TO: Napa County Wildlife Conservation Commission
FROM: Dana Morrison, Secretary to the Wildlife Conservation Commission
REPORT BY: Pam Arifian, Planner III
SUBJECT: Process Improvements: Survey Responses
RECOMMENDATION
title
Review and accept results from a survey of past grant recipients on their perspectives of grant award process.
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Review and accept results from a survey of past grant recipients on their perspectives of grant award process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Not a “project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Following direction from the WCC at the February 23, 2026 meeting, Staff created a brief survey and distributed to recent grant award recipients (21 contacts from 12 different organizations). Following a two-week response period (March 24, 2026 to April 8, 2026), Staff received eight (8) to nine (9) anonymous responses from past recipients. The responses are summarized below; please refer to Attachment 7B to read complete responses.
Question 1. “How satisfied are you with the grant application and decision-making process?”
Responses (9):
• 44% “satisfied”
• 33% “dissatisfied”
• 11% “very satisfied”
• 11% “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”
Question 2. “What specific improvements could be made to the grant selection process to make it more efficient?”
Responses (8):
• Emphasis on providing maximum grant amounts available or likely to be funded (3 responses)
• Emphasis on not having applicants present for discussion of merits (2 responses)
• Emphasis on creating a clear, structured and measurable scoring rubric (2 responses)
• Suggestion that Commissioners scores applications ahead of public meeting (1 response)
• Additional suggestions regarding clarity about allowable expenses, and acknowledgement that some costs are necessary if not “glamorous”
Question 3. “What improvements could be made to provide more clarity regarding the structure of the grant or decision process?”
Responses (8):
• Emphasis on the existing biases, vague priorities, and arbitrary decisions, with suggestions for more structured system for rating or scoring applications (5 responses).
Question 4. “Do you feel the time allotted for in-person presentations is adequate? Would you like more time? Or do you prefer to let the application materials speak for themselves and not provide a presentation?”
Responses (8):
• Presentations are valuable (5 responses)
• Presentations unnecessary or too big a lift (4 responses)
• Presentation time limit is adequate (3 responses)
• Presentation time limit is too short (3 responses)
• Support for being able to answer questions (4 responses)
Question 5. “Are there any other general comments, concerns, or kudos related to the Napa County WCC grant program?”
Responses (8):
• Appreciation for support (5 responses)
• Appreciation for community of applicants and commissioners (2 responses)
• Reporting requirements are appropriate
• Grateful for soliciting feedback (2 responses)
• Suggestion to have presentations be part of reporting (2 responses)