the office. It is surprising, therefore, when comparing where employees do most of

their work to whether or not they have attended partnership training there is no significant

relationship. In other words, employees whose jobs depend heavily on partnering are not

attending training at a higher rate than those who spend less time on partnering. It could

be that those who are doing partnerships are good at it and may not feel that they need the

courses that are offered. It may be important to explore this further to determine if the

right people are attending training.

Additionally, those employees that spend more time creating new partnerships than

sustaining existing ones, establish the majority of their partnerships for themselves, and

work in planned as opposed to opportunistic partnerships were more likely to perceive

that they have the necessary training. Therefore training may be working to help people

plan and create partnerships but may be missing some of the people involved in

partnerships that are already established.

Training Relationships

As hypothesized, training attendance was one variable with a high degree of

explanatory power. Employees who have been trained were more likely to agree with

several skill based perceptions than those that have not been trained including feeling

comfortable when working with partners with disparate missions and knowing how to

locate and contact appropriate partners. However, the differences between those who

have had and have not had formal training do not extend to all perceptions. Some may be









common sense such as "Partnerships are easier when the partners can meet face to face"

while others such as "I am able to allocate the time I need to devote to the partnership"

may not be impacted by any training program. Training attendance also does not appear

to have an effect on any of the relationship variables such as "the most important

outcome from partnerships is the relationships I build with partners" or structure

variables such as "very successful partnerships can occur with an informal and unofficial

agreement." The literature suggests that these are important elements of good

partnerships, often extending from the development of trust. Although there is high

agreement about partnering without a formal agreement there is less agreement about the

importance of relationships. If the Service agrees that these relationship variables are key

to successful partnerships, this may be an important thing for the training program to

emphasize.

Training may also by affecting employees' perceptions of the skills and abilities

needed for a successful partnership. There were four skills (having the training you need

to be effective, knowing who should be in the partnership, not letting difficult situations

bother you, and dealing with disparate missions of partners) identified as significantly

more important to the success of their partnership by those who have had training than by

those who have not. The variables appear to be linked in the sense that they are skills

that are commonly addressed in literature and training (as opposed to "controlling your

temper in difficult situations" which, although still important, is not necessarily a skill

that is addressed in a formalized setting). Thus, one hypothesis is that these are the top

few skills that employees are coming away from training with and, therefore, are more

likely to see as being significant factors in partnering. In that skills and abilities may be









easier to change through training than perceptions, it may be useful to explore what other

skills could be targeted as objectives for training.

Significant Variables

The research questions posed for this study were: Do perceptions of requirements

for and results of successful partnerships vary across agency employees? and; Do

perceptions of partnerships vary in a predictable way when considering personal

characteristics, job characteristics, and partnership characteristics? The following two

sections summarize the answers to these questions.

As collaborative efforts become more widespread and are incorporated into official

policies, both proponents and critics seek to evaluate these new approaches. This

includes developing a solid understanding of what can and cannot be reasonably expected

of partnerships and what variables influence their effectiveness (Conley and Moote

2003). We know that how an employee approaches partnerships is a function of

perception. The results of this study support the hypothesis that perceptions of

partnerships vary across Service employees. Of the 32 perception variables, 25 are

influenced by variation in employees' background. The background variables that

affected the most perceptions were training attendance, whether or not they established

the majority of their partnerships, degree to which their job goals are related to the

success of their partnerships, and the average number of hours per week and weeks per

year spent in partnership activity.

Employees who have attended training, establish partnerships for themselves, have

a high correlation of partnership success to job goals, and average significant amounts of

time partnering share similar perceptions. These employees believe that partnering is a

flexible process dependent more on relationships than on formalities and can lead to









greater success than one individual could accomplish. They are comfortable with their

level of training and have the skills they need to feel confident representing the Service.

Employees who don't fall into these categories view partnerships as a time consuming

venture that receives little support from their supervisors where outcomes are all or

nothing.

Background Variables With Little or No Significance

As important as significant variables are, variables with little or no explanatory

value are equally as important, particularly when they are contrary to what is expected.

