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

Woodland Owner Peer-to-Peer

Outreach & Networking in the Northeast Workshop April 18 & 19, 2011 â&#x20AC;˘ 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 12:30‐1:00 1:00‐1:15 1:15‐1:45 1:45‐3:45

3:45‐4:00 4:00‐5:30

6:30

Activity Arrive at Cornell Lab of Ornithology; snacks available Welcome and workshop overview Participant introductions 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). Break 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. Depart Marriot Hotel Lobby for Dinner at Boat Yard Grill (reservations at 7pm)

Tuesday, April 19 Time 8:00 8:20‐8:30 8:30‐10:00

Activity Arrive at Cornell Lab of Ornithology; breakfast available Welcome and day’s overview 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 1:15‐2:30

2:30‐3:00 3:00‐ 4:00pm

4:00pm

Lunch 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. Report out to larger group 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. 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; ndawson@umd.edu) and Jonathan Kays (jkays@umd.edu). 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.

â&#x20AC;˘ 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

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 1

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-pee r 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 2

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 3

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/vid eonetwork/Stumping-future-forests-Vermont-Coverts-urges-landowners-plan-wayway-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 4Â Â

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 societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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!

5Â Â

4/18/2011

Forest Ownership in the U.S. Communication and Social Marketing for Behavior Change: Examples from Tools for Engaging Landowners Effectively Brett J. Butler

Mary Tyrrell

Purnima Chawla

USDA Forest Service

Yale University

Center for Non-profit Strategies

Woodland Owner Peer‐to‐Peer Outreach and Networking in the Northeast Workshop April 19, 2011 Ithaca, NY 2

Forest Ownership in the U.S.

Family Forest Owner Engagement Management Plans*

Management Advice*

Yes 16%

No 69%

No 84%

Sustaining Family Forests Initiative

Yes 31%

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

Social Marketing

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

Selling ideas, not products Examples: • Anti-smoking • Mothers Against Drunk Driving • Smokey Bear

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

4/18/2011

Prime Prospects Segmentation

Attitudinal Segmentation

Favorable attitudes toward stewardship

Unfavorable attitudes toward stewardship

Engaged in land management

Model Owners

Potential Defectors

Unengaged in land management

Prime Prospects

Writeoffs?

• Woodland retreat • Supplemental income • Working the land • Uninvolved

Sustaining Family Forests Initiative

Social Marketing: “Surround Sound” Communications Online News Media Partnerships

Events

PSA/ Advertising

Peer to Peer

Celebrity Sightings

Direct Mail

Retail

4/18/2011

TELE Usage

• 4,000+ Visitors • Dozens of plans created

Examples Organizations • Public forestry agencies • Non-governmental organizations • Private consultants

Monitoring & Assessment • Process indicators

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

– Number of contacts – Feedback

• Outcome indicators – Attitudinal/behavioral change – Conservation impacts

• Proxy measures • Time frame 15

Pilot Study: Call Before You Cut

Next Steps • • • • •

http://callb4ucut.com/

Continued presentations Companion workbook Workshops More research on specific segments Update statistics using 2011-2012 National Woodland Owner Survey data

4/18/2011

Comments or questions? http://sustainingfamilyforests.org www.engaginglandowners.org bbutler01@fs.fed.us

Workshop Objectives

APPLYING LESSONS LEARNED FROM PEER OUTREACH IN PUBLIC HEALTH TO ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS

• Overview of peer programs, including peer program models • Highlight practical issues in peer

Paul Colson, PhD April 19, 2011

programs • Discuss challenges in operating a peer program • Provide resources

Crisis Intervention Services Project

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

• Goal: reduce gang violence in Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago • Hired former gang members • Teamed them with social worker students • Street mediation

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.

