Table of Contents |
||
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
||
INTRODUCTION |
||
| What about existing outreach models? | ||
| Why is this important to you? |
||
DIALOGUE ON DIVERSITY PILOT OUTREACH WORKSHOPS |
||
| Planning the workshops | ||
| Holding the workshops | ||
| Workshop follow-up | ||
| Conclusions |
||
SUCCESS OF THE PILOT OUTREACH WORKSHOPS |
||
| Learning during the workshops | ||
| Common themes | ||
| Participant evaluation of pilot outreach workshops | ||
| Workshop logistics | ||
| Workshop interactions | ||
| Overall evaluation |
||
A RECIPE FOR REACHING OUT |
||
| Ingredients | ||
| Special tools needed | ||
| Combining the Ingredients | ||
| Tips for success |
||
USING THE OUTREACH MODEL |
||
| Results | ||
| Connecticut | ||
| Missouri | ||
| Maryland | ||
| Conclusions |
||
REFERENCES |
||
APPENDIX A |
||
| Summary of Each Workshop | ||
| Marquette, MI 9-15-99 | ||
| Alpena, MI 9-30-99 | ||
| Muskegon, MI 11-4-99 | ||
| Detroit, MI 3-29-00 | ||
| Denver, CO 4-30-00 | ||
| Newark, NJ 6-7-00 | ||
| Charleston, WV 8-14-00 | ||
| Atlanta, GA 8-24-00 | ||
| Lincoln, NE 9-13-00 | ||
| Bronx, NY 9-25-00 | ||
| Goodwater, AL 9-27-00 |
||
APPENDIX B |
||
| Groups contacted | ||
| Marquette, Michigan | ||
| Detroit, Michigan | ||
| Muskegon, Michigan | ||
| Lincoln, Nebraska | ||
| Alpena, Michigan | ||
| Newark, New Jersey | ||
| Charleston, West Virginia | ||
| Goodwater, Alabama |
||
APPENDIX C |
||
| Resources | ||
| Agencies | ||
| Organizations | ||
| Web-Based Resource Materials | ||
| Literature |
||
A RECIPE FOR REACHING OUT - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT |
||
 |
||
|
AcknowledgementsWe thank all the people who gave their time, energy, and ideas to make this project a reality. Sandra Hill provided the initial inspiration with her stirring words at the 1998 Community Future Forum kick-off event in Washington, D.C. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources gave the initial funding support for the four workshops in Michigan. The Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters showed their interest in and support for our efforts, and provided assistance as we tested the model. We truly appreciate our local partners in the workshop cities and all the citizens who came and shared both their love of trees and their frustrations. Without them, there would have been no project. Finally, a special thank you goes to Kathy Anderson for her wonderful graphics for the report cover and overall document design. |
||
IntroductionFrom federal agencies to small nonprofits, the desire to get more people involved in urban and community forestry has increased. Although these efforts have noble objectives, they repeatedly fail in their attempts to obtain broader and more diverse citizen participation. This lack of diversity often relates to ethnic diversity, but not exclusively. At a typical urban forestry activity or meeting we see the usual folks -- tree board members, urban foresters, natural resource agency representatives, arborists, garden club members. Frequently, the participants in forestry activities, forums and issue discussions do not fully represent the population in the communities where they live.Natural resource professionals commonly perceive that the reason for lack of participation in natural resource activities is lack of citizen interest. Our experiences indicate that the reason people do not participate is lack of access and opportunity. The purpose of this report is to help natural resources professionals create more opportunities for involvement and recognize and identify ways to allow for greater access to programs. The Department of Forestry at Michigan State University and the USDA Forest Service asked what it would take to increase citizen participation in forestry-related activities. We often referred to our project as "engaging the nonengaged audiences." By "nonengaged," we mean anyone who has not been involved in natural resource or community forestry activities. This includes people of color, low-income populations, women, the young or old, or people from other professions -- anyone who has not been involved or has not accessed natural resource programs.
To identify a model for natural resource professionals to use to increase participation, we held 11 pilot outreach workshops across the country. Our intent was to bring in people who have never been involved in urban and community forestry in order to eventually broaden the circle of involvement. We wanted to determine why these people were not involved, what they wanted from urban and community forestry, and how they wanted to be involved. We also invited forestry professionals to meet and connect with the citizens who were "nonengaged" or underrepresented in urban and community forestry issues. We wanted to learn their reactions to information shared by citizen participants as well as to help them build relationships with these new audiences. From these meetings, we developed an outreach model that forestry and other natural resource professionals can use to reach out to different segments of society. What about existing outreach models?Several federal agencies have developed models for outreach. We think most of these models and efforts have not been effective because they do not allow enough time to truly understand targeted communities. Even though it seems like we are spending a significant amount of time reaching out to different segments of society, we really have not been doing enough to reach all of the different colors and philosophies that are now America. Frequently, we focus our efforts on groups and individuals specifically related to natural resources or the green industry and this can be very limiting. Not everyone is interested in urban and community forestry; however, during this project we found that many currently nonengaged people are interested in and supportive of urban and community forestry. Most of the folks who attended the pilot outreach workshops had no idea that urban and community forestry existed, yet they valued the trees in and around their homes and communities. When we told them about the profession and its opportunities and that urban foresters and arborists were available to assist them, they were very excited.Why is this important to you?You might be wondering why forestry agencies or nonprofit groups should be concerned with reaching out to "nonengaged" people. There are two important and related reasons. The first reason is equity. The health, social, and cultural benefits of trees where people live are well documented. Participation in community forestry projects also brings important benefits like community empowerment and a sense of control over the community (Vachta 2000). Forestry professionals have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens have access to these benefits. The second reason to reach out is pragmatic. Our programs cannot expand and grow without new constituencies. We are not serving diverse populations. In a recent study of who is represented in public participation opportunities provided by various forestry agencies and environmental organizations in Michigan, Smith and McDonough (2001) found that those participating were white males, 40-60 years old with a college degree. Unless we reach a more diverse group, urban and community forestry programs will cease to be relevant to most Americans even though they live in urban or metropolitan areas.This publication tells how we planned, organized, and conducted 11 pilot outreach workshops across the country. An outreach model based on the meetings is outlined for resource professionals and nonprofit groups to use in involving audiences who have not been engaged in urban and community forestry programs. The experiences of agencies who have used the model are included. Appendixes describe the lessons learned at each meeting, name the groups we contacted, and list related resources. We hope this report helps you meet new people who love trees and want to get involved.
|
Dialogue on Diversity Pilot Outreach WorkshopsWe held the Dialogue on Diversity pilot outreach workshops in 1999, in eleven cities across the country: Marquette, Alpena, Muskegon, and Detroit, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; Newark, New Jersey; Charleston, West Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; Lincoln, Nebraska; the Bronx, New York; and Goodwater, Alabama. These locations were chosen because we had strong local partners and other resources there. Diversity in terms of population, region, and size were also factors that were considered important in choosing meeting sites. Each meeting is summarized in Appendix A. This section of the report provides the details on workshop organization and planning. We developed the outreach model based on these experiences.Planning the workshopsGetting started: Perhaps the most important consideration in planning the pilot outreach workshops was finding a local partner to help coordinate the activity. It can be extremely difficult to plan a workshop when the planner is located in a different state. One of the reasons for the success in the Michigan workshops was the fact that we were reasonably familiar with the communities that we chose. Conversely, we were unable to hold workshops in three desired states (Massachusetts, Arizona, and California) due to the lack of local partners. A critical requirement for the local partner was that the person needed to be excited and dedicated to the workshop, and interested in taking an active (maybe even a leadership) role. In some cases, the local partner was a community member active in local affairs, while in other instances the local partner was a forestry professional who was knowledgeable about the community. Either situation worked out fine.Workshop location: For the workshops in Michigan, a first step often was to contact the local chamber of commerce and speak with the director. After explaining the objectives of the Dialogue on Diversity pilot outreach workshops, the director was able to make suggestions regarding where to hold the workshop. The chosen location was usually either a community college (if available) or a community center. In some cases, a hotel was used. Community colleges and community centers had a less formal environment, and seemed to put people more at ease. We also tried to reserve rooms that were larger than might normally be needed for a meeting with the number of people who attended. With three or four small group discussions going on simultaneously, the rooms tended to get noisy. Workshop time: With one exception, all of the workshops were held in the early evening and began with a light meal. The reasons for doing this were twofold; a free meal might entice people to attend. We believed that because we wanted something from them (their input), they should also receive something for their time. Second, by holding the workshops in the early evening, more people were able to attend on their way home from work and before later evening commitments. The only people who mentioned the time as being inconvenient were some of the forestry professionals, who would have rather held the workshops during their working hours. Most professionals also acknowledged, however, that it was necessary to meet in evenings so that more citizens could attend.
Workshop Outreach: We invited both natural resource professionals and citizens who were not involved in urban and community forestry issues. In order to get good information for the model, citizens had to be people who had never been involved in urban forestry activities. Desired participants were often racial and ethnic minorities since these groups have typically been left out of forestry discussions and decision-making; however, the participants did not necessarily have to be minorities. In Michigan, the chamber of commerce director was also helpful in identifying potential attendees. Most chambers of commerce have a directory of organizations for their community. These directories were helpful in finding contacts from various ethnic, community, social, and civic organizations. Most of the leaders of these organizations are active in community affairs, and were excellent resources for identifying additional potential attendees.
Our approach to outreach outside Michigan was different. Workshop organizers identified and contacted minority churches and leaders in the minority community. These people gave us names for potential attendees, who in turn gave us names and potential contacts. This process is called “snowball sampling” and can be very effective in identifying participants for activities. This process begins the development of relationships and trust between organizers and representatives of the community, which takes time, dedication, and sincerity. We often discovered that before people would be willing to give us names, we had to meet one-on-one or in a small group to discuss the goals of the workshops. By taking the time to meet with people, explain our intent, and address any questions or concerns, we established trust and rapport. The time spent was both necessary and valuable.
