# Council for Agricultural Science & Technology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

# Train the Trainer Pilot Project 

# Final Report

Attached please find the documents that comprise the final workgroup report for the Train the Trainer

Pilot Project implemented in Florida, New Jersey, and Washington state in May 2004

Certification & Worker Protection Branch Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Tel: 703-305-7666

Page 1 5/11/2004

## N ATIONAL 

## A SSESSMENT OF THE 

## W ORKER 

## P ROTECTION 

## P ROGRAM 

## W ORKER 

## P ROTECTION 

## S TANDARD 

## (WPS) T RAIN 

## - THE 

## -T RAINER 

## P ILOT 

## P ROJECT 

## W ORKGROUP 

## O UTLINE 

## & M ISSION 

## S TATEMENT 

### Goal The goal of the pilot was to develop a WPS train-the-trainer model that ensures consistency and quality WPS training and is nationally adaptable. Pilot host states selected were Florida, New Jersey, and Washington.
Objective The objective of the pilot was to design, test and evaluate a train-the-trainer 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.

Desired Outcomes

• 

### Standardize the training provided to trainers and encourage reciprocity among states, territories and tribes by developing an approach to ensure consistent baseline quality to be expected for imparting WPS information to agricultural workers.

• 

### Improve the competency of WPS trainers thereby improving the quality and effectiveness of WPS training.

• 

### Increase the number/percentage of agricultural workers receiving quality training.

• 

### Reduce the incidents of illness/injury to workers as a result of pesticide exposure.

• 

### Create a pool of competent WPS trainers and promote their use.
Descriptive Narrative The pilot was established under current worker WPS regulations/requirements and was conducted in the states of Florida, New Jersey, and Washington. The pilot tested a variety of training methods and had a product that will be used by EPA in future regulatory changes. The pilot evaluated the e ffectiveness of training by targeting specific components to be measured by workers, trainers, master trainers and observers. The pilot did not presuppose a national verification system of trainers or establish a mechanism for licensing/certifying. It does not require that an employer use a trainer who has gone through the pilot project nor does it test or change the content of training as currently required by WPS regulations.
Page 2 5/11/2004

# Agency and Pilot Host Statements

Project Note from EPA The Certification & Worker Protection Branch in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs began its National Assessm ent of the Worker Protection Program in June 2000. Hundreds of people participated in the National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program Workshops, a series of public meetings incorporating numerous breakout sessions that were held in Texas, California, and Florida , with a final session held in Arlington, Virginia in March 2003. These wo rkshops were organized by EPA and other program partners because of a sustained commitment to gaining valuable regional and stakeholder pers pectives on the implementation of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). EPA committed to active follow-up on suggestions received at these workshops and established three wo rkgroups to address 1) General Training Issues, 2) Hazard Communicati on, as well as to 3) design and implement a Train the Trainer (TTT) Pilot project. The assessment process and subsequent workgroups ar e testimony to EPA’s continued commitment to work constructively with diverse interests. It is important to emphasize that the assessment worksh ops were open to the public and that meeting participants who expresse d interest in working with EPA (e.g. volunteers) were recruited as workgr oup members to further participate in the process. EPA placed substantial emphasis on creating workgroups with balanced stakeholder representation. The Train the Trainer Workgroup involved representatives from grower gr oups, farmworker organizations, cooperative extension and academia, tr aining organizations, and state and federal government. It has been our experience that having diverse stakeholder involvement cultivates ac tive exchange, interaction, and learning, as well as traditionally yi elding a better product. Those involved in developing, implementing, and eval uating the Train the Trainer Pilot worked diligently for more than eighteen months to develop and implement the pilot during May 2003. The workgrou p formally concluded its activities in April 2004. EPA remains appreciative of the effort put forth by all those involved in the Train the Trainer Project and thanks them for their time, expertise, energy, and enthusiasm.

- Mike Walsh, Workgroup Co-Chair EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs

- Jerry Oglesby, Workgroup Co-Chair, EPA Region 6 Page 3 5/11/2004

## Project Notes from Pilot Host States
Florida, May 13-14, 2003 The Florida Department of Agricultur e & Consumer Services was pleased to be selected as a host for the Train the Trainer Pilot. Laura Powell of Palm Beach County Extension and Ofelio Borges of the Washington State Department of Agriculture conducted the English class while the Spanish session was hosted by Cesar Asuaje of th e University of Florida Extension Service and Alfredo Bahena of the Farm worker Association of Florida. Their teaching styles were relaxed and they all seemed comfortable in their roles as trainers. Although the trainers were r equired to conduct training in cooperation with a co-trainer with whom they had little previous familiarity, they are to be commended for carrying out their training sessions in a relaxed and professional manner. While there are always some distractions during such sessions, the attendees remained receptive to the tone set by the trainers. There was much interacti on among attendees, most of which was positive, and the Master Trainers offere d a firm understanding of the state regulations and answered questions obje ctively and professionally. The question and answer session about teaching issues seemed to be particularly beneficial as did the hands- on demonstrations used to foster skill development. Overall, I was pleased with the level of participation and cooperation of the trainees and the profe ssionalism of the instructors. My thanks to all the members of the Train the Trainer Pilot Workgroup for their commitment to implementing this project.

– Eric Sespico, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services


## New Jersey, May 21-22, 2003 The New Jersey Department of Enviro nmental Protection volunteered to be a pilot state for the Train the Trai ner Curriculum shortly after the Train the Trainer Pilot Workgroup was estab lished. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in such an interesting project and learned a great deal from the experience. Our trainer training was held in Ro senhayn, New Jersey where Jose Manuel Guzman of C.A.T.A. and Luis Urias of the Idaho Department of Agriculture were the Master Traine rs for the Spanish class and Mario Saavedra of the Texas Department of Agriculture worked with Richard Mandelbaum of C.A.T.A. as instructors in the English class. While most people recognize that there is al ways room for improvement, I was generally pleased with the way the bo th of training sessions were Page 4 5/11/2004

## conducted. The trainee participants seemed eager to learn and the trainers seemed up to the challenge. My sincere thanks to each of the Master Trainers for their role in impl ementing this pilot in New Jersey. While working for more than a year as a workgroup to develop and implement this pilot was a serious cha llenge, we should all remember that we were the only self-directed work group coming out of the National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program. Congratulations to all.

- Nancy Santiago, New Jersey Departme nt of Environmental Protection


## Washington State, May 28-29, 2004 The Washington State University Ex tension Service was the last to implement the Train the Trainer Pilot. As I finalized the pl ans for the pilot, I appreciated the willingness of the other p ilot states to share their “lessons learned” in debrief calls. Learning from their experiences better positioned us for the many challenges of implementation. Washington’s Master Trainers for the English language training were Tim Stock of the University of Califor nia at Davis and Pe dro Serrano of the Washington Department of Labor & Indus tries. Master Trainers for the Spanish language class were Ofelio Borges of the Washington State Department of Agriculture and Luis Urias of the Idaho Department of Agriculture. The training facility wa s functional for informal training, however, the Master Trainers and partic ipants took their roles seriously and focused on information exchange and improving methods for imparting pesticide safety information. The participants were diverse in their experience, perspectives, and personal training philosophies. As with many training sessions, there is real valu e learning from our peers. Many thanks to the workgroup members and our Master Trainers.

- Karen Lewis, Washington State Uni versity Cooperative Extension Service

Page 5 5/11/2004

# Evaluation of the Worker Protection Standard Train-the-Trainer Model Curriculum

Report and Evaluation prepared by Patricia Boiko, MD, MPH, director of Research-Outreach Pacific Northwest Agri cultural Safety and Health Center at the University of Washington and Gerald van Belle, PhD, Professor, Departments of Biostatistics and Environmental Health.
http://depts.washington.edu/pnash/home.htm

This document was produced under a Cooperative Agreement (#CX82938101) between the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology and the U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency and does not necessarily represent the views of the Agency. http://www.cast-science.or g/cast/src/cast_top.htm http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm

Page 6 5/11/2004

# Table Of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................8 Executive Summary................................................................................................

.. 9 Methods

........................................................................................................................ ........................ 10 Evaluation As sessment
.......................................................................................................... ............... 11 Outcomes

....................................................................................................................... ....................... 12 Orientation Evalua tion

......................................................................................................... ................. 12 Master Trainer Character istics

................................................................................................. ............. 12 Orientation Evalua tion

......................................................................................................... ................. 12 Observer Evaluation

............................................................................................................ ................. 13 Sites

.......................................................................................................................... ............................ 14 Observer Evaluation

............................................................................................................ ................. 14 Trainer Demographics

........................................................................................................... ............... 15 Post Training Tr ainer Evaluation

............................................................................................... ........... 15 Evaluation of the MT

........................................................................................................... ................. 16 The format of the program

...................................................................................................... .............. 16 Materi als

...................................................................................................................... ......................... 16 Post Worker Trai ning

........................................................................................................... ................ 16 Sites

.......................................................................................................................... ............................ 17 Worker Demographics

............................................................................................................ .............. 17 Ability of the program to impart key knowledge to participants

.......................................................... 17 Previous Training and Knowledge-sel f rating

.................................................................................... .. 18 Evaluation of the Trainer

...................................................................................................... ................ 18 The format of the program

...................................................................................................... .............. 18 Observer Evaluation

............................................................................................................ ................. 18 Trainer Comments

............................................................................................................... ................. 19 Summary......

