Leadership Training on Farmland Conservation for New England and New York

Outcomes

We received 54 evaluations at the end of the workshop. In general, participants had a broad range of prior knowledge and experience and a wide range of expectations for what the training would provide. Their prior level of knowledge clearly affected their evaluation of sessions and of the written materials. However, except in a few cases, the depth and breadth of the training appeared just about right for the audience. Overall, participants valued the training experience, the number of presenters and written resources gathered, and several voiced the need for the same group to gather on a regular basis.

On a scale of 1 – 5 with 5 being excellent, 45 people (80 percent) rated the workshop 4/5, seven did not rate it and three participants (5 percent) rated it 3. Comments ranged from "Please seek grant renewal to offer this leadership training on an annual/every two years basis" and "Good program design, topic diversity and depth of presentation" to "I think some attendees were looking for more in-depth, how to instruction."

Participants were asked to evaluate the knowledge and information they gained from the workshop overall. More than 90 percent indicated that they believed the workshop would help them protect farmland in their communities. For each question, they were asked to indicate if they strongly disagreed, disagreed, agreed or strongly agreed.

Question 1. "As a result of the workshop, I feel more confident that I understand what can be done to protect agricultural land in my community," 50 out of 53 (94 percent) either agreed or strongly agreed, and three (6 percent) either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: "I expect to use the knowledge gained at this workshop to create new or strengthen existing farmland protection programs in my community within the next year," 46 out of 50 people (92 percent) either strongly agreed or agreed, and 4 (8 percent) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Four people said that the question did not apply to them.

On several occasions between three and seven months after the workshop, we contacted participants to find out if they had contacted AFT or other attendees to provide technical assistance—or in other ways used the knowledge they gained from the training to help develop or implement new farmland protection plans or policies, or strengthen existing policies or programs. As of December 2003, 19 participants had contacted AFT and/or other leadership training participants. Many were conducting follow up education: for example, developing a forum to address local agricultural issues, conducting general farmland protection outreach, conducting and/or developing their own presentations.

Others wanted specific information to advance conservation activities—such as securing a copy of a proposed town-level farmland protection plan to inform their own planning process, providing feedback on a conservation options booklet or formalizing their own local farmland protection working group. Participants also report they have used the materials from the training to help build support for farmland protection and farm friendly policies by making it available at county fairs, to their local watershed committee, SWCD or land trust, municipal decision-makers, etc.

In addition to providing follow up technical assistance, 17 participants have applied their new knowledge to help create or implement farmland protection plans and/or policies or enhance existing policies and/or programs in New England or New York. For example, one participant has worked with federal farm programs to improve farm viability. At least five have worked with their state departments of agriculture and/or municipality to create new land protection programs or improve existing farmland protection programs. Six others have worked with local groups such as the agriculture committee, SWCD or local land trust to protect land in their community.

In one example, as a result of attending the workshop, the participant "formalize a farmland protection working group" and geared their farmland protection strategy to an identified area in their county that has been approved by the county legislative body. Another participant is using ideas from the workshop in his town comprehensive plan. A third is working to develop directional signage for local agriculture and published several articles in their local paper featuring local farmers and farming issues.

Before the workshop, 81 percent of participants said they went to AFT when they needed information about farmland protection methods and policy, 56 percent went to NRCS, 38 percent to their state department of agriculture and 25 percent to Extension. After the workshop, 100 percent said they would go to AFT, 60 percent to NRCS, 53 percent to their state department of agriculture or a local land trust, 33 percent to a fellow participant at the workshop and 27 percent to Extension.