• Community workers driven by altruism

Peer Advanced Competency Training (PACT) project

Harlem Studies Which Tested Peer Models ¾ ¾

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

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

¾ Collaborated

with PEER Center to create toolkits and videos

What Defines a Peer? ¾ ¾

Non-professionally trained health care workers Share key characteristics with target population z z z

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

Use shared characteristics and experiences to act effectively as a: z z z z

Trusted educator Mentor for adopting health behavior Role model Empathic 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

Peer/CHW Models • Continuum:

• Shared Experiences • Greater Credibility

•

Natural Helper

•

Paraprofessional

Eng, E., Parker, E., & Harlan, C. (1997). Lay health advisor intervention strategies: a continuum from natural helping to

• Role Model

paraprofessional helping. Health Education and Behavior, 24(4), 413417.

Natural Helper Programs

TAPAS Peers

• Identify natural helpers

Eugene

•

Offer basic training

Lydia

•

Incorporate into normal activities

•

Beauty salons and breast cancer screening

•

Gay bars and HIV prevention messages

Ibrahima Sherry

Leading proponents of this model is the Center for Sustainable Health Outreach http://www.usm.edu/csho/

Aspects to Consider

PLANNING A PEER WORKER PROGRAM

¾ Organizational buy-in

¾ Space and equipment

¾ Peer Responsibilities

¾ Administrative

(job description) ¾ Recruitment strategy

structure

¾ Hiring process ¾ Compensation &

benefits ¾ Peer schedule

supervisory structure ¾ Support supervisory

¾ Orientation/training ¾ Retention ¾ Documentation/

evaluation

Program Planning Tool

Capacity building Toolkit cover page

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

Recruitment ¾ Start with nominations from people who know ¾ Initial (phone) interview to find out their motivation,

past experience, availability, etc. ¾ In the past, we offered training program to many and

hired some ¾ If bringing on 1 or 2 peers, may be more practical to

do brief orientation, followed by shadowing current peers

Peer Worker Qualifications

Training

¾ Successfully completed TB treatment/adherent to ¾ Focus on three aspects:

HIV medication

z Current, accurate knowledge about HIV/TB

¾ Members of same community

z Communication skills

¾ Have good communication skills

z Their role as a peer

¾ Have a caring attitude ¾ Committed to fighting the HIV/TB epidemic

TOT Toolkit Guide

Supports for Peers ¾ Supervision

Table of Contents Introduction – Quick Tips Designing a Training Facilitation Skills Training Modules – an overview Training Evaluation Appendices

z z z

¾ Encourage

networking, sharing of ideas and experiences ¾ Have periodic meeting to bring peers together

Challenges – 1 ¾ “Professionalism”: z

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

¾ Documentation: z

Many of our peers have literacy issues, poor schooling experiences Have created check-box form to record contacts, avoid long-hand descriptions

is critical because:

HIV is emotionally charged Peer role is unclear to many Issues with “boundaries”

Challenges – 2 ¾ “Reluctant z

Providers”:

Concerned about peers delivering wrong messages Confidentiality is stated concern

¾ Funding: z

Peer services are reimbursable under Ryan White Care Act, if program officer agrees Have to cobble together support through research grants, foundation support, etc.

Challenges – 3 ¾ Peer

Worker Retention: Peers are motivated by: z z z z z

Being acknowledged for their abilities Having a clear task to do Receiving additional training Feeling part of a team Receiving good supervision

Challenges – 4 ¾ Showing z

Effectiveness:

Anecdotal evidence that peer relationships are helpful to both peer and client To 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

WHAT IS PEER LEARNING? Handout

PEER LEARNING AND WOODLAND OWNER NETWORKS: AN INTRODUCTION

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

ELI SAGOR ESAGOR@UMN.EDU

SYMPOSIUM PHOTO

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE RECEIVED INFO, BY SOURCE GROUP

WHY PEER LEARNING? 56% of the nation’s forest land

All diﬀerences signiﬁcant (p≤0.001)

Capacity Real world, real people

Source

MODELS: HOW PEER LEARNING HAPPENS

OUTCOMES

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

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

TODAY’S MEETINGS NETWORK http://z.umn.edu/WON

Amanda Kueper: Outcomes from 5 peer learning models Shorna Broussard Allred: Metrics