........................................................................................................ 15

Page 7 5/11/2004

# Evaluation of the Worker Protection Standard Train-the-Trainer Model Curriculum Executive Summary This Executive Summary is designed to highli ght only some of the noteworthy elements addressed in the body of the Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety & Health Center (PNASH) report and analysis of the TTT pilot implementati on. For complete information please read this entire document. While this report and evaluation we re developed by the PNASH at the University of Washington, it is important to mention that the pilot project evaluated by PNASH was part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program. The national assessment itself involved large public workshops in Texas, California, and Florida between 2000-2003. Reports from these workshops can be seen at www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workshops.htm . From these meetings, both EPA and the Council for Agricultural Science & Technology (CAST), a cooperative agreement partner, committed to active follow-up on suggestions received during th e meetings and established three workgroups to address General Training Issues, 2) to address Hazard Communication, and 3) to design and implement a Train-the-Trainer (TTT) Pilot project. This document focuses solely on analysis related to the implementation of the TTT Pilot Project in the pilot states of Washington, Florida, and New Jersey. Farmworker, grower, state lead agency, county extension service, and other interested parties worked closely in a workgr oup format with CAST and EPA for more than eighteen months to design and implement this project.
The objective of the pilot evaluation was to dete rmine if the train-the-trainer model curriculum ensures all potential trainers obtain the basic tr aining skills, tools, and knowledge they need to impart quality WPS training to workers. The goal of the pilot evaluation was to determine if the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) train the-trainer model curriculum ensures consistency and quality WPS training in the pilot states of Washington, Florida and New Jersey, and if it is feasible as a national model. PNASH has Page 8 5/11/2004

### determined that the pilot was successful and met its goals and objectives. Specifically, the goal of the WPS train-the-trainer model curriculum en suring consistency and quality WPS training in Washington, Florida and New Jersey, was achieved. Additionally, PNASH has concluded that this TTT pilot curriculum is feasible as a national model with diverse state regulations, crops, trainers and workers. The University of Washington Human Subject Division, EPA, and the Council for Agricultural Science & Technology (CAST) determined that neither this pilot project nor the associated PNASH evaluation fall under current Human Testing Guidelines. The Train-the-Trainer Workgroup, a part of the National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program, was only evaluating and assessing the effectiveness of pesticide safety training methods. Master Trainers, those who later trained worker s, attended an orientation prior to training Trainers. The Orientation was conducted by Patr ick (Pat) O’Connor-Marer and Jennifer Weber of the University of California at Davis and was later revised by workgroup members during the review process. In an evaluation of the scope, content, and preparation of the Master Trainer Orientation & Training, the attendees thought the goals and scope were genera lly well covered. More than 100 workers from Florida, New Jer sey, Washington and Puerto Rico completed evaluations before and after their training. Seventy seven percent of the evaluations were completed in Spanish with the ot her 23% being done in English. Workers objectively demonstrated improved knowledge and perceived they gained new knowledge. Most said they knew more about p esticide health and safety after receiving the training. The vast majority felt that the training information was important and they would use the information they learned. The model curri culum ensures potential trainers obtain the basic training skills, tools, and knowledge they need to impart quality WPS training to workers.

Page 9 5/11/2004

# Evaluation of the Worker Protection Standard Train-the-Trainer Model Curriculum
The Goal 

### The goal of the pilot evaluation was to determine if the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) trainthe-trainer model curriculum ensures consiste ncy and quality WPS training in Washington, Florida and New Jersey, and if it is feasible as a national model. The Objective 

### The objective of the pilot evaluation was to evaluate if the train-the-trainer model curriculum ensures all potential trainers obtain the basic tr aining skills, tools, and knowledge they need to impart quality WPS training to workers.
Master Trainers Methods 

### Master Trainers attended an orientation prior to training Trainers. The Orientation was designed by Pat O’Connor-Marer and Jennifer Weber and re vised by reviewers. The revised version was presented to a WPS subcommittee during the WPS assessment meeting in Arlington weeks before the master training orientation. The designed, revised, Master Trainer Orientation was presented in a room set up the way it would be at the Mast er Training Orientation. Pat and Jennifer went over each point of the training and observed that there were some areas th at needed work. The following day they met with workgroup members Jackie DeCarlo, Teresa Nieda, and Alice Larson and revised the orientation. A final re view then occurred with all the subcommittee members later that day. Appendix 1 and 2 include the goals of the orientation and the schedule. Three Master Trainer evaluation tools and Guide lines for observer evaluations (Appendix 3) were developed by the Pacific Northwest Agricultural Sa fety and Health Center at the University ofWashington and the WPS Train-the-Trainer Evaluation Workgroup and the National Train-theTrainer Pilot Subgroup consisting of grower, work er, consultants and EPA agency representation. Tools were completed by master trainers on the evening before the master trainers were oriented, just after completing the orientation and then fo llowing their training of trainers. (Appendix 4,5,6) A Master Trainer Orienter commented on the orientation process after it occurred. Observers observed the trainings of Trainers and completed full reports. To become familiar with the context and process of the trainings, Patricia Boiko observed the Washington State Train the Trainer Session scheduled for May 28 th 

### and 29 th 

### and a worker training in Washington State. In addition, some of the evaluation tool questions fo r the trainers were independently evaluated by Page 10 5/11/2004

### Sonja Brodt and Gale Perez 1 

### during a Train the Trainers workshop conducted in California in June 2003. This California workshop is unrelated to this project and is used here solely for comparative purposes. The responses to the evalua tion tool answers were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and assessed as below.
Trainers
Evaluation Assessment 

### Evaluations from Washington, Florida and New Jer sey pilots were assessed for the ability of the program to impart key knowledge to participants, the format of the program and suggestions for improvement. Master Trainers evaluated the progr am with a pre-evaluation tool given prior to their Orientation, a post-evaluation tool given after their Orientation and finally a tool following their training of the Trainers. The trainer ev aluation included questions from a pre and post training of Trainers by the Master Trainers (A ppendix 7,8), a trainer evaluation following worker training, worker evaluations and the observer evaluations. Assessment of the evaluation tool questions was done by various methods including t-tests, chi square, regression, and analysis of variance. Follo wing a worker training by trainers, trainers did a post worker written evaluation. Workers did a pre and post evaluation using a tape recorder and answer sheet where they circled the responses, “yes, no and I’m not sure.” (Appendix 9,10) (See audio tape included with this report.) Human Subjects: Both per conversation with the University of Washington Human Subjects Division and EPA/CAST confirmation with the Proj ect Officer this pilot evaluation does not fall under Human Testing Guidelines as the Train-the-Trainer Workgroup, a part of the National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program, is only evaluating and assessing the effectiveness of pesticide safety training methods.
Master Trainer Sites 

### Orientation: Washington, DC Master trainers: 10 with 2 trainers doing trainings in 2 pilot States. Master Trainer Orienters: Patric k O’Connor- Marer and Jennifer Weber

1 sbbrodt@ucdavis.edu

Page 11 5/11/2004Outcomes 

### 1. The ability of the program to im part key knowledge to participants 2. The format of the program 3. Suggestions for improvement
Orientation Evaluation 

### The Master Trainer Orientation evaluation by the orienter indicated that the program was delivered as designed. The training followed the agenda very closely both in time and material covered. The presentations made by Jennifer Weber were conducted in Spanish; Pat O’ConnorMarer conducted his in English.
Master Trainer Characteristics Demographics 

### Master trainers were ages 32 to 48 with a mean age of 41. There were 9 men and one woman. Their education varied from completing a 9 th 

### grade education to obtaining a Master’s degree. There were 2 Spanish and 2 English speakers, 3 were bilingual and no pr edominant language was listed for 3. They were mostly experienced and felt competent prior to the training as WPS trainers. Teaching Experience 

### Prior to the training all master trainers had e xperience teaching other trainers and using manuals and educational materials to better educate indi viduals. A manual specifically named by two of the trainers was the Master Trainer Manual developed by the Farm Worker Health & Safety Institute . All reported experience teaching WPS but there was a variation between 6 and 2000 total participants taught. All had experience using flip charts a nd other methods. Their previous training sessions lasted between 3 hours and 3 days.
Orientation Evaluation Scope, Content, Preparation 

### All Master Trainers thought the goals and scope were covered well. Add itional goals, scope and topics were suggested (Table 1). Even though all we re experienced, they all either agreed (score= 4) or strongly agreed (score= 5) that they were now better prepared because of the training (average score = 4.6). They felt they underst ood the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), were able to share their experiences with other tr ainers, and got good ideas from the other trainers. There was a generally positive (average score= 4.0) but variable response (range 2 (disagree)-5 (strongly agree)) to learning to use the manual. Two people needed more time to review the Page 12 5/11/2004

### manual and one suggested that, “would have been better to spend a little more time on this & have each chapter title page put on a flip chart paper & taped on the wall.” There was generally enough time for the topics (4.0) but some thought more time needed to be spent on the 11 points. They also wanted more time with state people to prepare state-specific training. The Master Trainer orientation was t hought to be relevant to training WPS trainers. There was a variable response (disagree to strongl y agree (2-5), average 3.3) as to whether the orientation introduced new or unfamiliar informa tion or techniques. However, they felt they would use what they learned and understood what was expected of them when they trained trainers as part of the Pilot Program. The content and format of the WPS manual was well received. Master Training Logistics 

### The location was thought to be comfortable and conducive to learning except for the lack of windows. The manual and handouts were thought to be logically organized. Post Trainer Training Orientation Preparation 

### Following the Trainer-Training, Master Trainers felt that the Orientation adequately prepared them to train trainers for the WPS Pilot Progr am. However they had suggestions of spending more time on sections of the manual and preparing for state trainings including logistics and evaluations. The Master Trainers had variable responses to whet her or not they could have taught the Trainers just as effectively without attending the Master Trainer Orientation. Half of them felt that they could not have taught as effectively without the tr aining and the other half felt they could have taught effectively because they were experienced already

. Feeling like they could have been just as effective without training was not associated with age, education or experience training. The question was phrased, “Without attending the Master Trainer Orientation, I could not have taught trainers as effectively”. This double negativ e question may have been confusing. Methods taught at the Master Trainer Orientati on were thought to be very successful during their Train-the-Trainer Session but they were not thought to be successful in preparing them to actually conduct the Pilot Train-the-Trainer Program. Half of the Master Trainers suggested changes to the orientation based on their training. (Table 1) After the training they all felt a high level of competency.
Observer Evaluation 

