Share |

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER): New England Chapter

 962 Wayne Avenue, Suite 610
 Silver Spring, MD 20910
[P] (202) 265-7337
[F] (202) 265-4192
Kirsten Stade
Facebook Twitter
 Printable Profile (Summary / Full)
EIN 93-1102740

LAST UPDATED: 02/27/2019
Organization DBA PEER
New England PEER
Former Names --
Organization received a competitive grant from the Boston Foundation in the past five years No



Mission StatementMORE »

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for local, state, federal and tribal law enforcement officers, scientists, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values.

Mission Statement

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for local, state, federal and tribal law enforcement officers, scientists, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values.

FinancialsMORE »

Fiscal Year Nov 01, 2012 to Oct 31, 2013
Projected Income $77,500.00
Projected Expense $70,966.00

ProgramsMORE »

  • New England PEER

Revenue vs. Expense ($000s)

Expense Breakdown 2012 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2011 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2010 (%)

For more details regarding the organization's financial information, select the financial tab and review available comments.


Mission Statement

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for local, state, federal and tribal law enforcement officers, scientists, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values.

Background Statement

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) was established in 1992 by a U.S. Forest Service employee, and, over the past 20 years has grown rapidly as a crucial resource for government scientists, law officers, and other field specialists dedicated to responsible stewardship of the environment.  
PEER’s mission is to protect public employees who protect our environment.  While PEER provides legal representation for whistleblowers, we also strive to avoid putting employees in whistleblower situations by allowing them to work as “anonymous activists” so that public agencies must confront the message, rather than the messenger. As a result, PEER is a powerful transparency agent, powered by the best and brightest of our public agency experts.
Our constituency is the roughly quarter of a million specialists working inside pollution control, public health and resource protection agencies across the country.  No other entity serves this constituency or taps its expertise to further the public interest.  While PEER often functions as a national shelter for battered staff, our goal is to empower these public servants to better serve the public – and survive to tell the tale.
Every day, we are contacted by public employees struggling with issues of scientific suppression, lax or non-enforcement, corporate influence detracting from public protections and failure of public agencies to address, or even admit, growing dangers to public health or environmental integrity.  We assist these people in redressing these issues using a variety of techniques – from legal intervention to media exposés.
Anchored by our Washington, DC headquarters, PEER operates a series of field offices in California, , Colorado, Tennessee, Florida, and Massachusetts.  These offices are run almost exclusively by former public employees, whose experiences confronting environmental malfeasance within their agencies led them to pursue public service in the non-profit sector.  These field offices enable us to project our services far beyond the Beltway and allow us to impact state as well as federal policy and practices.  

Impact Statement

For more than two decades PEER has been on the front lines of protecting public employees who protect the environment. In the past quarter century, we have:
  1. Shut the pathway for lead poisoning for 1.4 million children under age 7 living in 5 million older residential units with lead paint. A PEER lawsuit forced long-overdue rules requiring that all repairs and renovations on these older houses and apartments be conducted in a lead-safe manner.
  2. Strengthened protections for federal whistleblowers through litigation, such as restoring U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers and negotiating the biggest federal whistleblower settlement. These victories not only created groundbreaking case law but also forced a measure of that most elusive element – accountability.
  3. Created safeguards for government scientists and the integrity of their research. This work includes not only new legal protections for scientists but our efforts validating their technical work and exposing official acts of scientific fraud and censorship.
  4. Won important government reforms, such as preventing losses of billions by insulating federal land appraisals from political influence and exposing how the Army Corps of Engineers cooks its books on cost-benefit analyses to falsely justify multi-billion dollar projects. This latter case caused the removal of two generals and a colonel, blocked Congressional authorization of any new navigation projects for six years and framed an issue carrying the shorthand name “Corps Reform.”
  5. Shielded public lands from abuse by uprooting all genetically modified crops from wildlife refuges, and halting off-road vehicles from destroying national forests, parks, and fragile desert lands.
  6. Defended wildlife by winning steps to prevent ship-strikes on the highly endangered North Atlantic right whale and harassment of manatees by “swim-with” tourists. PEER is a leader is fighting against the militarization of wildlife management.
  7. Forced adoption of safeguards for human exposure testing of pesticides and other toxins. This follows our expose of EPA endorsing testing insecticides on toddlers in an infamous experiment it was forced to cancel.

