Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (2010) 186–190
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Evaluation and Program Planning
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan
The evolution of Rare Pride: Using evaluation to drive adaptive management
in a biodiversity conservation organization
Brett Jenks a,1, Peter W. Vaughan b,*, Paul J. Butler c
a
Rare, 1840 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 204, Arlington, VA 22201, USA
1976 Sheridan Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55405, USA
c
46 Hillside Road, Whitestable, Kent CT5 3EX, England, UK
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Evaluation
Adaptive management
Social marketing
Entertainment–education
Biodiversity conservation
Rare Pride is a social marketing program that stimulates human behavior change in order to promote
biodiversity conservation in critically threatened regions in developing countries. A series of formal
evaluation studies, networking strategies, and evaluative inquiries have driven a 20-year process of
adaptive management that has resulted in extensive programmatic changes within Pride. This paper
describes the types of evaluation that Rare used to drive adaptive management and the changes it caused
in Pride’s theory-of-change and programmatic structure. We argue that (a) qualitative data gathered
from partners and staff through structured interviews is most effective at identifying problems with
current programs and procedures, (b) networking with other organizations is the most effective strategy
for learning of new management strategies, and (c) quantitative data gathered through surveys is
effective at measuring program impact and quality. Adaptive management has allowed Rare to increase
its Pride program from implementing about two campaigns per year in 2001 to more than 40 per year in
2009 while improving program quality and maintaining program impact.
ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In spite of decades of work and massive financial commitment,
efforts to conserve global biodiversity have achieved spotty and
inconsistent successes because ‘‘we have yet to fully discover the
secrets of effective conservation’’ (Salafsky, Margoluis, Redford, &
Robinson, 2002). Carleton-Hug & Hug (2010, this issue) argue that a
majority of environmental education groups fail to incorporate highquality, systemic evaluation into their programming. Salafsky and
his colleagues argue that adaptive management (AM) is a strategy to
learn how to do conservation better through the use of formative
research, project monitoring, and impact evaluation. This paper uses
an historical analysis of a number of in-house studies done over 20
years to understand how a biodiversity conservation organization
focused on environmental social marketing used the results of its
evaluations to drive the evolution of its primary conservation
program, resulting in substantial programmatic changes and the
adoption of AM at the program level.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 612 374 2808; fax: +1 612 374 2808.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Jenks),
[email protected] (P.W. Vaughan), [email protected]
(P.J. Butler).
1
Tel.: +1 703 522 5070.
2
Additional information on Rare and Pride may be found at http://www.rareconservation.org/.
0149-7189/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.010
1.1. Rare and Pride2
Rare is an international biodiversity conservation non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Arlington, Virginia, whose
mission is to ‘‘conserve imperiled species and ecosystems around the
world by inspiring people to care about and protect nature.’’ Pride is
Rare’s flagship program that utilizes the entertainment–education
strategy and social marketing (SM).3 The Pride strategy is designed
to inform and motivate people to adopt both a conservation ethic
and specific behavioral practices that are less environmentally
damaging.
Pride is used to reduce threats to biodiversity that are caused by
human behaviors, for example, illegal ‘‘bush-meat’’ hunting,
destructive fishing practices (e.g. use of cyanide or explosives),
and the use of fire to clear land. Pride campaigns are implemented
by campaign managers (CMs) working for lead agency partners
(LAPs) and consist of 15–20 multi-media SM activities (e.g. puppet
shows, billboards, posters, radio spots, songs, video programs,
religious sermons and other civic engagement activities) produced
over a period of one to two years. The campaigns are branded by
the use of a ‘‘flagship’’ species, a local charismatic animal or plant
3
The entertainment–education strategy is defined as designing and implementing media messages to both entertain and educate audiences (Singhal and Rogers,
1999). SM is the application of commercial marketing strategies (e.g. audience
segmentation and market research) to achieve desired social change (Andreasen,
1995).
B. Jenks et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (2010) 186–190
187
Table 1
Evaluations used by Rare.
