Citation

Material Information

Title:
Certifying Stewardship Skills
Creator:
Beltrone, Hannah
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CERTIFYING STEWARDSHIP SKILLS Certifying St ewardship Skil ls Hannah Beltrone Univer sity o f C olorado Denver School of Public Aff airs Author Note: Corresponde nce to: This client-based proj ect is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Adm ini st r at ion in the School of Public Af f air s at the Univer sity o f C olorado Denver Spring 2019

PAGE 2

2 Capstone Pr oject Di sclosures This client-based project was completed on behalf of Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado and supervi sed by PUAD 5361 Capstone cour se instructor Chr istine Mar te ll, PhD, and second faculty read er Tanya Heikkila, PhD. This project does not nec essa rily reflect the views of the School of Public A ffairs or the facul ty readers. Raw data we re not inc lud ed in this document, ra the r re levant m at erials were provided dire ct ly to the client. Perm is s ions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found as the final Appendix. Questions about this capst one project shou ld be dire ct ed to the s tud en t author.

PAGE 3

3 Ta b le of Contents Executive S u m m ar y In t Lit e ratu r e Revie w Me t Resul ts Reco mm en d at i Li m i t at i on s Conclus i o n Re f er e nces List of Tab l es, Figur es , and A ppendices Table 1 Figure 1 Table 2 S u m m ary M atrix In t erview P r otoco l 30 E m ail Request for Parti c ipatio n Core C o m pet e

PAGE 4

4 Executive S ummary Volunteers f or Outdoor Colorado s ( V O C ) Out d oor Stewar d ship I n s t i t u te (O S I) pro v ides an educ a tio n al opportunity for conservat i o n m in d ed volun t e ers to bui l d technical and leader s h ip ski l ls in t r a il constructi o n, eco l og i cal rest o ration, volun t e e r l e ade r ship, a n d pro j e c t m a nage m en t . Given the i n cr e a s ed needs f or stew a rdship ef f orts and init i a tives in t h e state of Colo r ado, th i s study asks s takeholders in the outdoor m anag e m e nt com m uni t y their op i n i ons on ce r ti f ying st e wards h ip ski l ls r e ce i v ed th r ough O S I , and what barri e rs a nd oppor t u n i t ies ex i st i n profess i onal ce r ti f ic a tio n . Quali t a t i ve m ethods are pe r for m ed t h r ough se m i st r u ctured inter v iews of volun t e e rs a nd profess i o nals in out d oor stewa r ds hip o r ga n ization s , l and m anag e m ent agenc i e s, and funding entities. Th e se questions spec i fic a l l y address: 1. W heth e r t h e re is a need for cert i fic a tion in the in d u st r y 2. W hat would g i ve c e r t ifi c at i on legit i m acy t o s takeholde r s 3.The expec t e d benefi t s a n d value of c ertification A desc r ipti v e ana l y s is of responses s how that st a kehold e rs d o not agr e e on the need for ce r ti f ic a tion in t he industry. This i s e s pec i a l l y ap p ar e nt in d i f f er i ng o p i n i o ns on ce r ti f ying volun t e e r s v er s us profe s sion al s. S takeholde r s b elieve t h e benefits of ce r t i ficat i on wo u ld be: cr e a t i ng a s tandard of kno w ledge on stewards h ip pro j e c ts, qu a nt i fiab l e improve m ents to p r o j ec t s (such as a n i n cr e a s e in t h e qua l ity of t rail bu i l d s ) , and an enh a nced s t ew a rdship ethic am ong outdoor e n t h usi a st s . A gene r al concern across a ll st a keh o lder groups is the i m pl i ca t ion of cr e a t i ng b a rrie r s to volunteeris m , ind i ca t ing a cer t ification p r o gram at t he volun t e e r l e vel m ust be given careful cons i d eration. This study c onclud e s w i th recom m e n dat i ons and next s teps f or VOC in de t er m in i ng whether c reating c ertifi c at i ons for o u tdoor ste w ardship a r e a p prop r iat e .

PAGE 5

5 Introduc t i o n Denver Post co foun d er F rede r ick B onfils coined the s l o g an v ilege to live i n ( G oetz and Bosch m ann, 2 018, p.1) in the 193 0 s, a sen t i m ent t h at m any residents identify with toda y . Co l orado has s e en a l m ost a m i l l i on people m ove to t he s t a te ov e r the pa s t decad e . Its econo m ic o p por t un i t i e s , natu r a l be a u t y , and nu m erous outdoor recreation oppor t un i t i e s cont i n u e to attract p eo p le l oo k ing for wel l p aying jobs and a good quality of life. Colorado a w i t h the w i l d e rness is essential for m any who live her e : 7 3 % of Colorado a ns cl a im to t door re c re a tion enthusiast s 73% say t h at access t o re c rea t ion oppor t un i t i e s i s a signif i cant reason for li v ing in t h e s t a te ( C C , 2019). The re s u l t i n g i m pact on Colorado s natu r a l r e s o urces has be en pa r ado x ical. An inc r ease in outdoor e nthusia s m is driv i ng a r e newed appreciation for the envi r on m en t . Three o ut of f our Colorado a ns identify as conserv a t i o n is t s , and res i dents are we l l aware t h at the outdoor ac t i v ities they l ove rely on the h e a l t h of the e n vi r on m ent (CC, 2019). Ho w eve r , overpopulation th r e a te n s the wi l d s pa s t r o ngest a t t rib u te s , and ov e ruse has crea t ed a s t ress on t r eas u red open space s . W hi l e the m ajo r i t y of C olo r adoans cla i m to be c onse r v a t i o n is t s, there see m s to be a di s conn e ction between identifying a s a con s erv a t i onist and a ctu a lly pa r ticipat i ng in conservation practice s . A l m ost e very park in the sta t e experi e nces li t ter a n d vanda l ism of so m e fo r m , but only around 3 % of C olo r adoans vo l u n te e r w i th st e wardsh i p or g an i z a t i ons to cl e an up the s e ha b i t a ts ( CP W , 2 0 19; Koehle r , 2017). The hea l th o f C olo r open spaces does not j u s t have ec o l o gic c onseq u ence s 96% of Colorado a ns bel i e v e that recrea t ion is an i m por t ant fac t or in t he econo m ic h e al t h of t h e s t a te (CC, 2019). In fact, out d oor r e c reation is a $28 b illion indust r y in Colo r a d o and grow i ng eve r y year (TPL, 2 018). Over t he past d e c a de, cons e rv a t i on ef f or t s s uppor t ed 11 , 800 jobs wi t h $507

PAGE 6

6 million in labor income, representing over 17 jobs for every $1 million invested (TPL, 2018). For every dollar invested by the state in conserving land, between $4 and $12 is returned to the public in outdoor benefits (CSU, 2017). Overall, Colorado has received a m ini mum of $5.5 billion in economic benefits from land pr ese rvation practices. It is safe to s ay t usine conserving land in the state is at an all-time high. Client: Voluntee rs for Outdoor Colorado The land conservati on community is at the forefront of this issue and is taking action thr ough re ne wed steward ship effort s. Volunte er programs support environmental stewardship princ iples, and outdoor stewardship organizations such as Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado (VOC) offer an opportunity f or residents to giv e b ack by building trails and clean ing up wildernes s a re as. VOC began off er ing stewardsh ip tra in ing c lasses through its Outdoo r Stewardship Institut e (OSI) in respo nse to the need for collaborative efforts to edu ca te volunteers on stewardship principles. VOC connect s thes e educated volunteers w i th land management agencies, which are subj ect to inconsistent funding streams du e to eve r-changing budget priorit ie s. VO courses seek to build both techni cal and leadership skills that prepare leaders and volunteers to properly steward the land. OSI teaches part ic i pa n ts abo ut trail construction, ecol ogical restoration, voluntee r l ea der ship, and projec t m anagement. I nconsistenc ie s in thes e skills can lead to unintended consequences in outdoor managem ent , as well as an i ne fficient us e of resources. Standardizing stewardship skills ha s the pot ential to preven t this. This study seeks to determ ine if there is a desire among stakeholders in the land management and outdoor stewardsh ip communities to do thi s by off er ing certi fi c at ions through OS I.