### Observers noted that the Master Trainers (MT) performed better when the material was familiar. The Master Trainers varied in their familiarity with the order and content of the lesson plans Page 13 5/11/2004

### which affected their flow, energy and leadersh ip/confidence of their training. The English language session observer noted a misunderstanding of how to use the “Training Issues” section on “Day One” in all three states. In the Span ish language session some of the states left out reiterations of training points and training time budgeting tips. On the other hand, this observer noted that increased comprehensiveness and tr aining quality occurred in Washington and New Jersey when the MT’s combined the How to Conduct Training for Field Workers and The WPS sections. Evaluators commented:

“

In all three states the end of the day wrap up sec tions were brief as there were many logistical items to address; reimbursement, assessments, cla ss photos etc. Trainers and MT’s were anxious to call it a day. All lingering questions and points of clarification were addressed. All states added discussions on the use of the black light, Power Point and overheads as tools.” “Training agenda/curriculum should have stressed thatMT’s provide additional props for roleplaying, case studies and interactive training in general. In Florida they had a few props and some trainers brought their own for day 2. In New Jersey, (name deleted for report) provided a “Central Notification Board” (wins my prize for best “addition”). New Jersey trainers had soda bottles, spray equipment and large plastic bugs . In Washington, trainers had ready access to PPE, spray equipment and crop sheets.”

Trainer Evaluation Sites 

### Trainings: Washington, Florida, and New Jersey Trainers: 84 completed evaluations Master Trainers: 10
Observer Evaluation 

### Two trained observers recorded specific comments and impressions of the Trainer Trainings in all three States. One observer evaluated all three st ate training in English and one evaluated all the Spanish language sessions. They submitted reports regarding each state and their impressions of the overall training. Both agreed that the p ilot was successful and met its overall goals. They noted that the three state sessions differed in trainer group size, composition and Master Trainers. Comments specific to the trainings are included under the trainer subsections below.
Page 14 5/11/2004Trainer Demographics 

### (Table 2 ) Eighty-four Trainers completed an evaluation. Trainers were between the ages of 20 and 79 (mean 43), 73% male , 34% Spanish speaking, and 55% English speaking. Their education was variable with the majority with some college to graduate school but 11% grade school or less and 21% completing High School. Florida had significantly more male trainers than Washington or New Jersey. New Jersey’s trainers had significantly more education beyond high school than Florida or Washington State. There was no difference in language or age betw een the states. Their training experience was widely variable. They trained between no worker s and thousands of workers. Most had trained less than 10 workers. An observer noted that each group was “comprised of industry, advocates and regulators... interested in being collaborative and in shari ng perspectives and training approaches... There was diversity in personalities, styles, geographic regions, and levels of competence.” A trainer commented about the diverse group, “I didn’t lik e how there was many disciplines in the room. Me and the other farmers wanted to discuss how we were practically going to use the information.” Post Training Trainer Evaluation
Ability of the program to impart key knowledge to participants 

### The vast majority of participants scored signifi cantly higher on the post evaluation than on the pre evaluation. (Table 3) The subjects with more or higher education knew more at the beginning and learned less. Sex differences in scores pre and post test were due to education. Once education was adjusted for there is no difference in scores between men and women. The amount learned was not significantly different between the English speakers and the Spanish speakers. There was no evidence that number of workers the tr ainers had previously trained influenced pre, post, and change scores. Specific evaluation questions were not worded we ll or were inaccurate. (Table 3) The question, “High levels of exposure to pesticides can result in blurred vision, heavy sweating, vomiting, and blistered skin” was not used in the Californi a survey. Pat O’Connor-Marer thought that it was inaccurate because, “does not differentiate between types of pesticides. Also, the symptoms listed Page 15 5/11/2004

### would not all be seen as a result from exposure to one pesticide (Roundup or sulfur, for example, would not cause blurred vision, heavy sweating, or vomiting - these are symptoms of organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. Blistered skin would not be a symptom of OP or carbamate exposure.)” However, in the Washington, New Jersey, and Florida evaluation, there was no demonstrated misunderstanding of the question. Evaluation of the MT 

### (Tables 4 and 5) In general, the trainers found that the Master Trainer instructors created an environment that promoted constructive and interactive discu ssions. The information was conveyed in an understandable manner by the Master Trainer. There were comments about the outstanding nature of three of the instructors. On the other hand, one instructor had comments about lack of preparation. The format of the program 

### According to observers, Florida had significant de lays both mornings which had to be made up throughout the session. The time needed for the pr e and post assessment was not factored in the Florida or New Jersey schedule. Washington had the advantage of knowing this information and was able to move the start time up by 30 minutes to accommodate this. The schedule was tightest in Florida because of delayed starts and in Washington because of class size. The trainers found the locations to be comfortable and conducive to learning, the materials were organized, relevant, and new. Although most trai ners in all three states rated the facilities highly, the Washington facility included poor ratings whereas New Jersey and Florida only recei ved high ratings. This led to a significant difference in ratings of the facilities. The observer report concurred with this finding noting that although, sites accommodated the needs of MT’s and trai ners and were conducive to learning, the facilities in Florida and New Jersey were superior to thos e in Washington allowing better use of audiovisual equipment
Materials 

### (Table 4 and 5) The trainers reported that the ma terials were organized, relevant, and new. There were comments about the “realness” of the videot ape. Observers heard comments that the: “ flip chart is too small, manual content looks comple te but out of order or translation is not good, video should be mono-lingual. All appreciated that they were given the tools. Trainers seemed very excited about the use of the black light and powder and the potential of using Power Point.” Post Worker Training 

### All trainers strongly agreed that their training had adequately prepared them to teach the WPS Page 16 5/11/2004

### curriculum (5/5). However, half thought they could have taught the curriculum as effectively without attending the Train-the-trainer program.

Worker Evaluation Sites 

### Worker Trainings: Washington, Florida, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico 

### (Note: One trainer attending the New Jersey trainer session hosted a worker training session in Puerto Rico. Since the purpose of this pilot is to evaluate methods learned by trainers in New Jersey, both CAST and EPA approved the training to take place in Puerto Rico.) Workers: 106 completed full evaluations , 96 matched pre and post evaluations. Trainers: 5 trainers completed the post-work er evaluation from Washington, New Jersey and Puerto Rico Worker Demographics 

### To maintain complete anonymity, no identifying de mographics of the workers were collected. In addition, no records were kept of which trainers did worker evaluations. Of the 106 workers who completed the evaluations, 15% were from Florida, 53% from New Jersey, 27% from Washington and 11% from Puerto Rico. Worker s completed 77% evaluations in Spanish and 23% in English. Puerto Rico and Washington Stat e had predominantly Spanish speakers. In New Jersey 74% completed the evaluation in Span ish whereas in Florida 70% completed the evaluation in English. Ability of the program to impart key knowledge to participants 

### There was a significant improvement between the pre and post evaluation for the knowledge questions for the workers. (Table 6) Ninety -two percent thought they gained new knowledge. Specifically, workers learned most about symptoms of pesticide poisoning, acute and chronic exposures, drift exposure prevention, pesticide residue and that the boss cannot fire them for refusing to go into a field while it is being sprayed with pesticides. However, although 58% felt like they knew what was expected of them to stay aware of pesticide risks, 40% each did not know or weren’t sure. The pre-evaluation score varied by state with Fl orida having the lowest score and New Jersey the highest. However, the post-scores were similar indicating that the workers learned enough to equalize their post-evaluation scores. (Table 7) Page 17 5/11/2004

### Workers who had previous training did significantly better on the pre-evaluation but equalized on the post score with those that had no previous training. Both groups improved their scores but the workers who did not have training increased their scores more than those who had been trained previously. Previous Training and Knowledge-self rating 

### Half of the workers reported previous pesticide h ealth and safety training. Thirty-eight percent had seen a video for training. Forty-six percent had attended a class where someone talked to them about pesticide health and safety. Sixt y-two percent reported receiving instruction from their supervisor or employer concerning wh ich fields were recently sprayed. Fifty-one percent thought they knew something and 23% thought they knew a lot about pesticide health and safety. Those that knew a lot scored higher on the pre-evaluation but scored about the same on the post evaluation as those that did not know a lot. Evaluation of the Trainer 

### There were 5 trainer evaluations that corresponded to worker evaluations. There were trainers who sent in their worker evaluations but did not complete the trainer evaluation. There were no post-worker trainer evaluations from Florida. The vast majority of workers thought that enough time was spent on the training. Trainers reported spending between 45 minutes to one hour on th e training. The vast majority felt that the training information was important for pesticide safety and that they would use most of what they learned. Eighty-five percent thought the training covered all 11 points of the WPS. Prior to receiving the training and again after the training, the vast majority of workers thought it was worth their time to go through this WPS pestic ide safety class. Ninety percent liked the way the trainers taught compared to the way they we re taught before, learned more than from past trainings and had an opportunity to have all th eir questions answered. Eighty percent said they know more about pesticide health and safety now that they received the training. The format of the program 

### Fifty-six percent said the training location was NOT comfortable. Most of the trainers reported training in an office or in the field. There w as no significant difference in comfort by state where the training occurred. Fifty-nine percent reported that the training time was NOT convenient. The trainers reported training time between 8 AM and 1:15 PM.
Observer Evaluation 

### One training in Washington was observed by the principle author of this report. The trainer had Page 18 5/11/2004

### been observed in the trainer-training as well as in the worker training. The training occurred in a shed, was highly interactive and utilized the flip chart. It was not a comfortable location, the workers sat on upside-down buckets in their work clothes. The observation was congruent with the worker evaluations in all states: the training site was not very comfortable or convenient but it was worthwhile. The workers were highly responsiv e and expressed appreciation for the training. It appeared to the principle author of this repor t that it was everything that the program was meant to be.
Trainer Comments 

### Following the worker trainer, a trainer commented, “before, I would just show a video, now I spend more time explaining, the flip chart is a nice tool.” Trainers felt that they now gave more time for questions, had better tools (specifically the flip chart) and teaching methods as well as ability to “allow workers to participate more”.



