1 / 15

Chelsea Tooley, Jennifer Whiteside, Heather Wirth

Chelsea Tooley, Jennifer Whiteside, Heather Wirth. IWLA Group Project Survey Says: Effective BMP Participation Perceptions of Previous Participants of Cost Share Programs – Checking Back and Moving Forward. Purpose Lack of Data on Previous Participant Perception

fawn
Télécharger la présentation

Chelsea Tooley, Jennifer Whiteside, Heather Wirth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chelsea Tooley, Jennifer Whiteside, Heather Wirth IWLA Group Project Survey Says: Effective BMP Participation Perceptions of Previous Participants of Cost Share Programs – Checking Back and Moving Forward

  2. Purpose • Lack of Data on Previous Participant Perception • Sparked Interest from Group • Goals • Establish Past Participant Opinion of Program • Investigate the affects of “Neighbor Influence” • Chart ways to move forward successfully Starting Out

  3. Constructed a survey to establish: • Where participants heard about the program • What participants felt was most beneficial • What participants felt was most difficult • How likely participants are to recommend the program • If they did, to how many people did they recommend? • How likely participants are to maintain practices • How likely participants are to participate again The Survey

  4. Most structured on a 1-6 scale • Why? • Other types include: • Yes/No • Category • Open ended • Tried to avoid because of data compilation The Survey Continued

  5. Mailed out surveys to previous participants • Chelsea – ICW, CMW - 34 • Jennifer – CCW, FR/HCW – 22 • Heather – HCW, TCW – 66 • Total of 122 • Participants asked to complete and return by a specific date The Process

  6. Out of 122 we got 43 surveys back • 35% response rate • Chelsea – 7 • Jennifer – 9 • Heather – 27 The Results

  7. 30.2% 26%

  8. Mainly Positive • Most “negative” scores were: • Reimbursement = 15% • Application Process = 21%

  9. Things we found noteworthy: • Where are people hearing about us? • Where should we focus our efforts • Environmental vs. Financial Incentives • Previous Participants seems pleased with the cost share program • Word of mouth is a clearly a powerful tool • 14% of people recommended the program to 6 or more community members Discussion

  10. Things we would do differently • Rating Benefits vs. Scale answers • Add a positive incentive • Interesting follow up study: Are incentives the key to response rates • Defining out practices: urban vs. agriculture • Adding more demographic information • Age/employment status Discussion

  11. It’s important to check back with previous participants • Why? • Other watershed projects can use this survey pre or post project (or both!) Wrapping Up

More Related