PAGE 7

7 Literatu r e Review This r e v iew eva l u a tes t w o co m pone n ts reg a rd i ng the l an d scape for ce r ti f y i ng st e ward s hip ski l ls. The f irst is re s ear c h on the ne e d for cert i fi c at i ons in t he outdoor st e wardsh i p i n dustry. This i de n t i f i es why ce r t i ficat i ons c o uld be nece s sa r y based o n reports f rom outdoor and land m anag e m ent agenc i e s as well a s a ca d e m ic r ese a rch on the n e e d for standardization of cer t a in envi r on m ent a l skil l s. T h e second is l i t e ra t u re on t he ration a le behind c e r t i f ic a t i ons. T h is re s e a rch e m phas i zes the perceived v a lue of pro f ess i onal ce r t i f i ca t io n s, how standa r d iz i ng knowledge leads t o i m p r ove m ents in the fie l d, a n d the i m pl i c at i ons of us i ng ce r ti f ic a t i ons as sign a ls of c om pet e nce. Need: The Case for St e wardship Certific a t i ons Defin i ng O u tdoor Stew a rdsh i p Skil l s Outdoor ste w ardship i s defined in s t u dies as the lon g term re m edi a t i on and res t o rati o n of envi r on m ent a l sy s te m s, and is descri b ed us i ng t er m s such a s eco l ogical r e sto r a t ion ( N el s on, Bo w er s , Lyndal l , Mu n ro & Stanley, 2017; Nel s o n, Schoennagel & Greg o ry, 2008; M at l ock, Osborn, Hess i on, Kenimer & S t o r m , 2001), wilderness management (M c C ool & Fr e imund, 2016), and e nvi r onment a l management (Burger, 20 0 8). Outdoor st e war ds hip skills a re le a rned and app l ied co m pet e nci e s th a t inc l u d e both h a rd and soft sk i lls (Shoot e r , Sib t horp & Pais l ey, 2009). These skills are p ra c ticed th r o ugh outdoor volun t e e r o p por t un i t i e s s uch as: re m e diating hik i ng t rails and open s p ac e s, m ain t a in i ng the cleanliness of w at e r supp l ies, rehabilitating areas i m pac t ed by fires, educating youth o n outdoor principles, and re c e iv i ng l e ade r ship t r aining (C P W , 201 9 ; VOC, 20 1 8). Exa m pl e s of the ha r d and soft skills lear n ed through V O curriculum are list e d in T able 1 b e low: Ta b le 1: O S I Training Sk i lls O v e r view Hard S k ills Soft Skills

PAGE 8

8 Tra i l d es i gn, bui l ding, m ain t e n ance, and res t o rat i on ski l ls Volunteer l e ade r ship/ c rew le a ding Ecolog i c a l, habi t a t , and fire restor a tion Volunteer p roject m anage m ent C P R/first aid Youth lead e rship Crosscut saw skil l s t r a i n ing and c e rtific a t i on Drain a ge s tructu r e m aintenance and i n st a lla t ion Rock ski l ls The Need f o r Standardi z at i on Land m ana g e m ent a genc i es have b e e n t r ac k ing t h e social, ec o log i c, and e c on o m ic benefits of prese r v ing natural reso u rces over t h e p ast de c ad e , a nd results show the r e is a n inc r e ased need f or the s tandardizati o n of p ra c kno w ledg e . The S oci e ty for E colog i c Resto r a t i on det e r m ined there is a gr o wing need for global standard i z at i on of eco l ogic res t o ration ski l ls and c reated a ce r ti f i ca t ion pr o gram in 2017 ( Nelson et al., 2017). F ur t her m ore, d egrees in eco l og i c re s t o ration and conservat i on sc i en c es are inc r e as i n g ly m ore pre v al e nt in a c a d e m ic ins t itu t ions because of a renewed d e si r e for a c omm on body of k n o wledge i n the ind u st r y (Nel s on et a l ., 2008; Matlock et al., 2 001). Joanna Bur g er (2007, 2 0 08) i s reno w ned for her s tud i es on e n vi r on m ent a l m anag e m ent and has a l ist of factors s he cons i d e rs essential for lon g t erm st e wardsh i p. They inc l u d e: 1.Govern m en t al, i n s tituti o na l , and pu b l i c supp o rt (includ i ng fi n anc i a l) 2.Agree m ent on t he ideal or desired ecosystem 3.Agree m ent on t he goods and se r v i c e s th a t ecosyste m s shou l d prov i de 4.Me t hods of m oni t or i ng t h e s t a tus of the ecosyst e m ( i nclud i n g cont a m ina t ion status) 5.Me t hods of evaluating the t r ends a n d changes with i n that sy s tem 6.Me t hods of m anag i ng or r es t o r i ng c om ponents of the system (Burger, 2008, p. 15) Notably, she emphasizes that a common understanding of the methods to maint ain ecosystems is vita l i n collabora tive management of natura l resources. This trend is echoed througho ut the literat ure in findings that stress the int erdependency of stakeholders in natural resource management (McCool & Freimund, 2016).

PAGE 9

9 The Need for Stewardship in Colorado Si mil ar to the needs a t a nationa l level, management and restoration of open spaces in Colorado require a collabora tive, multidisciplinary approach. Federal, state, and local land management agencies ca nnot fulfill their m is s ion s without the assistance of trai ned volunteers due to budg et cuts that reduce t he scope of existing operation s ( USFS, 2016; CPW, 2019). For exam ple, the US Forest Service contracts ou t stewardship pro je c ts in partnership with public and priva te ent it i es t o in cr e as e capacity of ass istance a t the local level (U SFS, 2016). VOC co mpiled data from public land agencies in Colorado to quantify this impact in 2014 and found that over 1.3 milli on volunteer hou rs re sult ed in savings of over $34 million (VOC, 2015). VOC has also engaged with partners in the outdoor st ewardship industry to re view the capacity and the exi st ing resourc es of management agenc ie s. T hese efforts were direct ly in re sponse to the emerging outdoor st ewardship ne eds in the state. Recommendations from thes e studies relev ant to thi s resear ch included developing addition al voluntee r training resources and investing in st andardization of skills (COSC, 2014); a best p ra ct ices stewardship guide was rol led out in 2018 (COSC, 2018). Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) (2019) explicitly lists mproved stewardship as a priority of the sta te s outd oor industry. CPW ad o pted the Colorado Outdoor Principles in an ef fort to pr om ote a st ewardship ethic among all who benef it fr om Colorado rces. These principles encourage a shared responsibility a mong land agencies, private citizens, and conservation organizations to ensure the longte rm viabi lity of land use and conservation of re sources. CPW is looki nce on-the-ground stewar ugh building capacit y of outdoor st ewardship org ani zations and their pa rtner s (CPW, 2019).

PAGE 10

10 C ERTIFYING STEWARDSHIP SKILLS Funding agencies ha v e n oticed the ne ed f or incr ea sed stewar ds hip in Colorado as well. Great Outdoors Colorado (2018) al locates $1 million for stewardship pro je cts tha t enhance and re sto re open spaces and ecosystems . The Gates Family Found at i on (2018) li ardship at Scale as one of its strategic funding priorit ie s, e m phasizing the need for efforts to assist public agencies with caring for natura l r esources, as we ll as job-training opportunities that engage new populations with c aring f or the Colorado outdoors. In early 2019, the US Senate beg an the process of reauthorizi ng funding f or the Land and W at er Conservation Fund, which will open up substantial federal grant opportunities for outdoor investments in Colorado (CPW, 2019a). The need for standardization of stewardship skills seems ripe in Colorado considering the renewed stewardship priorities of sta te agencies and the growing need for coll abo rativ e management practices of natura l resources. Next, thi s review evaluates th e literature on genera l professiona l certifications and their impact on industries. Rationale: The C ase for Professional Certifications Professional certifications are defined luntary processes by which a professional association or organization measures the competencies of individual pr actitioners al braith & Gilley, 1986, p. 3). An important distinction is that certifications are not required, but are chosen because they are believed to provide value. Principally, certificati ons signal competence by clearly communicating knowledge or skills (Cumberland, Petrosko & Jones, 2018 ). Similar to the rationale behind getting an education, individuals and organizations believe cert ifi cat ions are a quick and easy way to determine the quali ties of a profe ssional. There is a robust body of research around why individuals and organizations are motivated to participate in professional cert ifi cation programs. Individual Motivation s

PAGE 11

C E RTIF Y ING STEWA R DSHIP SKILLS 11 Ind i vid u al reasons for r e ce i ving a cert i fic a t i on ca n vary dep e nding on t m ot i vat i o n s. Studies eva l uate t h ese as in t rins i c a n d extrins i c m ot i vat i o n s (C u m berland et al., 2018; Ryan & Deci, 20 0 0). Intrin s ic m ot i vat i o n s are those th a t seek to ac h ieve s e lf sat i sfact i on. At an intr i n s ic l e v el, c e rtifications c a n ful f i l l a d e si r e for gro w th and self deve l op m ent for those in t e re s ted in furthe r ing t h eir c ar e e rs and advancing in the fie l d (C u m berland et a l. , 2 0 18; Fe r tig et al . , 200 9 ). Extr i n s ic m ot i v a t i ons a re those that seek t o s a ti s fy the des i re for external rewards. Ind i vid u als l o oking to fulfill e x trinsic m ot i va t io n s are i n terested in t he self se r ving bene f i t s that ce r ti f ic a tio n s provide, s u ch as g i v ing the m se l ves an advan t a g e over t h eir pee r s ( Cu m berland et al . , 2018; F e r t ig et a l., 2009; Galbraith & Gilley, 1986). Both in t rins i c and extrins i c f a cto r s m ot i vate in d iv i du a ls t o p ursue profe s sion a l certif i ca t io n s. Intrinsic and extrins i c m ot i v a to r s ca n al s o be d e sc r ibed as t h e dif f er e nce between e ing (using certificati o n as a t an g i b le i m prove m ent i n p e rfo r m anc e l ooking (using c e rtification as a sy m bol o f knowledg e ) ( Bl o m quis t , Farashah & Th o m as, 2018; Fe r tig et al., 2009 ) . I n practice, t h is i s s een when i ndi v id u als purs u e c ertification at the be g inning of the i r ca r e e r ( b c o m pared to seasoned e m ploye e s who do not see t h e va l ue in expanding their knowledge or s t a tus (si m l o (Cu m berland e t al., 2018; Blo m qu i st e t a l ., 2018). k ing a p r i m ary reas o n profess i o n als ob t ain c e r t ifi c at i o n s in i tia l l y ; h o wever, once a cert i fic a t i o n is r e c eiv e d , profess i on a ls wi l l seek w ays t o continue to grow and expand their k nowledge base (Blo m quist et al., 20 1 8). Organiza t i o n al Mo t ivat i ons Si m i l ar to i n div i du a l m o t ivations for ce r ti f ic a tion, organizations have intrinsic and extrins i c m ot i v a t i ons for re c ogn i zing profess i onal certification prog r a m s ( Cu m berland e t a l ., 2018) . Galbraith a nd G i lley (1986) s u ggest t h ese lie on a h i erarch i c al s c a l e , with t hree t ie r s