### Summary The evaluation assessment includes the tools for ev aluation of the Master Trainers, Observers, Trainer and Worker training evaluation. The goal of the pilot evaluation is to determine if the Worker Protection Standard train-the-trainer model curriculum ensures consistency and quality WPS training in Washington, Florida and New Jersey, and if it is feasible as a national model. The objective of the pilot evaluation is to eval uate if the train-the-trainer model curriculum ensures all potential trainers obtain the basic tr aining skills, tools, and knowledge they need to impart quality WPS training to workers. To evaluate if the goals and objectives were met, the training, education and experience prior to the training of the participants was evaluated. Then, an evaluation tool determined their perception of the trainings as well as their master y of the information using questions regarding the information delivered. Master Trainer’s education varied from completing a 9 th 

### grade education to obtaining a Master’s degree. They were all experienced and ha d exposure to both teaching techniques and WPS information. They use a variety of techniqu es already and are experienced in most of the techniques used in the MT training. However, they all thought they benefited from the Orientation and had specific suggestions for improvement. The Orientation was delivered as designed and met its goals. Methods taught at the Master Trainer Orientation were thought to be very successful during their Train-the-Trainer Session but when revaluated after the actual trainer traini ng, they were not thought to be successful in Page 19 5/11/2004

### preparing them to actually conduct the Trainer trainings. Most wanted more state specific and evaluation information. Half thought they could not do as good a job with the training if they hadn’t participated in the Orientation. However, the question was poorly worded and may have been confusing. Trainers varied in age, language, education, training experience and occupation. The vast majority of participants scored significantly higher on the post evaluation than on the pre evaluation. Previous experience training workers did not influence scores. With the exception of one Master Trainer, the trainers found that the in structors created an environment that promoted constructive and interactive di scussions and conveyed information in an understandable manner. There was some discomfort of employers training with employees and regulators. The training time needed was underestimated at first but was adjusted to accommodate the evaluation in time for the Washington trainings. The trainers found the locations to be comfortable and conducive to learning, the mate rials were organized, relevant, and new. New Jersey and Florida sites allowed better use of a udiovisual equipment and were rated more highly than the Washington. There was generally enough time for the topics but some thought more time needed to be spent on the 11 points. Trainers who did worker trainings felt that the program prepared them to teach the WPS curriculum but half thought they could have taught it just as effectively without the training. Over 100 workers from Florida, New Jersey, Washi ngton and Puerto Rico completed evaluations before and after their training using an audi otape in their language of choice and circling yes, no or I’m not sure on a corresponding worksheet. To maintain complete anonymity, no identifying demographics of the workers were collected. Workers completed 77% evaluations in Spanish and 23% in English. Workers objectively demonstrated improved knowle dge as well as perceiving that they gained new knowledge. Even though knowledge before training was less in some states and for those who had not had training, the post training scores were similar. The vast majority liked the way the trainers taught compared to the way they we re taught before, learned more than from past trainings and had an opportunity to have all thei r questions answered. Most said they know more about pesticide health and safety now that they received the training. However, many did not know how they would stay current with 40% reporting that they did not know what was expected of them to stay aware of pesticide risks. Half of the workers reported previous pesticide health and safety training. 23% thought they knew a lot about pesticide health and safety. For over half of the workers, the training location was NOT comfortable and the training time (between 8Am and 1:115PM) was NOT convenient. Page 20 5/11/2004

### The vast majority felt that the training informa tion was important for pesticide safety and that they would use most of what they learned. Ei ghty-five percent thought the training covered all 11 points of the WPS. Prior to receiving the training and again after the training, the vast majority of workers thought it was worth their time to go through this WPS pesticide safety class. Suggestions for Improvement 

### Specific suggestions for improvement of the trainings are listed in Table 8

Page 21 5/11/2004

# Overall Summary This evaluation measured the success of the pilot from the implementation at the Master Trainer level all the way to the actual training in the field of workers. The pilot was successful and met it’s goals and objectives. Specifically, the goal ofthe Worker Protection Standard (WPS) trainthe-trainer model curriculum ensuring consiste ncy and quality WPS training in Washington, Florida and New Jersey, was met. Even though the states had different language, educational and training levels of the trainers and workers and thus had different pre-trai ning levels of knowledge, they became equal in knowledge after training. It was tested in 3 geographically and state regulatory diverse climates. The training model used during this pilot is feasible as a national model with diverse regulations, crops, trainers and workers. The model curriculum ensures potential trainers obtain the basic training skills, tools, and knowledge they need to impart quality WPS training to workers.



### http://depts.washington.edu/pnash/home.htm http://www.cast-science.or g/cast/src/cast_top.htm http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm

Page 22 5/11/2004

### Table 1
Master Trainer Orientation: Additional Goals, Scope and Topics



## Additional Goals and Other Topics to Changes to Orientation Scope Include Train Agricultural wo rkers so they can More time on the time plan and Section that teaches how to make a train other workers in their community. planning for the different sections complaint, describe and explain the of the training. evaluation process, Explain the process of filing a Post evaluation after training the Put training partners together to practice complaint. workers-How it can be done working / presenting/ training together. effectively.
History of EPA, WPS and why are we How to fill out / file complaints 1 hour per couple, to train/present to doing this for the farmworkers. from farmworkers. other master trainers
It should be expanded to all workers WPS regulator issues concerning workers, WPS exceptions.
Give the best training possible to the future trainers and to give them consistent information. More information on clinics, hospitals, ER’s. PPE Required for early entry workers. More information on the difference between workers and “early entry workers”

Page 23 5/11/2004

### Table 2 Trainer Demographics

State Age Mean (range) Sex Language Spoken Most of the Time Education

25 (31%)Florida 22-79 (mean 42) 23 M, 1 F 10 Spanish, 14 English 43% High School or below. 57% some college or more

27 (33%) New Jersey 26-59 (mean 38) 15 M, 10 F 7 Spanish, 19 English 9% High School or below. 91% some college or more

29 (36%) Washington 20 -72 (mean 43) 19M , 9F 1 2 Spanish, 13 English 40% High School or below. 60% some college or more

Total 43 (20-79) M 57 (73%) F 21 (27%) Spanish 34% English 55% Both English and Spanish 1% Grade School or less 11% High School 21% Some College 15% College 35% Graduate School 18%

Page 24 5/11/2004

### Table 3 

## Trainer Evaluation Before and After Training Summary: Improved 56 Worse on post test 6 No change 11

Question Wrong both times Right Both times Right before, wrong after Wrong before, right after
Providing pesticide safety training to workers is a legal requirement. 3 67 1 4 Once pesticide has been applied to a field, the workers may return immediately. 0 70 1 4 The WPS requires: notifying workers when pesticides are to be applied, establishing rest ricted-entry intervals, and providing protective equipment to the workers. 1 67 2 5

Employers must display safety posters that contain pesticide safety information and contact information for the nearest medical facility. 0 71 0 4

It is helpful in your training for you to know about state and local pesticide regulations. 0 68 3 4

It makes no difference how s oon first-aid is given after pesticide contamination 8 53 6 8 Pesticide notification requirements can be found on the pesticide label. 3 49 9 14 Employers may not take action against any worker attempting to comply with WPS regulations. 6 56 3 10 Knowing the cycles of crops a nd harvest times will help you understand when the greatest number of agricultural workers are employed and require training. 5 60 2 8

A pesticide that has a label that says “Warning” is less toxic than one that says “Danger.” 15* 45 3 12 Symptoms that are observed soon after exposure are know as acute onset. 0 46 1 28 Persistent symptoms are considered to be chronic effects, typically resulting from many exposures to the pesticide. 5 49 3 18 The severity of symptoms of pesticide poisoning is usually determined by the amount of pesticide entering the person’s tissues. 17* 27 5 26

High levels of exposure to pes ticides can result in blurred vision, heavy sweating, vomiting, and blistered skin. 1 61 2 11

Page 25 5/11/2004A worker’s risk equals the duration of exposure multiplied by the level of toxicity of a given pesticide. 12* 42 5 16 Anyone can tell the toxicity, safety gear needed, and first aid information of any given pesticide by simply looking at the label. 7 49 4 15

Ingredients added to pestic ides, such as solvents and stabilizers, may be toxic to people. 4 57 2 12 FIFRA’s provisions include requiring the users of restricted-use pesticides to be certified and establishing tolerances for residues that may remain on raw agricultural products. 17* 35 3 20

Pesticide residue is a powder th at can be found on plants, in soil, in water and may be transferred onto clothing. 5 50 1 19 WPS covers workers who are employed in the production of agricultural plants on farms, in forests, and in commercial nurseries and greenhouses. 1 61 0 13

All WPS-covered pesticides have a restricted-entry interval (REI). 7 44 5 19 Employers must provide decont amination supplies that must be located within one-quarter mile of the work location. 0 62 0 13 Employers do not have to provide transportation for any injured worker to the nearest medical facility. 2 59 3 11 Children, pregnant women, and the elderly, do not face a higher risk if exposed to pesticides. 2 62 8 3



### Q Fewer than 67 subjects got it correct afterwards. There was substantial improvement but it can be better. Either the question has to be reworded or more emphasis should be given in the course on the material covered by these questions.