Author (year)
Methodology
Design
Study population
Sample size(s)
Purpose (s)
Butler (1996)
In-depth interviews
Retrospective
Web-based survey
Retrospective
Vaughan (2005)
In-depth phone
interviews
Literature review;
Meta-analysis of
survey findings;
In-depth phone
interviews
In-depth interviews;
Web survey;
Content analysis of
Pride Internet
club messages
Retrospective
10 traditional
Pride campaigns
31 traditional and
Pride 1.0 campaigns
22 senior administrators
Lessons learned
Vaughan (2004)
CMs, LAPs,
Stakeholders
CMs, LAPs,
Stakeholders
BINGOs
Retrospective
CMs, LAPs
26 traditional Pride
campaigns
All current Pride
Internet
club members
Rare staff,
Partners,
CMs
45 Pride Internet
Club members
Vaughan et al. (2006)
Parkinson (2006)
Partners’ satisfaction; CM/LAP
capacity building; Pride efficacy
Partners’ satisfaction; Rare’s
competencies/weaknesses
Short-term campaign
efficacy; Long-term
campaign impacts on
CMs, LAPs, conservation;
Lessons learned
Determination of potential
for computer-mediated
communication to enhance
learning within conservation
education
CMs (Ongoing)
Personal interview
surveys
One-group
Pretest-Posttest
Campaign’s target
population
All campaigns
Measure campaign
impact on KAP
Vaughan (2007)
Meta-analysis of
survey data
Multivariate statistical
analysis
Campaign survey
data
Various (Ongoing)
Networking
Participation in forums
for exchange of
management ideas
Foundations of
Success; CMP;
Avg. = 520 respondents
per survey; 25 Traditional
and 34 Pride 1.0 campaigns
Not applicable
Frequency trends,
statistical associations;
250 variablesa
Share/develop best
management practices
with other organizations
Various (Ongoing)
External review;
Internal reflection
and analysis
Porter’s (1980)
Five Forces; Strategy
Maps and Balanced
Scorecards; Competitor
Analysis
New Profit,
Inc.; Rare board
and staff
Not applicable
Critical review of program/
management assumptions,
(e.g. compare project design
and evaluation with public
health SM efforts).
a
Variables include data on (1) the CM (socioeconomic status, prior experience), (2) the LAP (size of organization, previous experience, resources contributed), (3) threats to
biodiversity the campaign addressed, (4) target population (rural/urban, land tenure), (5) the flagship species (type of organism, endangered status, endemic status), (6) Pride
activities conducted, and (7) the outcome variables including the (a) change in KAP (Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice), and (b) attainment of other measurable objectives.
species, that is chosen to provide an empathetic symbol of the local
biodiversity, and that is used in all of the messages and activities.
Between 1988 and 2007, Rare trained 120 CMs who have
implemented Pride campaigns in almost 50 countries.
1.2. Adaptive management
The concept of a ‘‘learning organization’’ was introduced to
management theory in 1978 to overcome the shortcomings of
prior management philosophies, which tended to focus on shortterm problem solving rather than on long-term systemic evolution
of the organization (Preskill & Torres, 1999). Learning organizations develop systems of ‘‘evaluative inquiry’’ as part of a learning
strategy to develop insights into their work, continuously assess
their processes, and to adapt their strategies to evolving
circumstances (Senge, 2006). AM is the systematic integration of
these ‘‘learning strategies’’ to test an organization’s underlying
assumptions about what makes it effective in order to learn to be
better at what it does and to adapt to changing circumstances. AM
is conceived as a spiral, never-ending, self-reflective and evaluative
process that drives program and management policy refinement
(Salafsky, Margoluis, & Redford, 2008). The perceived benefits of
AM are that management actions and decisions are based on
experience and that it engenders a culture of continuous
improvement (Smith, Felderhof, & Bosch, 2007).
International conservation organizations have broadly accepted
the principles of AM (Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP,
2007)).4 Following CMP’s Open Standards for the Practice of
Conservation, evaluation is designed into the 5-step program cycle
4
Rare is a member of CMP, which is a collaboration of conservation NGOs that
seek improved ways to measure the outcomes of conservation actions.
beginning with Step 2 where the monitoring plan is developed, Step
3 where it is implemented, Step 4 where monitoring results are
analyzed, and Step 5 where learning is shared to inform future
program development, thereby ‘‘mainstreaming’’ evaluation into
the program model (Sanders, 2003).