PAGE 12

C E RTIF Y ING STEWA R DSHIP SKILLS 12 i l lust r at e d in Figure 1. At the bottom i s the m ot i vat i on to parti c ipa t e as a r e act i on to an envi r on m ent t hat is req u iring cer t ifi c at i on, o r co n fo r m ing wi t h their peer s . In t he m idd l e is the m ot i vat i on to participate becau s e they can as s e rt cont r ol o v er the quality of practitio n ers in the field. At t he top i s the m ot i v a t i on to participate b ecau s e of t h e growth it b r i ngs to the i ndustry. Figure 1: M o ti v es for P rofes s ional Certification G a lbraith a nd Gilley (1 9 8 6 ) Motives for Professio n al Ce r tification Growth Recogn i tion of value in k nowledge Encourag i ng sel f development Con t rol Restrict i ng particip a tion to ensure consis t ency of knowled g e in the indus t ry Reaction Res p onse to reg u latory re qu ireme n t f o r c ertification Conformi n g w i th oth e r organi z ations ( "m e too ism") Organizations ar e inte rested in the selfse rving benefits of certific at ions as well. Improved status and respect am ong peers encourages organizations to participate ( Cu mber land e t al., 2018). This motivating factor is similar to the earlier description of looking goo is represented in the lower , or reactionary, level of the scale in Figure 1. The self-serving benefits of professi onal certifications can also provide practical value for operations. For ex am ple, evaluating e m ployees based on their cer ti f ic ation can r educe the time spent on finding qualified candidates (Blomquist et al., 2018 ). This i s s imil ar to the con trol level of the scale in Figure 1. Organizations that recognize certific at ions frequently p rom o te envi ronments that encourage continuous learning and em ployee development opportunities ( Blomquist et al., 2018; Fert ig et al., 2009). Fostering a continuous learning environm ent motivates employees to seek opportunities to enhance thei r skill s. While thi s h as the potential to lead to tur nover as employees

PAGE 13

13 C ERTIFYING STEWARDSHIP SKILLS seek higher positions, studies ha ve found that a continuous learning cycle benefits the industry as a whole (Blomquist et al., 2018). Th is exemplifies the growth level of the scale in Figure 1. Perhaps the m ost r el e va nt finding for this research study is the benefit t ha t certifying skills has on guiding the development of best practice s in th e f ie ld. Certif ic ations can enhance the credibili ty in industries, as a co mm on body of knowledge is developed (Galbraith & Gilley, 1986). Moreover, they cr eat e an opportunity for recognition from st akeholders a t multip le lev el s, which incre ases the app ear anc e of legitim acy (H umphries & Kainer, 2006). Factors That Make Certification Ac cepted Motivations for pursuing cer ti f ic ations are deeply influenc ed by the external factors that make certificat ion s acceptable in t he first pla ce. Various rev ie ws of certification prog ra ms in the finance, computer sci ences, engine er ing, and human resource professions show there are comm on fac tor s that make certifications palatable to their respective field s. Classical economic theorists refer to credentialing as market signals that act as a means for employers to overcome an information deficit when hiring employees ( Spence, 1973), and employees believe obtaining a specific body of knowledge communicates their level of commitment to the field. Professionals receive certifications to make broad stat ements about the skills and attributes they believe are important to potential employers, which are not always conveyed through traditi onal academi c means. In many cases, this leads to early career professionals re ceiving higher earnings (Albert, 2017). Certifications are also a way to com municate quality of knowledge, which can lead to improvements in consumer choice and an ove rall benefit to the public (Dranove & Jin, 2010). This can be especially important in fields such as health care where poor job performance has greater consequences. Crit icisms o f C ertifications

PAGE 14

14 C ERTIFYING STEWARDSHIP SKILLS A f ew themes emerged as common criticisms of p rofessional certifications. Research shows it is unclear whether c ertifications le ad to actual perform ance enhancements or are si mply used as too ls to enhance the image of co mpete nce ( Cu mberland et al., 201 8; Fertig et al., 2009). Some re searchers port ra y cer ti f ic a tio m ini mum quality standard as regulatory mechani sms, arguing that limiting participation in the profession does not explicitly assure qual ity (Leland, 1979 ). Also, the benefits of certific ation are not always clear. This is especially true if the cost to certify is high, the time com mitment required to become certified is exces sive, or the outcomes are ambiguous. Finally, certifications will not be accepted unless they are understood among stakeholders as a necessity to the field (Humphrie s & Kainer, 2006) . Considering the incr eas ed need for professionals in the out door stewardship community, the need for standardization of environmental skills, and the benefit certi fic ati ons can have on industries, the landscape for cert ifying stewardship skills seems opportune. This study seeks to determine whether this is, in fact, the case based on opinions of stakeholders in Color a outdoor stewardship community. Methodology The overarching research questions for this study are: Do the cond i t i ons curre n t l y e x ist for O S I t ra i n ing ce r ti f ic a tio n s to be r e co g niz e d and valu e d a m ong land m a n age m ent a genc i e s , o u td o or stewa r d s h ip orga n iz a t i ons (OS O s ) , funders, and vo l unteers ( R Q1)? Spe c ifically, what would m ot i vate t h ese s t akeho l d e rs to acc e pt st e w a rdship certifications (R Q 2 ) ? W hat b a r r iers would prevent the s e s t akeh o lders fr o m e m bracing c e r t ifi c at i o n s (RQ3 ) ? Three themes emerged from the literature as specific variables to best measure these research questions ( Humphries & Kainer, 2006). First, is establishing whether there is a need for certification in the industry. Second is determi ning what

PAGE 15

15 C ERTIFYING STEWARDSHIP SKILLS would give certification legitimac y to st akeholders. And third is uncovering the expected benefi ts and value of certification. Measurement and Data Collection The research questions are exp lor ato ry in na tu re, therefore a qualita tive approach is th e m ost appropria te methodology. The researcher conducted semi-struc tu r ed int e rvi ews with members of four stakeholder groups to collect opinions on s te ward ship certific at ions through VO tra ini ng. Semist ructured inte rvi ews ar e used be cause th ey pr ovide an opportuni ty to expand on the responses of the participant ra ther than sticking to a restrictive scrip t ( Orcher, 2014). The r esearcher perform ed int erviews faceto-face, online through the conference tool Zoo m, and on the phone, depending on the a vailability of the participan t. Interview Protocol The inter view protocol included three sections, beginning wit h a brief background on the participant. This framed the study set the tone for the interview proc ess, and gave the int e rvi ewee time to develop a level of comfort with the researcher. The qu estions in this section int ended to get an understanding of the partici pa n s involvem ent in the outdoor stewardship industry, get their knowledge of VOC and OSI, and gave them the opportunity to form an opinion on the question of stewardship certification. The second section of the in t e rv i ew pro t oc o l was an open discussion on the c once p t of st e wards h ip cer ti f ic a tio n s. The resear cher as k ed t h e in t e rv i e w ee t o t alk a b out t he ir i n itial though t s on the idea. This w as an i m por t a n t s t ep becau s e the R Q is hypothet i c al, a nd the re s e a rch e r belie v ed parti cip a nt s should have tim e to d i scuss t heir op in i on on the to p ic of st e wards h ip cer ti f ic a tion before ge t tin g in t o sp e cific qu e s t i ons.

PAGE 16

C E RTIF Y ING STEWA R DSHIP SKILLS 16 The f inal s e ct i on was t h e resear c h e t u n ity to d i v e into spec i fic t o pics t h at c a m e up dur i ng the open inte r view. This w as guided by the t h ree the m es: 1.Address i ng whether t h ere is a n e ed for certific a tion in the in d u st r y 2.Det e r m in i ng what would give cert i fi c a t i on legit i m acy t o s takeholde r s 3.Finding the e xpec t ed be nefi t s and value of certif i ca t ion The re s e a rcher us e d probing questi o ns to devel o p an unde r standing of t h e pa r tici p the s e the m e s. Exa m ples of these questions a re listed in the Append i ces u nder Inter v iew Protoco l . Sampling Plan The population of in t er e s t i n t h is stu d y are m e m b ers of the f our stak e h o l d er group s : land m anag e m ent agenc i e s (r e ferred t o a s c ) , O S Os, funders, and voluntee r s. E xam ples of participants in t he s e grou p s a r e li s ted in Table 2 below. Agencie s , OSO employee s , a nd f u nders are represe n tative of the organizat i o n al p e rs p ecti v e, while vo l unte e rs are represe n tati v e of the ind i vid u al perspective. The re s e a rcher i n te r v iewed el e ven people who w ork i n organizations (such as the ones l i s ted i n Table 2 ) a nd seven vo l unte e rs. B ec ause t h e re w ere only two participants in t he OSO st a keh o lder group, evaluation of these partici p n ses w ere co m bined w i t h t h e agency stakeh o lder group t o e nsure confi d ent i a lity. T a ble 2: P a r t icip a nts N umber of P a rtic i p a n ts Stake h older Group Ex a m ples of P ar t i c i p a n t s OR G ANI Z A T IONS 5 A g e ncies U n i t ed S t ates Forest Service, Fish and W i ldl i fe S erv i ce, O p e n s pace m anagem e nt a u t h o ri t i e s 2 O S Os La Ve t a Trails, Tr a i l s 2000 4 Fun d e rs Gre a t Out d oo r s Color a do, G a t e s Fami l y F o undat i on INDIV ID UA L S 7 V o l u n t ee rs Prev i ous V OC vol u nteers Par t icipa n ts w ere chosen using purp o sive sa m pl i n g m ethod s . Purpos i ve sa m pl i ng is m o st appropriate becau s e it a llowed the r e sea r c h er to i n te r v iew certa i n ind i vid u als in the i n dustry who could provi d e the be s t i n fo r m at i on to answer the RQ (Orcher, 2014). Part i cip a n t s were f i r st

