Woodland Owner Peer-to-Peer Outreach & Networking in the Northeast Workshop

Woodland Owner Peer-to-Peer

Outreach & Networking in the Northeast

WorkshopApril 18 & 19, 2011

•Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University

Woodland Owner Peer‐to‐Peer Outreach and Networking in the Northeast Workshop

Meeting Objectives: 1. To discuss successes and challenges in using landowner peer learning strategies (including

strategies for reaching and communicating with peers) in the Northeast Region. 2. To identify opportunities to work together more efficiently and effectively. 3. To exchange ideas and learn from one another’s experiences. 4. To discuss evaluation of peer learning models.

Meeting Outputs: 1. An evaluation framework and metrics for peer learning models in the Northeast (building upon

work at the 2009 Peer Learning Symposium held in MN and the 2010 Forest Resources Education for Municipal Officials (FREMO) meeting in MA; see http://woodlandownernetworks.ning.com for more background)

2. Publication and contribution to interactive website (to share information) summarizing “best practices” (communication skills, metrics used to evaluate effectiveness, how to document the effectiveness, case studies, short and long‐term aspects of evaluation) for peer learning models in the Northeast

Meeting Outcomes:

1. Outreach professionals, agencies, and organizations will have more effective peer outreach communication and evaluation strategies.

2. Outreach professionals, agencies, and organizations will be informed and inspired to 3. Bringing together the community of peer outreach professionals and leaders in the region.

Meeting Audience: This workshop is aimed at those that run woodland owner outreach programs with peer to peer learning/communication components (i.e. program managers, directors), key peer volunteer leaders, and those organizations and agencies (i.e. landowner associations, agencies, Cooperative Extension) interested in growing peer to peer outreach and communication programs. This workshop is by invitation and we only have funding for a limited number of spots.

Meeting location: Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY ‐U.S regional meetings will be held simultaneously in Alabama, Michigan, New York, and Oregon.

Meeting Sponsors and Planning Committee Members: Cornell University Cooperative Extension, New York Forest Owners Association, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Penn State University School of Forest Resources‐Cooperative Extension, American Forest Foundation‐American Tree Farm System, Audubon New York, U.S. Forest Service

Monday, April 18 Time Activity

12:30‐1:00 Arrive at Cornell Lab of Ornithology; snacks available

1:00‐1:15 Welcome and workshop overview

1:15‐1:45 Participant introductions

1:45‐3:45 SUCESSES AND CHALLENGES Breakout Groups: Each participant discusses successes (what has worked) and challenges (what hasn’t and what challenges remained) associated with peer learning (at various levels: program, peer volunteer, peers reached).

3:45‐4:00 Break

4:00‐5:30 Outcome of breakout groups are the identification of top challenges and strategies as to how they can be addressed; Strategies may address increasing the number of people involved, increasing public awareness of the program, supporting volunteers, communication, measuring impacts, or anything else related to peer‐to‐peer learning and network development.

6:30 Depart Marriot Hotel Lobby for Dinner at Boat Yard Grill (reservations at 7pm)

Tuesday, April 19 Time Activity

8:00 Arrive at Cornell Lab of Ornithology; breakfast available

8:20‐8:30 Welcome and day’s overview

8:30‐10:00

PRESENTATIONS

Communication and Social Marketing for Behavior Change: Examples from Tools for Engaging Landowners Effectively – Brett Butler, Ph.D., Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service and Family Forest Research Center

Applying Lessons Learned from Peer Outreach in Public Health to Environmental Behaviors Paul Colson, Ph.D., Project Director, Peer Advanced Competency Training Project, Columbia University and Harlem Hospital

Research on the Effectiveness Of Peer Education Initiatives Virginia Tedrow, MPH, Coordinator, Evidence Project, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

10:00‐10:30 Break

10:30‐11:15 DIALOGUE SESSION WITH SPEAKERS

11:15‐12:30 Interactive Videoconference Across 4 Sites (West, South, Mid‐West, Northeast)

Overview of the “Woodland Owner Networks project, Research on Social Networks and Peer Learning Eli Sagor, Extension Educator, Forestry, University of Minnesota Extension

Research Findings on 5 Models of Peer Learning Networks – Amanda Keuper, University of Minnesota

Metrics: Measuring and Reporting Outcomes of Peer Learning Shorna Allred, Ph.D., Cornell University Cooperative Extension and Human Dimensions Research

Open Q&A across Videoconference Sites (West, South, Mid‐West, Northeast), facilitated by Eli Sagor

12:30‐1:15 Lunch

1:15‐2:30 EVALUATION Breakout Groups: Measuring success of peer to peer and building off previous work in this area. Each group works on an evaluation framework category to develop metrics (awareness, education, capacity, investment, behavior, network)(also discuss scale, timing, and audience). Participants will be provided a background document on the evaluation metrics work done to date.

2:30‐3:00 Report out to larger group

3:00‐4:00pm

ACTION AGENDA: Entire group discuss next steps and develop an action agenda. Action items include 1) a subgroup of people to work on “best practices” publication, 2) a subgroup of people to write up the results of the evaluation metric/framework discussion (results will be included as part of the publication), 3) implementation of a regional evaluation framework (could include seeking funding for a regional project, 4) future communications and follow‐up, 5) personal action items, and other action items as identified.

