National Assessment of the Worker Protection Standard

1. National Assessment of the Worker Protection Standard Train-the-Trainer Pilot Project Karen Lewis

2. EPA and CAST • To research and examine exactly what would be involved in implementing a train the trainer program on a national scale (certification program)

3. Members of the Train-the Trainer National Subgroup Nancy Santiago NJDEP Jacqueline De Carlo AFOP Michael Carlson Florida Citrus Mutual Alice Larson WGPHS Patrick O’Connor-Marer UC Davis Teresa Niedda FHSI Karen Lewis WSU Grant/Adams Steve Hobley ID Dept of Ag Eric W. Sespico FDACS Nancy Erickson Iowa FB Larry Beasley A. Duda & Sons Inc. Antonio Castro Escobar Michigan Dept of Ag Ignacio (Nacho) Ibarra Sin Fronteras Organizing Project + CAST (Dick Herrett) + EPA (Michael Walsh) et al + EPA Regional

4. Train the Trainer (TtT) Pilot • Goal • Develop a WPS TtT model that ensures consistency and quality WPS training and is nationally adaptable • Objective • Design, test and evaluate a TtT model that ensures trainers obtain the basic training skills, tools and knowledge they need to impart quality WPS training to workers and that is usable by all potential trainers

5. Process • Pilot Design • Curriculum Design • Training Manual Development • Recruitment and Orientation of Master Trainers (MT’s) • Recruitment and Training of Trainers • Field Training • Evaluate, Evaluate, Evaluate!

6. Design • Spring 2003 • 3 States – Fla., N.J., WA. • English and Spanish • Ratio:2 MT/20 trainers • Selective to obtain diverse group • 1 day and 1.5 day option • Free • Supported by training materials • Credits/WPS Trainer Certification

7. Training Curriculum • Option of 1 full day or 1.5 days • 1 full day – covered all aspects deemed necessary to impart quality/comprehensive training • Basic Pesticide Information and Regulations • The WPS • Training Content • Preparing to Train • Training Techniques • Conducting Training

8. Training Curriculum • 1.5 day option – • Full day plus additional half day of hands on, participant led, critiqued WPS training

9. Training Manual Development • Sub committee and contract editor • Compilation generated from training materials shared by group members (AFOP, UC Davis, CATA, EPA) • English • Translated to Spanish

10. Master Trainer (MT) Recruitment and Orientation • Bilingual Eng/Spa • Experienced • National search via list serves • Nominations from subgroup • Letters of invitation to apply • 2 Day orientation in Washington D.C. • Jennifer Weber and Pat O’Connor • Interactive

11. Cesar Cesar Asuaje Asuaje Jose Manuel Jose Manuel Ofelio Borges Ofelio Borges Guzman Guzman UFCES UFCES WSDA WSDA Hernandez Hernandez CATA CATA Alfredo Alfredo Bahena Bahena Richard Richard Pedro Serrano Pedro Serrano Mandelbaum Mandelbaum FWAF FWAF WA. L&I CATA CATA Master Trainer & Pilot State Florida New Jersey Washington State Laura Andrews Laura Andrews Mario Mario Saavedra Saavedra Tim Stock Tim Stock Powell Powell TDA TDA UC Davis UC Davis FSU Ofelio Borges Ofelio Borges Luis A. Luis A. Urias Urias Luis A. Luis A. Urias Urias WSDA WSDA ISDA ISDA ISDA ISDA

12. MT’s • Mean age – 41 • Education – 9th grade - M.S. • Experience – 6 to 2000 people • Training Format – 3 hours to 3 days • All agreed the MT training/ orientation better prepared them to teach to the model curriculum • Sharing with other trainers was “very valuable”

13. Pilot Implementation • Training schedule • Lake Alfred, Florida • May 13-14, 2003 • Rosenhayn, New Jersey • May 21-22, 2003 • Yakima, Washington • May 28-29, 2003

14. Trainer Recruitment • Local networks in each state • Strived for diversity (on-farm, CBO, regulatory) • Experienced/Inexperienced • Commitment to expectations • Balance of English and Spanish

15. Age Mean Age Mean State State Sex Sex Education Education (range) (range) Florida Florida 22 22 - - 79 79 43% High School or below. 43% High School or below. 23 M, 1 F 23 M, 1 F 25 (31%) 25 (31%) (mean 42) (mean 42) 57% Some college or more 57% Some college or more New Jersey New Jersey 26 26 - - 59 59 40% High School or below. 40% High School or below. 15 M, 10 F 15 M, 10 F 27 (33%) 27 (33%) (mean 38) (mean 38) 60% Some college or more 60% Some college or more Washington Washington 20 20 - - 72 72 40% High School or before. 40% High School or before. 19 M, 9 F 19 M, 9 F 29 (36%) 29 (36%) (mean 43) (mean 43) 60% Some college or more 60% Some college or more Total Total 43 (20 43 (20 - - 79) 79) M 57 (73%) Grade School or less 11% Grade School or less 11% F 21 (27%) F 21 (27%) High School 21% High School 21% Some college 15% Some college 15% College 35% College 35% Graduate School 18% Graduate School 18% Trainer Demographics 81