Page 26 5/11/2004

### Table 4 

## Training Location, Materials and Master Trainers Question *Minimum *Maximum Mean SD The training location was comfortable and conducive to learning. 1 5 4.41 .819 The training material was logically organized. 2 5 4.34 .644 The material covered in the training was relevant to training agricultural workers. 2 5 4.58 .595 The training material cont ained new or unfamiliar information. 1 5 3.93 .869 The instructor created an environment that promoted constructive and interactive discussions. 2 5 4.53 .599 The information was conveyed in an understandable manner by the trainer. 2 5 4.51 .623 Strongly disagree Disagree No opinion Agree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5

Page 27 5/11/2004

### Table 5A 

## Comments Regarding Master Trainers by Trainers What instructor did well

• Give us guidance to how to use different methods of training.

• Very clear and used methods that kept me interested.

• Spoke in clear and brief manner (uncomplicated).

• Facilitate the learning process.

• Provide tools to conduct the training.

• Exchanged items and comments from group.

• Well organized, excellent preparation, c onducted and spoke in excellent manner.

• Presented the topics well. Also created a good learning environment.

• Involved the students.

• Answered all questions, made learning fun.

• Using a language that was understandable for trainer.

• Interact with audience.

• Both instructors were well versed in all phases.

• Provided me with all the materials needed.

• Organization, explanation of techniques.

• Explained. Very conscious of the time, provided positive feedback.

• Curriculum was excellent.

• Explain the 11 rules of WPS.Kept my interest all day, was not a strain to be here.

• Both instructors know the material well and were able to communicate the information effectively.

• (name omitted from report) was outstanding.

• Good maintenance time, agenda-encouraging of participation

• Guided conversation, provided info rmation and related to everyone.

• Explained the WPS for farm workers in better detail.

• The instructor was enthusiastic and creative.

• Kept information flowing, lively discussion.

• Made me think about situations that may arise in a work environment.

• Presented the entire traini ng in a balanced manner.

• Introduction (Ice breaker). Trainers were very confident in front of group. For me, the instructors did very well. Page 28 5/11/2004

### Table 5B 

## Comments Regarding Master Trainers by Trainers
How instructor could improve

• Make part of training to show workers examples of chemicals/pesticide and their purpose.

• (name omitted from report) presentations indicated that he was not prepared for the level of this group.
• You should improve to overheads label information section was the weakest. I recommend you start by listing the minimum coverage about labels for the instructors and work on one of those items.

• Make forms standard. So everyone uses the same thing.

• Practice doing an entire training-in order to be able to get the idea of the time involved and the balance of interactive and faster presentations.

• Actual onsite visit to a farm location pre-arra nged (possibility providing Recertification. Credits) with an actual training session hands-on.

• PowerPoint is easier than slides or overheads.

• Needs to address the difficulties in enforcing pesticide laws. Rec ognize the reality of the situation of farmworkers and the abuses with a WPS.

• What you “train” should do before, during, and after workshops. And history of pesticide to the agenda. Equipment availability to perform assignments (ie.-videos_.

• Do not schedule 2 classes at the same time unless facility is fully equipped.

• Increase/intensify the part about the benefits of pe sticide use and that they are not dangerous when used correctly.

• Study the manual more. Needs to be written with language used in comm unity or understood by workers.

• Use videos that are more realistic. Would be better with more equipment.

• Train bosses and ranchers so they understand what is involved in a training.

• Compliment the information with case studies and real labels.

• Practice doing an entire training-in order to be able to get the idea of the time involved and the balance of interactive and faster presentations.

• More information federal law because it is very im portant. Also, include in formation on state law.

• Needs more on training techniques and most important to use them when teaching laws to new workers.

• Should use mono-lingual (Spanish) videos.

• Provide “video clips” of situations that coul d be used by trainers. More case studies.

• Have more breaks Page 29 5/11/2004• The trainer needs to be more organized and show more interest in subject. He seemed bored or tired.

• You should improve overheads; label information section was the weakest.

• Prepares participants for training and knowledge of regulations.

• Use more common terms when describing technical processes or terms.atmosphere, interactive methods (calling on people, different leaders)

• More time. Include more growers. More training courses.

• Need to use less technical language and more co mmon terms for questions, etc. Speak and teach using language understood in community.

• Spend more time and make more extensive on training methods and how to use materials. Improve the overhead’s.

• Stress that there are different laws in each state-many stricter than Federal Law.

• MT1 added humor and more interaction than MT2. MT2 needed more “zip” in his training.

• There were many times when very simple concep ts were focused on too long (dragged) but then other times where complex items audience need to know about were not explained

• Start on time 8:30? - More sure of self.well.

• More focus on state regulations.

• I didn’t like how there was many disciplines in the room. Me and the other farmers wanted to discuss how we were practically going to use the information.

• I would have preferred more details on WPS pe ople requirements. L&I needs to explain WA distinctions in the trainings and in the materials. In addition to items mentioned in the class, explain that burning of containers is illegal. Many labels say its legal unless prohibited locally or in “the state”. Employees will not know above local state air act prohibition.

Page 30 5/11/2004

## Table 6 Worker Evaluation Before and After Training Summary: Improved 74 Worse 5 No change 16

Question Wrong both times Right Both times Right before, wrong after Wrong before, right after
Are headache, stomachache, tired muscles, sweating, and skin rashes signs of pesticide poisoning? 4 54 4 38 If exposed to pesticides, should you stop working and seek medical attention right away? 0 86 5 9 Can pesticides enter the body through the mouth, nose, eyes and skin? 2 82 5 11 Are shorts and a t-shirt the best clothing to wear when working in a field? 1 78 8 13 Is it O.K. to bring home empty pesticide containers and to reuse them? 0 88 6 6 Should you wash your hands before using the bathroom, eating, drinking or smoking at work? 0 85 5 10 Should you wash work clothing separately from the family’s clothing? 0 82 5 13 Is pesticide residue dried pesticide left on the crops after an application? 11 51 7 31 Should you ask your boss for information about the nearest medical facility and recent applications? 1 81 8 10 Are there both short-term and long-term effects of pesticide exposure? 8 67 5 20 Is it O.K. to stay in the field if pesticides blow or drift into the field where you are working as long as you cover your face? 10 78 1 11

Is your boss responsible for getting you to the doctor if you get sick from pesticides while working? 3 84 4 9 Can pesticides make people sick in different ways, even if they are working in the same area? 1 81 6 12 Is irrigation water safe to drink? 4 83 1 12 Can the boss fire you for refusing to go into a field while it is being sprayed with pesticides? 8 61 9 22

Page 31 5/11/2004

### Table 7 Worker Evaluation Scores by State STATE Prescore Postscore Difference Florida Mean N Std. Deviation 8.13 12.75 4.19 16 16 16 2.47 .86 1.7 New Jersey Mean N 11.30 12.43 1.21 53 53 53 Std. 2.04 2.42 2.59 Deviation Washington Mean N 10.44 13.33 2.75 27 27 16 Std. 1.87 1.0 1.88 Deviation Puerto Rico Mean 10.55 12.45 1.91 N 11 11 11 Std. Deviation 1.29 1.9 2.2

Page 32 5/11/2004

### Table 8 Specific Suggestions for Improving the Program

• Spending more time on state-specific information, the 11 points of the WPS, logistics and evaluations during both the Master Trainer Orientation and the Trainer Training

• For the master trainer orientati on: spend more time teaching and a llowing participant to learn the curriculum and manual.

• Specifically, the “Training Issues” section of th e manual needs greater review and training.

• Consider putting each chapter title page on a large sheet of paper taped on the wall.

• More time to review reiterations of training points and training time budgeting tips.

• Combine the “How to Conduct Training for Field Workers” and “WPS” sections.

• Discuss use of and need for props by Master Trainers and Trainers Examples of props:

o Central Notification Board

o Soda bottles

o Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

o Crop sheets

o Large plastic bugs

• Consider separating trainings of employers from employees and regulators

• Secure meeting space with appropr iate audio-visual capacity.

• Put into curriculum the expectations for work ers to stay aware of pesticide risks.

• Discuss logistics and timing for worker trainers w ith Trainers- brainstorm ideas for folding chairs, training time etc.

• Develop a self-evaluation process for the workers a nd trainers to make the process iterative and be sure that the worker is gaining the necessary knowledge.

• Public health large scale education programs about specific symptoms of pesticide poisoning, acute and chronic exposures, drift exposure preven tion, pesticide residue and that the boss cannot fire them for refusing to go into a field while it is being sprayed with pesticides.

Page 33 5/11/2004

### Appendix 1 

## Goals Master Trainer Orientation Updated 3/26/03

During the April 3 and 4 Master Trainer Orientation, the participants will:

• Become fully acquainted with the Pilot Train-the-Trainer program

• Understand how the three state Pilot Train-the-Trainer programs will work

• Discuss and share training methods and ideas with other Master Trainers

• Fully understand the current Worker Protection Standard field worker training requirements

• Become familiar with the Pilot Train-the-Trainer manual contents

• Learn how to use the Pilot Train-the-Trainer manual

• Understand how to conduct the state Pilot Train-the-Trainer program

• Review and learn several types of training methods

• Gain practical experience in presenting aspects of the Worker Protection Standard fieldworker training

Page 34 5/11/2004

### Appendix 2 

## Master Trainer Orientation/Training Marriott Crystal Gateway April 3-4, 2003

Thursday, April 3 12:30 Welcome and ice breaker exercise – Kevin Keaney, Pat 12:45 Overview of the WPS Assessment - Mike Walsh 1:15 What will happen during this orientation and training; overview and discussion: importance of interactive training - Pat and Jenny 1:30 What will be happening during the st ate pilot train-the- trainer workshops; discussion – Nancy Santiago, Karen Lewis, Eric Sespico 2:00 Review and discussion of the WPS requirements for training fieldworkers - Pat 2:30 Break 2:45 Overview of the instructor manual - Jenny Review of instructor training objectives and training outline 3:45 Interactive training activity - Sharing Favorite Training Examples Demonstration - Pat Demonstration - Jenny Group breakout and presentation of training examples - everyone