PAGE 17

C E RTIF Y ING STEWA R DSHIP SKILLS 17 cont a c ted by an initial in t roduction f r o m VOC to es t a b l i sh a c onnec t ion w i t h t h e re s e a rcher, g ive det a iled inf o r m at i on on the purpose o f the stud y , and exp l a in the e xpe c ted ti m e c o m m i t m ent for participation. Those who w ere interested self se l e ct e d to be a part of the s t udy. An exa m ple of th i s e m ail c o r r esponde nc e is l isted in the Append i ces under E mail Request for Parti c i p at i on . The re s e a rch e r t h en scheduled intervie w s with p a rti c ipan ts . Data A n aly s is A descr i p t i v e m ethod of ana l y s is i s u sed i n t h is s t udy because it provides t h e opportu n ity to co m pare and con t rast re s ponses a c ross stakeh o lder grou p s ( N ewc o m e r , Hatry, & Wholey , 2015). Stakeholders we r e ca t eg o r i ze d in t o t h ree viewpoin t s (opp o sed, s k ept i c al, a nd i n favor) based on t he cont e nt of t heir respon s es. As the r e sea r c h er d is cove r ed c omm on th e m es a m ong re s ponses to the need, legit i m acy, and b e nefit / v a l u es of certi f ic a t i o n , an e n u m er a t i on technique was e m plo y ed to quan t ify the frequ e ncy of occu r rences of re s ponses. Th e se t he m es w ere t h en ca t eg o r i zed as either an oppor t un i ty or barri e r. Results Inte r view Protocol Sec t ion One: Part i c ipant B a ckground Of the seven volun t e e r par t ic i pa n ts interviewed, all ha v e been volunte e ring or working with VOC v olun t e e rs on outdoor st e wardsh i p pr o je c ts f or at least two y e ar s ; so m e for up t o t h irty yea r s. All a r e f a m i l iar w i th t he OSI t rainings, and s ix out of s e ven re c e ived training di r ec t ly th r ough O S I. V olun t ee r s work on bet w een th r ee a nd twenty projects per year. Three respondents are e m ployed i n the out d oor i ndustry, and four are involved s o le l y a s volu n te e rs for V O C . Eleven res p ondents re p resented the organizational pe r s p ecti v e. Four work for funding agenc i e s, t w o for outdoor st e war d ship organizations, and five for agencies. Respondent s c areer expe r ience in the i ndu s try ranged fr o m th r ee to t h i r ty y ea r s. Most had n o t person a l l y tak e n t h e

PAGE 18

18 OSI courses, but a majority were familiar with the curriculum and had worked in partnership with VOC on projects where OSI tra ini ngs wer e used. Interview Protocol Section Two: Opinions on Stewardship Certificatio ns Int ervi ews began with an int roduction to the con cept of creating stewar ds hip cer ti f ic a tion s, and par ticipants were asked to explain their opinions on the idea. Responses to this question elicit ed a general sense of the particip opinion, which was held for the rest of the int e rvi ew in all c ases. Th ese a re best broken in to three vi ewpoints illustrated in Table 3 below. Ta b le 3: Stakehol d er Viewpoints o f Stewardship C ertificati o ns Viewpoi n t Tot a l Number of St a keh o lders with this Viewpoi n t St a keh o lder Br e a k o u t Ratio n ale Behind Viewpoint Op p osed 3 3 Agencie s / O SOs Certificatio n s will be b urd e ns o me and u n n ec e ss a ry S k eptical 11 5 Vol u nteer s , 3 F u nders, 3 Agencie s / O SOs Benefits to c e rtificati o ns are n o t cle a r, b u t w o uld be open t o learni n g m ore ab o ut the i dea I n Fav o r 4 2 Vol u nteer s , 1 F u nder, 1 Agenc y /O S O Certificatio n s are necessa r y and wo u ld p rovide tr e m e n d o us val u e Those in fa v or were ide n t i fied by r e s ponses such as: Inte r view Protocol Sec t ion Three: Need, Value, and Legitim a cy Theme: Need W hen ask e d about the need f or cert i fying ski l ls r ece i ved th r o ugh O S I, r e s ponses were m ixed a m o n g ind i vid u als depend i ng on their type of involvement i n o u td o or stewa r d s h ip. A

PAGE 19

19 common response was that the OSI progra m as it stands is currently fitting their needs as volunteers . This was be st explained in the quote, [Certification] would be something that is a n eed to have The trainings that are n eeded a re already there This feeling was echoed in responses from organiz at ions as well, who believe the exi st ing level of OS I t raining is currently m eet ing their needs , sayin c onfident in our abili ty to do our int ernal train ing and anywhere I h ave limitations are filled by existing OS I t ra in ing were also unclear of the need for certification, sp ec ifically wondering what problem certification was meant to solve: there a p roblem right now of a lack of consisten cy, peopl e p utting volunteers a t r isk, etc.? W hat is the problem we are t ryi ng to fix, and is it even nece ss ary? Overal l, 55% of participants did not believe th ere is a pr essing need for certification. Int erestingly, 55% of pa rt icipants from both groups believed certificati on could fill a specific ne ed in communicating the k now ledge of volunteers [volunteers] have the physica l requirements to do the work has been a probl em for us id one organization participant. Another echoed thi s, say ing think it pretty necessa ry Land managers have limited resources , and they are looking for consistent, reliable outcom es t hat are driven by volunteers instead of spending on prof essional cr In pra ct ice, another volunt eer s aid th is can be de triment al is absolutely a need for better communicating standards. cr ew lead s d oing things diff er ent ly , and it can ruin a pro je ct. Theme: Value Standardizing knowledge and professiona l development emerged as th e g re atest potential values of stewardship certific at ions. 66% of stakeholders explicitly me ntioned the benefit that comes with assuring a base level o f k now ledge is brought to each pro je ct . One funder said, I can see that being in te re st ing from a funding perspective if we know the people who are showing

PAGE 20

20 up have the skill set needed to do this sentiment was echoed by others with the organizational perspective W b e] more l ikely to want to work with the certified group because they have the b asi cs and it to be less of a time investm guarantee of consi stency is t he b a nd [Certific at ions] add power to a p er s knowledge and transfer a bility of skills In tot al, 61% of all respondents saw a value in certification at the pro fe ssiona l l evel . This opinion was m ost co mmon among volunteer respondents (86% ). While some were unsure of the need for certifications, thes e p artici pa nts believ ed that they might feel diff er ent ly if they worked i n outdoor stewardship, saying things like conside r becoming certified from a professiona l development st andpoin and I d be interested [in certif ic ation] down the road when I am on a new care Som e me mbers of agenci es saw the benefits cer ti f ic ation could have on hiring, sayi ng: If I see someone comin g in looking for a job and they had a certificate, you re ally know they had a lot of commitm ent , and then you could know what skills they had or the trainings they had received or we re expos ed to ; and I can see adva ntages f or t ra inings and cer ti f ic a tion s in professional trail construction so people can show w hat they have been tra ined t o While there is an appe tite for cer tifications to be recognized at the professional level, agencie s/OSOs were quick to recognize the difficul ty of incorporating new hiring standards in human resource departm ent v ing i t b e a standardized requir ed training by HR or at a higher level would be ar said one agency. Another echoed th is, saying, The value for [us] is on the volunteer side. I t hink it take a lot more wor k on the pro f essional side because th e a gencies have different requirements, and we currently have staff tr Theme: Legitimacy

PAGE 21

21 When asked questions relating to legitimacy, pa rticipants focused on the establishment of the certification program. They explained that the partners engaged in creating the program are vital to the belief that the program is worthwhile, using stat ements such as her peer organizations might feel uncomfortable with having VOC set the expectation for quality ; and I like the idea of the cert ifi cation being created by a council or a wide variety of partners. That would increase legitimacy if many pa rtners were involved in creating the standards and with organizations nationally that are similar to creat e a training program would be more important than getting recognition from the Feds Cur riculum was also a factor in determining whether the program is viewed as legitim ate with both groups, who said, Ac cepta nce] will come down to the agreement on the core aspects of the curriculum would want to feel that the skills are transferrable and are ba cked up by accepted research Additional Concerns 57% of agencies/OSOs and 75% of funders expressed wor ries that certifications could create barriers an d negatively imp act volunteer par ticipation . Some specifically mentioned creating an image of limiting acc essibility to volunteering for stewardship projects as a major concer n, saying, minating barriers to acces s is our priority. ... I worry that if a cert ifi cation is even perceived to be required, it might present a barrier to someone who doesnt think they have the time or resour ces We would worry that there is an unintended consequence that actually creates a barrier to entry or become intimidating. ip ant voiced this frankly, saying, We are leery of any means that might impact a potential pool of our volunteers a think the benefits would justify the potential negativ Summary Matri x