This study started out with the hypothesis that supervisors' perceptions differ from non-

supervisors. Contrary to what was predicted however, there was no significant difference

in the way these two groups of employees perceive partnerships except that supervisors

felt more confident in locating partners. Similarly, while it was hypothesized that long-

time employees would have a variety of different perceptions than newcomers, years with

the Service had no significant effect on perception of partnerships. While some

employees interviewed in the beginning stages of this study had ideas about what long

timers and supervisors think about partnerships, this study shows that differences in

perception can not be attributed to those variables.

Other variables with little significance were job location and number of

partnerships. Although those employees who split their time between the office and field

felt more could be accomplished in partnerships than individually, the overall effect of

the variable is very small. Those people who are involved in a large number of

partnerships generally share similar perceptions with those who are not. However, those

employees who have worked on a significant number of partnerships feel that

relationship building is a key part of the process. In some respects, this seems contrary to









what would be expected. If someone works on a large number of partnerships it is

possible that they have less time to devote to each one, making the time to form personal

relationships limited. A majority of these employees, however, feel the exact opposite

and rely on relationships to guide them to success.

Additional Research Possibilities

This research is but a first step in exploring U.S. Fish and Wildlife employee's

understanding and use of partnerships. To assist with the development of training

courses, interviews with those who have attended training could reveal the aspects they

thought were most valuable and applicable to their partnerships and what they have been

able to use in practice. It may also be important to find out what they didn't learn. Those

employees who haven't attended training could be interviewed to reveal the barriers to

training.

Second, more could be done to explore the perceptions on which there is high

agreement. For example, the majority of employees agreed that very successful

partnerships can occur with and informal and unofficial agreement. It may be of interest

to the Service to know more about this such as how often this type of partnership occurs,

what the circumstances are that allow for this to be successful, and the degree of

accountability by each of the parties.

It might be good to know if those employees who seem to be most talented and

successful with partnerships are in agreement when it comes to what makes partnerships

work. Similarly, one could identify the characteristics of failed partnerships to see if they

are the opposite of success or if there were new elements that were considered important.

It may also be helpful to explore the successful partnerships, develop case studies about

them, and use the stories from staff to improve the depth of training.









It could also be of use to compare the skills addressed at training to those that

people identified in the survey as critical. Are the skills these employees identified

covered in training? Did people already have these or is training creating significant

gains? Are the perceptions that were significant in this survey addressed in training or in

other Service-wide communications? Is attendance at training improving perception or

do the people who come to training already have those positive attitudes? Why are more

people not attending training (money, time, support, lack of interest, etc)?

It may be of use to the Service to look to those who are involved in partnerships for

new ideas that could contribute to success. This includes suggestions not only on how to

expand or improve training but also novel ideas suggested by employees. While not all

suggestions will be feasible, ideas such as establishing a message board for employees

where they can ask co-workers who may be involved in similar situations for advice

suggests that employees are interested in learning and benefiting from others experiences.

Empowering employees who seek to improve their skills, knowledge, and strategies

should always be a priority.

It would also be beneficial to look at partnering from the partners perspective. Do

their ideas and opinions match those of agency employees? What are their barriers to

partnering with the Service? Are there specific steps the Service or individual employees

can take to reduce these barriers?

Finally, it may be valuable to look at the role personalities play in partnership

success. Are there people that are more equipped to work in partnerships based on

personality characteristics? What sorts of personalities give people a head start towards









success? Are there challenges faced by some employees solely because of their

personality and, if so, what can be done to overcome them?

Conclusion

Today, collaborative approaches to natural resource management are being broadly

promoted as promising ways to deal with complex natural resource issues. A

comprehensive report on the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1999 recommends that

the Service forge new and non-traditional alliances to broaden support for the System by

establishing citizen and community partnerships on all staffed refuges. They go on to

state that partnerships with states, Tribes, nonprofit organizations, and academia should

be strengthened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that with

encouragement, training, staff support, and clear guidance, new allies will be found, new

partnerships developed, and the circle of support will widen and strengthen (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1999).