Since one of the main objectives was to reach out to people who had not been previously involved, and to learn why they were not involved, certain organizations were explicitly excluded simply because they were already involved. Attempts were made to avoid environmental groups that had participated in forestry-related decision-making processes. The groups we contacted are listed in Appendix B. Workshop Invitations: Once potential participants were identified, an invitation letter was sent explaining the program and its objectives. If the letter was sent to an organization’s leader, the letter also extended an open invitation for members of the organization to attend. Also included in the letter were directions, a map to the workshop location, and the written proposal -- which further explained the program. We found that the use of a local partner’s letterhead or reference to a local organization was helpful in assuring the requests were legitimate and worthy of time and interest. Follow-up phone calls: Approximately one week after the letters were sent, a phone call was made to each invitee, asking if he or she would be interested in attending the Dialogue on Diversity pilot outreach workshops, and if anyone from their organization might be interested in attending. Sometimes these people provided contact information for others who might want to attend (additional snowball sampling). In this case, letters were sent or phone calls were made to these individuals. Workshop attendance: Our goal was to get firm commitments from people who were interested in attending the workshops so that we could gauge how many people would attend. An ideal number of participants ranged from 25 to 40 people, with a citizen to professional ratio of about eight or nine citizens to three professionals. All people who committed were contacted a few days before each workshop, as a reminder. Unfortunately, there were still cases where people did not show up, but this follow-up step did reduce the number of no-shows. Invitation letters were sent about 8 weeks before the date of the workshop. This seemed to allow for sufficient notice for people to attend.
|
Holding the workshopsEach workshop was organized with similar logistics and activities. A registration table was located in an obvious area for all workshops. People were greeted and asked to sign in and pick up their nametag. Participants helped themselves to the appetizers and a drink and typically settled down with their acquaintances to eat dinner. After about 45 minutes, the participants were separated to begin the workshop overview and small group discussions.Overview of Workshops:Participants were welcomed, thanked for their participation, and given an overview of the purpose of the workshop and the project in general. It was important to explain the process for the workshop so that participants understood the role of the facilitators, the various types of discussions and activities, and their role in the workshop, and in the overall project. Facilitated Small Group Discussions (mixed groups including citizens and forestry professionals) It was important to break the larger group into smaller working groups that would allow for discussion of specific questions. Depending on the composition of the large groups, three or four small group discussions were held. Each group had a facilitator and a mix of forestry professionals and citizens with the desired ratio of three professionals for every eight or nine citizens. At the Michigan workshops, graduate students from the Forestry Department at Michigan State University served as facilitators. For the other workshops, nonparticipant natural resource professionals were frequently used. The intent was to keep the small group discussions very informal. Everyone introduced themselves and forestry professionals were identified. The questions asked by the facilitators were kept constant between workshops, except in the highly urbanized areas (Detroit and the Bronx) where a few alterations were made to account for different community and environmental composition. The role of the facilitator was to ask questions in the order given, and encourage participants in the group to comment or share ideas. This approach allowed for a free exchange of information and ideas because every person was given the opportunity to speak. Facilitators also were to keep any one individual from dominating the conversation, and to keep the discussion on the desired topic. It is very important for facilitators to maintain the process, and to remain impartial. Workshop leaders can help by moving around the room and listening to the discussions, and offering guidance to the facilitators when appropriate. During some small group discussions, inexperienced facilitators did have the tendency to offer their own opinions (which may be irrelevant to this project) and to ask questions that led the participants in a certain direction. We learned that for future workshops or other efforts requiring meeting management, trained facilitators would be necessary to avoid this unwanted influence and distraction. Facilitated Small Group Discussions (separate groups for citizens and natural resource professionals) After the facilitators had asked all of the questions that were to be discussed in the mixed group of citizens and forestry professionals, the second portion of the information sharing occurred. In this segment, all of the professionals were brought together in one group, while all of the citizens were gathered in another group. A facilitator then asked the professionals what they learned from the citizens in their small group discussions. The facilitator wrote down on a large easel all of the items that the professionals said they learned. This information was a good summary of everything the professionals thought they learned in their groups. It also allowed participants to hear what was discussed in the other groups. The same process was followed for the groups of citizens. At the end of this discussion a representative citizen and a representative forestry professional presented an overview of what each group shared. Evening Summary – Full Group Discussion The final segment of the workshop brought all of the participants together for a summary of the evening. The representative from the citizen group shared with the entire group what the citizens learned from the professionals. Similarly, the representative forestry professional was asked to do the same for the information garnered from the citizens. The dialogue, observations, and sharing during this segment was often filled with new awareness and expressions of surprise, disbelief, and/or validation. At the end of the workshop, we thanked all of the participants for attending. We reminded people to leave us their contact information so that we could call them to ask their thoughts for the evening and to send them this report.
|
Workshop follow-upAfter the workshops, we telephoned everyone who signed in. Seventeen questions were asked of both the professionals and the citizens. One series of questions related to the workshop format was asked of both groups. A second series asked the professionals to comment on the workshop content and how they perceived the citizens. Similarly, the citizens were asked their thoughts on the workshop content and their perceptions of the forestry professionals.We attempted to contact all of the participants; however, some people did not provide contact information. This was not a problem for people who were personally invited; but if someone attended as a guest of someone else, then we did not know how to contact them. Also, certain individuals did not respond to repeated attempts to contact them. Some people who did not offer their phone number did provide an email address or a mailing address. In certain cases, attempts were made to contact participants through these means. While it is somewhat understandable that some citizens might not respond to attempts to contact them due to other responsibilities in their lives, it is disconcerting that many forestry professionals ignored repeated requests to interview them. The interviews were a very interesting and important component of the entire process and critical for our use in evaluating and modifying the process. Nevertheless, we obtained enough aggregate information through the interviews that were conducted to draw conclusions from the data.
ConclusionsWe discovered that each community has different needs and concerns. We hope that you can learn from our pilot outreach workshops across the country, but you will have greater success following our recipe and using the unique ingredients necessary for your community. For example, the Atlanta and Bronx workshops were very passionate, but in different ways. The citizens in Atlanta were very vocal and highly distrustful of the professionals. The Bronx residents were more concerned with cleaning up their neighborhoods. They wanted to know how to obtain funding to beautify their community. Asthma is a significant problem there due to polluted air and the lack of green space. A commonality between Atlanta and the Bronx was that the citizens wanted to see tangible results.A commonality between Detroit, The Bronx, and Goodwater, Alabama, related to funding. The citizens of these three communities were very concerned about receiving funding for tree-related projects, especially in The Bronx and Goodwater. They wanted to know who to contact and how to go about obtaining grants. This could be due to the fact that these communities are worse off economically than the other communities in the study. Goodwater, Newark, and Charleston were much more congenial to us, without the animosity that was present in Atlanta or The Bronx. People were more concerned with getting involved, knowing whom to call, and finding information.
|
Success of the Pilot Outreach WorkshopsNumbers and types of participants, as well as follow-up activities and interviews, show that the pilot outreach workshops were effective. Participant feedback about the workshops indicated that an overall increased awareness of urban forestry, access to resources and information, and the ability to build connections and network were results of participation. Follow-up evaluations by the participants after the workshops showed continued interest and involvement in natural resources activities. Learning during the workshopsOrganizers and participants alike learned much about urban forestry perspectives, the need for better access to information and resources, and the value of open communication during the 11 pilot outreach workshops. Overall, workshop success was dependent on the amount of time and effort spent by the organizers to identify and encourage participation by as many people as possible. Because it was critical that participants were not already active in urban forestry activities, workshop organizers faced an additional challenge.The biggest challenge was finding people who were interested, but for whatever reason had not been previously involved. We often heard people say that they have been concerned about forestry-related issues, but had not been involved because they simply had not been asked, they did not know how to become involved, or they did not know whom to call to get involved. Another reason (although not as common as the others) for not getting involved was that people did not have the time due to other responsibilities in their lives. During most of the workshops, the natural resource professionals did not say much in their groups unless they were asked direct questions. At several of the workshops, it was obvious that many of the foresters were not comfortable speaking with the public. A few foresters even acknowledged that this is an issue. As natural resource issues become more important and citizens demand more involvement, professionals may have to develop better communication skills and increase their comfort level when they are involved in such situations. Two-way dialogue was seen as a very positive experience for both natural resource professionals and members of the public. The public was pleased with an opportunity to ask questions and share ideas, and the natural resources professionals valued the opportunity to exchange ideas, share information and address questions. Networking and connecting were very positive outcomes. Common themesA variety of themes emerged during the workshops and during the overall workshop evaluation process. These themes – education, who to contact, importance of trees -- offer guidance as we strive to increase public participation in natural resource issues and activities.Education: Both the public and natural resources professionals indicated that increased education is needed, in particular, efforts that involved children. Citizens do want to be educated by foresters. Although citizens expressed some distrust of foresters, citizens generally do trust the professionals and want to be educated by them. Professionals need to be cognizant of this, and also to be aware that they need to communicate with citizens and not simply talk at them or tell them what to do. With few exceptions, citizens trusted the foresters to provide the technical information that citizens lack; however, they still expect to be included in discussions and decision-making. Who to contact: Citizens do not know whom to contact with their tree-related concerns and questions. As natural resource professionals, we need to realize that our knowledge of who to contact for information is not common knowledge. In fact, knowing where to go for information is often very confusing to the public. They acknowledge that there are many resources “out there,” but often do not know where to begin to search for information. In addition, two-way communication is key. Without it, it is difficult for citizens and professionals to work together. This was mentioned mostly by citizens, but was also acknowledged by some professionals. Unfortunately, not all professionals appear to be open to two-way communication. Quotes made by foresters at two different workshops were, “Feel free to call us,” and “We are in the phone book.” While these professionals stated their willingness to assist citizens, this is not the type of interactive communication that will help to break down communication barriers and facilitate stronger working relationships. Natural resource professionals need to be pro-active in information sharing and making themselves available to the public. Importance of trees: Trees and other local natural resources are very important to people. Many concerns were expressed about sprawl and the resulting lack of green spaces. Although people realize the importance of trees in their communities, some citizens acknowledged that people do not get involved unless issues directly affect them. This could be a reason why more people are not involved in tree-related issues. Professionals and citizens have common concerns. Identifying these commonalities will help both groups to work together. Citizens want follow-up and to see tangible results for natural resources issues that are raised. Both citizens and professionals felt that the workshops were a good way to make contacts. Participant Evaluation of Pilot Outreach WorkshopsAfter each workshop, we called all workshop participants and asked them specific questions concerning workshop logistics, workshop interactions, and the overall workshop.
