Successful program implementation may depend on the staff administering the program

In the midwestern United States, bald eagle populations have been impacted by lead poisoning. The phenomenon was linked to the ingestion of lead ammunition from deer carcasses during winter scavenging seasons. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed an outreach program at 54 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) across 9 states to educate deer hunters about the impact of using lead ammunition and offer safe alternatives in the 2016, 2017, and 2018 deer hunting seasons. The outreach program was geared toward getting deer hunters to voluntarily choose and use non-lead ammunition while hunting to limit lead exposure and mass mortality in bald eagles. Program materials included brochures for hunters and signage on the NWRs. In addition, the USFWS staff received training materials such as fact sheets, presentation templates, and frequently asked questions hunters may ask. Staff who deliver programming are a key component of ensuring their success, their perceptions of environmental issues, training, and attitudes have all been found to affect their support of a program and its outcomes. Staff who are more favorable towards a program, such as supporting the use of non-lead ammunition, are more likely to change the behavior of a hunter. The researchers in this study surveyed the USFWS staff that conducted the non-lead outreach program to identify which factors influenced the support of the program by the staff leading the charge.

The researchers distributed the online survey to USFWS staff after the 2017 and 2018 deer hunting seasons. The survey included 45 questions total, with 6 focus areas: 1) innovativeness of staff in deploying the non-lead program; 2) staff knowledge of lead exposure in bald eagles; 3) level of training and outreach material; 4) program implementation satisfaction; 5) importance of program materials; and, 6) staff member deer hunting status. Each focus area was aligned with potential factors that may have influenced the staff member in executing the non-lead program. Overall, the researchers collected 235 completed surveys from the USFWS staff, including NWR managers, assistant managers, visitor center specialists, patrol officers, biologists, technicians, and support staff. The researchers analyzed the data to determine the factors that affected staff support and implementation of this outreach program.

Most respondents were middle-aged men who were active deer hunters, had at least a bachelor's degree, and did not have formal teaching experience. The survey results indicated three of the six factors had a significant impact on the staffs' implementation of the non-lead outreach program. The most prevalent factor was whether the staff person agreed and understood bald eagles were suffering from lead poisoning (focus area #2). This factor led to a 45% increase in program support likelihood. The second most important factor was the staff member's belief in a hunter's ability to change their behavior based on the informational materials distributed (focus area #5). This factor led to a 27% increase in program support likelihood. Finally, the third most prevalent factor was the staff member's innovation in communicating lead poisoning issues in bald eagles to hunters and the benefits of using non-lead ammunition while deer hunting (focus area #1). This factor led to a 17% increase in program support likelihood. Based on the results, the researchers concluded non-lead outreach programs may be more effective when specific staff can be trained on the program.

There were limitations to this study. The survey did not account for the different ways in which NWR managers applied the program at their respective sites. Therefore, the manager could have influenced the way in which the staff approached the program. There were differences across the NWRs because each state and refuge has slightly different regulations and restrictions for deer hunting, so the program materials and information may have been too generalized or not appropriate in certain situations. The staff teaching these programs also had varied expertise based on their role at the NWR, so the training materials may not have been sufficient for all staff. The researchers did not include human health concerns and the staff's perception of this factor when delivering the outreach program. The results of this study were not widely generalizable.

The researchers recommended staff with specific attributes may be the best candidates for outreach training. This included the staff who were deer hunters and have hunted with non-lead ammunition as they may be more innovative and effective compared to non-hunters in sharing the non-lead program with hunters because of their ability to relate and tell stories from personal experience. Overall, the researchers paralleled the findings from the non-lead outreach program survey with how environmental educators deliver programming in formal learning settings. Like the USFWS staff, environmental educators affect how climate change lessons are delivered based on their personal beliefs of the issue and their perception of the credibility of the learning materials associated with climate change. Finally, innovation in teaching, such as finding new tools or ways to demonstrate issues and solutions, can establish educators and program staff alike as credible and knowledgeable sources of information.