There are relatively few published examples of AM from
conservation organizations. This is explained, in part, by ‘‘deeply
entrenched social norms and institutional frameworks,’’ including
such factors as the desire for ‘‘control by managers’’ and the need to
follow ‘‘current management guidelines’’ that tend to promote
‘‘activity’’ and ‘‘comfort’’ over ‘‘reflection’’ and ‘‘learning’’ (Allan &
Allan, 2005). Further, most published papers on AM in conservation organizations examine a particular conservation challenge in a
given location. AM has often been used in situations where
resource harvest quotas need to be adjusted in dynamic ecological
and market environments. This paper assesses the application of
AM to a learning portfolio5 of Pride programs that have been
widely adapted to many different conservation challenges in a
diversity of ecological and social circumstances.
2. Evaluations that drove adaptive management at Rare
Initial research done by Rare involved quantitative surveys that
were designed to measure the impact of Pride on audiences.
Retrospectively, the aggregated results of this impact research
have been used in conjunction with qualitative studies designed to
assess organizational performance. These evaluations are summarized in Table 1. They include a meta-analysis of the survey data
from all completed Pride campaigns, a series of qualitative in5
A learning portfolio is a group of similar programs that are studied collectively
to draw generalized conclusions (Salafsky, Margoluis, Redford, & Robinson, 2002).
188
B. Jenks et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (2010) 186–190
depth interviews with Pride partners, in-house review and
reflection exercises, and external reviews by consultants.
3. Historical development of Pride
Rare was established in 1973 to undertake conservation
education and outreach programs with campaigns such as ‘‘Save
the Whales’’ and manatee conservation. The SM methodology,
now known as Pride, was conceived in the late 1970s in Saint
Lucia in the Caribbean by one of the present authors and his
colleagues in the St. Lucia Forestry Department (Butler, 1988).6
The population of the Saint Lucia Parrot (Amazona versicolor) had
declined to about 150 individuals due to hunting, the caged-bird
trade, and deforestation. Joyicich (1976) reported, ‘‘A. versicolor
is fast approaching extinction in the wild,’’ and prior conservation
efforts had failed to halt the decline. Butler borrowed tactics
from corporate marketing to ‘‘brand’’ the parrot and build local
pride in it. Social marketing materials (billboards, comic books,
posters, stickers, costumes, puppet shows, songs, and sermons)
using the bird as a mascot and promoter for environmental
issues were produced, and the St. Lucia Parrot was declared the
National Bird in 1979. These efforts contributed to the passage of
the 1980 Wildlife Protection Act that afforded protection to all
but four species of wildlife. Birdlife International (2009)
estimated the parrot’s population size had increased to 350–
500 birds by 1996 and was expanding its range. These
conservation successes resulted in considerable recognition
for the SM methodology in the conservation community (Collar,
1992) and compelled Rare to hire Butler in 1988, name his SM
methodology Pride, and begin to implement Pride at biodiversity
hotspots around the world.
Although changes to Pride have been made continuously over
time, we recognize three distinct periods in Pride’s evolution.
These periods are (a) 1988–2001, during which 26 ‘‘traditional’’
Pride campaigns were implemented, (b) 2001–2008, during which
94 ‘‘Pride 1.0’’ campaigns were implemented, and (c) 2009 when
‘‘Pride 2.0’’ campaigns began. Table 2 summarizes each period, the
constraints that evaluations identified in each model, and how
Rare tried to improve Pride based on their evaluations.
4. Discussion
4.1. Rare as learning organization
Rare has been committed to ‘‘learning’’ since 1988 as
demonstrated by the extensive audience survey research that
was conducted in the first Pride campaign. This initial research was
quantitative and was designed to assess programmatic impact.
Since 1996, qualitative research has added the dimension of
understanding how to improve Pride based on the past experiences
of its CMs, LAPs and staff. Rare has also employed internal
evaluation using business tools and networking with influential
groups to introduce new ideas for effective management. For
example, the ideas of using concept models, SMART objectives7
and the new adaptive management software Miradi8 all derived
from Rare networking with groups like Foundations of Success and
CMP. These evaluations have helped Rare to identify constraints
that impeded either program effectiveness or the ability to
increase the rate of replication of Pride and to develop tools, in
order to overcome these constraints.