PAGE 22

22 Key th e m es fr o m the s e responses a re categ o r i zed in t o oppo r t u ni t ies and b a r r iers in the following S u m m ary Ma t r ix . S u m m ar y M a t r i x T h e m e F r e q u e n c y o f R e s p o ns e Am o n g S t a k e h o l d e r G r o u p Qu o t e s f r o m S t a k e h o l d e r s B a r r i e r s C o n c e r n f o r c r e a t i n g n e w a n d u n n e c e ss a r y h u r d l e s fo r s te w a r d s h i p o r g a n i z a t io n s a n d v o l u n t e e r s 1 4 % ( 1 / 7 ) V o lu n t ee r s 5 7 % ( 4 / 7 ) A g e n c i e s / O S O s 7 5 % ( 3 / 4 ) Fu n d e r s " R a i s i n g t h e b a r f o r a cc e s s m i g h t c r e a t e a s m a l l , h i g h l y q u a li f i e d g r o u p o f c e r t i f i ed i n s t r u c t o r s b u t m ig h t b e c r e a t i n g m o r e b a r r i e r s f o r t h e g e n e r a l pu b li c." V o l u n t e e r " W e a r e l e e r y o f a n y m e a n s t h a t m i g h t i m p a ct o u r [ vo l u n t e e r ] p o o l ." O S O " I w o u l d w or r y t h a t t h e r e i s a n u n i n t e n d e d c o n s e q u e n ce t h a t a c t u a ll y c r e a t e s a b a rr i e r t o e n t r y o r b e c o m es i n t i m i d a t i n g ." F u n d e r Q u e s t io n a b o u t w h e t h e r cer t ifi c a t i o n i s n ee d e d , a n d w h a t p r o b l e m c e r t i fi c a t i o n i s m e a n t t o s o l v e 5 7 % ( 4 / 7 ) V o lu n t ee r s 5 7 % ( 4 / 7 ) A g e n c i e s / O S O s 5 0 % ( 2 / 4 ) Fu n d e r s I t w o u l d b e s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s a n i ce t o h a v e ' n o t ' n e ed t o h a v e t h e t r a i n i n g s t h a t a r e n e e d ed a r e a l r e a d y t h e r e ." V o l un t e e r " O S I h a s a r e all y h i g h l e v el o f n a m e r e c o g n i t i o n a n d q u a li t y o f t r a i n i n g . I t i s c u r r e n t l y f i t t i n g t h e n e e d s . " A g e n cy " I w a r y o f p r o p o s i n g s o l u t i o n s t o pro b l e m s t h a t m a y o r m a y n o t e x i s t . Is t h e r e a d e m o n s t r a t e d n e e d ? If s o , h o w i s t h a t q u a n t i f i e d ? " F un d er O p p o r t u n i t i e s C r e a t i n g a c l e a r w a y t o c om m u ni c a t e a n i n divid u al s s t e w a r d s hi p k n o w l e d g e /s k il l s e t 4 3 % ( 3 / 7 ) V o lu n t ee r s 4 3 % ( 3 / 7 ) A g e n c i e s / O S O s 5 0 % ( 2 / 4 ) Fu n d e r s h a d t o r e t a k e t r ai n i n g s w h e n I s t a r t ed t o v o l un t e er w i t h V O C o n k n o w l e d g e I al r e a d y h a d o b t a i n e d o u t s i d e o f C o l or a d o , a n d t h e r e c u rr e n t l y is n a wa y t o c o mm u n i c a t e s t e w a r d s h i p k n o w l e d g e n a t i o n al l y V o l u n t e er " I li k e t h e i d ea o f h a v i n g s o m e k i n d o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n t h a t s o m e on e c a n p o i n t t o a n d s a y ' I h a v e t h e s e t y p e o f s k i ll s' ." A g e n cy " K n o w i n g [ vo l u n t ee r s ] h a v e t h e p h y si c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e w o r k h a s b e en a pro b l e m i n t h e p a s t ." F u n d e r V alu e i n p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t 8 6 % ( 6 / 7 ) V o lu n t ee r s 5 7 % ( 4 / 7 ) A g e n c i e s / O S O s 0 % ( 0 / 4) F u n d e r s " I w o u l d c o n s i d er [ g e tt i n g c e r t i fi e d ] f ro m a p r o f e ss i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n dp o i n t ." V o l u n t e e r " B e i n g a n o u t d o o r e du c a t o r , I t h i n k i t w o u l d g i v e m e a l e v el o f k n o w l e d g e t o m y c li e n t s to s h o w I k n o w w h a t I ' m t al k i n g a b o u t ." V o l u n t e er " P ro f e ss i o n aliz i n g t h o s e s k i ll s w o u l d b e v a l u a b l e s o w e c o u l d k n o w w h a t s k i ll s t h e y h a v e a n d t h e i r a b i li t y to w or k f o r u s i n t h e f u t ur e ." A g e n cy C r e a t i n g a s t a n d a r d t h a t re s u l t s i n c o n s i s t e n t p r o j e c t o u t c o m e s 7 1 % ( 5 / 7 ) V o lu n t ee r s 5 7 % ( 4 / 7 ) A g e n c i e s / O S O s 7 5 % ( 3 / 4 ) Fu n d e r s " A g u a r a n t ee o f c on s is t e n cy i s t h e b igg e s t b e n e f i t . T h e e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e t h e s a m e a n d t h e r e i s a t l e a s t a f l o o r / m i n i m u m s e t o f w h a t s o m e o n e i s a b l e to d o ." V o l u n t e e r " W e c o u l d b e m o r e l i k e l y t o w a n t t o w or k w i t h t h e c e r t i f i ed g r o u p b ec a u s e y o u k n o w t h e y h a v e t h e b as i cs a n d i t g o i n g t o b e l e s s o f a t i m e i n v e s t m e n t . " A g e n cy " I f t h e r e w a s a s u b s e t o f s t e w a rd s h i p v o l u n t ee r s t h a t a r e h i g h l y c e r t i f i e d , I c a n s e e t h a t b e i n g i n t e r e s t i n g f ro m a f u n d i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s o w e k n o w t h e p e o p l e w h o a r e s h o w i n g u p h a v e t h e s k il l s e t n e e d e d t o d o t h e w o r k . " F u n d e r

PAGE 23

23 Discuss i on W hi l e the o ppor t un i t i e s and ba r rie r s l i sted in the S u m m ary M atrix r e p re s e nt t he m ost com m on re s ponses ac r os s s t akeh o lder group s , t he re were nuances wit h in the groups t h at are i m por t ant to note when a nswer i ng the research q ues t ions. Funders Are Looking f or Quanti f ia b le Outcomes Funders sa i d they g e n e rally trust the organizat i o n s who are s u b m i t t i ng p rojects to co m ple t e the wo r k th e y say t hey a re going to do, and are m ain l y concer n ed about t h e pro j e c t being co m ple t ed wit h in a ra m et e r s . Funders would see a benef i t t o c e rtification if the r e were c l e ar o utco m es fr o m using ce r ti f ied s tew a rdship leader s , and would want t o see so m e m ethod of q uant i fying t hese b e nefits on pro j e c t propos a ls. S o m e exa m p l es are: 1.Est i m at i ng the outpu t s of a certified workforce (e.g., t h e n u m ber of linear feet co m ple t ed on a t r a il u s i n g ce r ti f ied volunteers v e rsus a traditional group of volun t ee r s ) 2.Showing that using cert i fied e m ploye e s would i m prove the quality of the work (e.g., bui l ding m ore sustaina b le trails) 3.Increasi n g an organi z at i o n capacity ( e.g., m aking a s tewa r dship o rganization conduct m ore ef f ec t ive fundraisin g ) Volunteers Are Sat i s f i e d with t he L evel o f Tra i n ing They A r e Rece i v ing Encourag i ng volun t e e rs t o beco m e ce r t i fied m ay be d i f f icu l t becau s e v o l u nte e rs o v erall seem to be sa t isfied with the c urrent level of tr a ining they are receiving, a n d those with spec i a l i z ed knowledge feel t h ey a r e ce r ti f ied to t h e ex t e n t t h e y want to b e . Volun t ee r s had no t r oub l e see i ng the value in be c o m ing c e rtified for profess i o nal pu r pos es , but could not see clear benefits of beco m ing c e r t ified as a v olun t e e r. Agenci e s /OSOs Are Not i n Agreement on the Ben e f i t o f Cer t i f y ing Volun t ee rs There was a n in t e re s ting m ix of responses a m o n g agenc i e s/ O S O s on st e wardsh i p ce r ti f ic a tio n s at t h e vol u nte e r level. To s o m e, t he pe r c e ived value of getting cert i fied as a

PAGE 24

2 4 volunteer gives the impression of adding re quirements. These agencies/OSOs said they believed in the value of continuing education, but the perception of requiri ng train ings at any level gave many of these st akeholders pause. They were co ncer ned that volunteers would choose to spend their prec iou s time elsewhere if barriers to volunt ee ring were perceived. Others thought cer ti fying volunteers wa s more nece s sar y th an certifying prof essionals. T his is because they believ ed their employees were suff ic iently trained through ex is t ing methods, and it would be too difficul t t o incor porate new trainings into the hiring system. One benefit these organizations saw was in creating autonomy among voluntee rs and giving the agenci es a level of confidence in their volunt e er s knowledge base. Answering the Research Questions RQ1: Do the cond itions currently exist for OSI tra ining certifications to be recognized and valued among land management agencies, ou tdo or stewardship organizations (OSOs), funders, and volunte ers? Un f or t unat e l y , th i s question cannot be answered with a s i m ple RQ2: What would motivate these stakeholders to accept st e wardship certifications? Stakeho l d e rs w ould be i ncl i ned to accept stewardship cert i fi c at i ons if th e y were shown to: 1.I m prove the c onsi s tency and qual i ty of crew l e ade r ship t r aining th r ou g hout t he s tate 2.D e m onstra t e qua n t i fi a ble benefits to p r o j ec t s 3.Crea t e a u t o n o m y a m o ng volun t e e rs to redu c e the m anag e m ent bu r den