4:00pm Adjourn

Program name: Maryland Woodland Stewards Website: http://www.naturalresources.umd.edu/EducationalMWS.html Contains general information, Steward distribution by county, PPT presentations from workshop, and 2010 survey results. Program Director: Nevin Dawson (410-727-8056; [email protected]) and Jonathan Kays ([email protected]). Mission Statement/Overview: The majority (76%) of Maryland’s forest land is owned by private landowners, who often know little about natural resource management. As a result, they may undertake forest management activities without a plan or professional assistance, possibly degrading their timber and site quality as well as the ecosystem services their land provides to their community. Education is the key to building awareness and good management, but limited resources make it difficult for educators to reach this large population of forest landowners. The Maryland Woodland Stewards program uses the train-the-trainer approach to make contact with numerous new audiences. An annual 3.5 day workshop trains 25 forest land owners, managers, and activists in good forest management practices and outreach techniques, who then spend at least 40 hours educating others in the following year. Support from previous sponsors has been lost due to insufficient funds. Funding for this proposal will restore the program and the benefits it offers Maryland’s forests. Over three years, the 75 program participants will contribute 2000 volunteer hours, take management action on 500 acres, and reach 1000 citizens through education and outreach programs. Forty-five non-participants will seek professional assistance as a result of advice from a Steward.

The following results are from the 2010 annual survey and represent the types of impact the program has already had. Three hundred letters were sent requesting participation in the survey; 61 Stewards participated in the survey at a response rate of 21%.

• 28% reported that property owners sought professional forest management assistance as a result of their efforts in the past year.

• 84% used the skills they learned to take some management action in the past year. • 46% spent more than 50 hours on management and education activities in the past

year, and 8% contributed more than 1000 hours. • Management activities included invasive plant control, habitat planting, thinning, road

and trail maintenance, boundary establishment and maintenance, stewardship plan development, community land stewardship, riparian buffer establishment, erosion control, service on county forest conservation boards, timber harvest, hunting lease sales, management of suburban deer hunting, and gypsy moth monitoring.

• Education and outreach activities included workshop coordination, staffing of displays at public events, grade school programming, field tours, nature walks, and web site maintenance.

• Five respondents provided an estimate of the monetary value of the benefits they received from the Maryland Woodland Stewards workshop. The average value was more than $120,000.

The program has gained statewide recognition as a valuable and effective outreach and education program. Leadership positions in many local and state level forestry, wildlife, and conservation organizations are held by Maryland Woodland Stewards, including the Maryland Tree Farm, Maryland Forests Association, watershed associations, Maryland Association of Forest Conservancy Boards, Izaak Walton League, Association of Forest Industries, Sierra Club, many land trusts, and other organizations. When asked, most will acknowledge it was their Maryland Woodland Stewards training that sparked them to action. Suggestions from these Stewards and others are now used to provide ideas and improvements for the project.

Annual schedule of program events: Fall: 3-day workshop Spring: Refresher workshop Summer: Marketing and recruitment for workshop Program accomplishments and evaluation: 2010 survey results: http://www.naturalresources.umd.edu/EducationalMWS.html A cumulative 20 year program report will be released in Summer 2011 Funding sources: Former sources: Ruffed Grouse Society, National Wild Turkey Federation Pending sources: 3-yr. (2011-14) funding request pending with USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Competitive Allocation Grant Program; County Forestry Board training fund Partner organizations: Maryland Forest Service and Wildlife & Heritage Service. Approximate annual budget: $15K

1

Annotated Bibliography: Peer to Peer Education for Woodland Owners Rena Sha and Shorna Broussard Allred

Cornell University Dept. of Natural Resources

The following are annotations that detail peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic

of peer to peer education for woodland forestry owners. Articles mainly focus on extension programs, developed by various universities and states, for the dissemination of information and educating the public about woodland forestry management. Authors report on the challenges and successes of their educational programs, as well as the methodology used to achieve these results. The articles were found through a literature search in the following databases and websites: Agricola, Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded, Google Scholar, Journal of Extension and Burlington Free Press. All articles were collected in the spring of 2011 and reviewed in the same period.

Allred S. Goff, G., Wetzel, L. and M. Luo. (forthcoming). Evaluating Peer Impacts of the Master Forest Owner Volunteer Program in New York Journal of Extension In 1991 Cornell University initiated the New York Master Forest Owner Volunteer program (MFO). The objective of the MFO program is to encourage woodland owners to manage their forests sustainably and equip them the skills necessary to do so. After a substantial amount of training in forestry related topics, the newly qualified MFO volunteers are urged to spread their knowledge and skills. The program mainly relies on peer to peer learning strategies and on networking between fellow land owners. Most of the trained MFOs said it was a positive experience for them and helped them manage their woodlands better. MFOs then went on to join, and hold leadership positions in, landowner and other non-profit organizations. They also conducted on-site visits with landowners to help them set better goals, priorities and plans. Most notably, the MFOs helped landowners save more than $250,000 collectively. The majority of the landowners provided positive feedback for these visits. Results found that after talking to a Master Forest Owner Volunteer a fair amount of individuals decided to take on new management projects for their properties: 43% of individuals sought out more information on forestry while 11% plan to do it in the future, 40% of individuals set goals and priorities for forest management while 26% planned to do so, 37% of individuals consulted with a professional forester, while 17% planned to do so, 33% of individuals thinned their forest stands, while 25% planned to do so, and 28% of individuals created and/or enhance wildlife habitat while 15% planned to do so. For further reading on this topic see: Allred S. Goff, G.R., Luo, M.K., and L.P. Wetzel. 2010. An Evaluation of the Impact of New York Master Forest Owner Volunteer Program Cornell University