4:30 Discussion items - everyone (as time allows)

• Distinguishing between handlers and fieldworkers

• Focusing on the objectives of the train-the-trainer program

• Concepts of effective training

• Overcoming language and cultural obstacles

• Optimum training environments

• Focusing on the objectives of the train-the-trainer program

• Avoiding advocacy roles

• Dealing with difficult people

• Recognizing hierarchies within the group you are training Page 35 5/11/2004• Other



### 5:00 State groups get together 6:30 Dinner (meet in hotel lobby) Friday, April 4 8:00 Review and updating items for discussion - Pat 8:15 Training methods - pointers and technique s. Using videos in training - Pat and Jenny (observers: Eric Sespico, Karen Lewis, and Nancy Santiago) 9:30 Break 9:45 Small groups meet and plan presenta tions based on various teaching methods – everyone (judges: Dick Herett, Mike Walsh, Michelle Devaux, Jerry Oglesby) 10:00 Small group teaching practice - everyone 11:15 Final discussion items from previous day - everyone 11:30 Overview of evaluation forms and evaluation process - Pat 11:45 Wrap up - Pat, Jenny, Mike, Kevin 12:00 Adjourn

Page 36 5/11/2004

### Appendix 3 Observer Tool Day 1 Trainer Training Goal: To evaluate Master Trainers and Trainers across states in a way that validates and supplements other evaluation tools. Goals for Master Trainers “This program focuses on the 11 points of the Worker Protection Standard for field worker training. All aspects of the training should involve INTERACTIVE training methods.”
• Fully understand the current Worker Protection Standard field worker training requirements

• Become familiar with the Pilot Train-the-Trainer manual contents

• Learn how to use the Pilot Train-the-Trainer manual

• Understand how to conduct the state Pilot Train-the-Trainer program

• Review and learn several types of training methods Gain practical experience in presenting aspect s of the Worker Protection Standard fieldworker training Goals for Trainers 1. Understand federal and state Worker Protec tion Standard fieldworker training requirements 2. Become familiar with the Pilot Train-the-Trainer manual contents and how to use the manual 3. Learn how to conduct a fieldworker Worker Protection Standard training program 4. Learn and practice several types of effective training techniques 5. Gain practical experience in presenting aspects of the Worker Protection Standard field worker training 6. Learn how to lead discussions related to the Worker Protection Standard field worker training 7. Examine problems and issues related to extending Worker Protection Standard training to agricultural fieldworkers

Agenda A. (10 minutes) Introduction and course objectives. What will be covered, what you want participants to come away with. (see Manual Introduction, page I) Interactive? What method was used by the Master Trainer to present the information: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ What was the mood of the Master Trainers (e.g., Nervous? Active? Inattentive? Comfortable? Curt/Rude in answering questions? Drew out every participant during discussion?) What was the mood of the Trainers (e.g., Confused ? Asked questions? Active participation? Appeared bored? Looked distracted? Various participants appeared to r eact to the information various ways? Other? Comment on the room. Were there distractions during this presentation? Page 37 5/11/2004A. (20 minutes) Ice-breaker exercise. Pair students, have them get acquainted, and then have the pairs introduce each other to the rest of the group. (read Manual Section 6, pages 133-150) Allow five to ten minutes for them to get acquainted. The introduction should include name, company, job, where the person is from, training experiences, training plan s, family information, and other interesting information. Ask introducers to stand while making their introductions. This exercise helps to relax the participants and gives them an opportunity to speak in front of the group. Interactive? What method was used: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ What was the mood of the Master Trainers What was the mood of the Trainers How long did it take to get aquainted? Was 5-10 minutes enough time? Did they seem to be comfortable telling their name/company/job? How did the introductions to the group go? B. (45 minutes) The Worker Protection Standard. Present an overview of the Worker Protection Standard to be sure everyone understands the requirements. (follow the material in the Manual Section 2, pages 19-30)

a. Review WPS requirements (follow Manual Section 3, pages 31-52) b. Any state-specific requirements (you must conduct your own research for this information) Were the MT able to present State-specific requirements- please keep a copy of the extra handouts or all materials that were given out. Pl ease record the state specific requi rements that were presented. Interactive? What method was used: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ What was the mood of the Master Trainers What was the mood of the Trainers C. (15 minutes) Break What happened during the break? D. (90 minutes) Training Materials a nd Methods. This segment will fam iliarize participants with the training materials available for training field workers, and with effective training techniques.

a. Review Pesticide Safety for Agricultural Workers. Point out the different sections of the book. b. Describe other training materials i. Flip chart and Protect Yourself from Pesticides booklet ii. Videos iii. Other written materials (see Manual Bi bliography, pages 161- 162, for additional ideas)

c. Briefly demonstrate some of the training materials or describe how they can be used. Contrast passive and interactive training t echniques (see Manual Section 5, pages 67-76) Page 38 5/11/2004Get feedback from participants on their expe rience with and usefulness of the different types of techniques. i. Role playing (read pages 103-106) ii. Case study (read pages 90-96) iii. Group discussion with pictures (read pages 82-89) iv. Quiz game - question and answer (read pages 116-132) Interactive? What methods were used: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ Were all different types of interactive methodologies covered? What was the mood of the Master Trainers What was the mood of the Trainers E. (30 minutes) Conducting WPS Training for Field Workers. Discuss what a typical training session will include: covering 11 points for fieldworker training; keeping training sessions interactive; budgeting time for the training sessions. Interactive? What methods were used: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ What was the mood of the Master Trainers What was the mood of the Trainers F. (60 minutes) Lunch G. (120 minutes) Practice Training. Have participants break into groups of 3 to 5 (smaller is better) and assign each group one of the fo llowing training materials or trai ning techniques. Ask them to prepare and make a presentation using their assigned material or technique. Each member of the group should have an equal role in the presentation.

a. Assign the materials by ha ving each group pick from cards with the various techniques and materials written on the flip side. Choices will include: i. WPS flip chart (see manual pages 97-100) ii. Case study (see manual pages 90-96) iii. Role play (see manual pages 101-106) iv. Video (see manual pages 107-112)

v. Group discussion with pictures (see manual pages 82-89) b. Give the groups 15 to 20 minutes to prepare their presentations—incorporate this with a break if needed. For some techniques, props , such as protective eyewear, gloves, empty soda can, etc. will be useful.

c. Have each group conduct their interactive presentations d. At the end of each presentation, ask partic ipants to evaluate th e presentation* according to: Page 39 5/11/2004e. correctness of information i. clarity of information ii. ability to engage group interest and participation
*Keep the discussions positive, constructive, and helpful to the presenters! Interactive? What method was used: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ What was the mood of the Master Trainers What was the mood of the Trainers Were the critiques offered by the trai ners of each other positive, construc tive and helpful to the presenters? (15 minutes) Break What happened during the break? H. (45 minutes) Teaching Issues (prepare for this by reading the Manual pages 78-81). As a wrap-up activity, ask for volunteers (or appoint individuals) to lead the group on brief discussions of the following topics:

a. How can you overcome educational and literacy barriers when c onducting WPS training? Interactive? What method was used: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ What was the mood of the Master Trainers What was the mood of the Trainer What method was chosen by the trainers to present this information to the group (was it interactive)? How did the discussion go? b. Very often there are time limitations when providing training. Should you sacrifice either training content or effective training met hods when faced with these constraints?
What method was chosen by the trainers to present this information to the group (was it interactive)? How did the discussion go?

c. How would you handle a training situation where there are many distractions or other uncomfortable conditions? What method was chosen by the trainers to present this information to the group (was it interactive)? How did the discussion go? Describe methods or ways you would use to overcome poor or non-receptive attitudes from workers who may be tired or who may resent participating in the training because of missing work opportunities or Page 40 5/11/2004because they want to be elsewhere? What method was chosen by the trainers to present this information to the group (was it interactive)? How did the discussion go? d. How would you deal with an employer who may be distrustful of the training you are providing or who is impatient with the time being spent on the training? What method was chosen by the trainers to present this information to the group (was it interactive)? How did the discussion go? How do you plan to use the materials and techniques that have been covered in this training session? What method was chosen by the trainers to present this information to the group (was it interactive)? How did the discussion go? Finish off by using a Personal Experience activity based on the information on pages 113-115 in the Manual. You should present the background information and then have one or more of the participants cite a personal experience that the group will discuss. How did the discussion go? Were people willing to share personal experiences? [[NOTE: If this is back to something the MT would present, I think we need to go back to the regular series of questions about method used to present and mood of MT and mood of trainers.]] (30 minutes) Conclusions and Expectations. Answer final questions. Restate expectations for training workers (cover 11 points and keep training interactive). Introduce evaluation tools.

Interactive? What method was used: lecture, Role playing, Case study, Group discussion with pictures, Quiz game, question and answer, flip chart, video, other__________________ What was the mood of the Master Trainers What was the mood of the Trainers How did the Master Trainers answer questions? How did the discussion go? How did the trainers respond to the evaluation tools? How did the trainers respond to the evaluation tools? What questions did trainers ask? Were any about issues not covered in the curriculum manual?Was there anything special about any of the participants; e.g., disruptive, an individual tried to monopolize discussion, some individuals were very hesitant to speak up, other. Was the MT able to deal with the needs of these participants?What are your overall impressions of the success of this training? Do you feel participants left wellprepared to train workers? Considering what you saw, does anything come to mind that could have improved the training of trainers? Second Day Assignments Before the second day participants leave today’s session, get them together and give them assignments to Page 41 5/11/2004prepare presentations before the session begins tomorrow. Assign each participant to prepare a 10 minute presentation that covers 3 of the 11 WPS topics . (Assign each participant to prepare a 10 minute presentation that covers 3 of the 11 WPS topics and that uses 2 of the training methods presented today. Prepare for this by writing the 11 topics on slips of paper and put these into a container. Write the training methods on slips of paper and put these in another cont ainer. Have a participant draw three training topics and two training methods and record their selections. Pu t the slips of paper back into the containers and have the next person draw their assignments.) How did the gathering of second day participants go? How did the instructions for the assignments and preparation for presentations go? Did those who agreed to a second day of training a ppear to be still interest ed in participating?