PAGE 25

25 4.I m prove an ove r all st e wardsh i p ethic R Q 3: W hat barr i ers w o uld prevent t hese s takeh o lde r s from embracing c e rt i fic a t i on? Stakeho l d e rs perceived the f ol l owing as m ajor barr i e rs to cer t ification: 1.The per c e pt i on that c e r t ifi c at i o n s will reduce volun t e e r i s m 2.The per c e pt i on that c e r t ifi c at i o n s will be a b u rdenso m e n e w require m ent 3.The per c e pt i on that c e r t ifi c at i o n s a re unnecess a ry St r ucturing a cert i fic a t i o n prog r am at t he volunt e er level m ust be given c a reful con s i d er a tion, and pe r haps further study. T he in c o n si s tency in responses be t ween volunteers and o rganizations ind i c a t e s it m ight not be appropriate to c e rtify v o lun t e e rs un t il m ore det a ils have be e n cl a ri f ied. Recom m e n datio n s Overa l l, if V OC wants t o pursue a ce r t i fic a t i on p r ogra m , it needs t o con s i d er the following: 1.Communi ca ting a cl ear value proposition of certific at ion (develop ing methods to quantify the benefits of using certified volunteers on projects) 2.Creating assur anc es that both the existing volunteer pool and access to stewardship volunteer work will not be impacted by cert ifi cation 3.Engaging the right partners in creation and governance of a ce rt ifi cation program are several ways VO C can address these. One option would be to perform a few pilot trail construction projects using participants who have gone through extensive O SI training as a p roxy to a certifi ca tion program. These volunteers co uld be us ed on tra il construction p roj ects that ha ve been identified as high pri ority stewardship areas. This could provide a few opportunities: to see the impact th at tifie teers have on the levels of volun teerism; to compile data on projects whose volunteer force had exclusively received st andardized training; and to see how a ce r ti fied workforce impact s the social and techni cal dynamics of the project.

PAGE 26

26 VOC has already participated in highly collaborative efforts to incr eas e st ewardship ef forts across the state. One of these outcomes has been the cr eation of the Colorado Outdoor Stewardship Coalit ion (COSC ). COSC relea sed the Colorado Best Practices Stewar dship Guide in 2018, which was deve loped in partnership with experts acro ss t he field of natural resource managem ent . VOC could consider wo rki ng with simil ar existing outdoor stewardship education programs throughout Colorado on standardizing practices using this guide to make skill s transferrable across prog ra m s. COSC par tners could establish a criteria to evaluate existing tra ini ng programs and crea l abe r tified programs as a first step to test out the palatability of outdoor stewardship certification. Essentially, VOC could look into certification at the programm at ic level instead of certifying at the individual level (whi ch has s hown to be so mewhat contentious). To do this, VOC could assem ble representatives from geographically diverse areas who uti lize d if f er ent trail building groups for thei r stewardship work to dis cus s certifying programs. OSOs across the s tate were not adequate ly repre sen t ed in this research study, and should be invol ved a s VOC determ ine s the palatability of this idea. Because VOC has existing partnerships with m any of these organizati ons already, this would be a good first step to tak e before proceeding with any form of certi fi c at ion progra m. Finally, a valuable advantage of certification could be its contribution t o strengthening a st ewardsh ip ethic across the state. Cr eating new avenues for outdoor vo luntee rs and professionals to become more knowledgeable in the f ie ld is a benefit that should not be understated. While only a few stakeholder s explicitly discussed this possibility in their int e rvi ews, i t i s app ar ent tha t all p articipants ar e p ass iona te ab out the outdoors and want others to

PAGE 27

27 be as well. VOC should be emphasizing the ways cert ification can build an extended community of stewardship enthusiast s. Limitations It is import ant to keep in m ind t hat th is research study was highly speculative and asked participants hypothetical question s wit hout many realworld examples to dr aw from. Responses could be improved if the re was a tangibl e examp le of an existi ng certification prog ra m. Another limit at ion to thi s s tudy is that participants se lf -selected to be a part of the study. Self-se le ction inherently creates a possible bias because of the level of inter est or background knowledge in th e topic. A random sample of the population of inte re st would provide data that is le ss b iased. Also, a st akeholder group that was not addres sed in this study is the outdoor education community, specifically those in tradit ion al ac ade mic program s. This i s a n area wor th exploring becaus e certifications in other professions a re commonly promoted in partnership with public universities, co mmunity colleges, and tra de s cho ols. Outdoor educat ion programs in universities in Colorado and surrounding states c ould r eve al opportunities or barriers that we re not addressed in this research. Conclusion A common response among participants in this study was that VOC is the most qualified organization in Colorado to take on a cer ti f ic ation program if it decided to do so. This is because VOC has formed the neces sa ry strategic partnerships, is already established in th e most diverse ar ray of stewardship projects throu ghout t he state, and has c re ated programs that are highly re spected and recognized. Outdoor s te wardship work in Colorado is i n cr easingly necessary as the population expands and more people are recreat ing in the state s treasured natural sp aces. Strategies to

PAGE 28

28 creat e opportunities to connect people with the outdoors and empower volunteers with knowledge to be good stewards of the land is vital. Creati ng stewardship certifications has the potential to be a piece of the future o f esse ntial steward ship w ork in the state.

PAGE 29

29 References Albert, K. (2017). The certific at ion ea rni ngs premium: An examination of young workers. Social Scien c e Re s ea r ch, 63, 1 38 149. Bl o m quis t , T., Farash a h , A. D . & T ho m as, J. (2018 ) . Feeling good, being good and l o oking good: Mo t i v at i ons for, a nd benefits fro m , pro j ect m anage m e n t c e rtific a t i o n. In t erna t i o nal Journal of Proj e c t M a n a ge m ent, 36(3 ) , 498 511. Burger, J. ( 2 008). Environ m ent a l m a nage m ent: in t egr a t i ng e colog i c al e v alu a tion, re m edi a t i on, re s t o ration, natu r a l r e s o urce da m age a s ses s m ent a nd lon g term st e wards h ip on cont a m ina t e d land s . Sc ie nce of the Total Enviro n m ent, 400(1 3), 6 19. Burger, J. ( 2 007). A m o d el for s el ect i ng bio i nd i c a to r s to m onitor radionuc l ide c once n trat i ons using A m c h i t ka Island i n the Al e u t ians as a case study. Env i ron m ent a l Rese a rch, 10 5 (3 ) , 316 323. Colorado College (CC). (2019 ) . Conservation i n the W est Poll Su mm ary. Retr i e v ed fr o m ht t ps://ww w .colo r ad o college.edu/other/stateo f therocki e s /conservation i n t h ewest/2018 / rep or t s/Conser v at i o n in t he W es t _2018 Sta t eFa c tS h ee t _Colo r a d o.pdf Colorado Outdoor Ste w ardship Co a lition (COSC). (2014 ) . C a r i ng f o r Colorado Public Lands: A Statewid e A ssessm ent to Inform Partnerships b et ween Public Land Management Agencies and Volunteer Stewardship Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.voc.org/site s/default/files/attachmentsCaring_for_CO_Lands_COSC_Final_ Report_0.pdf Colorado Outdoor Ste w ardship Co a lition (COSC). (2018 ) . C olo ra do Ou t door Stewa r dship Best Practices G u ide. Re t riev e d fr o m ht t p://outdoorst e wardsh i p.or g /gu i de Colorado Parks and W i l dl i fe (CP W ) . (2019 ) . St a tewide Co m prehens i v e Outdoor Rec r e a t i on Plan. Retri e ved fr o m ht t ps: / /cp w .sta t e.c o .us/Do c u m ent s /Tr a ils/SC O R P /Fina l P l an/2019 S C ORP Report.pdf Colorado Parks and W i l dl i fe (CP W ) . (2019a). L and and W a t er Conserva t ion Fund. Retrieved fr o m ht t ps:/ / cpw.sta t e . c o .us/aboutus / Pages / Tr a i l s L W CF.aspx Colorado State Univ e rsity (CS U ). ( 2 017). I nve s t i n g in Colo r a do. Retriev e d fr o m ht t p : / / w w w.cnhp.colost a te. e du/dow n load / docu m ent s /2017/ColoradoState U _C E ROI study_web.pdf Cu m berland, D. M., Pe t rosk o , J. M. & Jones, G. D. (2018). Mot i v a t i ons for pursu i ng profess i onal certificatio n . Perfor m a n ce I m prove m ent Qua r te r ly, 31(1), 5 7 82. Retri e ved fr o m ht t ps:/ / onl i n e l i bra r y wile y co m .aurar i alibrary.id m . o cl c .org/do i /full / 10.100 2 / p iq.21256