The Service is actively training their employees to form, manage, and effectively

participate in partnerships. It may help enhance this partnership training if instructors

understand the way that employees approach partnering. By addressing perceptions and

the role background plays in how employees approach partnerships, managers and

educators have a better understanding of not only what gaps to expect in their audience,

but also who might benefit the most from training. Although there may be no "cookbook

recipe" for success, it is important to give employees every advantage possible when

dealing with the increasingly difficult task of resource management.















APPENDIX A
EMPLOYEE CONTACT LETTERS









Hello,


I would like to request your assistance with a needs assessment that is being conducted.

The Division of Education Outreach at NCTC in Shepherdstown, WV, has a cooperative
agreement with the University of Florida to conduct a needs assessment to determine
strengths, weaknesses, and areas of improvement with FWS partnerships. The University
has requested a list of approximately 10 persons they can interview initially and use the
information obtained from the interview to shape the actual questionnaire that will be
used in the needs assessment. I was wondering if you would be one of those individuals.

If you agree, the University will contact you to schedule a telephone interview. It is
believed that the telephone interview should take no more than 30 minutes.

With your expertise and experience with partnerships, specifically within the Service,
your input is very valuable. The Division would greatly appreciate your time to assist us
if you are available. Please let me know if it is okay to forward your name as one of the
interviewees. You may e-mail me or call me at (304) 876-7339.

If you are able to assist, please include your telephone number.

Thank you.

Dawn Lagrotteria
Chief, Education and Outreach Training
Division of Education Outreach
USFWS/NCTC
(304) 876-7339
dawn lagrotteria@fws.gov
















Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 9/18/02









The Division of Education Outreach, National Conservation Training Center is working
with the University of Florida, School of Forest Resources Conservation to conduct a
Service-wide partnership survey. The Division of Education Outreach wishes to learn
what knowledge and skills you believe are needed for successful partnerships.

We are requesting that you be a member of our pilot test group. Very soon, you will
receive an e-mail message from the University of Florida requesting your assistance and
directing you to a web site that is hosting the survey. You will be asked to complete the
survey as well as participate in a follow-up telephone interview where you will be asked
to give feedback on the survey itself.

We appreciate your assistance with this effort. If you are unable to participate, simply
ignore the e-mail. All responses are anonymous and will be kept confidential.

Regards,
Dawn Lagrotteria
Chief, Education and Outreach Training
Division of Education Outreach
National Conservation Training Center
(304) 876-7339


Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 8/1/03









PILOT TEST Survey on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partnerships


Greetings:

You have been selected to pilot test a survey about conservation partnerships within the
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Your experience with partnerships and knowledge of the
Service will be very useful in this process.

The survey has been requested by the National Conservation Training Center. We hope to
explore staff perceptions of what is successful and where the needs are by determining
what skills you feel are necessary to be effective at creating and sustaining partnerships.

To participate in the pilot, we ask that you complete this survey on-line, within the next
two weeks, at the at the web address provided below:

[SurveyLink]

Shortly after you submit the survey, we would like to contact you for a follow up
interview to review your thoughts on the clarity and completeness of the survey. Please
indicate in the space at the end of the survey a date, time, and number when you might be
available for us to contact you.

You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. All responses are
anonymous and will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. There are no
known risks or benefits to your personal participation, and no compensation is offered.
The act of responding is an indication of your voluntary agreement.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of
Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or
mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be
directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL,
32611-2250, (352)392-0433. Thank you for your assistance with this project.


Sincerely,
Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher,
Martha Monroe, Associate Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
University of Florida


Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 8/1/03









Attached is a memo regarding a partnership needs assessment sponsored by the National
Conservation Training Center, Division of Education Outreach. The needs assessment is
being administered by the University of Florida. Next week, the persons on the attached
list will receive an e-mail from the University requesting their participation and directions
on how to complete the assessment. Please encourage those listed from your region to
complete the assessment. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please contact Dawn Lagrotteria at the National Conservation
Training Center, 304-876-7339.



