The Urban and Community Forestry Society’s new accreditation standards help communities assess their programs, strengthen what’s in place, and pursue recognition when they are ready.

September 30, 2026  |  Written by Chris Peiffer

Most urban and community forestry programs are doing meaningful work every day. Trees are being maintained, crews are responding to resident needs, planting programs are moving forward, and difficult decisions are being made with the resources available.
The question is whether the program can show that work when someone asks for the bigger picture. A new city manager may want to know what the program has accomplished, a budget cycle may require a clear case for continued investment, or a storm may put past decisions under closer review. In those moments, the quality of the work matters, but so does having the records, systems, and consistent processes to show what happened, why it happened, and what it took. When that information is scattered across spreadsheets, work order systems, emails, and staff knowledge, even a strong program can have a hard time telling its own story. UCFS’s new standards spell out what that story needs to include.

The Urban and Community Forestry Society (UCFS) has launched its accreditation program. The new standards are publicly available, and its framework is not just for communities pursuing accreditation. It also brings together the perspective of urban forestry professionals and others involved in community forestry to describe the systems, policies, resources, and day-to-day practices that support a lasting program. Any community can use it to take a closer look at what is working, what is missing, and where to focus next.

What the Standards Measure

Standards and Criteria
The UCFS accreditation program is built on four standards, with most individual criteria worth one point each:

*UCFS scores the credentialing component of Standard 1 through a separate tool that is not included in the published standards document.

Recognition levels are based on the share of applicable criteria a program meets. UCFS identifies Steward as meeting 75–89% of applicable criteria and Champion as meeting 90% or more. The Accreditation Council determines which criteria apply and whether they have been met.

The point totals give some indication of where UCFS places the most emphasis. Governance and Planning has the most criteria of any standard. That reflects the heavy role that policies, plans, data systems, and funding play in supporting the planting, maintenance, and engagement work communities see every day. Urban Forest Management is the next largest standard. It covers the operational side of urban forestry, including planting, pruning, removals, preservation, tree risk, safety, and monitoring.

Good tree work in the field is essential, but it is only part of what this framework looks at. A program may be planting, pruning, and maintaining trees well, while still lacking the policies, records, funding, roles, and systems needed to show how that work is planned, supported, and sustained over time. The standards look beyond whether trees are being maintained today and ask whether the program has what it needs to keep doing that work consistently even as staff, budgets, leadership, and priorities change.

Funding and Long-Term Program Support

Standard 2, Urban Forest Governance and Planning, includes a section on funding that may feel more like municipal finance than urban forestry, at first glance. UCFS does not prescribe one funding model. Instead, the standards look for evidence that certain funding practices and systems are in place. Four of the eight criteria in that section are especially worth considering:

• Are the community’s trees tracked as a dedicated capital asset? This could be shown through a capital asset policy, asset register entries, or a documented valuation method.
• Is financial forecasting completed each year?
• Has urban forestry funding increased over the past five years, and can the program document that increase through adopted budgets or similar financial records?
• Where it fits the local regulatory structure, is there a fee-in-lieu mechanism for trees removed during development?

Most foresters do not immediately think of the finance office when they think about program quality. UCFS does. These criteria get at whether a program has the financial structure and documentation to sustain its work over time, not just whether the trees are in good condition today.

For communities that meet the standards that apply to their program, accreditation is a way to demonstrate the strength of the program beyond day-to-day operations.

The accreditation standards are useful even before a community is ready to apply. A canopy assessment establishes a current baseline and helps set priorities. A current inventory supports planning and day-to-day operations. Clear work records and regular reporting help make the case for the resources needed to carry the program forward.

Visit the UCFS Accreditation page for current details on eligibility, fees, recognition thresholds, and process steps.

Turning Practice Into a Program​

The point totals in the table come from individual criteria within each standard. Each criterion is scored either 0 or 1: 0 if there is no activity or implementation, and 1 if the practice is fully implemented, consistent, documented, and monitored. Standard 2 has 38 possible points because it includes 38 individual criteria.