2

Human Dimensions Research Unit, HDRU Outreach Publication No. 10-2, January 2010. Allred S. and G. Goff. 2009. The Power of Peer Learning Programs in Natural Resources. University, Community and Rural Development Institute (CARDI) Rural New York Minute, Issue 32(August). Betzler B. Malin Clyde on Peer to Peer Informational Exchange Bjorn Betzler’s Blog, March 17, 2011, http://woodlandownernetworks.ning.com/profiles/blogs/malin-clyde-on-peer-to-peer The New Hampshire Coverts project is a sixteen year old program aimed at educating wildlife volunteers about wildlife, habitat and forest stewardship. Each year the program accepts a maximum of twenty five volunteers for the training and uses criteria such as community involvement and land ownership to select participants. Over the years, the program has successfully trained more than 400 volunteers, and these volunteers operate in more than 120 communities in New Hampshire. One of the strategies that the New Hampshire Coverts uses is peer to peer outreach. One of the ways in which members can connect with each other is by exchanging stories about what tactics they used to manage their woodlands and the difficulties they overcame in doing so. Stories are shared through newsletters, cover stories on their webpage and during ‘Covert Gatherings’ (woodswalks on the member’s properties hosted by the member). Malin Clyde, a representative of the program, thinks that exchanging stories is a good way to for volunteers to increase awareness, interchange experiences, and spark each other’s’ inspiration. Neighbor Conservation Network. UMass Amherst, accessed on March 17, 2011, http://www.masswoods.net/index.php/ncn The Neighbor Conservation Network is comprised of a local group of trained community members. Members are trained in land conservation and decision points regarding this. The network was originally based in northern Massachusetts, but it has spread nationally. By educating individuals that are very involved in their communities, the program allows individuals in the community to seek information from their friends and neighbors that they trust. One of the highlights is that members are given a “Connecting for Conservation Guide”. This guide prioritizes the community’s conservation values, outlines the value of different conservation plans and informs the reader of a variety of conservation organizations. It also provides the member with recommendations on how to broach the topic of conservation to landowners and suggests a variety of useful conservation tools. “Wanted: Volunteers for Wildlife,” Coverts Project, Forest Wildlife Conservation, accessed on March 20, 2011, http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/forest/coverts.htm The Coverts Woodland project began in Vermont and Connecticut in 1983. It has

3

since spread to eleven other states in the country. The aim of the project is to educate individuals on how to earn a long term financial income from their woodlands and improve the health and productivity of it at the same time. Each year thirty participants are selected to enter the training program at the Yale Forestry Camp. After the completion of training, individuals become Coverts Project Cooperators. Their task is to then plan a successful management plan for their woodland, keep up to date reference materials for at least one year and answer any questions other landowners have. They are also required to connect with woodland owners in their community and encourage them to manage their lands sustainably. Redmore L. and J. Tynon. 2010. WOWnet: A Communication and Networking Model for Women. Journal of Extension 48(5): 5FEA2 Women Owning Woodlands Network (WOWnet) is an extension program for female woodland owners. It was founded in 2005 by Oregon State University Extension. The program aims to recognize women who actively manage their lands, help expose women forest owners to more resources concerning forestry, educate women about forestry management skills, and connect female woodland owners to their peers. Since the network is exclusively female, members feel safe and comfortable asking questions and discussing without the presence of potentially more knowledgeable male forest owners. Social networking is also a big advantage of the program. Women not only gain valuable information from it, they also develop friendships and identify themselves with the program. Disadvantages to the program include unfocused meetings and high travel costs to attend meetings. Holistically, however, WOWnet is a successful endeavor and many women prefer it to other mixed sex extension groups.

Schuck N et al. 2010. The New Adult Education: Bringing Peer Educators Up to Speed. Journal of Extension 41(4):4FEA2 Peer to peer education is a successful method of outreach for many extension programs. Peer education is advantageous because of the relationships individuals have with their peers. Peers are trusted and viewed as in-group members. They are also familiar with the knowledge gaps of the individual and know the appropriate language and interaction approaches to use. However, current peer to peer education also has disadvantages and there is room for improvement. Two problems discovered in peer to peer education programs were that peer educators were more inclined to lecture than interact with their peers and that in some cases peer educators encouraged participants to memorize the facts without understanding them. New Adult Education is an initiative to alter the traditional model of peer to peer education. It proposes for a new “constructivist” approach. This means that instead of a top-down approach where information is trickled down to members by peer educators, peers and peer educators alike should learn from each other. Information should be shared freely and without the constraints of authority.