United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 20240
VlDREi O!NLH 7-iE DRF. TO7r
FLlh AkD WIJDu]lI SERTIRbl(:TL
In Reply Refer to:
FWS/AEA/NCTC/DEO



Memorandum

To: Regional Directors, Assistant Directors

From: Assistant Director, External Afis r 0 *0 KnC

Subject: Partnership Needs Assessment

The National Conservation Training Center, Division of Education Outreach is conducting a
training needs assessment on partnerships within the Service. Building partnerships is one of
Director Steve Williams' three priorities, and partnerships are one of the tools that emphasize
Secretary Norton's 4 C's. Also, during a time of decreasing budgets and other resources,
partnerships can help us continue to meet the Service's mission.

The purpose of this needs assessment is to identify training needs within the area of partnerships
and to identify successful partnership case studies. This provides an excellent opportunity to
learn from some of the best examples of partnerships from our own Service colleagues. This
information will help NCTC to meet its mission and better serve its customers.

The Division of Education Outreach has identified individuals that represent a cross section of
the Service to receive this needs assessment. Please urge those within your Region who have
been chosen as potential responders to please complete the assessment. Your support in this
effort is greatly appreciated.


Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 3/10/04









Needs Assessment on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partnerships


Greetings:

You have been selected to complete a needs assessment about conservation partnerships
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Your experience and knowledge of the Service
will be very useful in this process.

This needs assessment has been requested by the National Conservation Training Center.
We are exploring staff perceptions of what is successful and where the needs are by
determining what skills you feel are necessary to be effective at creating and sustaining
partnerships. This information will be useful in preparing future NCTC courses and
opportunities to support partnerships.

To participate, we ask that you complete this needs assessment on-line, within the next
two weeks, at the at the web address provided below. Pretests show this takes just 20
minutes to complete.

[SurveyLink]

This website will provide an analysis of the responses without identifying the names of
the respondents. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer.
There are no known risks or benefits to your personal participation, and no compensation
is offered other than the deep satisfaction of helping to improve our ability to protect and
enhance resource conservation! The act of responding is an indication of your voluntary
agreement.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of
Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or
mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be
directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL,
32611-2250, (352)392-0433.

Thank you for your assistance with this project!

Sincerely,
Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher
Martha Monroe, Associate Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
University of Florida


Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 3/15/04









Needs Assessment Window of Opportunity Please help!


Greetings:

You may recall receiving an email from us last week asking you to complete an online
needs assessment. Unfortunately our timing wasn't quite right and shortly after the needs
assessment was sent to you, your internet connection was unplugged.

Since your internet connection has been re-established, at least temporarily, we would
appreciate it if you could take just 20 minutes to complete the needs assessment by
clicking on the link below:

[SurveyLink]

I just had my tonsils removed so the best way to reach me would be through email at
benderk@ufl.edu as I will not be able to talk on the telephone until next week.

Thanks in advance for your assistance with this project!

Sincerely,
Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher
Martha Monroe, Associate Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
University of Florida


Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 3/25/04









Partnership Needs Assessment Follow-up


Greetings:

Three weeks ago an electronic link to a needs assessment seeking your perceptions about
conservation partnerships with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was e-mailed to you.
Your name was selected by the National Conservation Training Center.

If you have already completed the needs assessment, please accept our sincere thanks. If
not, please do so as soon as possible. Because this needs assessment was sent to only a
small, but representative, sample of US Fish and Wildlife Service employees it is
extremely important that your response also be included in the study if the results are to
accurately represent the opinions of Service personnel. This information will be used to
identify opportunities to support your work in partnerships and in preparing future NCTC
courses.

To participate, we ask that you complete this needs assessment on-line at the web address
provided below. Pretests show this takes about 20 minutes to complete.

[SurveyLink]

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of
Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or
mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be
directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL,
32611-2250, (352)392-0433.

Thank you for your assistance with this project!

Sincerely,
Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher
Martha Monroe, Associate Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
University of Florida


Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 4/7/04









Partnership Needs Assessment Your Response Matters!