That is why documentation matters. A department may be doing something well, but if the practice is not written down or supported by records, it can be hard to show in a formal review.

When that person retires, transfers, or goes private, the process leaves with them. Documentation, clear roles, and repeatable workflows are what carry a program through turnover. What the standards are really getting at is whether something is built into the program or is dependent on one person who is continuing to do it. Most of us can recognize that difference in our own departments once we start looking for it.

“An undocumented practice lives with a person rather than the program.”

When Program History Is Needed on Short Notice

The UCFS accreditation standards emphasize documented evidence of how a program operates over time. That sounds straightforward until someone actually asks for it. Here is a common situation, why it happens, and what tends to resolve it.

The Situation

A new city manager asks how many ash trees the community removed over the last five years, what it cost, and how many replacements went in. The forester knows the work happened. The answer requires three systems and one retired employee’s memory. The budget presentation is Friday.

The same thing happens when staff need to explain planting survival, storm response costs, service request backlogs, pruning cycle progress, tree risk priorities, or canopy cover change.

Why It Happens

The inventory sits in one system. Resident requests come in through 311, a customer service platform, email, phone calls, or a departmental intake form, depending on the community. Work histories live in a supervisor’s spreadsheet, contractor completion records sit in a shared folder, and institutional knowledge fills the gaps.
This is not a poorly run program. It is what happens when tools get added as needs come up, without a clear way to connect them.

UCFS’s data and systems standard points toward a different setup: a GIS-based inventory that informs planning and day-to-day work, is updated through field activity or on a systematic schedule, supports public reporting of tree service needs, and helps communities track measures such as service requests resolved, trees planted, removals, and canopy change.

Bringing Program Information Together

This is the gap that the TreePlotter software platform is built to help close. It brings together tree inventory, field inspections, work history, service requests, mapping, and reporting in a more connected workflow. When program information is organized and maintained over time, staff can answer questions from leadership, residents, and partners without having to reconstruct the record first.

Three Example Communities, Three Starting Points

The three hypothetical communities below show how the standards apply to programs with different sizes, resources, and governance structures. UCFS accreditation is open to municipal, campus, and county programs, not only cities.
A small town relying on a contract arborist, a mid-size city with municipal crews, and a university campus are all working toward the same standards, but each brings different resources, responsibilities, and immediate needs to the process.

Small Town, Upper Midwest

Roughly 8,000 Residents
The town has no full-time forester. The public works director oversees tree work and calls on a contract arborist for larger jobs. The ordinance dates to the 1980s, and the only inventory is a paper survey completed by volunteers years ago. The town also has a long-running Arbor Day tradition and an engaged tree board that meets monthly.

Strengths: The tree board and Arbor Day tradition show meaningful community engagement. The existing ordinance still provides a starting point for authority and responsibility, even if it needs updating. The town also has access to professional expertise when it needs it.

Gaps: No one formally holds the urban forestry leadership role. The public works director oversees trees along with streets, utilities, and snow removal, which means trees get attention when there is time. The ordinance has not been reviewed in decades. The inventory is not something staff can easily query to support management decisions, and it has not been updated in years. Funding, operations, and reporting are largely undocumented.

A practical starting point: Put the leadership role in writing. UCFS allows the designated urban forestry leadership position to be filled by a qualified professional retained through a written agreement, not only by a direct employee. For this town, that could mean expanding the contract arborist’s role beyond large removals to include recurring guidance on ordinance updates, priorities, tree risk, tree board support, and inventory planning. It is a foundation, not a complete program, but clarifying who is accountable makes the next steps much easier. Two of those gaps, formal responsibility for oversight and a usable inventory, are also among UCFS’s pre-qualification requirements for applying. Addressing them would put the town in a much better position to apply when it is ready.

Mid-Size City, Southeast

Roughly 120,000 Residents
The city has a full-time urban forester, two in-house crews, a GIS inventory, established service request intake, and recent experience coordinating storm recovery. Its urban forest plan is eight years old and includes goals but not measurable targets. The last canopy assessment predates two major storms.