4/15/11

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

Source: Butler & Leatherberry 2004

Role of Peers

Study Aim

•  Landowners tend to use peers in decision-‐making1 •  Not just about informa-on -‐ informer maMers2 •  “Peer exchange”

Examine peer exchange in the landowner community within the context of landowner organiza1ons

1Sagor 2003; 2Gootee 2010

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

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

Key Findings: Atmosphere 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 Informa1on ﬂow Peer Exchange Group func1on – Inﬂuence of informa1on access

“…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: Informa-on Flow Info access: -‐ Networking power Info type: -‐ Local focus -‐ “Hands-‐on” learning opportuni-es

4/15/11

“…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]

Key Findings: Informa-on Flow Inﬂuence of info: -‐ Reﬁne and achieve goals -‐ Increased awareness -‐ Increased interest/involvement * Founda-ons for poten-al behavior change

Key Findings: Peer Exchange Not explicit goal of groups product and means

“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]

Key Findings Atmosphere Informa-on ﬂow Peer Exchange Inﬂuence of peer knowledge on group form and func1on

“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]

Diversity in member background and experience

4/15/11

Key Findings: Peer Exchange Comparing beneﬁts of ‘peer’ knowledge vs. ‘pro’ knowledge

Peer

Two sources of info: mutual support and clariﬁca-on

Pro

• “Prac-cal” informa-on •  Management -ps, on-‐ground experience, demonstra-on

•  “ Technical” informa-on •  Research, legal guidance, ﬁnancial assistance, technical mgt. advice

•  Opportunis-c knowledge gain •  Group events = forum

•  Seek out for speciﬁc ques-ons, direct answers

Implica-ons – for Prac--oners •  •  •  •

Key Findings: Peer Exchange

Hold regular group func1ons Take coﬀee (or tea) breaks Go beyond educa1on Keep it local

Take Home Message •  Credible, comfortable learning environment •  Localized, experien1al knowledge and technical knowledge •  Network •  Inﬂuenced: awareness, involvement, goals.

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

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 Alterna-ve informa-on channel for reaching family forest owners

4/15/11

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.

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

Photo credit: All photographs are property of Amanda Kueper

4/18/2011

EVALUATION QUESTION

PEER-TO-PEER OUTREACH REGI ONAL I MPACT AND EVALUATI ON Shorna Broussard Allred Cornell University Dept. of Natural Resources Woodland Owner Peer-to-Peer Outreach and Networking Workshop April 18-19, 2011

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. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Raise awareness and understanding Measure progress towards goals Support decision making Demonstrate accountability Show impact

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

DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION FRAMEWORK WOODLAND OWNER PEER OUTREACH

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

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 Gilmartin 1980, p. xiii).

INDICATOR

Something that indicates something useful to someone based on one or more metrics, observations or both

4/18/2011

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

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD INDICATOR

1. Peer program awareness

• Measureable

2. Knowledge of forest stewardship

• Repeatable

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

• 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)

8. Community Conservation Capacity

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

RELEVANT EVALUATION STAKEHOLDERS

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS: SCALE OF PEER OUTREACH

• Watershed associations

• Means of peer outreach differ

• Community organizations

• Levels within peer outreach differ

• Peer volunteers • Municipal officials • Woodland owners • Land trusts

• 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

POTENTIAL INDICATORS: FOREST STEWARDSHIP • Forest Retention

2. Knowledge of forest stewardship 3. Capacity to do peer outreach 4. Stewardship behavior

• Forestland stewardship • Forestland Improvement

5. Education techniques used in peer to peer programs 6. Investment and Funding Peer Education 7. Network characteristics 8. Community Conservation Capacity

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

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: PEER OUTREACH NETWORKS

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

PEER OUTREACH INDICATORS

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

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

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

• 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)

SRB237@CORNELL.EDU 607-255-2149

www.human-dimensions.org

• Others?