Greetings:

Several weeks ago an electronic link to a needs assessment seeking your perceptions
about conservation partnerships with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was e-mailed to
you. Your name was selected by the National Conservation Training Center.

If you have already completed the needs assessment, please accept our sincere thanks. If
not, please consider taking 20 minutes of your time to complete it. Because this needs
assessment was sent to only a small, but representative, sample of US Fish and Wildlife
Service employees it is extremely important that your response also be included in the
study if the results are to accurately represent the opinions of Service personnel. This
information will be used to identify opportunities to support your work in partnerships
and in preparing future NCTC courses.

To participate, we ask that you complete this needs assessment on-line at the web address
provided below.

[SurveyLink]

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristy Bender at the University of
Florida: (352)377-7362 or benderk@ufl.edu or Martha Monroe, (352) 846-0878 or
mcmonroe@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be
directed to the UFIRB Office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL,
32611-2250, (352)392-0433.

Thank you for your assistance with this project!

Sincerely,
Kristy Bender, Graduate Researcher
Martha Monroe, Associate Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
University of Florida


Letter e-mailed to employees by researcher on 4/26/04









This past year, you were one of the persons selected as part of a sample to complete a
partnership needs assessment being conducted by the Division of Education Outreach,
National Conservation Training Center, through a cooperative agreement with the
University of Florida. The person preparing the needs assessment report wants to provide
an overview of the titles of the persons in the sample to show validity of the sample.
Therefore, it is important to know the titles of all the persons in the needs assessment
sample, regardless if the person chose to complete the needs assessment or not.

This is a request to please e-mail me your title. It will be greatly appreciated.

Dawn Lagrotteria
Chief, Education and Outreach Training Branch
Division of Education Outreach
National Conservation Training Center
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
698 Conservation Way
Shepherdstown, WV 25443
(304) 876-7339


Letter e-mailed to employees by USFWS on 8/27/2004















APPENDIX B
INITIAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PARTNERSHIP
SURVEY



1. What kind of partnerships are you involved in? Who are the partners? Is your
agency the lead agency?

2. When you think about partnerships you work with how would you characterize
them?

3. Think of a successful partnership you have been involved with. Why was it
successful?

4. What are problems/potholes in the partnerships you have been involved with?
What tend to be the challenges?

5. What do staff need to do to be effective involved in these partnerships?















APPENDIX C
PAPER COPY OF FINAL ELECTRONIC SURVEY










Needs Assessment on
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partnerships






You have been selected by the Division of Education Outreach to participate in this needs
assessment. We appreciate your honest thoughts and reactions to the questions as they
will increase the agency's ability to provide appropriate training programs. The results of
this needs assessment will be reported anonymously and no names will be used.

PROTESTS SHOW THIS NEEDS ASSESSMENT TAKES 20 MINUTES TO
COMPLETE





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


2. What is your job title?


3. Please indicate which of the following best describes your work:
I spend the majority of my time in a "field setting" doing biological and other types of
outdoor work.
I spend the majority of my time in an "office setting" doing administrative, management,
and other types of indoor work.
I spend a fairly equal amount of time in both a field setting and office setting doing my
work.


4. Are you a supervisor in your current position?
Yes, I am currently a supervisor.
No, I am not currently a supervisor.


5. What is your academic background (professional field)?










6. In what region do you currently work?
Region 1 Pacific
Region 2 Southwest
Region 3 Midwest
Region 4 Southeast
Region 5 Northeast
Region 6 Mountain-Prairie
Region 7 Alaska
Region 9 Headquarters


7. Please indicate the definition that best fits your understanding of partnerships in the
USFWS:
a mandated project where you are assigned to work with another individual or
organization
any voluntary collaboration among organizations working toward a common objective
a voluntary collaboration of individuals, organizations, or both to achieve common goals
on a specific project within a definite time
If none of these completely capture your sense of the partnerships you work with, please
provide your definition below.