Workshop logisticsWorkshop Purpose: We asked the attendees what they thought the purpose of the workshop was. As this was an open-ended question, there were many responses. The professionals offered 14 different responses, while the citizens had 17 answers. Both groups said the main purpose was to develop a forum to communicate between citizens and professionals. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the responses to this question was in the second most common response from each group. Many of the professionals answered that the purpose was for professionals to learn how to communicate with the public. It is almost as if they thought this was an exercise attempting to educate them. None of the citizens gave this answer. The second most common response of the citizens was that the purpose was to educate or inform the public. Only two professionals gave this answer. It appears there are still many citizens who do not consider themselves to be equal to the professionals in this type of discussion. Some citizens said as much when they indicated that they enjoyed being educated by the professionals. Several citizens also said the main purpose was to get citizens involved and to find out what citizens know. Other common responses from both groups were to obtain citizen input and to involve minorities.Format: Almost everyone indicated that the format worked exceptionally well. A majority of professionals (86 percent) and citizens (77 percent) said the workshop length of about two hours was acceptable. Thirteen percent of the citizens thought that it lasted too long. It could be that, unlike professionals, some citizens are not accustomed to attending workshops. A few people thought that certain segments of the workshop could have been longer or shorter, but they were in the minority. Time and Location: Almost all participants indicated that the workshop time and location were convenient. A few foresters would have preferred to have had the workshop held during business hours, although most acknowledged the need to hold it at a time when more citizens could attend. Workshop interactionsOpportunity to Speak: One of the major objectives of the workshops was to develop a forum where all participants were given the opportunity to express their views in a relaxed, non-confrontational setting. To that end, the participants were asked if they were given enough opportunities to speak throughout the evening; 93 percent of the citizens and 91 percent of the professionals answered in the affirmative. Some participants felt that their small group discussion was dominated by a particular individual or that a participant did not have the intention of listening to other viewpoints, but the affirmative response rates strongly suggest that this type of communication forum does allow for a free exchange of ideas and information. Skilled facilitators can help to limit a person from dominating the discussions, thereby giving everyone the opportunity to speak.
Comfortable Speaking: In addition to allowing everyone the opportunity to participate, we wanted people to feel comfortable in doing so. The participants were asked just how comfortable they were speaking in the small group setting. There responses were as follows: |
|
The higher percentages for the professionals are likely due to
the fact that they are more familiar with participating in various forms of
public communication. Many of the citizens who attended had not previously
participated in a public forum.
Improved Understanding: We asked participants if they had a better understanding of the other group after attending a workshop. Responses were as follows: |
|
||||||||||||
These results are consistent with the results from the proceeding
two questions. Some of the foresters seem to think they have heard this before,
so it is natural that they think they did not learn anything new. And since so
many professionals did not think the citizens understood them, it is possible
that their thinking was biased against learning anything new from the
citizens. Overall evaluationPositives: Participants were asked to discuss the aspects of the workshop they found especially good and that should definitely be kept for future workshops. Professionals gave 10 different responses and citizens gave 11. There was a great deal of similarity between the two groups. The most common response by far on the part of both groups was the small group format. Everyone also liked the opportunity to express one’s viewpoints in a relaxed environment, as well as the inclusion of dinner. People also liked the interaction between the groups and the positive atmosphere.Negatives: The participants were also asked to discuss the aspects of the workshop that should be discarded. There were not very many responses to this question, although the foresters had more suggestions than the citizens did. Citizens had eight different suggestions, while the professionals had 14; however only one or two individuals suggested many of the responses. The only answer given by more than two professionals was to have stronger facilitators (some were critical of having graduate students facilitate). Five of the citizens wanted the questions redone, stating that they were too broad, vague, or both. Suggestions for Improvement: Besides critiquing the aspects of the workshop they felt needed improvement, participants were asked if they had any other suggestions for making the workshop better. Professionals had 14 suggestions, while citizens had 18. As with the previous question, many of the answers were given only by one or two people. Only 4 of the 14 professionals’ suggestions (and 4 of the 18 citizen suggestions) were mentioned by more than two people. The most common answer was to identify and explain what the next steps would be. People wanted something concrete to come from these workshops. Attempts were made to make it very clear that we were trying to design a process for future workshops, but some of the people (especially the citizens) appeared to have missed this point. Suggestions for More Participation From Other Citizens: Participants were asked if they had any suggestions for getting more people to attend similar workshops. There were three answers given by both groups. The most common response was to contact schools, and outdoor and neighborhood groups. Next, people suggested having participants bring a friend with them. Third, people suggested more publicity and advertising. Both professionals and citizens gave these three suggestions. Another response was to have neighborhood and community leaders contact people, which is an approach we learned was necessary in certain geographic areas as the project developed. Three times as many citizens said this as did professionals. Worth the Time: Ninety three percent of both groups said the evening was worth their time. This was encouraging because even though there were some people who did not agree with opposing views or were perhaps a bit defensive, almost everyone found the workshops worthwhile. Attend Another Similar Workshop: We asked participants if they would attend another similar workshop if the opportunity arose. Responses were as follows: |
|
||||||||||||
A Recipe for Reaching OutThe goal of the “Dialogue on Diversity” workshops was to gather information for the outreach model while building long-term relationships between foresters and the communities in which the workshops were held. The intent of any outreach is to bring in people that have never been involved while making sure that existing contacts continue. The methodology used to plan these workshops as well as the information gathered during and after the workshops make up the recipe provided here.Ingredients
Special tools needed
Combining the IngredientsStep 1 – Have a goal in mind. Before you start, spend some time thinking about the type of activity in which you want to diversify involvement. Is it a grant program that does not accurately reflect all constituents or a workshop that is always attended by the same people?Step 2 – Find a local partner and identify community leaders. Talk to church leaders, community groups, neighborhood associations, school system administrators, chambers of commerce, garden clubs, YWCA’s, YMCA’s, other youth organizations, and colleges and universities (even those without forestry programs). Oftentimes, we focus on groups and individuals that have a specific “green” or natural resources connection. We need to look beyond these groups. For example, churches and chambers of commerce may not have a direct role in urban forestry, but their members are organized, representative of their community, are often active and concerned. Once given access to natural resources information and ideas for natural resources projects, these groups can serve as effective partners in spreading the word on natural resources management. As you contact community leaders, it is often valuable to meet with them face to face to learn about who they are as well as the people they represent. Use this process to identify community leaders who will be your local partner(s) and who will lead you to other people. This will build trust and understanding between you and the people you are attempting to reach. Take the time to build relationships. Step 3 – Identify a specific meeting, event, or activity. Plan and develop your event or meeting and, learn what interests members of the community. It is very important to involve community leaders in the actual event or meeting planning. This will ensure that you don’t organize something no one is interested in. Step 4 – Identify and work in locations and at times that are comfortable, convenient and neutral for the community. Find out by asking your community leaders. If applicable, be sure your meeting location is accessible to public transportation. Make sure the date and time are convenient for the community. Your community contact will often be the best source of advice on this. Step 5 – Reach out. During conversations with community leaders and organization and club members, ask for names of colleagues, other community leaders, and other groups in the community. Typically, every person will give you an additional 5 to 10 names. Contact EVERY person whose name you are given. You will find that not every person you speak to is interested, but some will be. It is up to you to find them. It is important that you keep good records during this process so you can easily access the names AND the people again. You can also contact and work with churches, neighborhood groups, and other local groups to request that they include a notice of your event in their newsletter or bulletin. You can make this normal procedure. They might ask you to start making regular contributions to their newsletter. Attend a group’s meeting to make a short presentation about urban and community forestry, or schedule a time to meet and talk with leaders. At a tree inventory training in Connecticut, about 15 previously unengaged people attended because a tree board member made a presentation to their group. Step 6 – Send invitation letters. Be sure to send out your invitation letters well in advance – about one month. Don’t expect one letter to do the trick. You will also need to send out a reminder post card or, preferably, follow up with phone calls. Address the letter to an actual person, not “to whom it may concern.” It is great if local community groups can send out the letters on their own letterhead for you. Personalizing invites will give you more credibility. Step 7 – Make follow-up phone calls. About one week before the event, you will need to call as many people that you invited as you can. You might not have time to call everyone, but you will find that the people you call will be the ones most likely to participate. Step 8 – Hold the event or sponsor the activity. If your budget allows, serve refreshments at the event. Be sure that people have an opportunity to participate, talk with each other and you, and make contacts for further projects. Dialogue and listening are very important. This is a wonderful opportunity for people to network and connect with others. Be prepared to offer business cards, website information, or handout material that gives participants access to further information and assistance. If appropriate, recognize the community leaders and other that helped you with the event. If you are sponsoring an activity that may not traditionally include and activity (for example, increased participation in a grant program), consider providing an opportunity for questions and feedback. Step 9 – Be sure to follow-up afterwards. Take time to thank everyone for helping you plan the event and for attending. Oftentimes the people who help you may not be able to attend the event; thank them anyway. Send promised information. Follow-up with actual plans or projects. Step 10 – Maintain the relationships just created. Try to involve new people in a specific activity right away. Add the names of participants to newsletters and information distribution lists. If appropriate, identify individuals that seemed particularly interested in natural resources activities and invite them to participate in other related activities (tree board membership, volunteer planting days, advisory committees, etc.). Make sure these individuals receive any materials or information that has been developed as a result of the meeting. |
|
|