Needs Statement

Our top five needs are—

1.    Ensuring adequate financial support for our field offices in order to keep highly qualified personnel for long-terms.  
2.    Making our litigation program completely self-supporting.  Vagaries of litigation cause this program to be feast or famine;
3.    Creating a steady major donors program remains a current need;
4.    Coping with the year-to-year shift in foundation support, especially in the absence of multi-year grants, is a major issue;
5.    Effectively marshaling social media to broaden the footprint of our disclosures is a current need.

CEO Statement

I have been with PEER since its earliest days and it has never been dull or routine.  Each phone call carries the potential of a blockbuster disclosure or could start a collaboration that takes months or years to run its course.

Several aspects of how we work are worth noting:

•    Extremely Cost-Effective Form of Activism
PEER relies on the expertise of the specialists inside the public agencies, so we have no need for staff scientists or researchers.  Instead, we are merely redeploying the information we, as taxpayers, have already paid for but that has been hidden away behind layers of bureaucracy. As a result, we get more bang for the very few bucks invested than any other group.

•    Laser-Guided Strikes
Because we are guided by the agencies’ own experts, we often begin operations with a precise roadmap for where an effort is going.  These are both subject-matter experts as well as veterans versed in the folkways of their agencies.  Thus, we have insight as to what pressures will move decision-makers and why.  Since our principal aim is to change official behavior, we are custom-designed to accomplish that end.

•    Assistance to Other Groups
Nobody does what PEER does but our efforts often provide the inside validation for outside criticism from conventional environmental groups. Our insider disclosures thus strengthen their credibility and clout – all boats rise when PEER pulls into port.  

Not surprisingly, we often partner with other mainstream groups to more effectively achieve mutual ends.

While we work on the environmental front, what sets us apart is that we are exclusively at the service of public servants.  This translates into the following:
  • All communications with PEER are confidential. We can use no material provided to us, no matter how explosive, without the explicit consent of the source; and

  • The welfare of the public employee is a paramount value – we are not looking for martyrs.  In this regard, talking employees out of blowing the whistle in order to pursue a safer course is often the best thing we do.  Our target ecosystem is the agency culture and we want to keep as many good conscientious employees in place as possible.

As many of these employees are facing career jeopardy, we strive to earn their trust.  Winning their confidence takes time and requires continuity.  We are proud of the long term commitment of our field network, especially but not limited to Kyla Bennett.

Maintaining this field presence requires that we constantly reach out to new foundation supporters who see our work as furthering their missions.

Board Chair Statement

Statement from Board Chair Frank Buono:
I grew up in a public housing project on the West Side of Manhattan; about as far from nature and protected areas as you can get.   Was there a better place to come to appreciate open spaces, clean air and unimpeded vistas?   I dedicated my career to protecting those values both for me and for millions of others present and yet to come.   PEER represents government employees who labor in that vineyard, especially those who risk their careers to apply the laws our nation has enacted over decades to maintain clean water, air, parks, forests and wildlife.   This is no small task.  Enormous pressures - political and economic - militate against these goals.   PEER is dedicated to a fundamental premise that no employee who does the right thing for our environment should be treated unjustly.         

Geographic Area Served

The PEER New England office, as its name implies, serves public employees in all six states of the region: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts.  In many instances, our work with federal employees based in New England transcends the region and serves larger areas, such as the Atlantic Seaboard.  In other instances, our work with state employees uncovers issues in common with another state or multiple states which may entail follow-up by other PEER offices.

Organization Categories

  1. Environment - Natural Resources Conservation & Protection
  2. Environment - Alliances & Advocacy
  3. -

Independent research has been conducted on this organization's theory of change or on the effectiveness of this organization's program(s)



New England PEER

New England PEER operates out of a LEED-certified home office in Easton, Mass.  While much of the exchanges with employees take place by email or phone, Kyla Bennett frequently travels throughout the region.

