Program Evaluation Part 7- Telling our Story

In June of 2017, an article was published in Colorado Community Media that described Extension as the “best-kept secret” in Elbert County. No doubt, Extension educators have been hearing others describe Extension in the same way for decades. As we contemplate the informal tagline “Extension is the best-kept secret “every Extension educator should be committed to making that statement obsolete.  One of the methods that will eliminate others from describing Extension in this manner is to effectively tell our story.

According to Bailey and Deen (2002), Extension stakeholders insist on systematic evaluations that document program outcomes. While the primary purpose of evaluations is to be utilized to redirect or refocus program effort, the same data can usually be utilized to effectively communicate to stakeholders the value of the Extension programs.  Extension educators stress the need for sequential learning, emphasizing that learning must be built, the concept upon concept, to a level that leads to changes in behavior, adoption of practices or adoption of new technology. National funding agencies augment this thinking by sometimes limiting their funding to “evidence-based programming,” with strictly prescribed program protocols and standards for proof of program effectiveness (Wise, 2017).

Interpretation of programs or telling our story is a high priority for Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.  Interpreting evaluation results and sharing them with various stakeholders is more critical today than ever in the history of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. By effectively interpreting and marketing the results of Extension programs stakeholders can be provided a clear understanding of the value of specific programs in a county, community and the state.

When interpreting program results, the Extension educator should address the “3 Rs” of interpretation.  The “3 Rs” are Relevance, Response, and Results.  In order for Extension educators to effectively address the “3 Rs” they should ask themselves the following three questions:

1. What was the relevance of the program (Why was the program conducted)?
2. How did Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service respond to the relevant issue in terms of educational interventions?
3. What are the results in terms of clientele change because of the educational intervention?

Answering the “3 Rs” effectively provides stakeholders with the background and evidence needed to successfully understand and appreciate Extension programmatic impact.  Typically, the Extension educator will develop a one-two page summary communicating the “3 Rs”. Interpretation of programs presents Extension educators with the opportunity to be creative and develop something that will get the stakeholders attention.  It is important to use tables, graphs, charts and/or photographs that will effectively communicate program impact.

Structured Interpretation events take on many different appearances. Some efforts that have been effective for agents include the following:

• Breakfast with Extension where elected officials are invited to a breakfast and agents or volunteers formally present to elected officials the value of Extension.
• Lunch provided for elected officials where agents or volunteers formally present to elected officials the value of Extension.
• An annual meeting where volunteers are recognized and agents or volunteers provide an update regarding Extension programs that communicates the value of Extension.
• One on one interpretation efforts with the elected official and/or staff where the agent or volunteer communicates the value of Extension.

Other less structured approaches to interpretation that can add value to formal interpretation efforts include the following:

• Interpretative newsletters that communicates the change that resulted due to Extension programs.
• Involvement of elected official in “showcase” educational events where the elected official provides a welcome to participants and has the opportunity to see Extension programming first hand.
• Subject matter newsletters, blog posts, e-newsletters etc. that provides elected officials with a sense of the comprehensive nature of educational programs.
• Agriculture and Natural Resource agents could provide elected officials with a summary of results from applied research/result demonstrations.

Some things to remember when developing an interpretation strategy is as follows:

• Interpretation is a continuous process, not just something that takes place prior to a legislative session or submitting a county budget.
• Interpretation is systematically communicating programmatic impacts.
• Interpretation is integrally linked to program evaluation.
• Volunteers can be very effective advocates of Extension programs and should be utilized to provide a “face of the program” aspect to the interpretation effort.

In future Next Step to Success blog posts, we will discuss effective Extension teaching.

References

Bailey, S. J., & Deen, M. Y. (2002). A framework for introducing program evaluation to extension faculty and staff. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2) Article 2IAW1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/iw1.php

Boleman, C., Cummings, S. & Pope. P. (2005). Keys to education that works: Texas Cooperative Extension’s program development model, Texas Cooperative Extension, College Station, Texas. Publication #345.

Kelly, S. (June 12, 2017). Extension is the best-kept secret in Elbert County. Colorado Community Media. Available at: http://coloradocommunitymedia.com/stories/extension-is-the-best-kept-secret-in-elbert-county,250364

Wise, D. (2017). Evaluating Extension impact on a Nationwide Level: Focus of Programs or Concepts? Journal of Extension [On-line] , 55 (1) Article # 1COM1. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2017february/pdf/JOE_v55_1comm1.pdf