Building Worker Power Through Workforce Development final 10-4-2024 - Flipbook - Page 11
P R O G R A M D E L I V E RY
Project partners were intentionally selected to ensure services were tailored to their local context, in terms of cultural responsiveness and local economic factors. This was largely successful, though insights were gained regarding the
program design and funding implications of participant-responsive programming, including:
Both participants and staff identi昀椀ed a need for longer and more
in-depth training to properly develop workers as leaders while accounting
for workers’ limited free time outside of work. Relatedly, a subset of
participants expressed preference for program accessibility via Zoom,
which in turn led to some engagement and learning de昀椀cits.
Stipends made participation possible for participants who are often
excluded from accessing these skills due to economic hardship. The
need to offer stipends is a barrier to providing deeper, longer-term
training. In addition to funding constraints, some partners did not have
the infrastructure to disburse stipend payments directly to participants.
Disbursement was further complicated by the inclusion of workers with
different immigration statuses, resulting in creative solutions needing to
be developed to ensure participants received their stipends. In future
program iterations, it would be bene昀椀cial to develop a more intentional
strategy to disburse stipends that reduces the burden on staff at partner
organizations.
“This program helps foster relationships with our local community
and with nature, helps us connect to the fact that we are nature. The
program also promotes our leadership, stewardship/guardianship in
our communities. The financial support is key because we would not
be able to access this program otherwise. It’s key to continue this
program because so many local participants are interested in
accessing it.”
— Guadalupe, trainee
10
The inclusion of newcomer immigrants also
increased our awareness of obstacles they
face in learning to navigate new systems in
a new country and in a new language. For
example, most of the participants at the
San Francisco site were immigrants who
speak Spanish, Tagalog, or Chinese. In
Sonoma County, participants spoke
Spanish and/or an indigenous language
such as Mixteco. Offering interpretation
and translation of materials and
instruction into multiple languages
proved to be both crucial and a huge
undertaking
as
interpretation
and
translation services requires additional
funding, staff capacity and pre-planning.
Supports such as food, childcare, proper
scheduling to maximize attendance,
delivering the training in hybrid models to
increase participation, and ensuring
materials are written with accessible
language and across educational levels
were all also identi昀椀ed as important program
components to enable participants to
succeed in the training, which required
additional time and resources from project
partners to plan and deliver.
B U I L D I N G W O R K E R P O W E R T H RO U G H W O R K FO RC E D E V E LO P M E N T