Sagor E. McDonough M., Allred S. 2009. Woodland Owner Networks and

4

Peer-to-Peer Learning. IUFRO 3.08 Small-Scale Forestry Symposium: Seeing the Forest Beyond the Trees June 7-11, 2009, p. 224-226. Many private woodland owners have consistently listed their peers as preferred sources of forest management advice. The Woodland Owner Networks (WON) project has been researching the best peer to peer outreach strategies since January 2008. Some of the queries raised include: how to start a network, what public policy changes need to be made to make this possible, what is the best way to get federal organization involvement and how could we efficiently integrate the peer to peer outreach program into the existing program, among others. Baird J. 2011. Stumping for future forests: Vermont Coverts urges landowners to plan way, way ahead Burlington Free Press.com. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110403/GREEN01/204030301/-1/videonetwork/Stumping-future-forests-Vermont-Coverts-urges-landowners-plan-way-way-ahead?odyssey=nav%7Chead The Vermont Coverts Program is a friendly neighborhood support group for forest owners. It emphasizes peer to peer learning instead of a top-down approach. One of the big decisions for landowners, such as Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt highlighted in the article, is the fate of the land after the owners are deceased. The Vermont Coverts program helped the Schmidts with their case, suggesting that they place the land into a permanent ease with the Vermont Land Trust. This will allow the land to be preserved and governed as woodland in the future, and prevent it from entering into the real estate market. Other individuals have also made informed decisions about the future of their land with the help of Vermont Coverts. Mary Dodge has become acquainted with a forester with extensive background in timber production and bobcat habitat preservation. She plans to manage her land in a way that allows for sustainable logging.

Boss E. 2004. Coverts 14 Year Evaluation. UMass Extensions. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Department of Natural Resources The Massachusetts Coverts Project is an extension program focused on forest stewardship for land owners and community members. It was founded in 1988 by the state Extension Service and the Ruffed Grouse Society. The participants in this program, called Coverts Cooperators, undergo a four-day training program on forest management, conservation and community outreach. After training Coverts Cooperators are encouraged to engage in outreach and/or educational programs in their home community. After surveying previous Coverts Cooperators in 2004 it was found that feedback was largely positive: 46% of Cooperators surveyed reported that they had a forest management plan and 21% indicated that this was a result of the Coverts Project, 74% of Cooperators found the Coverts Workshop training highly useful, giving it an overall rating of 3.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Cooperators felt more empowered after the program and felt more confident of their

5

abilities. The benefits to the community are also apparent; 65% of those surveyed reported that they had spoken to someone about forest stewardship in the last year; 42% of those surveyed referred someone else to a natural resources professional, and 50% of those surveyed shared a success story which included setting up educational programs in their local community, creating a forest owner cooperative, and also bringing urban youth to the outdoors. Schraml U. 2003. Expectations towards Forestry: The influence of personal networks with forest owners. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1(3): 161-170 In Germany forests and wood are held in high esteem while forestry is not. One of the ways to resolve this problem is by improving society’s knowledge of the forestry sector. The article looks at the impact of private forestry owners who are integrated into society and able to disseminate information and affect opinion formation in their own communities. Rickenbach M. 2009. Serving members and reaching others: The performance and Social networks of a landowner Cooperative Forestry Economics and Policy 1(2009):593-599. The article concerns itself with an in depth study of a landowner cooperative network and how effective it is in forest management and planning. The Kickapoo Woods Cooperative (KWC) located in the Upper Midwest was studied. It was found that KWC members were more involved in forestry compared to a typical land owner. Members make decisions about forestry management based on two influences: professional assistance and peer to peer learning. When making decisions, KWC members make extensive use of the KWC staff. The KWC staff also cooperate with other public and private natural resources professionals so that members can consult them as well. For many members the sole link between them and a trusted professional is through the KWC staff. KWC members also consult their friends, family and other members when making forest management decisions. However, these consultations are largely with friends and family of the KWC member, instead of with other members. A few subgroups of KWC members were formed within the network, but the majority of members were not a part of any subgroups. However, two thirds of the KWC members have attended at least one field day where communication between members is facilitated.

This document is a work in progress;

please suggest additional articles for inclusion!

4/18/2011

1

Communication and Social Marketing for Behavior Change: Examples from Tools

for Engaging Landowners Effectively

Brett J. ButlerUSDA Forest Service

Woodland Owner Peer‐to‐Peer Outreach and Networking in the Northeast WorkshopApril 19, 2011 Ithaca, NY

Mary TyrrellYale University

Purnima ChawlaCenter for Non-profit

Strategies

Forest Ownership in the U.S.

2

Forest Ownership in the U.S.