8. Have you had any formal partnership training?
No
Yes (please list the training below)


9. Approximately how many partnerships have you been involved in while working for the
USFWS? (circle one)

0 1 2-5 6-10 11-24 25+


10. While actively working on partnerships for the USFWS, approximately how many
hours per week do you spend doing partnership related work?

hours per week


11. Approximately how many weeks out of the year do you spend actively involved in
partnership activities?

weeks per year


12. To what degree is the accomplishment of your job goals related to the success of the
partnerships in which you work (i.e., to what extent is your job dependent on partnership
outcomes?)? (circle one)


51-75% 76-100%


0-25% 26-50%










13. Do you spend more time creating new partnerships or sustaining existing partnerships?
Creating new partnerships
Sustaining existing partnerships


14. Are the majority of partnerships you work with established by you or by someone else?
Established by me
Established by someone else


15. Are the majority of your partnerships planned or opportunistic?
Planned
Opportunistic


16. What is the primary expected outcome of the partnerships in which you are involved?
(check one)
Promote educational programs
Building community support
Habitat conservation/restoration
Endangered species protection/management
Controlling exotic species
Other species protection/management
New or improved relationships
Resolution of a natural resource conflict
Prevention of a natural resource conflict
General resource conservation
Other (please specify)












Please mark the response that best describes how you perceive the
following aspects of partnerships.

strongly strongly
disagree agree
disagree agree
Success is mostly due to the personalities of the
active partners
Success is mostly due to the skill of the
facilitator
The most successful partnerships occur when
partners come together naturally and are not
forced into cooperation
Most challenges to successful partnerships
occur within the agency
Partnerships are likely to fail if the partners
have no experience working in similar
situations
The success of partnerships does not depend on
personalities
People can't be taught how to create successful
partnerships
It is critical to have concrete results from your
involvement in the partnership
Very successful partnerships can occur with an
informal and unofficial agreement
The most important outcome from partnerships
is the relationships I build with partners
The most important outcome from partnerships
is the tangible benefits unique to each
partnership
It is important to develop relationships with
other partners on a personal level
Partnerships are a win/lose situation
We can accomplish a great deal more in
partnerships than we can accomplish alone
Partnerships take much more time than they are
worth
Engaging in a partnership is a process with a set
of steps and tasks it is a science
Engaging in a partnership is a flexible process
with a basic goal but no structure it is an art
Partnerships have no definitive end
Partnerships are easier when the partners can
meet face to face
It is easiest to work with people in your own
agency











strongly strongly
Disagree agree
disagree agree
I feel that I have nothing to offer in a
partnership setting
I can effectively represent my agency in a
partnership
I'm comfortable taking responsibility for a
partnership someone else established
I know how to locate and contact appropriate
partners
I have the necessary training to effectively
develop and implement a partnership
I have the skills I need to be a good team
member in a partnership setting
I am comfortable when working with partners
with disparate missions or goals
My motivation can overcome the challenges of
partnerships
If I fail once in a partnership I have little
interest in working on another partnership
My supervisor approves the time I need to
make my partnerships effective
My supervisor doesn't support my efforts in
partnerships
I am able to allocate the time I need to devote
to the partnership











Although you may be involved in multiple partnerships, for the purpose
of this section please focus on only one SUCCESSFUL partnership that
has had results.


1. If you do not have an example of a successful partnership please check the box below and
skip this section.
I have no example of a successful partnership.


2. How would you characterize the primary incentive behind the formation of this
partnership?
(check one)
To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies)
To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality)
To resolve an existing natural resource conflict
To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species)
To establish a new relationship
To improve existing relationships (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors)
Opportunity/circumstance
Other (please specify)


3. If there are other important incentives that led to the formation of this partnership,
please identify them (check all that apply).
To fulfill a federal natural resource mandate (ex. federal aid to state agencies)
To resolve a common natural resource problem (ex. habitat restoration, water quality)
To resolve an existing natural resource conflict
To prevent an anticipated natural resource conflict (ex. listing a new species)
To establish a new relationship
To improve existing relationships (ex. with agencies, communities, neighbors)
Opportunity/circumstance
Other (please specify)