Using the Outreach ModelIn July 2000, the Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF) participated in a session entitled, “Dialogue on Diversity” which featured a panel of experts in the area of diversity. Included in that panel were authors Maureen McDonough and Lisa Burban. The presentation generated significant discussion and interest, and at the end of the session, McDonough and Burban were given support from NAASF to test the model in three states served by the Northeastern Area. State Foresters from Connecticut, Missouri, and Maryland offered to serve as demonstration states. Each state selected an activity or project upon which it would be appropriate to test the model, and McDonough, Burban and Russell worked with State Urban Foresters to provide training and assistance. McDonough and Burban met with representatives in each state and provided a one-day training session on the use of the model. In Connecticut the targeted project was a tree inventory training session held in June 2001 by the Milford Tree Commission. In Missouri, the targeted project was a leadership workshop held in September 2001 by the Missouri Department of Conservation.A discussion of the results by state follows. Maryland was unable to completely test the model, but is committed to reaching out to underserved communities using recommendations from the model. ResultsConnecticut:The Milford Tree Commission and Milford Trees, Inc. held a tree inventory training in Milford (population 52,305) on June 16, 2001. To reach people they had not previously engaged they (1) sent press releases to all local newspapers, (2) called all city and officials and employees, Environmental Concerns Coalition members, Milford Trees, Inc. members, and friends, (3) placed printed posters all over Milford in stores, banks, library, city hall, senior citizen center, schools, and other strategic places, and (4) made presentations to local groups. The organizers’ goal was to have 100 participants attend the training session. Over 50 attended the training, which was held in a central location in downtown Milford. Milford Trees, Inc. member, Mary Ludwig, commented that a wide variety of people participated, many of who had a definite interest in the “outdoors,” and looked forward to an opportunity to be outside. Most neighborhoods in Milford were represented; some only had one participant, but most had at least five. The organizers of the tree inventory training were able to attract people who had never been involved in tree activities. Most people read about the training in the newspaper. The other effective ways of alerting people were word of mouth, presentations made to specific groups, or seeing the information in a flier. Missouri: On September 18, 2001, the Missouri Department of Conservation hosted a seminar called “The Community Forestry Leadership Workshop.” The target audience was mayors, city administrators, and presiding commissioners in the nine counties that make up the Department’s East-Central region. With two exceptions, communities in this region were not participating in urban and community forestry activities. The workshop was designed to show communities how they could participate in and benefit from urban and community forestry. To get people to the training, the four foresters in the region and the state urban forestry coordinator divided up the workload. They sent 70 invitations. Each forester called the communities in their region. Twenty-eight people registered for the workshop, but only 18 attended. Department of Conservation officials noted that the process did bring nontraditional groups together, but that they would like to gain a better assessment of the costs and benefits of using the model. All participants were given an information kit and a thank-you letter with additional information. Those who registered but did not attend were mailed a thank-you-for-your-interest letter and the informational kit. The workshop organizers found the model to have merit and plan to use it again. It was very time consuming, however, and had they not split the workload among five people, they would not have been able to implement it. A year after the training, it was difficult to determine whether communities that attended the workshop are now involved in the urban and community forestry program at some level. Department of Conservation staff recommended a more direct and active follow-up activity to be done immediately after the outreach efforts. This action step would offer an immediate tangible activity for individuals that could keep them interested and involved. Maryland: The Maryland Department of Natural Resources – Forest Service was not able to implement the model; however, it is using concepts and information from the model to reach out to “under-served communities.” So far, they have given first-time grants to several of these targeted communities, and one has become a “Tree City USA.” ConclusionsOverall, specific use of the model was limited. Of the three demonstration states, only Missouri was able to fully use and evaluate the model. Representatives from Connecticut and Maryland offered excellent commentary and observations about the use of the model, in particular in terms of when its use is most appropriate and beneficial.Chris Donnelly, State Urban Forestry Coordinator for the Connecticut Division of Forestry, noted that the model offered a good reality check when an agency considers how to “get the word out” on a project or activity. The model forces you to consider those individuals and groups that will never have access to information and resources in traditional ways such as newsletters, press releases, letters, the internet, and to identify other ways to communicate. Representatives in both Connecticut and Missouri acknowledged that implementing the model is time consuming, yet can prove to be successful. They also commented that it is critical to keep accurate and detailed records of all contacts, to allow for future contacts and involvement in activities. Individuals who used the model recommend being selective in its application, and acknowledged that they did intend to continue to use the model in the future.Justine Gartner, State Urban Forestry Coordinator for the Missouri Department of Conservation noted the importance of having a very specific activity to engage people in immediately after any training or outreach efforts. She found people to be very interested in urban forestry when they were introduced to it, but felt this interest could be lost if not fostered. The Connecticut and Missouri urban foresters recommended that specific training opportunities on the use of the model be offered at state conferences and other training events. |
ReferencesCampo-Flores, A., V.E. Smith, K. Breslau, A. Samuels, and L. Clemetson. The New Face of Race. Newsweek. September 18, 2000.Smith, P.D. and M.H. McDonough, 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision-making. Society and Natural Resources 14:239-249. U.S. Census Bureau 2001 Vachta, K.V. 2000. Participatory development and organizational empowerment: Community forestry in Detroit. Ph.D. dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. |
Appendix ASummary of Each WorkshopAll Pilot Outreach Workshops were tape-recorded (with participant knowledge and approval). Observations and comments were compiled and a short summary for each workshop is provided.MARQUETTE, MI 9-15-99The first workshop was held in Marquette, Michigan at a local Holiday Inn in town. Being the initial workshop, we were not sure what to expect from participants, nor were we sure how many people would attend. The turnout was good. There was a strong Michigan Department of Natural Resources presence. There were a total of 16 citizens and 12 natural resource professionals. To start off the small group discussions, the participants were asked how they used and interacted with trees in their lives. Obviously, the foresters relied on the field of forestry for their livelihood and mentioned this. Foresters also discussed the importance of forests producing lumber for use by society and the biological diversity that forests provide. More than one forester also commented that forests were more important to them than just for a career. For instance, the foresters would not have chosen forestry as a profession had they not been interested in forests for other reasons, such as spiritual and emotional fulfillment, aesthetics and recreational purposes. As one forestry professional stated, “Trees are the essence of life.”Citizens offered some similar responses. Recreational pursuits such as hiking, hunting, birding and woodworking were discussed. Abstract benefits of forests were also discussed, such as aesthetics, solitude, the feeling of getting away from other people and preserving forests for future generations. Finally, one person held an existence value for forests. He mentioned that he felt better simply knowing that forests existed, even if he did not personally use them or would ever get to visit them. The citizens were asked to describe the expectations they had of foresters. The most common response was professionalism. This was mentioned in all three groups. The practical need for technical competency was mentioned. Respect for forests was discussed so that forests were not utilized simply to produce lumber. Similarly, one citizen also wanted foresters “to be aware of the big picture.” This person felt it was important for professionals to consider all uses and values of forests and to recognize the need to conserve forests for the future. Another citizen furthered this point by stating that foresters need to consider the consequences of their actions. Finally, two citizens want professionals to allow citizens to participate in natural resource decision-making. The citizens were then asked the follow-up question of, “How do we make sure foresters are doing their jobs right?” A citizen stated, “Education, evaluation, accountability.” He obviously felt that foresters need to be educated, so they can perform their jobs competently. He also expected a system of evaluation to ensure that professionals actually are doing their jobs right. Finally, making professionals accountable for their actions would ensure that they were indeed correctly performing their jobs. Another citizen said that if professionals communicated regularly with citizens, it would be possible to determine if they were properly performing their jobs to the desires of society. The participants were next asked to describe their involvement in forestry issues. The citizens who attended this workshop were very involved, perhaps due to the fact that people who live in the Upper Peninsula live among and rely on trees so much in their lives. Manners of participation that were mentioned included scouting, educational tours, calling the Michigan DNR and other agencies, signing petitions, sending email communications and lastly, one woman spearheaded a drive to stop a wooded area from being clear-cut. Some professionals were also involved in forestry issues with the public, some as part of their jobs, but others outside of work. One forester was involved in public outreach and attended workshops and meetings. Another was involved in hunter safety classes, writing letters to the local newspaper and was a member in The Society of American Foresters. Finally, the participants were asked how to involve other citizens in forestry and other natural resource issues. Citizens again stated the importance of foresters making themselves accessible to the public. Citizens want to be consulted and included, but they did not know who to contact. Foresters also offered suggestions. One suggested that people need to make themselves better-informed citizens. He felt that information is available if you look for it. Other suggestions offered by foresters were for citizens to attend agency open houses so that could get on mailing lists to obtain information and to find out who they need to meet. One point was made both by a citizen and a professional. It was stated that people do not get involved in an issue until it directly affects them. (This has since been stated at several other workshops.) MARQUETTE FORESTERS LEARNED:
MARQUETTE CITIZENS LEARNED:
|