From her more than 25 years of work in the region, Kyla has an extensive network of cooperating experts in each of the six states and all of the most relevant federal agencies, such as EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, NOAA and even the Defense agencies.  In addition, she has links to several environmental programs in area law schools and graduate programs which, on occasion, take on PEER projects in their clinical programs.
Her work is supported by the PEER legal and program staff, such that much of the legal research and brief drafting in done in DC.  Similarly, media, outreach and fundraising are conducted out of DC in partnership with her. Thus, Kyla is freed to do almost exclusively program work with as little administrative or other burdens as possible.
Budget  $60,000.00
Category  Environment, General/Other Environment, General/Other
Population Served US
Program Short-Term Success  Short-term success measures include –

•    Providing direct legal assistance to more than 100 public employees facing ethical challenges in New England every year.  Besides legal counseling to resolve problems, PEER provides direct formal legal representation to those in whistleblower situations;

•    Establishing a safe and secure forum for airing government malfeasance or nonfeasance that is jeopardizing environmental quality or resource protection that is known to public employees on a region-wide basis.  The result is that public servants will know where to turn when their careers and conscience come into conflict; and

•    Creating high-profile examples of how ventilating suppressed information has altered agency behavior without triggering official retaliatory witch hunts.  Well known successes provide employees with a roadmap on how their problems may be addressed.
Program Long-Term Success  Long-term success flows from a long-term operation of the PEER program in New England.  Where the program has been in place (PEER is 20 years old), we have observed –

•    A greater measure of true transparency in government operations because managers know that employees have the option of using PEER as a safe conduit for any materials they seek to keep hidden behind closed doors.

•    Stronger protections for wild lands because the public service specialists dedicated to those resources have the option of using PEER on their own time to secure the safeguards that elude them in their official capacities; and

•     Agencies are forced to openly confirm public health hazards, especially from chemical contamination, which have yet to see the light of day.  The ventilation of these issues is often the most powerful incentive for officials to address them.
Program Success Monitored By  Each program area carries with it its own measures of success:  

In the Significant Habitats program, the sole measure is the number and size of the designations we achieve through our administrative or legal actions.

In the Aerial Spraying program, our success will be measured by 1) public admissions of the ineffectiveness of aerial spraying; 2) the extent of genuine consideration for alternatives to spraying; and 3) the rigor of monitoring of pesticide drift into water-bodies, especially drinking water sources.
For the PPCP Pollution program, one key measure is the movement by federal regulators to evaluate environmental consequences before approving new antimicrobial drugs or reauthorizing existing uses.  Other metrics include enactment of legislation to require new water filtration systems in certain high risk situations.  How much chemical load we prevent from entering freshwaters, especially drinking water, is the ultimate measure.  
Examples of Program Success  Examples of program success include –

•    Helping win a lawsuit to safeguard the rights of all Conservation Commissioners in Massachusetts townships to do their jobs without political interference;

•    Led the successful campaign to win ship speed limits and course corrections to save the remaining endangered North Atlantic right whales from extinction by ship strikes;

•    Saved Maine’s Sears Island, the largest undeveloped island on the Atlantic seaboard, from conversion into a mega-cargo port;

•    Exposed that auto emissions testing administered in Massachusetts could not tell the difference between cars belching high levels of pollution and those running cleanly. The disclosures led to the abandonment of the flawed program; and

•    Protected Massachusetts’ largest freshwater swamp from development, while leading other successful efforts to safeguard several of the last best places in the Bay State.

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

While the mix of New England PEER’s work can change with one phone call from an employee, here are three employee-driven programs being pursued now:

1.    Significant Habitats of Massachusetts
This effort seeks to safeguard lands needed for the survival of rare plants and animals in the Commonwealth.  Our strategy is reinvigorating existing legal authority that has become moribund from disuse.

In 1990, the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act directed the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) to designate “significant habitats” for endangered or threatened species.  In fact, the Director is required to designate such habitats on a yearly basis.  In the intervening 23 years, no significant habitats have been designated.  