Page 42 5/11/2004

### Appendix 4 

## Master Trainer Tool One Master Trainer Pre Orientation and Training Name:____________________________ Age___________ Sex___________ What grade did you complete in school?_____________ What language you speak most of the time?___________

As you know, this Program is a pilot project to try to help trainers do a better job educating farmworkersunder the Worker Protection Standard. We would like to evaluate the effectiveness of this Train-theTrainer Program with your help and your suggestions for improvement. We will be asking you questions at several points during the program , and we also invite you to talk directly to an evaluator 2 to offer further information. Please answer the following questions concerning your current experience in training others and, in particular, training individuals around the WPS. Your Experience As A Master Trainer Please describe any previous experien ce you have teaching othe r trainers how to bette r educate individuals. This would be on any subject not just the WPS. In your role as a Master Trainer, do you have a manual, book or other material you use to guide your training of trainers? If so, please describe it. How many Train-the-Trainer sessi ons have you conducted where you trained others how to teach individuals about a subject? Your Activities As A Master Trainer For WPS How many of these Train-the-Trainer sessions concerned the WPS? How many people have attended the WPS tr ain-the-trainer sessions you have taught? Please briefly describe how you generally conduct WPS Train-the-Trainer sessions. What tools, printed material s, videos, audio-visuals a nd teaching aids do you use? How long does the training last? What method(s) do you use to teach (For example do you use a lecture format , questions and answers, discussion groups, demonstrations, role playing or other method?) Approximately, how long do you spend in each activity? WPS Training You Have Offered

2 Evaluator: Patricia Boiko, MD, MPH is an independent evaluator of the pilot program. 206 406 7012, email: peb5@u.washington.edu . She works the Pacific Northwest Agricu ltural Safety and Health Center at the University of Washington. Page 43 5/11/2004How many pesticide handlers have you personally trained under the WPS? How many farmworkers have you personally trained under the WPS? If you conduct WPS training directly for farmworkers please answer the questions below.
If you do NOT conduct WPS training directly for farmworkers please skip this question. What tools, printed materials, videos, audio-visuals or ot her teaching aids do you use? How long does the training usually last? What method(s) do you use to teach (For example do you use a lecture format , questions and answers, discussion groups, demonstrations, role playing or other method)? Approximately, how long do you spend in each activity? Based on a self - assessment, please indicate your competency and effectiveness as a WPS train the trainer professional. high level of competency and effectiveness moderate level of competency and effectiveness low level of competency and effectiveness This information is for evaluation purposes only. Information will be handled in a confidential manner. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP

Page 44 5/11/2004

### Appendix 5 Master Trainer Tool Two Master Trainer - Post Orientation This is a continuation of the evaluation of the Pilot WPS Train-the-Trainer Program. Please help us by answering the following questions concerning your unde rstanding of this Program and suggestions for its improvement. We will be asking you questions again afte r you conduct a training and we also invite to talk directly to an evaluator 3 to offer further information.



### 1. What other topics do you wish were covered in this Master Trainer Orientation? 

### 2. Do you have any questions concerning these goals or the scope of the Program? 

### 3. Do you think there are other goals and scope for the Program that should be included 

### 4. In your opinion what are the key goals and scope of this pilot WPS Train the Trainer Program?

Please answer the questions below using a 1 - 5 ranki ng scale where each number represents the following: 1= strongly disagree 2= disagree 3= no strong opinion 4= agree 5= strongly agree 5. I feel better prepared to train trainers as a result of attending this Master Trainer Orientation. Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

a. If you agreed above, how has this Master Trainer Orientation better prepared you to train others?

6. I fully understand the current Worker Protection Standard field worker training requirements.

Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree

3 Evaluator: Patricia Boiko, MD, MPH is an independent evaluator of the pilot program. 206 406 7012, email: peb5@u.washington.edu . She works the Pacific Northwest Agricu ltural Safety and Health Center at the University of Washington. Page 45 5/11/20045 4 3 2 1

Comments: 7. I was able to share my ideas a nd experiences with other trainers.

Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 8. I got good ideas and learned from the other Master Trainers. Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 9. I have learned how to use the Pilot Train-the-Trainer manual. Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1 Comments: 10. The training location was comfortable and conducive to learning. Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 11. The manual and handouts are logically organized.

Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Page 46 5/11/2004

### 12. I feel that the Master Trainer Orie ntation covered all necessary topics



### .
Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 

### 13. Enough time was spent on each topic during this Master Training Orientation



### . If you disagreed which topics do you wish more time was spent covering?

Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments:
14. The orientation content was relevant to training WPS trainers.

Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments:

15. The Train-the-Trainer orientation introduced new or unfamiliar information or techniques to me.

Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 16. I will use most of what I learned in this training. Page 47 5/11/2004Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 17. I feel confident I now know what is expected of me when I train trainers as part of this pilot Program.

Strongly agree Agree No op inion Disagree Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 

### This information is for evaluation purposes only. Information will be handled in a confidential manner. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP

Page 48 5/11/2004

### Appendix 6 

## Master Trainer Tool Three Master Trainers – Post Training Of Trainers



## Name___________________________

Now that you have trained trainers us ing the tools and methods developed for this Program, please help us with our Program evaluation one last time by answering the following questions. We also invite you to talk directly to an evaluator 4 to offer further information



### . The training you just conducted 1. How successful do you feel the training you just conducted was in creating effective WPS trainers?

Very Somewhat No Opinion Not Very Not Successful Successful Successful Successful At All
5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 2. Would you change any of the topics that were covered? ___No ___Yes Comments: 3. Would you change the order of the training agenda? ___No ___Yes Comments: 4. Would you change the length of the Train-the-Trainer program (either shorten or lengthen it)? ___No ___Yes If yes, would you shorten or lengthen it, and why? How would you lengthen it? 5. Are there any changes you would make to the training manual? ___No ___Yes Comments:

4 Evaluator: Patricia Boiko, MD, MPH is an independent evaluator of the pilot program. 206 406 7012, email: peb5@u.washington.edu . She works the Pacific Northwest Agricu ltural Safety and Health Center at the University of Washington. Page 49 5/11/2004a. Did you supplement the manua l with additional handouts? ___No ___Yes 6. Did you use any state specific WPS information during your in-state training? ___No ___Yes Comments: 7. Do you think adding the second day for trainers to practice training:

a. Helped you provide more effective training? ___No ___Yes



### Comments:

b. Is worth the extra time for both th e trainers and the master trainers? 

### ___No ___Yes

Comments:

8. With regard to the second day of training, would you:

a. change the methods used to pr ovide additional ha nds-on training? 

### ___No ___Yes

Comments:

b. change the information covered? ___No ___Yes Comments:

c. lengthen or shorten the amount of time spent on additional training? ___No ___Yes Comments: Page 50 5/11/2004d. make any other changes to the structure or content of the additional day of training? ___No ___Yes Comments:

9. Is one day enough or should a second day be automatically included (not optional ) ___No ___Yes Comments: 10. Did you face any unexpected challe nges during your tr aining session? ___No ___Yes Comments:

11. Do you think trainers who have not attended this training could provide similarly effective training? ___No ___Yes Comments:

12. Did the in-state training location meet your training needs?

___No ____Yes

Comments:



### Master Trainer Orientation Now that you have used the information given to you during the Master Trainer Orientation, please help us by thinking back to that session to evaluate its effectiveness in preparing you to train trainers. 13. The Master Trainer Orientation adequately prepared me to train trainers for this WPS Pilot Program.


### Strongly disagree disagree no opinion agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Page 51 5/11/2004

## If you agree, in what way were you better prepared?

If you agree or disagree, what other things could have been done to help better prepare you?

Comments:



### 14. Without attending the Master Trainer Orie ntation, I could not have taught trainers as effectively.
Strongly disagree Disagree no opinion agree strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

15. Were the methods you were taught at the Master Trainer Or ientation successf ul during your Train-the-Trainer Session?


### Very Successful Somewhat Successful No Opinion Not Very Successful Not Success-ful At All 1 2 3 4 5

Comments: Page 52 5/11/200416. Were the methods used to teach you during the Ma ster Trainer Orientation su ccessful in preparing you to conduct this Pilot Train-the-Trainer Program?


### Very Successful Somewhat Successful No Opinion Not Very Successful Not Success-ful At All 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:

17. Would you make any changes to the content or t opics covered during the Master Trainer Orientation? ____No ____Yes If yes, please explain:

18. Was the time spent during the Master Trainer Orientation enough (not rushed or drawn out) to prepare you to conduct this Train-the-Trainer Pilot Program? ___No ___Yes

Comments:

19. Please circle what you believe is your compet ency and effectiveness as a WPS train the trainer professional.

• high level of competency and effectiveness

• moderate level of competency and effectiveness

• low level of competency and effectiveness


## THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP

Page 53 5/11/2004

### Appendix 7 Trainer Questions Regarding Master Trainer Training 

## Scale Strongly disagree Disagree No opinion Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. The training location was comfortable and conducive to learning. 2. The instructor created an environment that promoted constructive and interactive discussions. 3. The training material contained new or unfamiliar information.

Was there any new information in this training session? If so, what?

4. The instructor created an environment that promoted constructive and interactive discussions. 5. The information was conveyed in an understandable manner by the trainer.

a. In your opinion, what did the instructor do well?

b. How can the curriculum be improved? Additional training techniques, etc

c. What would you prefer that the instructor do differently?