ALPENA, MI 9-30-99The Alpena workshop was held at the Alpena Community College in downtown Alpena. This particular community is located in the northeast section of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. It is a relatively small town, with 31,314 residents and has not experienced much population growth in the last 40 years. Due to its northern location and the fact that it borders Lake Huron, Alpena is a vacation destination as well as a retiree location. The percentage of people living in Alpena County who are over age 65 is almost 50 percent higher than the Michigan and national averages. Also of note is that over 98 percent of the population is white. Only 9.6 percent of the adult population has a college degree, compared with 13.8 percent statewide, and 15.5 percent nationally. The median household income is almost $32,000 compared with almost $39,000 statewide.Due to the demographics, there was not a great deal of ethnic diversity at this workshop. There was diversity relating to the ages of attendees, with a significant number of retirement-aged citizens in attendance. All together, there were 22 citizens and 10 natural resource professionals. This allowed for three small group discussions. This particular workshop was similar to the other Michigan workshops in that the citizens were quite interested in listening to the foresters and for the most part, respected the foresters and the jobs that they performed. There was a desire on the part of the citizens to learn from the foresters, but also to be included in the actions taken by these professionals. One of the main things several citizens mentioned as learning was the difference between a forester and a logger. One man said he thought the terms were synonymous. The professionals were very patient in explaining the difference between the two. A factor that helped the citizens realize the difference between various professionals and what they do was the fact that several different organizations and agencies were represented. Foresters were in attendance from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), The USDA Forest Service as well as the Alpena County Conservation District. There were also foresters from private forestry companies. Since there is often the perception in Michigan that anything related to forestry is controlled by the MDNR, it was good for people to learn about the different organizations that exist as well as the different jobs that professionals hold. In conducting interviews after the workshop, it was very clear that people were confused about whom to contact with their questions. This was stated by several citizens at the workshop. While not knowing who to contact was a concern by several citizens, the greatest concern on the part of the citizens was development and what that would do to the landscape. As was mentioned, there are many people in the area who have retired to the area and one of the main reasons for this is the environment and the natural surroundings. The people in Alpena are very concerned about the trees in the area. One citizen was particularly appalled by a clearcut he had seen. Two foresters tried to explain the need to conduct clearcuts, but the citizen did not seem to agree with what he was told. Many of the citizens were active in some form in the community. There were four people from a private neighborhood association who had previously worked with one of the agency foresters in developing a plan for the trees in their neighborhood. Two of these citizens (a husband and wife) became angry during the small group discussion and left when it was over. Apparently, there had been some disagreement in the development of their forestry plan and this couple was still angry about it and wanted to voice their displeasure. Other than this minor occurrence, the workshop went well. It was at this workshop that we began to notice the trend of people making contacts with each other. One gentleman in particular was excited about meeting new people and mentioned this when interviewed. ALPENA FORESTERS LEARNED:
ALPENA CITIZENS LEARNED:
MUSKEGON, MI 11-4-99The Muskegon workshop was held at the Holiday Inn Muskegon Harbor. This workshop had the highest turnout of all the Michigan workshops. There were 30 citizens and 11 professionals, which made the small group discussions somewhat larger than desired. There were three of the small group discussions. The people of Muskegon hold a wide array of values relating to trees. Some people mentioned utilitarian uses such as valuing trees for their financial value as timber and for maple syrup. Another person mentioned the increased value of his home due to the trees in his yard. Other uses of trees include providing compost for gardening as well as providing firewood.Conversely, other people mentioned more abstract values of trees. A woman discussed the spiritual values that nature and trees can provide. Another person talked about fond memories of climbing trees as a child. Recreation was also mentioned as a value, which could relate to both utilitarian uses such as hunting, and abstract uses such as enjoying wildlife in wooded areas. A discussion in one group centered on how forested areas in different settings need to be managed differently. The foresters dominated this discussion (understandably) and explained how different techniques needed to be carried out. The importance of planting the correct species for a particular environment and setting was discussed. Thinning and tree-cutting techniques were also discussed. A citizen could not understand the need to clearcut. A forester tried to explain that certain species such as aspen, regenerate better when clearcut. And since this is a fast growing species, an aspen clearcut does not look that bad within just a few years. The citizen seemed to appreciate the explanation, although he still might not have agreed with it. The citizens had strong expectations of the foresters. The people seem to like the fact that Muskegon has amenities, yet it is not a large metropolitan area. There are still areas to escape to in order to enjoy nature. As one citizen stated, “We don’t want Muskegon to look like Detroit.” To that end, the citizens expect foresters to strike a balance between development and preservation. The citizens were asked to describe the state of their involvement (if any) in natural resource issues. Only one group had any citizens it in who had been involved. The involvement came through Arbor Day activities, the local garden club, Michigan State University Extension and through cooperating with the Gypsy Moth Suppression program. One man had gone to a USDA Forest Service field office to obtain a firewood permit and described his experience as a positive one. The citizens discussed two barriers to participation. The first was that people would like to be involved in forestry and other natural resource issues, but they did not know how they could become involved or who to contact to become involved. Hopefully, workshops such as these will provide ways for citizens to obtain the information and contacts they desire. The second barrier discussed was simply that people generally do not become involved in an issue until the issue directly affects them on a personal level. It is difficult to explain to people why they might want to get involved even if something does not directly affect them, other than to perhaps suggest why forestry issues affect them in ways they may not have considered. Finally, the participants were asked if they had any suggestions for getting citizens involved in forestry issues. Several ideas were put forward. People in two different groups suggested using the media. Specifically, one citizen suggested writing letters to the editor in their local newspaper. It was thought that this would be a good way to create awareness of the importance of forestry issues. Other suggestions offered by the citizens were to join organizations active in natural resource issues, using the internet to create awareness, joining together with other citizens to form a unified voice, getting on agencies’ mailing lists and, finally, by attending public hearings. A forester discussed the problem with the last suggestion: people do not typically attend public meetings. Foresters said they would be happy to involve citizens if the citizens would just contact the foresters. A problem with this is that, as was just mentioned, oftentimes citizens do not know whom to contact. A forester admitted that natural resource professionals tend to be reactive, rather than proactive. MUSKEGON FORESTERS LEARNED:
MUSKEGON CITIZENS LEARNED:
DETROIT, MI 3-29-00The Detroit workshop was held at the McGregor Memorial Conference Center, which is located on the campus of Wayne State University in downtown Detroit. There were 37 confirmed participants, with 28 of them being citizens; however, most of the citizens who had confirmed did not show up. Only 7 citizens attended, while 13 natural resource professionals attended, which was more than had confirmed. While it is natural to expect that a small number of confirmations will be broken, it was very surprising that so many people did not show up, especially since many of the citizens were active in the community, including several leaders from community groups.We were curious to find out why so many people did not show up, so we called the people that did not attend to find out why. One thought was that the location might have been difficult to find. None of the people interviewed mentioned that as a reason. The reasons given were sick, wife went into premature labor, out of town, couldn’t make it, scheduling conflict, forgot, and perhaps the most honest, “No reason really, just didn’t.” Apparently, many of these people did not feel obligated to attend, even though they made the commitment. Due to the different citizen-to-professional ratio at this workshop, a slightly different procedure was followed for this workshop. The session after the small groups in which the citizens explain what they learned from the foresters, while the foresters do the same of the citizens, was not held. There simply were not enough citizens to warrant doing so. For the same reason, the final summarizing session was not held. Instead, two small group discussions were held that lasted a bit longer than they normally would have. The people of Detroit value many of the same things as do people in the other communities in which workshops were held. Important characteristics include the people, relationships with other community members, feeling a sense of community, access to amenities, and an item that wasn’t mentioned in other meetings: a diversity of the citizenship. Similarly, when asked to discuss the trees in their community, common answers were given. The importance of trees providing a canopy for shade was mentioned. People also discussed the trees in the parks of Detroit, and the feeling of relief from living in an urban setting that trees can provide. On a more utilitarian note, a citizen discussed how trees could shield their home from the elements, lowering their air conditioning bill in the summer. Further, a person discussed the increase in value that her home has, due to the trees in her yard. There were many concerns regarding the trees in Detroit; many of them unique to an urban setting. For example, there was a lengthy discussion in one group regarding the lack of diversity of tree species in the city. Apparently, too many silver maples were planted in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Today, many of these trees are dying due to natural causes or lack of proper maintenance, which was also mentioned as a concern. The present issues being addressed are which species to plant in the city and who is going to care for the trees once they are planted. One person was concerned that there are not enough trees in Detroit. A forester agreed, and furthered this concern by discussing the proper species that should be planted and wondered if people are going to repeat past mistakes (too many silver maples). A concern of the foresters is the lack of knowledge on the part of non-professionals. This charge was directed at both developers and homeowners. This is thought to be understandable on the part of homeowners, but unacceptable for developers. Providing education to both groups was suggested as a way to alleviate this problem. The next portion of the discussion related to interactions between citizens and professionals. The citizen leaders mentioned that the main interaction they have had with professionals has been through obtaining funding for grant proposals, through networking, and from working with The Greening of Detroit, a non-profit organization in the city. Some of the foresters work quite often with citizen groups through tree plantings and tree sales. The foresters also mentioned that they spend a significant amount of time answering citizen questions and responding to citizen requests. Expectations of foresters on the part of citizens include educating children, maintaining the existing trees and teaching citizens to do the same. Citizens also expect foresters to perform their jobs demonstrating a great deal of professionalism, and would like to see foresters collaborating with citizens through community groups. One citizen succinctly summed this point up: “I think a big chunk of being a professional in forestry today is being a good people/PR kind of person.” By meeting some of these expectations, foresters could better meet the needs of the citizens. Education was stressed on this point. A forester acknowledged that the average citizen does not know whom to contact with their tree-related concerns. He felt that by making people aware of whom they can contact, professionals would be better able to meet the needs of citizens. Since most of the citizens who attended were active in the community, most have had interactions with forestry professionals. This involvement has come in the form of participating in tree plantings, working through community and block clubs, attending educational programs and participating in the Gypsy Moth Suppression Program. A lengthy discussion was held regarding barriers to participation and what would make it easier for people to participate. Both citizens and professionals stated that people working together was crucial. Also, it was mentioned that the professionals need to make concerted efforts to involve citizens and not just wait for citizens to approach the professionals. One of the groups discussed at length the issue of economics in natural resource issues. Specifically, people felt that citizens are not more involved in urban forestry issues because they have more immediate, pressing concerns related to their financial situations. Many of the citizens living within Detroit’s city limits are not as well off financially as those living