PEER is preparing legal petitions demanding that DFW designate significant habitat based upon its own maps and criteria.  If the Director does not act, we will go to court to compel action.  

2.    Exposing the Dangerous Public Health Hoax of Aerial Spraying
As mosquito-borne diseases such as Human Eastern Equine Encephalitis and West Nile Virus spread, states and municipalities are seizing on aerial pesticide spraying as the main tool in their arsenals.  In the last year, aerial spraying has become prevalent in New England, especially in Massachusetts.
While spraying gives the illusion of risk reduction, in reality, it is largely ineffective, counterproductive and harmful to public health and the environment.  PEER is conducting an aerial spraying counter-campaign to 1) convince authorities and the public of the folly of aerial spraying; 2) enforce clean water and other laws that restrain the amount and manner of aerial spraying; and 3) pursue effective alternatives, especially vaccines in use for years which are effective against both Human Eastern Equine Encephalitis and West Nile Virus.

3.    Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water
Our freshwater habitats are increasingly affected by pollution in the form of chemicals that are components of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs).  Despite being linked to growing rates of genetic mutation in aquatic life, this pollution is largely unregulated.  

Our program for keeping this new contamination out of our water supply includes:
•    Legal action to eliminate non-therapeutic antimicrobial drugs in livestock;
•    Draft legislation requiring consideration of water resources in the siting of hospitals and care facilities. We plan to expand this Massachusetts effort regionally, and then nationwide; and
•    Promising new wastewater treatments with the potential to remove significantly more PPCPs using artificial wetlands to filter out chemicals.


CEO/Executive Director Mr. Jeff Ruch
CEO Term Start Jan 1992
CEO Email
CEO Experience Jeff Ruch has been the Executive Director of PEER since 1997. With Jeff DeBonis, he helped to start PEER and for its first four years served as General Counsel & Program Director. Prior to that Jeff was the Policy Director and a staff attorney at the Government Accountability Project representing whistleblowers from both the public and private sector. Before coming to DC, Jeff worked in California state government for 17 years, mostly in the State Legislature as counsel to various committees where he drafted literally hundreds of laws on topics ranging from energy conservation to the rights of employed inventors. Jeff served stints as a deputy district attorney, an appellate court clerk and is a graduate of the California Correctional Officers Academy.
Co-CEO --
Co-CEO Term Start --
Co-CEO Email --
Co-CEO Experience --

Former CEOs and Terms

Name Start End
-- -- --

Senior Staff

Name Title Experience/Biography
Ms. Kyla Bennett New England PEER Director

PEER's New England Office opened in November of 2001, although PEER has been active throughout New England since 1994. New England PEER's Director,Kyla Bennett, previously worked at EPA Region 1 for 10 years as a wetland permit reviewer and as the Region's Wetlands Enforcement Coordinator. Kyla first became involved with PEER in the mid 1990s, when she became a whistleblower herself.

"I was dismayed to see politics trumping science and law in EPA's permit and enforcement decision-making," says Kyla. "When EPA's former Regional Administrator ordered me to change a scientific determination to make politicians and the White House happy, I refused. EPA responded by taking me off the case in question, and by attempting to change my job duties. PEER not only helped me get my job back, but shed enough light on the case so that ultimately, the right decision was made."

Kyla has a Ph.D. in ecology from the University of Connecticut and a law degree from Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. Her familiarity with science, the law, and the inner workings of state and federal governmental agencies enable her to assist public environmental employees throughout New England.

Ms. Paula Dinerstein Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein is PEER’s Senior Counsel and an attorney with 18 years of experience. She received her law degree from the George Washington University National Law Center. Prior to joining PEER, she clerked for a federal district court judge in Washington DC and then practiced with small public-interest oriented law firms. Her work included representation of States and advocacy groups in energy and environmental matters, including recovery for overcharges by oil companies for use in state energy conservation programs, challenges to EPA pesticide registrations, challenges to hydroelectric licenses, and litigation concerning regulations which weakened the federal organic food standards.