4.2. Pride’s theory-of-change
One of the most fundamental changes in Pride has been the
evolution of the theory-of-change (ToC) used to articulate how
Rare conceptualizes how its programs effect change. An explicit
comparison of the ToCs used during the three periods of Pride is
given in Table 2. Traditional campaigns did not articulate an
explicit ToC. However, the campaigns were designed implicitly to
increase awareness of the unique local biodiversity with the
expectation that this would build pride, which would in turn
promote adoption of environmental behaviors. During Pride 1.0,
Rare adopted stages-of-behavior-change (Prochaska, DiClemente,
& Norcross, 1992; Vaughan & Rogers, 2000) as its ToC from the
public health field to incorporate important ideas about the
process of change and of the role of interpersonal communication
and self-efficacy in achieving behavior change. However, this
model was later recognized as being incomplete because often,
individuals are blocked from behavioral adoption by some barrier
(see Carleton-Hug & Hug, 2010, this issue). For example, one
cannot adopt solar ovens if they are not available locally, cost too
much, or interfere with cultural norms. Further, the ToC did not
extend all the way to a conservation result but instead stopped at
behavior change (Heimlich, 2010, this issue). These constraints
have been addressed in the present ToC. Further, the revised ToC
provides a framework for campaign evaluation by suggesting
specific objectives for the campaign to achieve and hypotheses to
test about how campaigns have their effects.
4.3. Campaign changes and replication
A great deal of the change within Pride is designed to overcome
campaign quality constraints. These changes include: (a) development of site, LAP, and CM selection criteria; (b) adoption of AM
at the programmatic level through the use of Miradi software for
campaign planning; and (c) changes to Pride curriculum content in
response to feedback from partners and CMs. Techniques used to
resolve constraints, e.g. concept modeling, have also increased
stakeholder engagement that led to the development of Rare’s 3
C’s9 and improved the comprehensiveness of Pride’s campaign ToC.
The meta-analysis study is designed to evaluate the effect of
these changes on Pride campaign quality and impact on target
audiences. Results to date indicate that as Rare transitioned from
the traditional model to the Pride 1.0 model and began increasing
the replication rate, there has been no loss of campaign impact on
(a) knowledge variables (average positive change of about 18
percentage points per campaign) and (b) attitude variables (6
percentage points per campaign).10
For Rare to have a meaningful impact on the global
biodiversity crisis, Pride must be locally effective and it must
be replicated in thousands of biodiversity hotspots globally. The
historically low rate of campaign replication was an opportunity
cost that precluded reaching this scale. Bringing Pride to scale
required changing the way campaigns are created. During the
13-year period of traditional Pride, Rare produced an average of
two campaigns per year. During the 8-year period of Pride 1.0,
Rare produced an average of 13 campaigns per year. Moving to a
global accreditation system through the University of Texas at El
Paso (UTEP) will accelerate Rare’s ability to develop new
training centers and train up to 80 campaign managers per
year by 2011.
6
Rare underwrote material production for this program.
SMART objectives are Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Realistic, and
Time-bound.
8
Miradi was developed by CMP and Benetech; Rare partially underwrote its cost
(http://miradi.org/?gclid=COGW0d7RlZYCFQ4RnQodOQ1NFA).
7
9
Rare’s 3 C’s are Conservation impact, Capacity building for CMs and LAPs, and
environmental Constituency building.
10
It is not possible to compare models on behavior indicators because only 8
traditional campaigns measured behavior change.
B. Jenks et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (2010) 186–190
189
Table 2
Evolution of Pride program models.
Characteristic of
campaigns
26 Traditional Pride
(1988 to 2001)
94 Pride 1.0
(2001–2008)
Pride 2.0
(2009 Launch)
Theory-of-change
Not explicit, focus on building
awareness and local pride of place
K + A + IC + BR ! BC ! TR ! CRa
Accreditation;
Degree earned
by CM
None
Precontemplation ! Contemplation !
Preparation ! Validation ! Action !
