Ok everyone, or at least those that are reading this.According to Verne's last email, the USCG is interested in our comments. I am one of those few that was around when the formula's were determined to measure the states effectiveness.This was one of my arguments then, and one I will make in this comment.This relates to the effectiveness of Law Enforcement program and vessel inspections.The formula of C (number of vessel inspections or 4 X the number of citations) X 1200 / # of registered boats = P3My issue then and today is what constitutes a valid vessel inspection. Before I became a BLA we, officers in the field just turned in the number of boat checks we did every 2 weeks. Our Compliance was calculated at that number divided by the number of citations and written warnings. Our compliance rating was around 89%.As a field officer, I called B.S. on that number and when I became a BLA, I worked with a couple of college computer programmers and we came up with a data base and a method to collect vessel inspection information. This required officers to record each vessel inspection and turn in the records weekly for data entry. Only these data entries counted towards an officers annual inspection count. The first year of doing this our compliance rating went from 89% to 49.8%, so tell me the old method was accurate. Today we range around 55 to 56%.The data system takes into account that we are recording the vessel information. If multiple citations, warnings, or arrest are made to the same boat, the system only counts it as one non-compliant boat. Under the old method, you could have one boat with 5 violations and the old addition/division system skews the true results.So here is my argument::If my system of hard documentation for a more precise method to measure compliance results in a 38 number for measurement of effectiveness vs. the old method of exaggerated numbers which would have resulted in a 89.6 number for measurement of effectiveness, then why is my program being penalized as a less than effective program compared to a state that still does it the old way???When looking at statistics and measurements, the method of collection should be standardized, or there should be correction factors. I bet an analysis of variance to this would be insane on its +/- variance. Within 75% maybe???Ok that is my rant???Stay safe and healthy.Major Dan Hesket
I downloaded the pdf from Connect and have attached my comments. I believe that most of my points have been captured, and a couple of observations may not be relevant as I learned more about this document.
I also attached a proposed revision of the accounting spreadsheet.
The media outreach additions should be self-explanatory. One thing that I'd like to point out in my proposal in this section is that there is a new column that asks for the "TOTAL Dollars spent on media outreach campaigns. The following columns then ask for "Percentage of media budget spent on …..?" and a performance indicator. I know this document is not intended to be a "survey," however, if people are taking the time to fill this out, the information should be useful. Asking these questions should get people to think about using the most efficient methods to reach people that produce the best return on investment.
I'm making some recommendations in the "Class section," which I believe will paint a better picture of the real world. I left the "NUMBER OF PERSONS ATTENDING STATE/NASBLA APPROVED COURSES" and "NUMBER OF PERSONS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING STATE/NASBLA APPROVED COURSES AND CERTIFICATES" heading. I sort of understand why the information listed under both headings might be useful. However, I believe one of these headings could be eliminated if there was a "Total Number of Official State Boating Certificates Issued." I think that knowing the "Total Number of Official State Boating Certificates Issued" is an important number to know and will become more important in the future.
To give us a better understanding of what organizations are providing boating education in the US. I'm also suggesting that the boating education course provider category be better defined. I've edited the existing USCG categories and added a new one. (Bold red text is new.)
- STATE Agency Taught
- For-Profit Company Taught
- COAST GUARD AUXILIARY Taught
- US POWER SQUADRON Taught
I'm not sure why the USCG Aux and Power Squadrons are called out specifically. Doing this and not providing a place to count the for-profit companies providing boating education in the US does not give an accurate accounting of where boaters are getting their education.
I wanted to clarify the "State" category. To do this, I added "Agency Taught" to indicate the number of boating courses a state agency provided the public using its resources and taught by state employees and volunteers. It does NOT count "state-authorized" courses offered by for-profit companies. The "For-Profit Company Taught" category would count all the classes taught by a for-profit company authorized to deliver boating education in that state.
© 2019 National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
Site by eConverse Media