Award Awarding Organization Year
-- -- --


Affiliation Year
-- --
Member of state association of nonprofits? No
Name of state association --

External Assessments and Accreditations

External Assessment or Accreditation Year
-- --


We frequently collaborate with other whistleblower protection, right-to-know and good government groups and rights organizations on issues of free speech and scientific suppression.  Similarly, we work in partnership with a wide array of conservation groups on the underlying issues raised by agency employees.  Typically our role in these alliances is to provide the “inside” validation from the agency’s own experts to the outside criticism.

While we work on an array of issues in common with these groups, what sets us apart is that we are trying to change the culture of the agencies—as well as their behavior.  We seek to accomplish these changes by empowering those within government agencies to use their First Amendment freedom of association in order to vindicate their First Amendment freedom of speech.

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

Diversity Statement:
PEER’s staff and board reflect the slowly improving diversity of the environmental movement. One-sixth of PEER’s headquarters staff is African-American, ten percent of our field staff is Native American and another ten percent are Latino. The majority of our staff members, and one-fourth of our board, are women.
The constituencies that we serve, however, have an ethnic, socioeconomic and geographic variety as broad as American public service, with significant PEER work on behalf of Native American issues, environmental justice concerns and workplace tolerance and diversity.
Our work also promotes diversity by engaging public employees of all ages, races, and ethnic backgrounds, who may not otherwise have been involved in environmental activism, in meaningful work for environmental change.

Foundation Comments


Staff Information

Number of Full Time Staff 4
Number of Part Time Staff 2
Number of Volunteers 6
Number of Contract Staff 6
Staff Retention Rate % 100%

Staff Demographics

Ethnicity African American/Black: 1
Asian American/Pacific Islander: 0
Caucasian: 6
Hispanic/Latino: 0
Native American/American Indian: 0
Other: 0
Other (if specified): 0
Gender Female: 5
Male: 1
Not Specified 0

Plans & Policies

Organization has Fundraising Plan? Under Development
Organization has Strategic Plan? Yes
Years Strategic Plan Considers 3
Management Succession Plan No
Business Continuity of Operations Plan No
Organization Policies And Procedures Yes
Nondiscrimination Policy No
Whistle Blower Policy Yes
Document Destruction Policy No
Directors and Officers Insurance Policy Yes
State Charitable Solicitations Permit Yes
State Registration --

Risk Management Provisions


Reporting and Evaluations

Management Reports to Board? Yes
CEO Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Annually
Senior Management Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Annually
Non Management Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Annually


Board Chair Mr. Frank Buono
Board Chair Company Affiliation Retired
Board Chair Term Jan 1996 - Jan 2017
Board Co-Chair --
Board Co-Chair Company Affiliation --
Board Co-Chair Term -

Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
Mr. Louis Clark Government Accountability Project Voting
Ms. Zoe Kelman retired Voting
Mr. Rick Steiner environmental consultant Voting

Constituent Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Youth Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Advisory Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Board Demographics

Ethnicity African American/Black: 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander: 0
Caucasian: 4
Hispanic/Latino: 0
Native American/American Indian: 0
Other: 0
Other (if specified): 0
Gender Female: 1
Male: 3
Not Specified 0

Board Information

Board Term Lengths --
Board Term Limits --
Board Meeting Attendance % --
Written Board Selection Criteria No
Written Conflict Of Interest Policy Yes
Percentage of Monetary Contributions 100%
Percentage of In-Kind Contributions 100%
Constituency Includes Client Representation Yes

Standing Committees


CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

Like the majority of PEER staff, most PEER board members are retired public servants who bring to the organization years of experience defending the environment and the public trust for federal and state agencies. They provide valuable direction in activism, organizing, and serving the needs of public servants who have the courage to stand for a higher standard of environmental integrity in their agencies. They also act as ambassadors to the employees who still work within their former agencies, allowing PEER to forge meaningful connections with the employees whose cases and concerns drive our program work. Many of our board members also have specific expertise as a result of their many years in public service as agency scientists, managers, and other specialists, and their knowledge and experience makes them invaluable in providing guidance on PEER’s diverse and extensive efforts to promote environmental ethics in government agencies and support public servants in doing their jobs of environmental protection. Our current board members include a retired chemical engineer with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and a retired Assistant Superintendent with the National Park Service.