16. Worker/Handler Training • 100+ workers/handlers in Florida, N.J., WA, and Puerto Rico were trained by pilot trainers

17. Pilot Evaluation • Goal – • Determine if TtT model curriculum ensures consistency and quality WPS training in pilot states • Objective • Determine if the TtT model curriculum ensures all potential trainers obtain the basic training skills, tools, and knowledge they need to impart quality WPS training to workers

18. Evaluation • Master Trainers – pre & post orientation, post training (manual, agenda, curriculum, pilot + suggestions) • Trainers – pre & post training by MT’s, post training of workers (manual, tools, training + suggestions) • Trained workers – Post training by trainers (knowledge gained, environment, trainer, agenda + suggestions)

19. Observers • Two trained observers attended and documented training in all three states

20. Evaluator: Patricia Boiko, MD, MPH Director; Research-Outreach Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center University of Washington http://depts.washington.edu/pnash/home.htm

21. PNASH determined that the pilot was successful and met it’s goals and objectiveSpecifically, the goal of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) train-the-trainer model curriculum ensuring consistency and quality WPS training in Washington, Florida and New Jersey were met.The training model used during this pilot is feasible and a national model with diverse regulations, corps, trainers and workers.

22. Results

23. Trainer Evaluation Before and After Training Summary: Improved 56 Worse 6 No Change 11

24. Trainers • Overall, MT’s were effective and helpful • Order of training topics needed some tweaking • All who choose 1.5 day option felt it was worth while and learned new skills and training method • Mix of participants a concern for some trainers

25. Worker Evaluation Before and After Training(77% in Spanish, 23% in English) Summary: Improved 74 Worse 5 No Change 16

26. State State Prescore Prescore Postscore Postscore Difference Difference Florida Florida Mean Mean 8.13 8.13 12.75 12.75 4.19 4.19 N N 16 16 16 16 16 16 Std. Std. 2.47 2.47 .86 .86 1.7 1.7 Deviation Deviation New Jersey New Jersey Mean Mean 11.30 11.30 12.43 12.43 1.21 1.21 N N 53 53 53 53 53 53 Std. Std. 2.04 2.04 2.42 2.42 2.59 2.59 Deviation Deviation Washington Washington Mean Mean 10.44 10.44 13.33 13.33 2.75 2.75 N N 27 27 27 27 16 16 Std. Std. 1.87 1.87 1.00 1.00 1.88 1.88 Deviation Deviation Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Mean Mean 10.55 10.55 12.45 12.45 1.91 1.91 N N 11 11 11 11 11 11 Std. Std. 1.29 1.29 1.90 1.90 2.20 2.20 Deviation Deviation Worker Evaluation Scores by State

27. Worker • Workers improved knowledge and perceived they gained new knowledge • Reported they increased knowledge about pesticide health and safety • Reported that the information was important and they would use it. • Majority said learning environment and timing was not optimal

28. Outcomes • Manual – needs some refinement and editing, but has great potential for national adoption • Evaluation Technique– recorded tapes, color coding, “yes, no, I’m not sure” format to ease literacy barriers • Trainers – More of and better trained trainers in 3 states and P.R. • Lessons learned

29. Lessons Learned- Suggestions • Training Tools Need Updating - Redesign: video, manual, flipchart • Additional Tools Should be Included in TtT: props, PP, black light & tracer • Significant blurring between handler and worker designation exists among trainers, MT’s and workers

30. My Observations • Evaluation technique - tools worked • Trainers (MT and T) perform better when familiar with material • WPS training can and should be somewhat interactive • Updated training techniques and tools should be developed and used • Learning environment is key to success

31. Continued • To conduct training as “we” would like – and to get the level of comprehension required, WPS training on-farm needs to be conducted by trained individuals • Reciprocity across states and employers should be a goal for WPS program • For comprehension, training needs to be conducted in language of choice

32. Throughout the pilot ….trainers did not identify that the training was WPS training PRE TRAINING: “You are about to receive training that meets the training requirements for the Worker Protection Standard (WPS)”POST TRAINING: “You have now received the training that is required under the Worker Protection Standard (WPS)”

33. This pilot generated a robust body of useful information. It was a worthy undertaking by EPA and CAST. The process used for stakeholder involvement was a good move on the part the EPA-OPP. Adoption of the process as a standard method will enhance their effectiveness, relevancy and face capital.

34. For additional Information: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workshops.htm