Maintenance
Stages-of-behavior-change model (Prochaska,
DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992;
Vaughan & Rogers, 2000)
Individual accreditation at 4 universitiesb;
Eligibility for Master’s program
Training of CMs
Pride manualc
11-weeklong university-based training in one
of 4 languages
1, 2-weeklong training visit
Curriculum developed: (Ecology, Conservation
law, Learning & Behavior Change theory, SM
theory and practice with increased activity tool kit)
2nd University session for final report writing
Implementation rate
Partnerships
1–2 campaigns per year
Local or governmental LAP
Project planning, and
formative research
None or minimal
Campaign objectives
Not articulated pre-campaign
10–15 campaigns per year
Local universityc; BINGO LAPc; Strategic selection
of CMs, LAPs, campaign sitesc
Situational analyses to assess prevailing situation
at campaign sitec; Participatory planning involving
stakeholdersc; Concept modelingc; Threat rankingc;
Project planc
SMART objectives for KAP & other objectivesc
Curriculum reformulated: less
‘‘academic’’, more practical
knowledge/skills CMs require to
implement campaign.
Assignments tied to campaign
deliverables, graded by impact
not just academic standards.
3 ‘‘just-in-time’’ university-based
training sessions: (1) SM theory,
monitoring and evaluation, and
project planning; (2) campaign
activities and implementation; (3)
campaign assessment and follow up.
40–80 campaigns per year
UTEP; Barrier removal partner(s);
Monitoring partner(s)
Adaptive Management (Miradi);
Results chains; Monitoring plan
Monitoring and
evaluation
Pre-and post campaign surveysc;
4, weeklong monitoring &
support visits; Final reportc
Sustainability
Ad hoc
Constraints identified
by evaluations
English-speaking CMs only;
Limited training capacity in
SM and conservation;
Difficult to replicate;
Monthly reportsc; Comparison areas for surveysc;
2, weeklong monitoring/support visitsc; Distance
support by phone, email, and web-based clubc;
Monitoring plansc
Pride alumni clubc; Small grants program for
alumnic; Sustainability/follow up plans developedc
Delays in curriculum changes due to accreditation
at 4 universities; CMs forget information learned
due to time delays before use; Campaign objectives
void of conservation outcomes; No barrier removal
mechanism; Training overly academic and not well
sequenced with project implementation
Universal accreditation by UTEP;
Masters in Communication
Rare’s 3 C’s: Conservation impact;
Capacity building for CMs & LAPs;
Constituency building
Web-based project management
(RarePlanet); Campaign monitoring
scorecards; Threat reduction &
conservation result monitoring
See sections on training, and objectives
To be determined
CMs isolated from each other,
no sharing of experiences or
expertise; CMs needed academic
credit for promotion;
Ad hoc Site, CM, and LAP selection
a
Where K (Knowledge): the Pride campaign increases cognitive knowledge/awareness of the issues; A (Attitude): the Pride campaign improves environmental attitudes;
IC (Interpersonal Communication): the Pride campaign promotes interpersonal communication with peers and trusted opinion leaders, or to seek additional information to
validate their new knowledge and attitudes; BR (Barrier Removal): Pride campaigns identify what barriers exist to behavior change and form partnerships with organizations
that have particular expertise in that area; BC (Behavior Change): Pride promotes alternative behaviors for segmented target audience(s) in order to reduce threats; TR (Threat
Reduction): reduction of the main threat(s) to the conservation target; CR (Conservation Result): conservation result that the campaign plans to achieve.
b
These four universities are the University of Kent in England (moved to Georgetown University in Washington DC in 2009), Guadalajara University in Mexico, the Bogor
Agricultural Institute in Indonesia, and Southwest Forestry College in China.
c
Elements that were retained in future Pride models.
4.4. Conclusion
Is adaptive management the ‘‘secret to effective conservation?’’
AM has clearly empowered Rare to identify and incorporate a
number of ‘‘best management practices’’ at both the organizational
and programmatic levels, and to substantially increase the
replication rate of its flagship program, Pride. Looking forward,
Rare plans increases in the number of training centers, languages of
instruction and geographic areas in which they work. These
expansions will require continuous evaluation for their effect on
programmatic quality and impact. As Brett Jenks, President of Rare,
points out in the accompanying interview, conservation organiza-
tions have become skilled at identifying priority locations in which
to work and in understanding the threats to biodiversity at those
sites. There remain, however, great challenges in identifying and
implementing effective strategies to ameliorate those threats. This
is the challenge to which the evaluation component of adaptive
management is best suited.