in most of the other communities in which workshops were held. Although citizens might think that natural resource issues are important, they are not deemed as important as earning a living and providing for the family. It was felt that this problem exists on a much deeper level than that in which forestry professionals could help. DENVER, CO 4-30-00The Denver discussion was held as a workshop at the 2000 National Hispanic Sustainable Energy and Environmental Conference. This particular workshop consisted entirely of natural resource professionals or aspiring natural resource professionals (college students). Most of these individuals were employed in the forestry profession, although there were some who worked in different natural resource fields. Further, many of the individuals worked for the USDA Forest Service. There were 24 people in attendance, so two group discussions were held. After these, a lengthy summarizing session was held so that the participants in one group could hear what was discussed in the other group. The participants were very eager to discuss what they had learned, so the summarizing session lasted for 1 ½ hours.Most of the questions that were used were the same questions asked at the other meetings, although some were altered somewhat to account for the fact that the workshop consisted only of professionals. For example, at the other workshops, we asked the citizens if and how they had ever interacted with natural resource professionals. At the Denver workshop, the professionals were asked how they interact with citizens. For the general questions asked, the responses were similar to those acquired at the other workshops. The professionals feel the same as citizens in other communities regarding the components of their communities that are important to them. The Denver professionals mentioned people, family, neighbors, roots, amenities and a sense of community as being important to them. Citizens in other workshops have mentioned all these items. Similarly, when asked to discuss the trees in their community, the Denver professionals described trees in a similar fashion, as did citizens. The importance of trees providing shade was mentioned, while development was mentioned as causing a decrease in greenspaces. Most of the concerns about trees among the professionals were similar to those held by citizens in other communities. The aforementioned development is a high concern of professionals, as is providing education and performing the required maintenance of trees. One concern that was unique to the professionals was the planting of non-native species. This has been mentioned by professionals in other workshops, but has not been mentioned by any citizens. The professionals at the Denver workshop interact often with citizens in the communities in which they live and work. This is done through several different means. Involving children was discussed at length. This related to the concern of providing education. The importance of involving people (children) at an early age was stressed, since children are more impressionable at young ages. One professional discussed her efforts to involve citizens by going through community groups and contacting community leaders. She felt that she was more successful in involving citizens by enlisting the aid of leaders in the community who were well thought of and who have good connections. This is a strategy that we have used in all of our other workshops. Community leaders generally know the citizens better than forestry professionals do, so it is important to work with these leaders. Further, the importance of communication was stressed in developing solid working relationships. This point has been mentioned at all of the workshops, both by citizens and by professionals. The final point made in working with citizens was interesting because it is often found in the literature regarding public participation. One professional stressed the importance of involving citizens before a decision had been made. This is important because asking people to be involved after a decision has already been made will most likely be considered token participation and not genuine involvement. Perhaps the most interesting points that came from this workshop were the discussions of barriers to participation on the part of citizens. The first item was the ubiquitous issue of funding. Citizens have mentioned this at each workshop held in an economically distressed area. Professionals from several workshops have mentioned it. Apparently, they are cognizant of budget issues and funding constraints present in the agencies for which they work. Another barrier mentioned was attempting to get citizens to realize the importance of trees in their communities. There are often competing issues to deal with, especially in urban areas. It was mentioned that people might consider the importance of trees if they could somehow relate trees to health and economic concerns. (This particular point was also discussed at length in the Detroit workshop.) No suggestions were given for how to do this. Natural resource professionals acknowledged that they need to develop better social skills. Related to this was the task of involving minorities. One professional stated that a white male would have a difficult time reaching out to minority groups, especially if he lacks the proper social skills. One professional discussed a solution to this problem. He wants to get more minorities involved in natural resource careers (which was one of the objectives of this workshop). This relates to the concern previously mentioned of getting children involved at a young age. This professional feels that involving minority children in natural resource issues will allow for a better chance of minorities choosing careers in natural resource fields. Finally, it should be mentioned that the professionals at this workshop were almost all minorities (many were Hispanic). This is important, especially considering their discussion of barriers to participation. These individuals may be more cognizant of barriers than non-minority professionals are. GROUP 1 LEARNED:
GROUP 2 LEARNED:
NEWARK, NJ 6-7-00The citizens of Newark that attended this meeting hold a variety of opinions regarding the important aspects of their community. Important aspects include parks, schools, community organizations, the people, the cultural diversity, the culture and the sense of community. It was acknowledged that Newark does not have a good reputation throughout the country, but the people of Newark seem quite proud of their community.The people mentioned the importance of trees in their community. The reasons people gave for appreciating trees ranged from the practical (shade, noise reduction, providing oxygen, cleaning the air) to more abstract reasons such as aesthetics, the romance and history of trees and providing an escape from the “concrete jungle.” The citizens as well as the professionals have a great deal of concern about the trees in Newark. Since the community is urban, there are not a lot of undeveloped areas, so the lack of greenspaces troubles people. As development progresses, trees are removed to provide housing, sewers and sidewalks. Perhaps the citizens’ greatest concern is the fact that there simply are not enough trees in the community. People are also worried that the trees that are present are not being properly cared for. It was mentioned in one group that the city forester position was eliminated, as was the Shade Tree Commission. This relates to the main concern of the professionals. They are concerned that budgetary constraints are leading to a lack of tree maintenance and tree plantings. Finally, one citizen was concerned about the lack of response from agencies regarding tree concerns. The citizens expect foresters to be knowledgeable and professional. Further, the citizens want the foresters to educate people, particularly children. Workshops were mentioned as one way of educating people. Citizens want to be informed of tree related issues and they want to know who to contact to obtain information. Although people realize the importance of trees in their communities, some citizens acknowledged that people do not get involved in issues unless they directly affect them. This could be a reason why more people are not involved in tree related issues. Citizens suggested that more outreach on the part of the professionals might lead to greater levels of community involvement. Professionals could interact with block clubs, community organizations, churches, and youth groups to obtain citizen participation. Overall, the Newark meeting went well. The citizens and professionals were able to interact in a forum that they had not participated in previously. Both groups of people acknowledged learning from the other. Citizens learned about the jobs that foresters have and how they perform them, while the foresters learned that they need to reach out to the communities they serve. NEWARK FORESTERS LEARNED:
NEWARK CITIZENS LEARNED:
CHARLESTON, WV 8-14-00The citizens of Charleston seem to have a favorable opinion of the forestry professionals in their community and of the overall state of their natural resources. They did, however, have concerns. A big concern appeared to be the trend toward a lack of greenspaces and other open areas, particularly those caused by development. The citizens seemed genuinely attached to the natural landscape and to their communities, so this is a major concern.Another concern was the lack of educational programs, particularly those directed at children in the schools. One of the foresters was asked several questions about what types of educational programs are carried out by the West Virginia Division of Forestry. He spent a lot of time discussing his department’s efforts to reach out to people, particularly children. He also acknowledged that more efforts are needed. The citizens want to know whom to contact, which has been a recurring theme throughout these meetings. A few citizens have actually contacted someone, and they had positive experiences. Also of note was the trend toward the public not knowing whom they had spoken to when they did request assistance or information. This seemed to be common in some of the Michigan meetings as well. The citizens did not differentiate among agencies. In Michigan, the DNR is frequently named, whether they were involved or not. A way to solve this lack of identity was discussed at length in the Charleston meeting. Again the consensus was that more outreach is needed. The residents made this point clear and the foresters recognized it in the things they learned from the public. CHARLESTON FORESTERS LEARNED:
CHARLESTON CITIZENS LEARNED:
ATLANTA, GA 8-24-00The Atlanta meeting was by far the most confrontational of all of the workshops. There is obviously a great deal of frustration on the part of the general public. The frustration appears to be taking two forms. The first is a general frustration with the state of the natural resources in their communities. For example, people are upset with sprawl, lack of greenspaces, increase in tree cuttings and the effect that these factors are having on their quality of life. These factors are not necessarily the fault of the foresters.The second form is directed toward the foresters. Citizens want to be included in discussions, they want to be kept informed and they want to know where to go to get the information they desire. Further, they expect that they should have access to this information and to whatever resources exist. They feel they are entitled to these resources just as much as the professional foresters are. The public also seems to want some concrete findings from meetings such as these. They say they have “heard all of this before” and have been through similar situations. They do not want lip service paid to their comments. They want to be spoken to, and not at. The foresters acknowledge much of what the citizens are saying, admitting that they need to get closer to the public, they need to reach out more to the public, and they need to take the initiative and be proactive in obtaining citizen input. However, the professionals who work in this field on a daily basis indicated that they are often limited in what they can do as individuals by bureaucracies and the agencies for which they work. After interviewing several of the professionals who attended, it was clear that they were very uncomfortable at the meeting. A few said they would not attend a meeting like this again. They felt they were being attacked by people who would not listen and came to the meeting with their own agendas. Many of the professionals acknowledged that there is a long way to go to correct problems, but the citizens also have some responsibilities. They must be as willing to listen as they are to offer opinions. On a more positive note, there appears to be some agreement that in order for professionals and citizens to work together, they need to not consider the other group as “the enemy.” There appears to be some optimism that good things can happen if everyone works together. ATLANTA FORESTERS LEARNED:
ATLANTA CITIZENS LEARNED:
LINCOLN, NE 9-13-00The Lincoln meeting was a positive, congenial discussion. There was no animosity on the part of the citizens or the professionals. Both the citizens and the professionals like the trees and the openness of the Lincoln area. They also are particularly fond of the parks in the community. There is a strong sense of community and people like the small-town atmosphere in Lincoln, although this atmosphere is changing as the community grows.There is a strong concern regarding the effects of development. Things such as sprawl, street widening and floodplain issues are strong concerns. Foresters have a strong concern about people planting nonnative species and other inappropriate plantings. The major issue/concern appears to be the fact that professionals are not visible to the public. Citizens do not know who to call for help. The professionals stated that they are willing to assist people if they simply call them. This needs to be a two-way process. It was acknowledged that more communication between citizens and professionals is needed. This lack of visibility on the part of the professionals is a barrier to citizens becoming involved in forestry issues. Another barrier is a lack of education regarding forestry issues. Professionals brought forth the point that more education would help get more citizens involved. However, it appears as though these professionals are not taking proactive steps to involve the citizens. LINCOLN FORESTERS LEARNED:
LINCOLN CITIZENS LEARNED:
BRONX, NY 9-25-00The Bronx workshop was held at The Point, a community center in the Bronx (Bronx County). This was by far the most heavily attended of all the workshops with approximately 40 citizens and 18 professionals. Bronx County is very ethnically diverse, with 29.9 percent of the population being white, 35.6 percent black and 24.7 percent of the population who consider themselves “other.” This community diversity also made this the most ethnically diverse of all the workshops. The workshop was held in an area with very low levels of educated people in comparison to the rest of the state and nation. Bronx County has the lowest level of home ownership and the highest levels of poverty of any of the communities in which workshops were held. These are issues that came to light in the course of the evening.This particular workshop was organized by the director of The Point, who contacted citizens and community groups, and a representative of the USDA Forest Service, who contacted the professionals. While there were a desirable number of citizens in attendance, there was also a strong environmental organization presence with no less than five local environmental groups represented. This was something that was specifically avoided in the other workshops because the objective was to hear from people that had not previously been involved in community forestry issues. Many of the professionals and environmental group members were already well acquainted. This illustrates the difficulty in organizing a workshop in which only noninvolved citizens attend. People who are interested in an issue are the most likely to be involved in it. A slightly different format was followed for this workshop than at the others. The small group discussions were still held. Due to the higher turnout at this workshop, there were four small group discussions, groups that were larger than most of the other workshops. However, there were no “citizens only” and “professionals only” discussions after the small group discussions. Some of the professionals were very adamant that there was no point to doing this. Rather than trying to force people into something they did not want to do, attempts were made to make the best of a less-than-perfect situation. One session was held in which the workshop leader facilitated one large discussion where people discussed issues that they thought were important. In a sense, it was similar to the small group discussions, albeit on a larger scale. However, it was different in that there were no predetermined questions. Anything related to community forestry was fair game. Although this did tend for things to get off of the topic at times, it did make it very clear what was on the mind of the residents of The Bronx (mainly funding). The residents of The Bronx are very active in their community and very concerned about it’s future. This could be due to the strong presence of the community groups and the fact that several people from The Point participated in the workshop. There was a strong sense of community here, probably more so than in any of the other communities that were visited. The residents valued several things about The Bronx, including the sense of community and belonging, their neighbors, the cosmopolitan environment and access to amenities. People were also strongly interested in the future of the area and wanted to see it rebuilt. The residents had a negative view of relying on local government to rebuild the area, so they are taking it upon themselves to do so, which is probably why there were so many active local environmental groups. As was mentioned, trying to get funding to repair their neighborhoods was the greatest concern on the part of the citizens. Unfortunately, many of the participants had the mistaken idea that this workshop was going to tell them how to obtain the funding they desired. Since there were so many local environmental groups in attendance, these people were keenly interested in how to obtain more money for tree-related projects. While two agency foresters did discuss some projects they are involved in that promote tree restoration projects, the residents wanted more funding and more ideas about how to obtain it. Quality of life concerns were also important to the residents. Specifically, several people were concerned about the high incidence of asthma in the area. Apparently, this is a major issue in The Bronx. This is one reason why people are concerned about the environment. They want to plant more trees so the air is cleaner to breathe. Similarly, the residents want to know how to care for the trees in the community. Several people indicated an interest in caring for trees and thought that other residents would as well, but only if they knew how. Teaching people how to care for trees was the main expectation that residents had of community foresters. People want the professionals to come into neighborhoods and teach people. Several people (both citizens and professionals) discussed the importance of outreach to help rebuild the community. One citizen mentioned that by doing this, interest would get stimulated in the community and more people would be likely to get involved. A professional acknowledged the importance of doing this but also mentioned that there was only so much an agency can do. He said that agencies could pour a lot of money and resources into tree restoration projects, but unless the citizens become actively involved, the projects will not work. Several citizens mentioned the importance of involving children, particularly when the children are young and impressionable. One woman said it was crucial to get kids involved because many children grow up in inner city areas such as The Bronx and never see an environment other than concrete and steel. Another woman was involved in a community group in which they took children on a weekend retreat out of the city to an area that had more trees. She said the kids had no idea of the importance of trees since they did not see very many of them on a daily basis. At the beginning of the weekend the kids were in awe of their surroundings, but she thought they gained a new appreciation for trees just in that short weekend. Another woman in that discussion thought that was a great experience for the children. However, she wanted children to be able to see trees in their own neighborhoods. In her opinion, it is important for children to be able to experience nature without having to be taken out of city. Another citizen pointed out an added benefit of involving children. By getting kids interested in trees, the possibility exists that their parents might also become interested. In this person’s opinion, kids will bring home to their parents what they learn in school. He stressed that this was a good reason for agencies to get involved with the schools. The greatest barrier to community forestry participation in the opinion of the citizens was lack of information. This has been a common theme heard at most of the workshops. People want as much information as they can obtain. One citizen thought that if more information was available to people, more people would get involved. Outreach was discussed as the best way to get information into the hands of citizens. Another barrier that was discussed was funding. This was not necessarily mentioned as a barrier to participation per se, but a barrier to getting more accomplished. Since there were so many environmental groups represented, many of the attendees were already participating. But they felt they could do more if they had access to more funding. Along with health concerns such as asthma, funding was the greatest concern of citizens. The community spirit and desire to rebuild The Bronx are encouraging. Due to the strong turnout at this workshop, there definitely appears to be a strong sense of community and interest in seeing the area turn around. As was stressed to the participants, agencies and citizens need to work together for them to reach their goals. GOODWATER, AL 9-27-00The citizens of Goodwater, AL appear to have a good rapport with the forestry professionals. There is a wide range of aspects of the community that people think are important, including family, neighbors, churches, recreational opportunities, parks, trees and scenic beauty. There appears to be a strong sense of community and the people appreciate the “small-town” feel of Goodwater.Relating to trees, people commented that trees appear to be everywhere since they live in a small town, rather than in an urban area. People think that the trees beautify their town and create wildlife and recreational opportunities. The citizens have several concerns regarding trees. The first was a disagreement between two citizens. One person was concerned about unnecessary cuttings, while another wanted to make sure trees were trimmed so they would not hurt houses or cars. This issue led into another concern: people wanted to make sure trees were being maintained and they wanted to know how to do it themselves. Similarly, people were concerned about a lack of education regarding trees, particularly among children. It was mentioned that education needs to begin early in a child’s life, while the child is still impressionable. Finally, citizens wanted to know where to go for information about trees and how to obtain funding for tree programs. There is a significant amount of involvement between citizens and professionals. This involvement appears to come from three sources: the Alabama Power Company, the Urban Forest Grant and the Forestry Commission. The citizens expect foresters to continue to provide service to the community. An African-American woman mentioned that she thought the professionals were withholding information from minority groups. A white forester did not directly answer this accusation, but did acknowledge that his agency could perform more educational workshops in communities. An African-American forester mentioned that it is necessary for all people to work together. The citizens in Goodwater appear to have the most involvement with the Forestry Commission. There are not a lot of organized groups to become involved with, so much of the involvement is at the grass-roots level. The citizens genuinely care about their trees and their relationships with the forestry professionals. One forester made the comment, “Feel free to call us”. While this is fine, it may still be necessary for the professionals to reach out to the community, as some citizens do not know where to go to obtain information. GOODWATER FORESTERS LEARNED:
|
Appendix BGROUPS CONTACTEDUsing a process called “snowball sampling” for intense outreach, we used local community contacts and telephone books as resources for organizations and individuals to contact. Listed below are the various organizations contacted for each pilot outreach workshop.MARQUETTE, MICHIGAN |
||
| Bay Cliff Health Camp Marquette Maritime Museum Recycle! Marquette Disabled American Veterans of Marquette Marquette Senior and Handicapped Center Grace Lutheran, ELCA Audubon SocietyMoosewood Nature Group Retired Senior Volunteer Program |
League of Women Voters The Callers Club Christian Women’s Club Gwinn Area Chamber of Commerce Marquette Kennel Club Tops #633Vietnam Veterans of America Forsyth Senior Center |
|
| DETROIT, MICHIGAN |
||
| Berkley High School Environmental
Club Brownstown Township Burnette Street Block Club Chairman, Improvement Council Charter Twp of Plymouth City of Grosses Pointe Park City of Grosses Pointe Woods City of Highland Park Recreation Center City of Allen Park City of Oak Park/Parks & Forestry City of Warren / Department of Parks Corktown Citizens District Council Fiskhorn Community Organization Friends of the Rouge Glen Eden Memorial Park Grosse Pointe South High School Harper Woods Garden Club Macomb County Parks Mass Avenue Improvement Association Meadowhills Homeowners Assoc Mexicantown Community Development St. Mary’s Block Club Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision Project Taylor Recreation Center Trenton High School Environmental Club Village Oaks ReLeaf Warren Beautification CommissionWarren Garden Club Arab American Chaldean Council Operation Get Down REACH, Inc. Catholic Social Services Church of the Messiah Joy of Jesus Motor City Blight Busters, Inc Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit DABO ACCESS Franklin-Wright Settlements, Inc. Brightmmor Community Center Jubilee Christian Church Latino Family Services, Inc |