Page 54 5/11/2004

## Appendix 8 Trainer Pre and Post Knowledge Evaluation Please respond to the following by circling either true, false, or I’m not sure. 8. I understand the federal pe sticide safety regulations.

True False I’m not sure 9. I know effective ways to communicate WPS information.

True False I’m not sure 10. I know a variety of training techniques that I can adapt to my own program.

True False I’m not sure 11. Providing pesticide safety training to workers is a legal requirement.

True False I’m not sure 12. A pesticide that has a label that says “Warning” is less toxic than one that says “Danger.”

True False I’m not sure 13. Symptoms that are observed soon after exposure are know as acute onset
.

True False I’m not sure 14. It makes no difference how soon first-aid is given after pesticide contamination.

True False I’m not sure 15. Persistent symptoms are considered to be chronic effects , typically resulting from many exposures to the pesticide.

True False I’m not sure 16. The severity of symptoms of pesticide poisoning is usually determined by the amount of pesticide entering the person’s tissues.

True False I’m not sure 17. High levels of exposure to pesticides can resu lt in blurred vision, heavy sweating, vomiting, and blistered skin.
Page 55 5/11/2004True False I’m not sure 18. A worker’s risk equals the duration of exposure multip lied by the level of toxic ity of a given pesticide.

True False I’m not sure 19. Anyone can tell the toxicity, safe ty gear needed, and first aid information of any given pesticide by simply looking at the label.

True False I’m not sure 20. Ingredients added to pesticides, such as solvents and stabilizers, may be toxic to people.

True False I’m not sure 21. Once pesticide has been applied to a fi eld, the workers may return immediately.

True False I’m not sure 22. FIFRA’s provisions include requiring the users of restricted-use pesticides to be certified and establishing tolerances for residues that may remain on raw agricultural products.

True False I’m not sure 23. Pesticide residue is a powder that can be found on pl ants, in soil, in water and may be transferred onto clothing.

True False I’m not sure 24. Children, pregnant women, a nd the elderly, do not face a higher risk if exposed to pesticides.

True False I’m not sure 25. WPS covers workers who are employed in the production of agricultural plants on farms, in forests, and in commercial nurseries and greenhouses.

True False I’m not sure 26. The WPS requires: notifying workers when pesticides are to be applied, establishing restricted-entry intervals, and providing protective equipment to the workers.

True False I’m not sure 27. Pesticide notification requirements can be found on the pesticide label.

True False I’m not sure Page 56 5/11/200428. All WPS-covered pesticides have a restricted-entry interval (REI).

True False I’m not sure 29. Employers must provide decontamination supplies that must be located within one-quarter mile of the work location.

True False I’m not sure 30. Employers must provide emergency assistance to the worker if he or she is injured or made ill by pesticides while working.

True False I’m not sure 31. Employers must display safety posters that contain pesticide safety information and contact information for the nearest medical facility.

True False I’m not sure 32. Employers do not have to provide transportation for any injured worker to the nearest medical facility.

True False I’m not sure 33. Employers may not take action against any worker attempting to comply with WPS regulations.

True False I’m not sure 34. It is helpful ?required in your training for you to know about state and local , pesticide regulations.

True False I’m not sure 35. Knowing the cycles of crops and harvest times will help you understand when the greatest number of agricultural workers are employed and require training. True False I’m not sure



### Appendix 9 Worker Tool 1 Page 57 5/11/2004Pre-Training Script
Today, we would like you to help us evaluate our program. This program is to help trainers teach farmworkers about pesticides and the Worker Protec tion Standard. The Environmental Protection Agency wants to help trainers do a better job with your s uggestions for improvement. Responses are anonymous and won’t be shared with your boss or affect your employment. This is NOT to test you but to test how well the program works. We will be asking you some of the same questions before and after the training program. As you listen to this cassette tape, please mark a yes, no or I don’t know response next to the number of each of the questions. The yes answer is blue, the no is brown and the I don’t know is a black question mark. Please let the trainer know if you have any problems f illing out the form or any questions. Hold on to the form for collection after the training. Thank you.

Number one. Have you had any previous pestic ide health and safety training? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number two Did you see a video for pesticide training? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number three Have you received instruc tion from your supervisor or employer concerning which fields were recently sprayed? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number four Do you think it is worth your time to go through this WPS pesticide safety class? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number five Did you attend a class where someone talked to you about pesticide health and safety? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number six Would you say you know very little a bout pesticide health and safety? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number seven Would you say that you know something about pesticide health and safety? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number eight. Would you say that you know a lot about pesticide health and safety? Yes, No or I’m not sure Page 58 5/11/2004Number nine. Are headache, stomachache, tired mu scles, sweating, and skin rashes signs of pesticide poisoning? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number ten. If exposed to pesticides, should you stop working and seek medical attention right away? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number eleven. Can pesticides enter the body through the mouth, nose, eyes and skin? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number twelve. Are shorts and a t-shirt the best clothing to wear when working in a field? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number thirteen. Is it O.K. to bring home empty pesticide containers and to reuse them? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number fourteen. Should you wash your hands before using the bathroom, eating, drinking or smoking at work? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number fifteen. Should you wash work clothing separately from the family’s clothing? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number sixteen. Is pesticide residue dried pesticide left on the crops after an application? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number seventeen. Should you ask your boss for inform ation about the nearest medical facility and recent applications? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number eighteen. Are there both short-term and long-term effects of pesticide exposure? Yes, No or I’m not sure Number nineteen. Is it O.K. to stay in the field if pesticides blow or drift into the field where you are working as long as you cover your face? Yes or No or I’m not sure Page 59 5/11/2004Number twenty. Is your boss responsible for getting you to the docto r if you get sick from pesticides while working? Yes or No or not sure Number twenty-one. Can pesticides make people sick in different ways , even if they are work ing in the same area? Yes or No or Not sure Number twenty-two. Is irrigation water safe to drink? Yes or No or Not sure Number twenty-three. Can the boss fire you for refusing to go into a field while it is being sprayed with pesticides? Yes or No or I’m not sure You are finished with the first eval uation. After the training you will tu rn back on the tape and do a second evaluation. Please turn off the tape player NOW.

Page 60 5/11/2004

### Appendix 10 Worker Tool 2 Post-training
Now that you have completed the training, we would like you to help us evaluate our program. You should have already completed an evaluation before you do this one. If you have NOT done an evaluation already, please turn off the tape and tell your trainer. This is NOT to test you but to test how well the program works. Responses won’t be shared with your boss or affect your employment. Many of these question were asked before you began the training. As you listen to this cassette tape, please mark a yes, no or I don’t know response next to the number of each of the questions. The yes answer is blue, the no is brown and the I don’t know is a black question mark. Please let the trainer know if you have any problems f illing out the form or any questions. Hold on to the form for collection after the training. Thank you.

Number one. Was the training location comfortable? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number two. Was the training time convenient for you? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number three. Did you feel that enough time was spen t on each topic during this training? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number four. Was the training information important for pesticide safety? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number five. Will you use most of what you learned in this training? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number six. Do you feel like you know what is expected of you in order to stay aware of pesticide risks? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number seven. Are headache, stomachache, tired mu scles, sweating, and skin rashes signs of pesticide poisoning? Yes or No or I’m not sure
Page 61 5/11/2004Number eight. If exposed to pesticides, should you stop working and seek medical attention right away? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number nine. Can pesticides enter the body through the mouth, nose, eyes and skin? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number ten. Are shorts and a t-shirt the best clothing to wear when working in a field? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number eleven. Is it O.K. to bring home empty pesticide containers and to reuse them? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twelve. Should you wash your hands before using the bathroom, eating, drinking or smoking at work? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number thirteen. Should you wash work clothing separately from the family’s clothing? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number fourteen. Is pesticide residue dried pesticide left on the crops after an application? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number fifteen. Can pesticide and pesticide residue be found on leaves, stems, in the air, and on produce? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number sixteen. Do people who have been exposed to certain fumigant gases have fevers and sometimes behave strangely? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number seventeen. Should you ask your boss for inform ation about the nearest medical facility and recent applications? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number eighteen. Are there both short-term and long-term effects of pesticide exposure? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number nineteen. Page 62 5/11/2004Is it O.K. to stay in the field if pesticides blow or drift into the field where you are working as long as you cover your face? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty. Is it O.K. to stay in your house if it is near a field that has just been sprayed with pesticides? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-one. Is your boss responsible for getting you to the docto r if you get sick from pesticides while working? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-two. Can pesticides make people sick in different ways , even if they are work ing in the same area? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-three. Is irrigation water safe to drink? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-four Can the boss fire you for complying w ith the training you just received? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-five If you get pesticides on your skin, should you keep working and shower when you get home? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-six The 11 points of the WPS are: 1. Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities. 2. Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposur e, including acute effects, chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 3. Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 4. Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 5. Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 6. How to obtain emergency medical care. 7. Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye flushing techniques. 8. Hazards from chemigation and drift. 9. Hazards from pesticid e residue on clothing. 10. Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. Page 63 5/11/200411. An explanation of the WPS requirements designed to protect workers, including application and entry restrictions, design of the warning sigh, posting of wa rning signs, oral warnings, availability of specific information about applications, and protection against retaliatory acts. Did you feel that the training covered all 11 points of the WPS? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-seven Did you think it is worth your time to go through this WPS pesticide safety class? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-eight Did you learn new information from the training? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number twenty-nine Did you like the way the trainers taught this time compared to the way you were taught before? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number thirty Did you learn more this time than you have from past trainings? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number thirty-one Did you have an opportunity to have all your que stions concerning pesticide safety answered? Yes or No or I’m not sure Number thirty-two Would you say that you know more a bout about pesticide health and sa fety now that you received this training? Yes or No or I’m not sure
Please write in any Suggestions to improve the training and training methods that you found helpful previously on the bottom of the answer sheet. THANK YOU. Please turn off the tape.

Page 64 5/11/2004