3

Family Forest Owner Engagement

Management Plans*

Yes16%

No84%

Management Advice*

Yes31%

No69%

4* Percent of family forest land, northern U.S., 2006

5

Sustaining Family Forests Initiative

A collaboration among government, industry, conservation, certifications, landowner, and academics organizations

Our goal is to conduct social marketing research:• That will serve as a wide-ranging resource• To aid in the development of outreach and services

6

Social Marketing

Selling ideas, not products

Examples:• Anti-smoking • Mothers Against Drunk

Driving• Smokey Bear

4/18/2011

2

7

Attitudinal Segmentation

• Woodland retreat

• Supplemental income

• Working the land

• Uninvolved

Sustaining Family Forests Initiative8

Prime Prospects Segmentation

Engaged in land management

Unengaged in land management

Favorable attitudes toward

stewardship

ModelOwners

Prime Prospects

Unfavorableattitudes toward

stewardship

PotentialDefectors

Write-offs?

Sustaining Family Forests Initiative

9

Online

Partnerships

PSA/Advertising

NewsMedia

CelebritySightings

RetailDirectMail

Events

Social Marketing: “Surround Sound” Communications

Peer toPeer

4/18/2011

3

TELE Usage

14

• 4,000+ Visitors• Dozens of plans created

Examples

Organizations• Public forestry agencies• Non-governmental

organizations• Private consultants

Goals• More contacts• More management plans• More site visit requests• More information requests• Increased business• Better stewardship• Forest restoration• Start/augment landowner

organization• Empower landowners• Increase cost-share usage• Increased use of foresters

15

Monitoring & Assessment

• Process indicators– Number of contacts– Feedback

• Outcome indicators– Attitudinal/behavioral change– Conservation impacts

• Proxy measures• Time frame

16

17

Pilot Study: Call Before You Cut

http://callb4ucut.com/

Next Steps

• Continued presentations• Companion workbook• Workshops• More research on specific segments• Update statistics using 2011-2012 National

Woodland Owner Survey data

18

4/18/2011

4

Comments or questions?

http://sustainingfamilyforests.org

www.engaginglandowners.org

[email protected]

19

1

APPLYING LESSONS LEARNED FROM PEER OUTREACH IN

PUBLIC HEALTH TO ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS

Paul Colson, PhDApril 19, 2011

Workshop Objectives

• Overview of peer programs, including

peer program models

• Highlight practical issues in peer

programs

• Discuss challenges in operating a peer

program

• Provide resources

Crisis Intervention Services Project

• Goal: reduce gang violence in Humboldt

Park neighborhood of Chicago

• Hired former gang members

• Teamed them with social worker students

• Street mediation

• Community workers driven by altruism

Consumer Services Research Project

• Qualitative study of peers in community mental health agency

• Peers were current/former psychiatric patients

• Agency mission• Poor integration of peers as employees

Francis L, Colson PW, Mizzi P. Beneficence vs. Obligation: Challenges of the Americans with Disabilities Act for Consumer Employment in Mental Health Services. Community Mental Health Journal. 38(2):95-110. 2002.

Colson PW, Francis LE. Consumer Staff and the Role of Personal Experience in Mental Health Services. Social Work in Mental Health 7(4):385-401. 2009.

Harlem Studies Which TestedPeer Models

Peer Advanced Competency Training (PACT) project

Funded by Health Resources & Services Administration from 2005 - 2011Mandate:

Train HIV peer workers (over 200)Train peer supervisors (over 100)Offer technical assistance to organizations wanting to start or improve their peer programs

Collaborated with PEER Center to create toolkits and videos

2

What Defines a Peer? Non-professionally trained health care workersShare key characteristics with target population

Community membership, gender, race/ethnicityDisease status or risk factors Salient experiences, e.g. drug use, sex work, incarceration

Use shared characteristics and experiences to act effectively as a:

Trusted educatorMentor for adopting health behaviorRole modelEmpathic source of social and emotional support

Peer Workers/Community Health Workers• Many names used: lay health advisors,

promotores

• Often used for outreach

• Breast cancer screening, hypertension,

HIV prevention

• Infectious diseases: more used for

prevention than treatment

Why Use Peers

• Personal Experience

• Shared Experiences

• Greater Credibility

• Role Model

Peer/CHW Models

• Continuum:• Natural Helper

• Paraprofessional

• Eng, E., Parker, E., & Harlan, C. (1997). Lay health advisor

intervention strategies: a continuum from natural helping to

paraprofessional helping. Health Education and Behavior, 24(4), 413-

417.

Natural Helper Programs

• Identify natural helpers

• Offer basic training

• Incorporate into normal activities

• Beauty salons and breast cancer screening

• Gay bars and HIV prevention messages

• Leading proponents of this model is the Center

for Sustainable Health Outreach

http://www.usm.edu/csho/

TAPAS Peers

Eugene

Lydia

Ibrahima

Sherry

3

PLANNING A PEER WORKER PROGRAM

Aspects to ConsiderOrganizational buy-in

Peer Responsibilities

(job description)

Recruitment strategy

Hiring process

Compensation &

benefits

Peer schedule

Space and equipment

Administrative

supervisory structure

Support supervisory

structure

Orientation/training

Retention

Documentation/

evaluation

Program Planning ToolCapacity building Toolkit

cover page

Peer Program Capacity building toolkit: www.hdwg.org/peercenter/program_dev

RecruitmentStart with nominations from people who know

Initial (phone) interview to find out their motivation,

past experience, availability, etc.

