WETF Final ReportJuly2008

• Project Type: General OWC
• Project Name: Water Education Task Force
• Title: Water Education Task Force Final Report
• Date: 10/1/2008
• County: Statewide
• Water Conservation - Doc Type: Final Report

funding agencies. These limitations also suggest improving opportunities to collaborate and
leverage resources might increase effectiveness throughout the water education community.
Five budget categories (see Table 1) were used to assess
differences between how questions were answered. For
instance, the lower the budget, the less likely respondents
were to indicate they had evaluation mechanisms in place for
their programs. Program budgets are discussed in the next
section in the context of the types of water education available
throughout Colorado.
Table 1 Budget Categories
Less than $5,000
$5, 000 to $25, 000
$25, 000-$50, 000
$50, 000 - $100, 000
Over $100, 000
Audience, Content, and Contact Time
A series of questions were designed to characterize the water education provided by the survey
respondents. Questions focused on the types of education provided, audiences reached,
content, and resources. The range of opportunities (types of education) varied from brochures
to multi-day residential programs. This is an extremely vast scope, ranging from information
only pieces (e.g., brochures) to education programs focusing on participants learning through
water related activities and service projects.
A diversity index was created for educational audience, type, and content area. Each of the
questions relating to these indices allowed respondents to select more than one answer. If
respondents tended to select many answers, then diversity scores increase. The fewer answers
selected, the lower the diversity index score by budget category. Budgets less than $5,000
tended to have the lowest diversity score, while budgets over $100,000 had the greatest
diversity in the type of educational delivery method used and the audiences reached. Budgets
between $25,000 and $50,000 had the highest topic score, showing the broadest number of
topics, with less focus. The number of audiences reached was the only index that increased
directly compared to budgets.
These results indicate that water education providers in the lowest budget category are
generally focused, perhaps out of necessity or mission driven reasons, on who they reach, how
they reach these individuals and about which topics they educate theirtarget audiences. Those
with the largest budgets illustrated a tendency to be more focused on educational topic than
those with budgets in the middle range. However, the largest budget category did diversify in
how they delivered the message and to whom they delivered it. These results may be skewed
by the numerous statewide programs in this budget category, and sizeable local programs may
have a need to be diverse in the types of educational topics they cover.
The median number of adults reached by each program increased with budget size, though
budget categories from $5,000-$25,000 and $50,000-$100,000 reach more adults overall. Some
of these results may be skewed because several programs in these categories reach large
numbers of adults through publications. Publications were in the top three educational types
used by the three middle budget categories. The pattern is even stronger for youth. Budgets in
the $5,000-$25,000 range reported reaching the most youth in total, as well as, the most per
respondent. Further investigation is necessary to understand the nature of this pattern to
determine if these higher numbers can fully be explained by use of publication materials.
Although youth are more often the reported target audience of survey respondents, nearly two
thirds of those reported reached are adults. Further exploration needs to be done to determine
(1) if the difference is due to mailings and other mass media outlets, (2) if there are more adult
programs, (3) if the primary outlet for educating youth were not adequately represented in the
WETF 2008 Final Report pg. 7