National Spatial Data Infrastructure Partnership Programs: Rethinking the Focus (2001)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 19 and the experiences of a wide range of users in both the public and private sector. It should also be noted that in February 2000, the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) issued a Request for Proposals (UCGIS, 2000a) for an assessment of FGDC’s funding programs, “…to better understand their effectiveness, to determine whether the grants are the most effective means to achieve the NSDI goals, and to help guide future grant efforts.” The UCGIS study, being carried out by the Department of Geography at SUNY at Buffalo, is being funded under a contract between UCGIS and FGDC. We expect that, when completed, the UCGIS study will add substantially to our knowledge of the effectiveness of these programs, and will complement the content of this present report. An important element of this study is an assessment of reasons why organizations have decided not to participate in the NSDI partnership programs. NSDI COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM In 1994, the FGDC initiated the NSDI Cooperative Agreements Program (CAP) (1994; p. 1) “…to help form partnerships with the non-federal sector that will assist in the evolution of the NSDI. The goal is to encourage resource- sharing projects through the use of technology, networking, and more efficient interagency coordination…” This program is now in its seventh year. It funds activities that promote the goals of NSDI, and is designed to provide relatively small amounts of money that leverage local sources and stimulate new activity, particularly new partnerships. By keeping the funding amounts small and limiting its awards to seed funding for one year, CAP strives to initiate long- term activity while avoiding long-term dependency on federal funding. As a consequence of policy decisions and budget priorities, the nature and size of the program and the types of projects funded have varied considerably from year to year: 1994 —Approximately $250,000 was distributed among nine projects. 1995 —Projects that developed and used metadata tools were emphasized; $625,000 was allocated to 22 projects. 

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 20 1996 —$1.1 million supported 31 projects, with an emphasis on Framework development. 1997 —$1.2 million was allocated to support 36 projects, with an emphasis on projects involving many cooperating groups. 1998 —$1 million was given to 31 projects; for the first time federal agencies were eligible for funding. 1999 —$1.8 million was used to support 95 projects under the Don’t Duck Metadata program (see below). The funding success rate was very high (95 of 108), but the grants were smaller than in previous years. Before 1999, funding success rates had averaged 35 to 40 percent. 2000 —$1 million was distributed among 45 projects, supporting the Don’t Duck Metadata initiative, Framework Demonstration projects (see below), and for the first time the Open GIS Consortium’s Web Mapping Testbed was supported with four successful projects. 2001 —$1 million is available for partnership projects, distributed among Don’t Duck Metadata, integration of clearinghouse nodes with the Web Mapping Testbed, and U.S.-Canadian Framework collaborative projects. To be eligible for CAP funding, a proposal must involve a partnership among agencies, and non-federal partners must provide matching funding of at least 25 percent of total project costs. Successful CAP projects have usually included an emphasis on improvement of local government decision making. The funds have been used to encourage new partnerships that can build on existing expertise. They have typically addressed one or more of three fundamental areas of data sharing: improving the way users find or access data through the development of clearinghouses; improving the integrity or usability of data through the creation of metadata; and creating or maintaining the data themselves. A few projects have simply promoted the concepts of the NSDI or provided training and educational opportunities. Several practical problems have arisen in the management of CAP funding. Since the grant competition is based on an annual cycle, some states with a biennial budget process have not been able to respond in a timely manner. Furthermore, because the grants are fairly small, institutional oversight has not always been adequate. For example, a few 

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 21 grants have been awarded to smaller agencies that are not part of a statewide coordinated effort. In fact, some awards have detracted from long-term state objectives by diverting resources from data conversion efforts. The FGDC has resisted requiring state geographic information councils to approve proposals, but does look for consistency with state strategic plans. It also favors proposals that appear to promote attention to NSDI issues at the state level; however, the FGDC has no formal mechanism to ensure that the funds are compatible with local goals. Over the past seven years, every state except North Dakota has presented a successful proposal. Although the committee has not conducted a comprehensive analysis of the success and impact of all of these awards, anecdotal evidence suggests that some states have certainly utilized the CAP funds to assist and promote ongoing efforts. States that have been most successful in gaining awards tend also to be most actively involved in other aspects of the NSDI. For example, they are likely to have established a state geographic information council, developed a clearinghouse node, or had a high response rate to the 1998 NSGIC Framework Data Survey. The ultimate success of the NSDI will depend on nationwide acceptance. While it is unlikely that each of the thousands of local government entities will endorse the objectives of sharing spatial data, it would be reasonable to expect every state to participate. The FGDC, in conjunction with NSGIC, could establish a virtual organization (an “Interactive Town Square,” see OMB, 2000) to keep everyone informed and make organizations aware of opportunities. Efforts could be made through the National Governors Organization to designate a key office in a state that would be charged with the responsibility of handling communication with the FGDC. The FGDC could also concentrate on educational or training sessions that could be offered regionally. This would encourage regional participation and minimize the cost to participants. In September 1997 the FGDC produced its own assessment of the CAP, based on the period 1994 through 1996 (FGDC, 1997b). The FGDC report examined program effect from three perspectives: • Program output: were project objectives achieved? • Intermediate outcome: are project efforts being continued beyond the funding period? 

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 22 • Long-term impact: are the tenets of the NSDI being incorporated into the programs of non-federal organizations? The FGDC’s information was obtained from final project reports as well as from questionnaires sent to the 62 funding recipients, 52 of whom responded. The FGDC assessment concluded that the CAP is: • adding structure and discipline to the process of building a national information resource; • helping state governments, libraries, universities, local government organizations, and private sector entities become anchor tenants on the NSDI and thereby attracting others to use and become a part of the infrastructure; • helping to form data-sharing partnerships that are still continuing, that might otherwise not have happened; • increasing the level of collaboration across agencies, and bringing attention to organizations that has led to new collaborative activities; • showing the non-federal community the importance of documenting data to standards that will make the data useful in multiple applications; • raising the level of information technology skills in the geospatial data user community as project collaborators train people in their local communities, who in turn become trainers of others; • building the accumulation of experience and knowledge that others can use to reduce the uncertainties associated with investing in new ideas and technologies and, ultimately, lower their costs; • showing the non-federal sector the feasibility of some applications that they might otherwise have passed over; • changing, in some cases, agencies that have historically been information repositories to being customer-driven service providers; • extending access to the NSDI to new constituencies and to organizations and communities that typically are not on ‘the geospatial information highway’; and • clearly demonstrating that as completed projects have time to mature and grow, organizations are realizing more benefits than originally anticipated.