In the past, we offered training program to many and

hired some

If bringing on 1 or 2 peers, may be more practical to

do brief orientation, followed by shadowing current

peers

4

Peer Worker QualificationsSuccessfully completed TB treatment/adherent to

HIV medication

Members of same community

Have good communication skills

Have a caring attitude

Committed to fighting the HIV/TB epidemic

Training

Focus on three aspects:

Current, accurate knowledge about HIV/TB

Communication skills

Their role as a peer

TOT Toolkit Guide

Table of Contents

Introduction – Quick TipsDesigning a TrainingFacilitation SkillsTraining Modules – an overviewTraining EvaluationAppendices

Supports for Peers

Supervision is critical because:HIV is emotionally charged

Peer role is unclear to many

Issues with “boundaries”

Encourage networking, sharing of ideas and experiences

Have periodic meeting to bring peers together

Challenges – 1

“Professionalism”:Peer workers are hired because of their commonality with patients, yet are expected to become “professional”

Documentation:Many of our peers have literacy issues, poor schooling experiences

Have created check-box form to record contacts, avoid long-hand descriptions

Challenges – 2

“Reluctant Providers”:Concerned about peers delivering wrong messages

Confidentiality is stated concern

Funding:Peer services are reimbursable under Ryan White Care Act, if program officer agrees

Have to cobble together support through research grants, foundation support, etc.

5

Challenges – 3

Peer Worker Retention: Peers are motivated by:

Being acknowledged for their abilitiesHaving a clear task to doReceiving additional trainingFeeling part of a teamReceiving good supervision

Challenges – 4

Showing Effectiveness:Anecdotal evidence that peer relationships are helpful to both peer and clientTo date, rigorous studies have not shown dramatic effect re CD4 counts, viral load, mortality, etc.Difficulties in proving effectiveness have led to withdrawal of HRSA support

PEER Center Website:

www.hdwg.org/peercenter

1

1

© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

1 1

PEER LEARNING AND WOODLAND OWNER NETWORKS: AN INTRODUCTION

ELI SAGOR [email protected]

2


WHAT IS PEER LEARNING?

Handout

Online at http://z.umn.edu/ptp1

3 4


SYMPOSIUM PHOTO

5


Source

WHY PEER LEARNING?

56% of the nation’s forest land

Capacity

Real world, real people

6


PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE RECEIVED INFO, BY SOURCE GROUP

All differences significant(p≤0.001)

2

7


MODELS: HOW PEER LEARNING HAPPENS

Master volunteer Co-operative Informal personal networks Online networks On the sidelines at workshops Observation Family Life

8


OUTCOMES

How can peer learning add value? Return on investment Different outcomes from different models? Appropriate roles What does it cost? What does it accomplish?

9


TODAY’S MEETINGS

10


NETWORK

http://z.umn.edu/WON

11


NEXT:

Amanda Kueper: Outcomes from 5 peer learning models

Shorna Broussard Allred: Metrics

4/15/11

1

Distribu-on of Private vs. Public Forestland in the U.S.

Source: Butler & Leatherberry 2004

Role of Peers

•  Landowners tend to use peers in decision-‐making1

•  Not just about informa-on -‐ informer maMers2

•  “Peer exchange”

1Sagor 2003; 2Gootee 2010

Study Aim

Examine peer exchange in the landowner community within the context of

landowner organiza1ons

Methods Compara-ve Case-‐Study •  5 individual cases •  Face-‐to-‐face, in-‐depth, semi-‐structured interviews – 61 total

•  Observa-on Analysis •  Complete transcrip-on •  Coded for common themes •  Synthesis of individual cases •  Cross-‐case synthesis of findings

Case Selec-on and Overview

•  Diversity of organiza-onal models – Forest and non-‐forest landowner

•  3 Models: –  Extension ‘Master volunteer’ program

– Woodland owner coopera-ve –  Landcare – U.S. and Australia

4/15/11

2

Case Selec-on and Overview

•  Common bond – Forum for local landowner interac-on

•  Convergent themes across all cases

Key Findings Atmosphere

Informa-on flow

Peer Exchange

Group form– Influence on par1cipa1ng and learning

AMrac-ve, comfortable learning environment -‐ Homophily (Rogers 1995) -‐ “Like-‐mindedness”

Sa-sfied mul-ple needs -‐ Informa-on + Social/Emo-onal Incen-ves

Key Findings: Atmosphere

“…you have a mee,ng, and a1erwards maybe a barbeque or a couple beers, and just sit down and talk … Surprisingly enough, you’ll find you get a lot of good ideas when … the formali,es are done … you’d be surprised at how much people open up.” [4-‐9]

Key Findings Atmosphere

Informa1on flow

Peer Exchange

Group func1on – Influence of informa1on access

Info access:

-‐ Networking power

Info type:

-‐ Local focus -‐ “Hands-‐on” learning opportuni-es

Key Findings: Informa-on Flow

4/15/11

3

“…we never feel uncomfortable anymore because we know where to direct the ques1on. I think that’s from the training too, I mean don’t be … nervous if you don’t know the answer because somebody’s gonna know the answer and there’s always … enough help around.” [1-‐8]

