Evaluating Issues Programming

In Extension, issues programming is distinguished from disciplinary (base) programming by a focus on broad and complex societal issues, and targeting of nontraditional audiences and interdisciplinary faculty involvement.1 Since its introduction in 1987 as a new programming concept in the Cooperative Extension System (CES),2 issues programming has had its proponents and adversaries. Some believe the underlying philosophy and recommended approach were overdue and are appropriate to addressing the broad and complex problems facing society. Others counter that Extension has always addressed societal issues, in community resource development and public policy education particularly. They further argue that Extension shouldn't dilute agricultural programs and divert its attention to complex issues in which we may not be competent or have much control while exposing ourselves to the risk of controversy and the frustration of failure.

Because such mixed feelings are aroused by issues programming, we surveyed state Extension Services in 1991 to find out whether the concept had been implemented. Our survey showed that most states had initiated the process at about the same time and were addressing many issues. Of the 38 states that responded, 36 had begun issues programming in 1987 or 1988, with 87% of them saying that all counties were participating and 45% indicating that up to one-fourth of their total program effort was on issues. An average of six statewide issues were being addressed covering a wide range from agriculture to family/community to the environment. A variety of planning and implementation procedures were reported from respondents, the most common being state issues planning and oversight teams. Invariably some system of grassroots issues identification and collaborative structure was being used to address consensus issues in the states.3 It appears, therefore, states are committed to the process.

In 1988, the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service (LCES) adapted nationally recommended issues programming procedures to increase nontraditional clientele representation on Parish (County) Advisory Councils, identify local/state issues, and operationalize task forces for addressing priority issues.4 Field faculty with specialist support were intended to serve as facilitators in networking resources required to address or resolve issues. Considerable time and money were invested in faculty training and implementation of this initiative.

In 1991, we evaluated the LCES issues programming effort to see how well it had worked and what could be done to improve it.

This study of the perceptions of faculty and local leaders who had participated in Parish Advisory Councils and issues task forces was conducted to help LCES draw conclusions about the utility of the issues programming process.

We designed a qualitative evaluation using the focus group interview technique.

Four interviews at two sites designed to draw participants from 22 of the 64 parishes (counties) in the state were established. Lists of leaders who had served on a Parish Advisory Council and at least one issues task force were obtained from the selected parishes. Currently employed agents who had been involved with issues programming were identified. A random sample of 22 leaders and 22 agents was drawn to participate in the study. When the interviews were held, 13 leaders and 18 agents attended.

Considerations of knowledge, experience, and homogeneity of participants, convenience of interview locations, participant incentives, moderator neutrality and skills, question planning, and questioning procedure cited in the literature on the focus group technique were taken into account in designing and conducting the interviews.5

The interviews were moderated by a trained, non-Extension person. Interviews were audio and video recorded and written notes kept. Questions moved from general to specific.

Interview data were analyzed by recommended qualitative data analytical techniques. Perceptual messages were extracted, sorted into categories and indexed, summarized into action/situation- outcome tables, and perception themes/patterns abstracted by the researchers.

Major perception themes and patterns emerging from the evaluation were:

1. Agents expressed strong feelings of resistance toward the changes needed to conduct issues programming. Poorly timed initiation, newness of the concept, fear of territorial problems, and confusion about the process to be followed were contributory factors.

2. While agents were impressed by the need for and value of staff teamwork to do issues programming, they'd experienced both good and poor cooperation.

3. Leaders perceived agents performing multifaceted roles of facilitating, coordinating, educating, and leading issues programming. Agents were comfortable in the role of educator, but weren't confident about their role or their ability to lead and facilitate the process.

4. Both leaders and agents believed volunteers were available in parishes, but weren't being effectively used. They indicated volunteer effectiveness could be increased by proper selection and communication, involving them in issues in which they had interest and expertise, and serving on task forces in planning and implementing programs.

5. Parish Advisory Councils functioned well in all parishes because they had broad representation. They surfaced broader, nontraditional issues, prioritized doable issues, and legitimized agents' involvement in the issues. Issues task forces, however, had only limited success due to inadequate citizen or volunteer participation and local/Extension leadership. Successful task forces had strong leadership and active Extension involvement, often in a facilitator role.

6. Some frustration was expressed by leaders that the issues programming process wasn't continued to a planned termination point, with proper communication provided by the agent. Agents accepted this as a caution to future responsibility.

7. Respondents believed that issues programming was successful even though the process wasn't followed in most parishes. They identified these chief accomplishments: that Extension is broader and better recognized in local communities, has better ties with local governments, and is networking with other agencies.

From a program development perspective, the motivation engendered among leaders and agents for program planning and evaluation, and the closeness and cooperation experienced among them are positive outcomes of the issues programming process.

Results of the evaluation study support several recommendations for future program development efforts:

1. The full support of field administrators should be enlisted before a new programming initiative.

2. Agents and specialists should be trained to function in new roles, using communication principles and practices and how to network for resources.

3. State-level program planners and facilitators should be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skill to implement new programming concepts.

4. Agents and leaders must be more effectively involved in planning, implementation, and evaluation of Extension programs.

5. The organization needs to allow more flexibility and adaptability in Extension programming to encourage acceptance and creativity at the local level.

Lessons learned from the issues programming experience in Louisiana, as expressed by agents and leaders, provide useful insights into cautions, strengths, and weaknesses that should be considered in future issues programming efforts.

1. Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and Reality (Washington, D.C.: Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1987).

2. K. A. Dalgaard and others, Issues Programming in Extension (St. Paul: Minnesota Extension Service and ES-USDA, 1988).

3. F. E. Baker, "A Qualitative Evaluation of the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Issues Programming Process Using Focus Group Interviews (Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1992).

4. F. E. Baker and others, Guidelines for Issues Programming in the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service (Baton Rouge: Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, LSU Agricultural Center, 1989).

5. R. A. Krueger, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1988).