1. Chelsea Tooley, Jennifer Whiteside, Heather Wirth

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

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

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

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

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

7. 30.2% 26%

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

13. » 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

14. » 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

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