“We make a lot of field trips out to various places when we're going through the program, we went to all the different class members' proper1es … we'd talk about stuff in class, but then we'd go out and do it on the ground, or look at it, and that was probably the part that seemed the most important to me.” [1-‐6]

Influence of info:

-‐ Refine and achieve goals -‐ Increased awareness -‐ Increased interest/involvement

* Founda-ons for poten-al behavior change

Key Findings: Informa-on Flow Key Findings Atmosphere

Informa-on flow

Peer Exchange

Influence of peer knowledge on group form and func1on

Not explicit goal of groups product and means

Diversity in member background and experience

Key Findings: Peer Exchange “Some of the members are very knowledgeable

about the woods. Twice, three ,mes as much as I am. So … every ,me I go to a mee,ng, I just try to sit by a new one, so I can learn something.” [2-‐1]

4/15/11

4

Comparing benefits of ‘peer’ knowledge vs. ‘pro’ knowledge

Key Findings: Peer Exchange

Peer • “Prac-cal” informa-on

•  Management -ps, on-‐ground experience, demonstra-on

•  Opportunis-c knowledge gain •  Group events = forum

Pro •  “Technical” informa-on

•  Research, legal guidance, financial assistance, technical mgt. advice

•  Seek out for specific ques-ons, direct answers

Two sources of info: mutual support and clarifica-on

‘Great Equalizer’ –  Non-‐hierarchical –  Similar levels of comfort – blurring of tradi-onal roles

Key Findings: Peer Exchange

Implica-ons – for Prac--oners •  Hold regular group func1ons •  Take coffee (or tea) breaks •  Go beyond educa1on •  Keep it local

Implica-ons – for Prac--oners •  Get their hands dirty •  Cater to mul1ple levels of experience •  Iden1fy peer leaders and create opportuni1es for their involvement

•  Network, network, network!

Take Home Message

•  Credible, comfortable learning environment •  Localized, experien1al knowledge and technical knowledge

•  Network •  Influenced: awareness, involvement, goals.

Take Home Message

Alterna-ve informa-on channel for reaching family

forest owners

4/15/11

5

References Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Sampson, J. (Eds) (2001) Peer learning in higher educa1on: learning from and with each

other (London, Kogan Page). Butler, B.J. & E.C. Leatherberry (2004). America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry. Oct/Nov 2004. pp

4-‐9. Catanzaro, P. et al. (2008) What is peer-‐to-‐peer learning? Woodland Owner Networks Blog entry dated 25 June

2008. hMp://woodlandownernetworks.wordpress.com/2008/06/25overview/. Gootee, R. S., Blatner, K. A., Baumgartner, D. M., Carroll, M. S., & Weber, E. P. (2010). Choosing what to believe

about forests: differences between professional and non-‐professional evalua-ve criteria. Small-‐scale Forestry, 9(2), 137-‐152.

Ohno, T., Tanaka, T., & Sakagami, M. (2010). Does social capital encourage par-cipatory watershed management? An analysis using survey data from the Yodo River Watershed. Society & Natural Resources, 23(4), 303-‐321.

Newman, L., & Dale, A. (2005). Network structure , diversity , and proac-ve resilience building : a response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology And Society, 10(1).

Rickenbach, M., Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner coopera-ve, Forest Policy and Economics (2009).

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innova1ons, 4th Ed. New York: The Free Press. Sagor, E. S. (2003). Nonindustrial private forest landowners and sources of assistance. In P. Jakes,

Proceedings from "Forestry coopera1ves: what today's resource professionals need to know." Nov. 18, 2003. (pp. 3-‐12). St. Paul, MN.

Sampson, B. N., & Decoster, L. (2000). Forest fragmenta-on : implica-ons for sustainable private forests. Journal of Forestry, 98(3), 4-‐8.

Photo credit: All photographs are property of Amanda Kueper

Acknowledgements •  Research Team: Eli Sagor, Dr. Dennis

Becker •  Funders: United States Department of

Agriculture – Forest Service; Council of Graduate Students; Interna-onal Programs in Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences; the Organiza-on of Tropical studies; Sigerfoos Fellowship

•  CommiMee: Dr. Kristen Nelson, Dr. Dan Philippon

•  Organiza-ons: Interviewees; Case contacts: Nicole Strong, Paul Bader, Dr. Jerry Moles, John Nicholas, and Barbara Lanskey

•  Transcribing Assistants: Sheena Ahrar, Sarah Olson, Tacy Kraus, Mohamed Elaby, Erich Kern, Eli Sagor

4/18/2011

1

R E G I O N A L I M P A C T A N D E V A L U A T I O N

PEER-TO-PEER OUTREACH

Shorna Broussard AllredCornell University Dept. of Natural Resources

Woodland Owner Peer-to-Peer Outreach and Networking Workshop April 18-19, 2011

EVALUATION QUESTION

How do we define, measure, assess, and/or even “predict” the

performance of different peer outreach programs in fostering

positive forest stewardship behaviors?

WHY IS EVALUATION IMPORTANT?

