Upload
cnelsen
View
378
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Campaign Prioritization
Why?
Value of prioritization
• Focus
• Shared understanding
• Clear expectations
• Departmental
collaboration
What it doesn’t mean
• Low priority campaigns are not important• Your work is less valued• Campaigns won’t get support
3 level evaluation
1.Chapter campaigns
2.Action Index vs. Funding
3.Campaign impact matrix
2011 Process
Campaign RAP NTA Coastal Preservation
Water Quality
KYH2O Ocean Ecosystems
Beach Access
Scales Network ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗Big, decisive win ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗Fundable by 50% or more ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗Ability to lead - - ✓ ✗ ✓ - ✓Effective partners ✓ ✓ ✗ - ✗ ✓ ✗
2010 Campaign Impact Matrix
Results: 2011 Priorities
1 RAP2 NTA3 KYH20– OFG
4 Ocean Ecosystems5 Beach Preservation6 Water Quality7 Beach Access
2012 Prioritization
2010
RAP
Coastal Preservation
Ocean Ecosystems
NTA
Clean Water
KYH20
Beach Access
Top Chapter Campaign Areas
2011
Clean Water
Coastal Preservation
Beach Access
Ocean Ecosystems
RAP
KYH20
NTA?
2011Clean Water (22)
BWTF (20)
Coastal Preservation (18)
OFG (~15)
Beach Access (13)
Ocean Ecosystems (11)
RAP*(10)
KYH20* (6)
NTA?
Campaign
• Beginning, middle & end
• Target -> decision maker
• Outcome: victory or loss
Program
• Ongoing
• No victory (as we define it)
• Can have the ground results
• Can lead to campaigns
Campaign RAP NTA Coastal Preservation
Water Quality
KYH2O
Ocean Ecosystems
Beach Access
OFG BWTF
Scales Network ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ (✓) ✓ ✓Big, decisive win
✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗Fundable by 50% or more
(✓)
✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓
Ability to lead - (✗
)✓ ✗ ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓
Effective partners ✓ ✓ ✗ - ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗
2011 Campaign Impact Matrix
Additional considerations?
Campaign timelinesControversy (NTA, MPAs)MembershipConservation value….