Barton McFarlane Neighborhood
Assoc Blackstone Park Assoc Brightmoor Concerned Citizens Burns-Seneca-Fisher Block Club Council Grandmont Community Association Grandmont Community Association Grandmont #1 Improvement Association Greenbriar Community Council Oakwood Heights Community Association Southeastern Community Association United Citizens of Southwest Detroit Nortown Community Development Corporation Bagley Housing Association BAPCO Housing Development Black Family Development, Inc Campaign for Human Development CCNDC Chaldean Federation of America Church of the Messiah Housing Corporation Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan Morningside Community Organization Detroit Neighborhood Housing Services Detroit NFI Detroit Urban League Emmanuel Community Center Fisher Development Authority Genesis Community Development Corp Grandmont/Rosedale Development Corp Habitat for Humanity Islandview Village Development Corp LASED Local Initiatives Support Corp Michigan Neighborhood Partnership NAACP New Hope Community Development Northwest Detroit Neighborhood Development Society of St. Vincent de Paul Focus: HOPE Global Village Literacy Mission H.E.L.P., Inc Eastside Emergency Center |
|
| MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN | ||
| Muskegon Community College Social
Sciences Muskegon Community College Political Sciences Steele Neighborhood Association East Muskegon Neighborhood Assoc. The Muskegon Press Muskegon City Land Use Task Force West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission Grand Valley State Water Resources Institute Muskegon County Cooperative Churches Muskegon County Community Foundation Michigan Botanical Club Sycamore Nature Center Michigan Nature Association AFL-CIO Headquarters AARP Angell Neighborhood Association Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Muskegon County Jackson Hill Neighborhood Association Latin American Social Club Lakeside Veterans Club, Inc. Latinos Working For The Future Lithuanian Club |
Muskegon Conservation Club Muskegon County Garden Club Muskegon County Nature Club NAACP Older Women’s League White Lake Senior Center Beachwood Bluffton Neighborhood Association Campbell Field Neighborhood Association Glenside Neighborhood Association Lakeside Neighborhood Association McLaughlin Neighborhood Association Marquette Neighborhood Association Nelson Neighborhood Association Nims Neighborhood Association Oakview Neighborhood Association Muskegon County Advisory Council Fellowship Senior Center Johnson Hall Senior Center McGraft Park Community Center Muskegon Comm. College Black Student Alliance Laketon Bethel Reformed Church Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Muskegon |
|
| LINCOLN, NEBRASKA | ||
| AARP Chapter #3505 American Association of University Women American Historical Society of Germans from Russia Arnold Heights Neighborhood Association Asian Community and Cultural Center Association of Official Seed Analysts Back to the Bible Belmont Community Center Capital City Czech Choraliers Capitol City Christian Church for the Hearing Impaired Christian Record Services Church Women United of Lincoln Clinton Neighborhood Association Colonial Hills Neighborhood Association Country Club Neighborhood Association Downtown Neighborhood Association Far South Neighborhood Association Family, Career and Community Leaders of America Fresh Start Home Friendship Forces of Lincoln Garden Club of Lincoln Green Thumb, Inc. Hartley Neighborhood Association Hispanic Community Center Indian Center Inc. Keep Lincoln and Lancaster County Beautiful Ladies Home League League of Nebraska Municipalities |
Lincoln Area Agency on Aging
Lincoln/Lancaster County Habitat for Humanity Lincoln/Lancaster Women’s Commission Lincoln Literary Council Lincoln Naturalists Club Lincoln Women’s Chamber of Commerce Lutheran Family Services Malone Community Center Mayor’s Neighborhood Roundtable Men’s Fellowship Club NAACP National Action for Former Military Wives Nebraska Ag Relations Council Nebraska Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired Nebraska Commission on the Status of Women Park and Recreation Department Pheasants Forever, Inc. Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Southwood Neighborhood Association University Place Community Organization Volunteer Services, Bryan LGH East Willard Community Center Women in Community Service United Way Lincoln Zoo University of Nebraska, Multicultural Affairs Center Native American Cultural Consulting Compass Ministries |
|
| ALPENA, MICHIGAN | ||
| Jesse Besser Museum Alpena Public Schools Alpena Community Foundation City of Alpena City Planner Alpena Community College Disabled American Veterans Alpena Volunteer Center Habitat For Humanity Leaders of Volunteer Efforts Alpena County Recyclers Association for Children of NJ American Legion Post 152 |
Ambassadors of Christ Alpena City Environmental Committee Alpena Garden Club Avery Lake Association Evergreen Recycling League of Women Voters Long Lake Improvement Association Rotary Club of Alpena Youth Volunteer Corps Huron Pines Resource Conservation Organization |
|
| NEWARK, NEW JERSEY | ||
| Student Conservation
Association PCCI Mayor’s Office of Employment Training Corinthian Housing Development Corp Newark Fighting Back Continental Export Trading Corp Covenant House of New Jersey Career Works Inc Goodwin Avenue Block Association Newark Do Something Essex Residential Group Center Krueger-Scott Mansion Cultural Center Habitat for Humanity North 5th Street Block Assoc.Integrity House Newark Homeless Coalition Integrity, Inc.Girard Place Block Association La Casa De Don Pedro Weequaic Park Association Collene Street Block Association Newark Fighting Back Hispanic Development Corp. NJIT Community and Public Service St. James Development Corp. MOET Great Northern Recycling Division of Parks and Grounds The Prudential Insurance Co. Newark Christian School Raymond Treemont House N. 2nd Street Block Association Rutgers Coop Ext. - Essex Co. SHARE International Youth Organization Irving St. Neighborhood Holy Nations Youth Ministries H.O.P.E Gravel Hill Missionary GLD Ministries Frontiers International Newark Club Franklin-St. John’s Forest Hill Comm. Assoc. Essex Co. 4-H Christmas in April Newark Boys and Girls Club of Newark |
Boy Scout Troop 50 ASBEX Development Corp Ironbound Community Corporation Portuguese Arts Organization Ironbound Community Corporation Portuguese Arts Organization Newark West Ward Seniors Newark Weed and Seed Newark Rotary Club Newark Public Library Newark Literacy Campaign Newark Groundhog Job Shadow Day 2000 Newark Arts Council Michael R. Irby Mentoring Program Literacy Volunteers of America - Newark/Essex Jackson Development Corporation Newark Special Police garsidekids Young Life Community Outreach Center Young Adult Council Women’s Task Force Women 4 A Change WBGO Urban Beats Project of NJ, Inc. United to Help, Inc. Tracy and Baldwin Avenues Block Associations Salvation Army Ironbound Boys & Girls Club & Senior Center The Reach The Oasis The Ironbound Improvement, Inc. Teens In Move Against Violence Technical Training Project, Inc. T.R.U.S.T. St. Columbia Neighborhood Club Sisters Inspiring Sisters to Achieve Sigma Nu at NJIT Save the Park at Riverbank SLAO, Essex County College Reverend B.F. Johnson Foundation, Inc. Reading Is Fundamental, Newark Paramus Shade Tree & Parks NJ Shade Tree Fed. |
|
| CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA | ||
| Several prominent African-American
Churches India Cultural Center The local hospitals West Side Neighborhood Association East End Neighborhood Association |
NAACP Several small, local watershed groups YWCA United Way |
|
| GOODWATER, ALABAMA | ||
| City of Goodwater Town of Colony Town of Oak Grove Alabama Forestry Alabama Cooperative Extension System Elected officials (i.e., mayor, city council) Municipal staff (i.e., city clerks) Tree board members |
“Local” volunteers (i.e.,
Master Gardeners, civic clubs, garden clubs) County Cooperative Extension Agents State forestry agency county foresters High school students (and educators) City librarian (she participated because the meeting was held in library) |
|
Appendix CResourcesThroughout the process of developing the outreach model, many informational resources on the topics of outreach and diversity were identified. Listed below are agencies, organizations and websites, web-based resource materials, and literature for additional information.AGENCIES: |
| Federal | ||
| USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry, www.fs.fed.us/ucf | ||
| USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, www.nrcs.usda.gov | ||
| US Census Bureau, www.census.gov | ||
| National Council on Disability, www.ncd.gov | ||
| Bureau of Indian Affairs, www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/bia2.cfm | ||
| State | ||
| Governors Office, www.nga.org | ||
| Universities – Office of Multicultural Affairs | ||
| Department of Special Needs & Disabilities | ||
| Department of Social Services | ||
ORGANIZATIONS:Community Outreach Partnership Centers (Housing and Urban Development), www.oup.org/about/aboutcopc.htmlDisabled American Veterans, www.dav.org Federal Asian Pacific American Council, www.fapac.org/f1 Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, www.hacu.net International Society of Arboriculture – Hispanic website, www.isahispana.com League of United Latin American Citizens, www.lulac.org Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Related Sciences (website under development) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), www.naacp.org National Congress of American Indians, www.ncai.org National Institute of Environmental Health Science – Health Disparities Research: www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/factsheets/disparity/community.htm Tree link, www.treelink.org and www.treelink.org/nucfac University of Illinois – Human Environmental Research Laboratory, www.herl.uiuc.edu/ WEB-BASED RESOURCE MATERIALS:Definitions of Key Outreach Concepts:
www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/2_Tech_Reports/T005_OutreachDefinition.pdf LITERATURE:Berry, J. 1999. From Paradigm to Practice: Public Involvement Strategies for America’s Forests. Ph. D. dissertation, UMI #9961407, Ann Arbor, MI.: Bell & Howell Information and Learning CompanyBrown, 2001. Amplifying the voices of all Americans: Ethnography, interpretation, and inclusiveness. Cultural Resource Management 7:15-16. Burban, L.L.; Macie, E. 2001. The Community Future Forum: What did we find? St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Campos-Flores; A., V. Smith; K. Breslaul; A. Samuels; L. Clementson. 2000. The new face of race. Newsweek (September 18, 2000). Chavez, D.J. 2000. Invite, include, involve! Racial groups, ethnic groups, and leisure. In Diversity and recreation professions: Organizational perspectives, eds. M.T. Allison and I.E. Schneider. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Council of Western State Foresters, 1996. Minority Outreach Guide for Urban and Community Forestry, USDA Forest Service. Crewe, K. 2001. The quality of participatory design: The effects of citizen input on the design of the Boston southwest corridor. Journal of the American Planning Association 67(4):437-455. Dale, D.D.; A.J. Hahn. 1994. Public issues education: Increasing competence in resolving public issues. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension. Elmendorf, W.F.; A.E. Luloff. 2001. Using qualitative data collection methods when planning for community forests. Journal of Arboriculture 27:139-151. Fisher, R.; W. Ury; B. Patton. 1991. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books. Force, J.; K. Williams. 1989. A profile of National Forest planning participants. Journal of Forestry 87(1):33-38. Hester, R. 1985. 12 steps to community development. Landscape Architecture Jan.-Feb.: 78-85. McDonough, M.; L. Burban; K. Russell. 2002. A recipe for reaching out. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Parker, J.D; M.H. McDonough. Environmentalism of African Americans: An Analysis of the Subculture and Barriers Theories. 1999. Environment and Behavior. Vol. 31 No. 2. 155-177. Smith, P.D.; M.H. McDonough, 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources 14:239-249. Steelman, T. 1999. The public comment process: What do citizens contribute to national forest management? Journal of Forestry 97(1):22-26. Thompson, J.R.; W.F. Elmendorf; M.H. McDonough; L.L. Burban. 2003. Inviting Dialogue with Diverse Constituents in Natural Resource Policy Development, Planning, and Research. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Unlocking the Barriers: Keys to Communicating with Under-Served Customers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, Office of Outreach. Urban and Community Forestry Outreach Services Committee. 2003. Outreach Services Strategies for All Communities. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Vachta, K.V. 2000. Participatory development and organizational empowerment: Community forestry in Detroit. Ph.D. dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. |
| The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities
on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age,
disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial
status. (Not all information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer. |