1. Raise awareness and understanding2. Measure progress towards goals 3. Support decision making4. Demonstrate accountability5. Show impact

“You can’t manage what you can’t [or don’t] measure.”

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be

counted.”

DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

WOODLAND OWNER PEER OUTREACH

INDICATORS

• A general definition of an indicator is as follows: data point or statistical measure that reflects the state of a complex social, economic or physical condition. A characteristic that indicates a quality or state of a system.

• “Social indicators are repeated measurements made of the same phenomena over time…these time-series measurements allow the identification of long-term trends, periodic changes, and fluctuations in rate of change” (Rossi and Gilmartin1980, p. xiii).

INDICATOR

Something that indicates something useful to someone

based on one or more metrics, observations or both

4/18/2011

2

INDICATORS OF PEER OUTREACH

• FREMO Meeting , Harvard Forest, May 2010 (P. Catanzaro)

• Discussion of what data and indicator metrics currently being collected

• 3-5 metrics that could be collected regionally

• Initial document created (in NY notebooks)

INDICATOR CATEGORIES

1. Peer program awareness

2. Knowledge of forest stewardship

3. Capacity to do peer outreach

4. Stewardship behavior

5. Education techniques used in peer to peer programs

6. Investment and Funding Peer Education

7. Network characteristics

8. Community Conservation Capacity

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD INDICATOR

• Measureable

• Repeatable

• Easy to collect

• Specific to situation, context, and timing)

• Cost-effective

• Comprehensive; must tell the whole story; Qualitative + Quantitative

• Fully capture the impact

• Regionally applicable (not a necessary condition)

NY Master Forest Owner Peer Volunteer Story:

“A neighbor who owns a 50-acre woodlot came to me and said she had been offered $5,000 for her

timber by a logger. I suggested she contact a forester for advice in marketing her timber and

suggested a couple of foresters. She did this and received $25,000 for her timber.”

4/18/2011

3

RELEVANT EVALUATION STAKEHOLDERS

• Watershed associations

• Community organizations

• Peer volunteers

• Municipal officials

• Woodland owners

• Land trusts

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS: SCALE OF PEER OUTREACH

• Means of peer outreach differ

• Levels within peer outreach differ

• Can be peers at each level of a network

• Define the issue and then look at the network; who is connected and how and where?

• Property level could be base level, then scale up

INDICATOR CATEGORIES

1. Peer program awareness

2. Knowledge of forest stewardship

3. Capacity to do peer outreach

4. Stewardship behavior

5. Education techniques used in peer to peer programs

6. Investment and Funding Peer Education

7. Network characteristics

8. Community Conservation Capacity

POTENTIAL INDICATORS: FOREST STEWARDSHIP

• Forest Retention

• Forestland stewardship

• Forestland Improvement

POTENTIAL INDICATORS: PEER OUTREACH CAPACITY

• Peer outreach

• Landowner Engagement; how quantify?

• What feel empowered to do but didn’t have the

ability to do (mobilization/implementation)

• Efficacy (ability to effect change)

• Willingness to share information

• Empowerment

POTENTIAL INDICATORS: KNOWLEDGE OF FOREST STEWARDSHIP

• Knowledge of forest stewardship practices and behaviors that promote forest stewardship

• Sources of information (measure how informed people were when they made the decision; what informed their decision, who did hey consult and how?)

• Accuracy of what peers are conveying to other peers

4/18/2011

4

POTENTIAL INDICATORS: PEER OUTREACH INVESTMENT

• How to reach more forest landowners; how many landowners being reached by peer; how many reached per dollar invested

• What would it cost to hire service foresters to accomplish the same amount of work as peers; they can enhance and facilitate the network

POTENTIAL INDICATORS: COMMUNITY CONSERVATION CAPACITY

• Community impacts (town forest management, protected lands, connecting with non-landowner public; changes within town political climate; zoning)

• Collaboration; landscape objective

POTENTIAL INDICATORS: PEER OUTREACH NETWORKS

• Networks developed (horizontal and vertical networks; network relationships)

• How to reach more forest landowners; how many landowners being reached by peer; how many reached per dollar invested

PEER OUTREACH INDICATORS

• FREMO Meeting , Harvard Forest, May 2010 (P. Catanzaro)

• Discussion of what data and metrics currently being collected

• 3-5 metrics that could be collected regionally

• Initial document circulated

• CAN WE BUILD ON THIS?

POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES• Program Materials

• Toolkit: Strategies to build engagement and active outreach

• Best practices for individual volunteers to build peer outreach effectiveness

• Best practices for organizations to build their peer outreach capacity

• Cases and models of Woodland Owner Networks and Peer Outreach models

• Regional System of indicators and metrics, data collection, and

evaluation of impact

• Link to Forest Service work developing metrics (Karen Bennett)

• Others?

6 0 7 - 2 5 5 - 2 1 4 9

[email protected]

www.human-dimensions.org

Woodland Owner Peer-to-Peer Outreach & Networking in the Northeast Workshop

Documents

Transcript of Woodland Owner Peer-to-Peer Outreach & Networking in the Northeast Workshop