Foundation Comments



Revenue vs. Expense ($000s)

Expense Breakdown 2012 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2011 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2010 (%)

Fiscal Year Nov 01, 2012 to Oct 31, 2013
Projected Income $77,500.00
Projected Expense $70,966.00
Form 990s

2013 Form 990

2012 Form 990

2011 Form 990

2010 Form 990

2009 Form 990

Audit Documents

2013 Audited Financials

2011 Audited Financials

2010 Audited Financials

2009 Audited Financials

IRS Letter of Exemption

IRS Letter of Determination

Prior Three Years Total Revenue and Expense Totals

Fiscal Year 2012 2011 2010
Total Revenue $55,130 $75,446 $107,604
Total Expenses $70,922 $62,044 $63,040

Prior Three Years Revenue Sources

Fiscal Year 2012 2011 2010
Foundation and
Corporation Contributions
$52,700 $74,230 $103,700
Government Contributions $0 $0 $0
    Federal -- -- --
    State -- -- --
    Local -- -- --
    Unspecified -- -- --
Individual Contributions $2,430 $1,216 $3,904
Indirect Public Support -- -- --
Earned Revenue -- -- --
Investment Income, Net of Losses -- -- --
Membership Dues -- -- --
Special Events -- -- --
Revenue In-Kind -- -- --
Other -- -- --

Prior Three Years Expense Allocations

Fiscal Year 2012 2011 2010
Program Expense $70,322 $60,000 $60,500
Administration Expense $600 $2,044 $2,540
Fundraising Expense -- -- --
Payments to Affiliates -- -- --
Total Revenue/Total Expenses 0.78 1.22 1.71
Program Expense/Total Expenses 99% 97% 96%
Fundraising Expense/Contributed Revenue 0% 0% 0%

Prior Three Years Assets and Liabilities

Fiscal Year 2012 2011 2010
Total Assets -- -- --
Current Assets -- -- --
Long-Term Liabilities -- -- --
Current Liabilities -- -- --
Total Net Assets -- -- --

Prior Three Years Top Three Funding Sources

Fiscal Year 2012 2011 2010
1st (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --
2nd (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --
3rd (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --

Financial Planning

Endowment Value --
Spending Policy --
Percentage(If selected) --
Credit Line Yes
Reserve Fund Yes
How many months does reserve cover? 5.00

Capital Campaign

Are you currently in a Capital Campaign? No
Capital Campaign Purpose --
Campaign Goal --
Capital Campaign Dates -
Capital Campaign Raised-to-Date Amount --
Capital Campaign Anticipated in Next 5 Years? --

Short Term Solvency

Fiscal Year 2012 2011 2010
Current Ratio: Current Assets/Current Liabilities nan nan nan

Long Term Solvency

Fiscal Year 2012 2011 2010
Long-term Liabilities/Total Assets nan% nan% nan%

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments


Foundation Comments

This organization is a local chapter of a national nonprofit.  The financial data provided in the charts and graphs for the previous three years reflects this organization's local operations, while the posted audits and 990s reflect the organization's national operations. Assets and liabilities are calculated on a national level, as such, are not included in the local data in the charts and graphs above. Please contact the nonprofit for additional details.


Other Documents

No Other Documents currently available.


The Impact tab is a section on the Giving Common added in October 2013; as such the majority of nonprofits have not yet had the chance to complete this voluntary section. The purpose of the Impact section is to ask five deceptively simple questions that require reflection and promote communication about what really matters – results. The goal is to encourage strategic thinking about how a nonprofit will achieve its goals. The following Impact questions are being completed by nonprofits slowly, thoughtfully and at the right time for their respective organizations to ensure the most accurate information possible.

1. What is your organization aiming to accomplish?


2. What are your strategies for making this happen?


3. What are your organization’s capabilities for doing this?


4. How will your organization know if you are making progress?


5. What have and haven’t you accomplished so far?