Laserfiche WebLink
lesser extent, the southwest region. These results are not necessarily indicative of the absence <br />of water education programs in these communities; however, they may indicate opportunities to <br />further reach out to these communities with already existing materials in use elsewhere in <br />Colorado. Attempts were made to reach rural communities with the survey; however a more <br />focused effort might need to be used to garner a more complete understanding of the water <br />education happening in these communities. <br />While less than 1/4 of all respondents indicated they conducted education on a statewide scale, <br />more than 50% of those with budgets over $100,000 did so. Statewide entities receive the vast <br />majority of reported state funding and more than 112 of total revenues. These results indicate <br />significant investment in the statewide approach. However, it cannot be assumed that every <br />statewide respondent reaches every community. Additional investigations are necessary to <br />determine if some of the counties who did not report local programs are adequately receiving <br />water education through statewide providers. <br />There are a number of water education resources (e.g., materials, programs, curriculum, etc.) in <br />the state for providers. Respondents indicated the use of Project WET materials more than <br />twice as often as any other material. Other resources or organizations that have significant <br />traction among the community of respondents included Project WILD, Colorado Foundation for <br />Water Education, Colorado State University, American Water Works Association, and the <br />Environmental Protection Agency. <br />There may be significant opportunities for water education providers to reach out to those <br />entities who reported limited access to resources. The online Colorado Alliance for <br />Environmental Education searchable database and the Colorado Foundation forUater <br />Education website link educators to resources. These efforts could be improved, and additional <br />outreach to providers about these efforts may be necessary. <br />Program Budgets <br />Throughout the focus group discussions and the survey answers, insufficient time and money <br />appeared to be major barriers forwater education providers. <br />Respondents were asked to estimate their organization's annual budget and income for water <br />education. <br />Overall, the specified annual amount of revenue forwater education was reported as <br />$7,301,345. This amount comes from various sources, such as federal, state, and local <br />government, school districts, higher education, nonprofit grants, business donations, private <br />donations, or feeslretail sales. Respondents indicated that $1,606,000 came from state sources, <br />which was the second largest contribution to total revenues. Local government was the largest <br />contributor, with $1,836,550 in revenues. Local government contributions were the largest factor <br />for smaller program budgets, while state sources were the largest contributorfor programs with <br />budgets over $50,000. <br />The removal of monetary limitations can often resolve limited staff and time as barriers to <br />implementing education programs. These two limitations (money and staff) were listed by the <br />majority of respondents. Fifty six percent of respondents who provided budgetary information <br />indicated that they conduct water education for less than $5,000 annually, and respondents that <br />have budgets over $100,000 indicated with the most frequency that money is a limiting factor. <br />Such limited resources should provide additional incentive to further understanding the <br />effectiveness and traction of programs within their communities, and focus for federal and state <br />WETF 2008 Final Report pg. 6 <br />