Strengths: Dedicated leadership, in-house crews, a working inventory, and a channel for residents to report tree problems. Storm recovery has also given staff real experience running a large, high-pressure response.

Gaps: A current canopy assessment, measurable plan targets, a regular reporting cycle, and clearer evidence that the plan is guiding decisions. The storm response experience is also undocumented, which means the city may have a hard time using it as evidence in an accreditation review. The UCFS standards award points separately for a plan that describes a vision, goals, strategies, and policies, and for showing that the plan is actively implemented and reported to partners, departments, and governing officials.

A practical starting point: Update the canopy assessment, then use the findings to add measurable targets and a regular reporting schedule to the existing plan. That is likely more practical than starting with a full rewrite. A current canopy assessment gives the city a defensible baseline for setting goals and tracking progress, particularly after major storms have changed the landscape.

For an example of an action-oriented planning approach, see the Tacoma Strategic Urban Forest Action Plan.

University Campus, Mid-Atlantic

The campus grounds department has ISA Certified Arborists on staff, a detailed inventory connected to work orders, and a board-approved tree care policy rather than a municipal ordinance. Operational data is strong, but there is no regular public reporting, no advisory group, and outreach is mostly limited to campus operations.

Strengths: This program is already well positioned in several areas that can be difficult for municipal programs. Credentialed staff support the leadership criteria, and tying the inventory to work orders reflects what UCFS looks for in its data and systems standard: tree information that helps guide day-to-day operations. For campuses and similar private properties, UCFS accepts a board-approved tree care policy in place of a municipal ordinance.

Gaps: The biggest opportunities are in community engagement and communication. The campus has no regular report to institutional leadership, no advisory or engagement structure, and limited documented outreach beyond day-to-day grounds work.

A practical starting point: Produce an annual Status of the Urban Forest report, or a comparable briefing, for senior administration, facilities leadership, or the governing body that fits the institution’s structure. UCFS calls for an annual report to governing officials. For a campus, that is a straightforward way to turn strong operational data into information that leadership can see and use.

See the West Virginia State University Tree Inventory Report for an example of campus inventory work.

A Quick UCFS Program Reflection

The full standards are comprehensive. These six questions cover the same ground at a higher level, and most programs can answer them in a couple of minutes. They are not an official UCFS assessment, and they do not determine accreditation eligibility or a likely recognition level. What they can show is where your program may have room to grow.

Can we connect inventory information to service requests, inspections, work history, and operational decisions?

Can leadership, governing officials, residents, and partners easily understand our accomplishments, needs, and priorities?

If the answer to the first question is no, TreeCanopy.US is a free place to start, it maps canopy cover and canopy change for every urban area in the United States.

These questions reflect criteria across UCFS’s standards for planning, data and systems management, safety, and community engagement.

Learn more in this webinar: Using the Urban Forest and Sustainability Management Audit

Where to Go From Here

Answering those questions can show you where your gaps are. It will not tell you which one to close first, and that is not a decision the standards can make for you. Budget cycles, staffing, council priorities, and whatever crisis is currently on your desk all factor in. Only your community can decide how those priorities weigh against each other.

If your program is still building its foundation, the standards are useful in a different way. They can help clarify foundational investments: establishing formal responsibility for trees, building a baseline inventory, documenting existing practices, and identifying a funding approach that can support the program year after year. Recognition can come later. The framework is still worth using now.

Is Your Urban Forestry Program Built to Last?

The deeper value of the standards is that they describe what it takes to sustain a program, not just what it takes to be recognized.

Whether or not UCFS accreditation is on your horizon, the standards point to the systems that carry a program over time. If any of the six questions above gave you pause, that is a useful place to start.

Whatever that first step is for you, PlanIT Geo helps communities and organizations like yours to work through it, whether it involves a tree inventory, a tree equity analysis, a canopy assessment, an urban forest plan, reporting that ties those efforts together, or similar work. UCFS independently administers the accreditation program and makes all accreditation decisions.