PAGE 30

30 Dranove, D. & J i n, G. Z. (2010 ) . Qu a l i ty d isclos u re and certi f ic a t i o n : The o ry and practice. Journal of Econo m ic L i te r ature, 48(4), 935 963. Fer t ig, J., Ze i t z, G. & B l au, G. (2009). Build i ng i n te r n a l m ot i vat i on f o r worker co m pet e ncy ce r ti f ic a tio n s: A c r itique and propos a l. H u m an Resour c e Dev e lop m ent R e view, 8(2 ) , 197 222. Galbraith, M. W . & Gi l ley, J . W . (1986 ) . Professional C e rt i ficat i o n : I m pl i c a t i ons f o r Adult Education and H R D . In f or m at i on Ser i es No. 30 7 . Gates Fa m i l y Foundat i o n. (2018 ) . Natur a l Reso u rc e s: S tewardship at S c ale. R et r ieved fr o m ht t ps:// g at e s fa m i l yfou n d at i on. o rg / s trategi c prio r ities/natural resource s / Gharis, L., Franz e n, R. L ., Liddico a t, K. & R e m ing t on, T. N . (2018 ) . How do W is c onsin envi r on m ent a l edu c a to r s perc e ive a p otential, p ro f ess i onal ce r t i fic a t i on for ind i vid u al envi r on m ent a l edu c a to r s ? App l ied E nvi r on m ent a l Education & Com m un i ca t ion, 1 18. Goetz, A. R. & Bosch m a nn, E. E. (2018). Metro p ol i tan D enve r : Growth and C hange in the Mile High City. University o f P ennsy l vania Press. Great Outd o ors Color a d o. (2018 ) . S t ewardship I m pact Grants. Retrieved fr o m ht t p : / / w w w.goco.org/gr a nts / ap p ly / s te w ardshi p impac t g rants Hu m phr i es, S. S. & Kainer, K. A . (2006 ) . Local p er c e p t i ons o f f orest c ert i ficat i on f o r com m uni t y based e n t erprises. F o re s t Ecology and Management, 235 ( 1), 30 43. Koehle r , L. (2017 ) . Are w ild places to dea t h ? 5280 Magazine. R etriev e d fr o m ht t p: / / w w w .5280. co m /2017 / 09 / lov i n g colorados wil d p l ace s d ea t h /# Leland, H. E. (1979). Quacks, le m ons, and licen s ing: A the o ry of m in i m u m qual i ty s tandards. Journal of Politic a l Eco n o m y, 87(6 ) , 1328 46. Ma t l o ck, M. D., O sborn, G. S ., Hession, W . C., K eni m er, A. L. & Stor m , D. E . (2001 ) . Ecolog i c a l engineering: A rationale for stand a rdized curric u lum and profess i on a l ce r ti f ic a tion in the Unit e d Sta t es. E c olog i c a l En g ine e ring, 17(4), 403 409. McCool, S. F. & Frei m und, W . A. ( 2 015). Main t ain i ng re l e v ancy: I m pl i c at i ons of ch a nging soc i e tal co n nec t io n s to w i l derne s s for stewar d s h ip ag e n c ie s . Journal of Forestry, 114( 3 ), 405 414. Nelson, C. R ., Bo w er s , K., L yndal l , J. L., Munro, J. & Stanl e y, J. T. (2017 ) . Professi o nal ce r ti f ic a tion in e c olo g ical re s to r a t i o n : I m prov i ng the pra c t i ce a nd the prof e ss i on. Resto r a t i on Ecology, 2 5 (1 ) , 4 7.

PAGE 31

31 Nelson, C. R., Schoennagel, T. & G regory, E. R. (2008). Opportuniti e s for acad e m ic t raining i n the s c ien c e a nd practice of restorati o n with i n t h e United S t a tes and Canada. Resto r a t i o n Ecology, 1 6 (2 ) , 225 23 0 . Ne w c o m er, K. E ., Hatry, H. P . & W h oley, J . S. ( E ds.). (2015 ) . Handbook of pract i c al program eva l u a t i on. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey B a ss. 561 595. Orche r , L. ( 2014). Conducting Research: So c ial and Behavi o ral S c ien c e Me t hods. G l enda l e, C A : Pryczak Pu b l i shing. Ryan, R . M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrin s ic a nd e xt r insic m ot i vat i on s : Classic d e fi n i t i o ns and new dire c t i o ns. Conte m p orary Educational Psyc h ology, 25 ( 1), 5 4 67. Shoote r , W ., Sibthorp, J. & Pa i sley, K. (2009). Outdoor l eadership s k i l ls: A program p er s pe c t i ve. Journal of Exper i e n t i a l Education, 3 2(1 ) , 1 13 Spence, M. (1973). Job m arket s igna l ing. The Q ua r terly Jou r nal of Econo m ic s , 87(3 ) , 355 374. m ic R e u rnal o f E con o m ic s , 2(1 ) : 3 21. The Trust for Public Land (TP L ). ( 2 0 18). The ec o n o m ic b e nefits of G re a t Outdoors Colorado and the Co n se r vation Trust Fund. Retrieved from ht t ps://ww w .tp l .org/site s /default/ f i l e s /fil e s_u p load/G O C O CT F _report_electronic _ lowres.pdf United S t a tes Forest S e rvice (U S FS ) . (2016 ) . St e wardsh i p Contracting O v erview. Re t rieved fr o m ht t ps:/ / w w w.fs.fed . us/ r e s to r a t i o n/Stewards h i p _Contracting/overview.sht m l Volunteers f or Outdoor Colorado ( V O C ). ( 2015). Colo r Public Lan d s: Keep i ng Colorado s Outdoors Special. Report on Colora d r d s hip i n 2014. Retr i e v ed fr o m ht t ps://ww w .voc.org / l i br ary#C O S C p ubl i c a t i on sa ndrep o rts Volunteers f or Outdoor Colorado ( V O C ). ( 2018). Outdoor S t ewardship Inst i t u te. Retri e ved from ht t ps://ww w .voc.org/osi

PAGE 32

32 A p pendices 1 Inte r v iew Protocol Land Manage m ent A g e n ci e s and OSO Interviews STA R T: B RI E F BACK G R O U N D I NFORMAT I ON ON P A RTICIPANT What is your title and role at your o rganization? How l o ng h a ve you been working in t he land m a n age m ent/outdo o r stewardship industry? What is your familiari t y and/or experience with V O ut d o o r Stewards h ip I nstitu t e? What do y o u know ab o ut professional c e r tif i cati o ns? What sh o uld VOC consider in considering a professi o n al c e rtif i ca t i on for outdoor stewardship skills? O P EN D I SCU S SION: O P I NIONS ON STEWARDSHIP CE R TIFI C AT I ONS k e to g et your o pin i ons o f the id e a propo s ed here o f professi o nal stewa r dship c e rtific a tions r e c eived th r ou g h OSI. C an you tell me your ini t ial thoughts on the id e a? FOL L OW UP QUE S TI O NS: THEM E S T O H IT D U RI NG I NTE R V I EW (These que s tions are guides for discussi o ns on t he la r ger u n de r lined themes) Need Is e x isting employ e e tr a ining me e ti n g the curr e n t stewardship ne e ds o f your organization? Is e x isting v olunteer tra i ning me e ti n g the curr e n t stewardship ne e ds o n proje c ts? Have you identified pr o ble m s o r limitations o n s tew a rdship proje c ts be c ause of missing skills or ce r t ain skills not b e ing s t andardized? If s o , what kind o f is s ues? Legitimacy Are th e re o ther o rganiz a tions in the i ndustry who w o uld ne e d to r e cognize these c e rtif i ca t io n s f o r you t o accept and value them? Would your organization be more li k ely to embrace c e r tif i cati o ns if they were emb r a c e d els e wh e re i n the industry first? Would you r e c o g nize t h o s e with c e r tified stewardship skills a s m o re compet e nt than tho s e with o ut? Value/Bene f its What value is there in using O SI certifi e d train e d v o lunte e r leaders and/ o r e m ploy e es train e d through OSI on s tew a rdship projects? What ben e f i ts w o uld y o ur organization expe c t t o see in embr a cing cert i fic a tion? Final Q u est i on (if not answe r ed thr o ugh the course of the int e rview) Would you s e ek profess i onal s tew a rdship ce r tif i ca t ion for your v olunt e e r s o r employees?

PAGE 33

33 If you pers o nally could r e c ei v e a professional certification in o utdoor stew a rdship from taking these classes, would e aling to you? Funder Inte r views STA R T: B RI E F BACK G R O U N D I NFORMAT I ON ON P A RTICIPANT What is your title and role at your o rganization? How l o ng h a ve you been working in outdoor stewardship funding? What is your familiari t y with V O Outd o or St e wardship Institute? What do y o u know ab o ut professional c e r tif i cati o ns? What sh o uld VOC consider in considering a professi o n al c e rtif i ca t i on for outdoor stewardship skills? O P EN D I SCU S SION: O P I NIONS ON STEWARDSHIP CE R TIFI C AT I ONS k e to g et your o pin i on on the idea proposed here of professi o nal stewa r dship c e rtific a tions r e c eived th r ou g h OSI. C an you tell me your ini t ial thoughts on the id e a? FOL L OW UP QUE S TI O NS: THEM E S T O H IT D U RI NG I NTE R V I EW (These que s tions are guides for discussi o ns on t he la r ger u n de r lined themes) Value/Bene f i ts Do you beli e ve there is a n advantage to funding s tew a rdship w o rk that mak e s u s e of c e rtif i ed v o lunte e r l e a d e r s o r c e rtif i ed staff? Does ha v ing c e rtif i ed st e wardship expertise on projects make them mo r e att r acti v e for funding? Would your organization be more li k ely to dire c tl y fund trainings if they led to specific c e rtif i ca t ion outcomes? Need Is there a d e ficit in ste w ardship skill sets o n pro j e c ts funded by your organization? Do you ever hear feedback about the quality of w o rk a c co m plished by volunt e e r s? Legitimacy Are th e re o ther o rganiz a tions in the i ndustry who w o uld ne e d to r e cognize these c e rtif i ca t io n s f o r you t o accept and value them? Would your organization be more li k ely to embrace c e r tif i cati o ns if they were emb r a c e d els e wh e re i n the industry fi r st? V o lunte e r Inte r views STA R T: B RI E F BACK G R O U N D I NFORMAT I ON O N P A RTICIPANT What is your primary stewa r dship v olunteer gr o up o r agen c y and how often do you v o lunte e r outd o ors? What is your interest in the fi e ld o f o utdoor s tew a rdship?

