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….