4. Who were the partners? (check all that apply)
Federal Agency(ies)
State Agency(ies)
Local Government(s)
Tribes
Formal/Non-formal Educational Institution(s)
Private Individual(s)
Commercial/Industrial Enterprises
Non-commerical non-governmental organizations)
Other (please specify)










5. How many partners, including you, are ACTIVE in the partnership? (circle one)


10-19


20-35


6. How many partners, including you, are NOT ACTIVE in the partnership and participate
in name only? (circle one)


10-19


20-35


7. On what scale(s) is the partnership active?
International
National
Regional
State
Local


8. Below is a list of skills and abilities that may be necessary for individuals who are
involved in partnerships. To what extent do or did the Service employees working as a part
of this partnership exhibit these skills and abilities?
Please mark your answers where 1 = not at all evident, 3 = somewhat evident, and 5 = very
evident.

Not at
Sa Somewhat Very
all 2 4
al 2 evident evident
evident
Understanding federal and agency
regulations on partnerships for resource
management
Overcoming budget restrictions of partners
Finding financial resources
Finding FWS agency personnel to provide
assistance
Finding equipment
Having the academic background and/or
technical training you need to be an effective
member of the partnership
Having the partnership training you need to
be an effective participant
Knowing which structure to use for a
partnership
Knowing what paperwork needs to be
completed
Identifying appropriate partners
Knowing who in the community should be in
the partnership
Developing a timeline











Not at
all 2 Somewhat Very
l 2 evident evident
evident
Creating a common goal for the group
Articulating a shared vision for the group
Creating a written agreement for all
members
Developing a plan with clear, measurable
objectives
Being comfortable in a group setting
Increasing comfort level for new group
members
Effectively working with people who are in a
different power/authority level than your
own
Building trust among group members
Actively listening
Speaking clearly
Conveying technical information to others
who do not share your knowledge of the
subject
Being able to function when you are
delegated no authority to make decisions,
even if you are the FWS representative and
FWS is the lead agency
Knowing when the agency can accept
compromise
Accepting compromise willingly
Effectively working with antagonistic
partners
Not letting difficult situations bother you
Controlling your temper in difficult
situations
Accepting different points of view
Setting aside deeply held opinions
Finding a way to work with individuals who
can not speak effectively for their
agency/organization
Figuring out how to deal with disparate
missions of partners
Finding a way to work with individuals who
can not speak effectively for their
agency/organization
Figuring out how to deal with disparate
missions of partners
Thorough understanding of your partners'
background, mission, and goals
Knowing partners' roles in the partnership
Defining your role in the partnership





























9. Which skills and abilities were most responsible for your success in this partnership?
Please mark all the apply
Understanding federal and agency regulations on partnerships for resource management
Overcoming budget restrictions of partners
Finding financial resources
Finding FWS agency personnel to provide assistance
Finding equipment
Having the academic background and/or technical training you need to be an effective
member of the partnership
Having the partnership training you need to be an effective participant
Knowing which structure to use for a partnership
Knowing what paperwork needs to be completed
Identifying appropriate partners
Knowing who in the community should be in the partnership
Developing a timeline
Creating a common goal for the group
Articulating a shared vision for the group
Creating a written agreement for all members
Developing a plan with clear, measurable objectives
Being comfortable in a group setting
Increasing comfort level for new group members
Effectively working with people who are in a different power/authority level than your
own
Building trust among group members
Actively listening
Speaking clearly
Conveying technical information to others who do not share your knowledge of the
subject
Being able to function when you are delegated no authority to make decisions, even if you
are the FWS representative and FWS is the lead agency
Knowing when the agency can accept compromise
Accepting compromise willingly
Effectively working with antagonistic partners
Not letting difficult situations bother you


Not at
No Somewhat Very
all 2 4
al 2 evident evident
evident
Participating when you are not the lead
agency and/or have no clear authority
Effectively working with people outside of
your agency
Understanding the influence of Congress on
partnerships
Understanding the influence of the media on
partnerships
Understanding the influence of the current
administration on partnerships