Evaluating Joint Effects of Extension Programs

Policy-makers, legislators and the public should know the joint effects of Extension's various programs, in addition to knowing the results of single Extension programs and program areas. Evaluating Extension's programs (e.g., urban horticulture) or program areas (e.g., agriculture, or home economics) simply on a one-by-one basis can lead to misestimates of the total amount of resources which should be allocated to Extension in order to accomplish State and Federal priorities. Studies on the impacts of Cooperative Extension work are almost always confined to programs within one of the agency's four major program areas--agriculture (and natural resources), home economics (and nutrition), 4-H youth and community and rural development. Extension's accountability efforts usually produce only separate reports on each of these four program areas. Extension's response to a recent Congressional mandate to evaluate economic and social consequences of Extension program was found to lack assessment of the interrelatedness of Extension's program areas. Previous, limited efforts to examine the combined effects of programs in Extension's different program areas have touched upon the effects of coordination of programs across two areas, and on perceived cumulative results from several program areas. But no studies have been found which sought to measure interactive effects or incongruous results of programs in different Extension program areas. Reassignment of impact evaluation responsibility away from individual Extension program areas where it is now typically lodged, to a unit responsible for program evaluations, would facilitate studies on the interrelatedness of program impacts across two or more of the four program areas. Social scientists can assist Extension in accountability and program improvement, and simultaneously strengthen the integrity of the social sciences, by focusing on and conducting multi-program area impact studies.