References
Allan, C., & Allan, C. (2005). Nipped in the bud: Why regional scale adaptive management is not blooming. Environmental Management, 36(3), 414–425.
Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health.
San Francisco, Jossey-Bass: Social Development and the Environment.
190
B. Jenks et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (2010) 186–190
Birdlife International. (2009). IUCN red list of threatened animals. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/142715/0 downloaded on August 11,
2009.
Butler, P. J. (1988). Saint Vincent Parrot (Amazona guildingii): The road to recovery.
Arlington, VA: Rare Center for Tropical Bird Conservation. Unpublished final report.
Butler, P. J. (1996). Evaluating the success and sustainability of Rare Center’s conservation
education campaign ‘‘Promoting protection through Pride’’ with recommendations for
follow-up activities and funding. Philadelphia, PA: Rare. Unpublished final report.
Carleton-Hug, A., & Hug, J. W. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating
environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, doi:10.1016/
j.evalprogplan.2009.07.005, this issue.
Collar, N. J. (1992). Threatened birds of the Americas: The ICBP/IUCN red data book Part 2
(3rd ed.). New York: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Conservation Measures Partnership (2007). Open Standards for the practice of conservation, version 2.0. http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Site_Docs/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf.
Heimlich, J. E. (2010). Environmental education evaluation: Reinterpreting education
as a strategy for meeting mission. Evaluation and Program Planning, doi:10.1016/
j.evalprogplan.2009.07.009, this issue.
Joyicich, S. (1976). Amazona versicolor—Study of the Saint Lucia Parrot. Washington, DC:
World Wildlife Fund. Unpublished report.
Parkinson, A. J. (2006). Web-based learning among Rare Pride conservation education
campaign managers. Master’s Thesis, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. R. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations.
London: Sage Publications.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change:
Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102–1114.
Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K. H., & Robinson, J. G. (2002). Improving the
practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 16(6), 1469–1479.
Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., & Redford, K. H. (2008). Adaptive management: A tool
for conservation practitioners. http://www.fosonline.org/resources/Publications/
AdapManHTML/Adman_1.html.
Sanders, J. R. (2003). Mainstreaming evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation: Special
Issue on the Mainstreaming of Evaluation, 99(Fall), 3–6.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1999). Entertainment–education: A communication strategy
for social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, C., Felderhof, L., & Bosch, O. J. H. (2007). Adaptive management: Making it
happen through participatory systems analysis. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 24(6), 567–587.
Vaughan, P. W. (2004). Rare 3608: Rare’s International Partners: Partner Perceptions of
Rare and the Partnerships. Arlington, VA: Rare. Unpublished final report.
Vaughan, P. W. (2005). BINGO 3608: Partner perceptions of Rare and their partnerships
with Rare by senior administrative partners at large NGOs. Arlington, VA: Rare.
Unpublished final report.
Vaughan, P. W. (2007). Pride learning portfolio meta-analysis. Interim report—July 20,
2007. Arlington, VA: Rare. Unpublished report.
Vaughan, P. W., & Rogers, E. M. (2000). A staged model of communication effects:
Evidence from an entertainment–education radio drama in Tanzania. The Journal of
Health Communication, 5(3), 203–227.
Vaughan, P. W., Dew, J. L., Lopuch, V., Mayorga, M. (2006). Retrospective study of 26
traditional Pride campaigns: 1988 to 2001. Arlington, VA: Rare. Unpublished final
report.
Jenks is President and CEO of Rare. He holds an MBA from Georgetown University and
has worked in the field of tropical conservation and rural education since 1992.
Vaughan is a research consultant. He holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and Behavioral Biology
from the University of Minnesota (1988) and taught at Macalester College, St. Paul. He
has worked in program evaluation since 1992.
Butler is Senior Vice President for Global Programs at Rare. Butler developed the Pride
methodology while working as a forestry officer in St. Lucia.