PAGE 34

34 o Are you cu r r ently e mployed in the s t ew a rdship o r outd o or m anag e ment industry? What is your familiari t y and/or experience with V O ut d o o r Stewardship Institut e ? What do y o u know ab o ut professional c e r tif i cati o ns? What sh o uld VOC consider in considering a profession a l c e rtif i ca t i on for outdoor stewardship skills? O P EN D I SCU S SION: O P I NIONS ON STEWARDSHIP CE R TIFI C AT I ONS k e to g et your o pin i ons o f the idea prop o sed here of pr o fessional s tewardship certifications r e c eived th r ou g h OSI. Can you tell me y our ini t ial thoughts on the id e a? If you pers o nally could r e c ei v e a professional certification in o utdoor stew a rdship from taking these classes, would e aling to you? FOL L OW UP QUE S TI O NS: (These que s tions are guides for discussi o ns on t he la r ger u n de r lined themes) Need Where w o u l d OSI c e rtific a tion fit in to your ca r eer path o r developm e nt as a v o lunt e e r ? Could you g e t this knowledge el s ewhere from other progr a ms o r c e rtif i ca t ion s ? V O C projects, have you ob s e r ved that you o r oth e rs in le a de r ship r oles have lack e d impor t ant skills? O r have differenc e s in p referred te c hniques l ed to conflict? Legitimacy Are th e re o ther o rganiz a tions in the i ndustry who w o uld ne e d to r e cognize these c e rtif i ca t io n s f o r you t o beli e ve th e y are legitim a te? Value/Bene f its In a few w o r ds, describe the benefits e c t from becoming ce r tif i ed in o ut d o o r stewa r dship. What would make c e r tif i ca t ion worth the time, effor t , and cost? Or wh a t w o uld motivate you to pursue c e rtif i ca t io n ? (Preferential job placement? Hig h er sala r y? M ore r e sp o nsibility in leadership r o les? I n cr e a s ed opp o rtuniti e s to lead? Etc.) Do you beli e ve your marketabili t y as an employee/volunte e r is impro v ed with c e rtif i ca t io n ?

PAGE 35

35 2 Email R equest for P art i c ipation H e llo, I am writing to you tod a y to request your participation in a s tudy being undertak e n b y V O C for our O utdoor Stewa r dsh i p I nstitute (OSI) training program. The purpo s e of this proj e ct is to det e r m ine if there is a desire among stakeholders in the land management and o ut d o o r stewa r dship community to expand and professionalize c e r tif i ca t ions f o r v oluntee r s and/ o r agen c y staff pro v ided through O S I. You c a n find more information about the courses o ffe r ed through OSI he re . Th o ugh OSI training and cur r iculum are wide l y u tilized in Colorado, there is untapped potential in the cur r i c ulum as a v ehi c le for professi o nal level c ertifica ti ons that are re c o g nized statewide and be y ond within public land agencies, outd o or industry, and a c adem i c programs. Any c e rtif i ca t ion program for o utdoor s tew a rdship will rely on the re c o g nition of multiple gr o ups and agen c ie s , hence the ne e d for this rese a r ch project. Y o u are being asked to p arti c ipa t e because you have taken part in OSI t raining in the recent past, either as an instructor or as a t r ainee r ep r e s enting a v o l unte e r gro u p, youth corps o r land manag e m e n t agenc y . Y our confidential responses will contribute to und e rstanding the landscape o f the outdo o r manage m interest in professi o n a lizing s tewa r dship skills. Hannah Bel t s tration at the Uni v ersity of Colorado Denve r , is c o nducting this research p r oject on behalf of VOC u nder the supervisi o n o f ac a demic f a cult y . P arti c i pation in th i s s tudy is v o luntary and confidential. Y our involv e ment will include an i nte r view o f approxima t ely 3 0 minut e s with Hannah, which can be d o ne fa c e t o fac e , o n the phone, or online via Zo o m. I f y o u w ould be willing to parti c ipat e , plea s e contact Hannah at H annah.beltr o ne@ucd e n ver.ed u . Thanks and l et me kn o w if you have a ny questi o ns.

PAGE 36

36 3 Core Competencies My cap s to n e project has given m e the oppor t u n ity to pra c t i c e n u m erous sk i l l s, wh i ch al s o apply t o the MPA core c o m pet e nci e s . This p r o j e c t was perfo r m ed on beh a lf of Volunteers for Outdoor Colo r ado (V O C), a nonprof i t orga n iz a ti o n that con ne cts volunte e rs with ou t d oor st e wards h ip pro j e c ts t h roug h out t he s ta t e. B e low I have listed out t hree c o re co m pet e nci e s my pro j e c t m ee t s, and t he w ork I have d one th a t v eri f ies how these co m pet e nci e s ha v e b e en m et. 1.To a n alyze, synthes i z e, think c r itic a l l y, s o l v e problems and ma k e d ec i s ions I u t ili z ed a v ar i e ty of these skills thr o ugh the l ifecyc l e of the p ro j e c t. First, I analyzed a publ i c m anage m ent p r oblem th r ough acade m ic a n d practi t ioner literature. Based on ex i st i ng stud i es, I de t er m ined a n appropriate m ethod t o m e a sure d ata and wrote a nd in t e rv i ew ques t ions to collect re l evant d a t a . Then, I per f or m ed in t erviews with 18 diverse stakeholde r s in the l and m anag e m ent and outdoor st e wards h ip com m uni t ies. I ana l y zed participants responses a nd deve l oped c o m m on the m es a m ong re s ponses us ing enu m er a t i on t echn i q ues. Finally, I p r esented m ul t ip l e solutions t o the cli e n t u sing the infor m at i on g a the r e d fr o m pr i m ary data and exi s ting l i ter a tu r e. I al s o ap p li e d the c o m pet e ncies I le a rned fr o m MPA clas s es to this pr o ject, spe c ifically re s e a rch m ethods and policy process course s . Th r ough cl a ss w ork, I have a naly z ed p roble m s and m ade po l icy s ugges t io n s th r ough m emos, re s ear c h pape r s and o p eds, and have r e v iewed cont e n t and coded articles t o un d er s tand the p ol i cy po s iti o n of stakeho l ders. I beli e ve th e se assig n m ents prepared m e to app l y these skills to m y caps t one pro j e c t. 2.To arti c u la t e and ap p ly a public serv i c e pe r spec t ive This p r o j i m was to con t ribute the m is s ion of pres e rv i n g natu r a l r es ources and enhanc i ng s te w ardship p ra c tice s . Or g ani z a t i ons like VOC who work on outdoor ste w ardship in

PAGE 37

37 Colorado are fundamentally conc erned with finding solutions to these problems, which are roote d in public service. However, at times there are competing inter est s among organizations with similar mi ssions. This project gathered di ffe ring opinions of these stakeholders for VOC to review. Advancing VOC g will hopefully facilitate their abili ty to make deci sions with these pe rs p ectives in mind. 3.To communicate and interact producti vely with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry This proj ect gave me the opportuni ty to speak wi th public employee s a t t he federal, state and municip al lev el, a s well as speaking with l e ader s in t he nonprofit s ecto r and volunteers . I had to evalu ate the needs of stakeholders who are dealing wit h a v ar iety of public policy ch al l enges and pressures, and t he individuals who vol unteer thei r time to serv e the public on s te wardship projects. I devel oped a n ar rati ve that includ ed all of these perspectives, with the in tent to communicate a possible solut ion that is inclusiv e and m indful of the diverse ideas around the is sue. I worked collaborative ly with VOC to ens ure th e scope of the project was m eet ing their needs as well as m eet ing the r equ irem ents for the capst one. I maintaine d communication throughout the semester to keep th em up-t o-date on the progress, and asked them for input and assistance when it was r equired. I was cognizant of the relevant information VOC was interested in, and prep ar ed an infographic wi th the main findings and recommendat ions. This made the re sul ts m uch m ore visu a l and digestib le so a ll pa rties co u ld come prepar ed to ask quest ions a t the final presentation.

PAGE 38

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: May 22, 2019 8:55 pm Browser: Chrome 74.0.3729.169 / Windows IP Address: 73.34.53.17 Unique ID: 506752929 Location: 39.738800048828, 104.40830230713 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digiti zed versions will be made available via the Internet, for on and off line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permission s. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Hannah Beltrone Title (Capstone Project Title) Certifying Stewardship Skills Publication Date 5/6/2019 I am the: Client Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.

PAGE 39

Description Area This is a no n exclusive grant of permissions for on line and off line use for an indefinite term. Off line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denv er and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image and text based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access u sing search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Anna Zawisza Date 5/22/19 Email Address anna@voc.org ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303 556 5817

PAGE 40

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: May 22, 2019 11:14 pm Browser: Safari 11.0.3 / OS X IP Address: 73.229.91.200 Unique ID: 506776905 Location: 39.682498931885, 105.15679931641 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will b e made available via the Internet, for on and off line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not he sitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Hannah Beltrone Title (Capstone Project Title) Certifying Stewardship Skills Publication Date 5/6/2019 I am the: Author (student) Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, education al purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.

PAGE 41

Description Area This is a non exclusive grant of permissions for on line and off line use for an indefinite term. Off line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image and text based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Hannah Beltrone Date 5/22/19 Email Address hannah.beltrone@ucdenver.edu ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303 556 5817