|
Session Title: Building Consensus on Nationwide Outcomes and Indicators for Extension
|
|
Panel Session 637 to be held in Suwannee 11 on Friday, Nov 13, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Extension Education Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Bart Hewitt, United States Department of Agriculture, bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Nancy Franz, Virginia Cooperative Extension, nfranz@vt.edu
|
| Abstract:
With today's budgets at both the Federal and State levels being tight there is much competition among Federal agencies and State Land-Grant Universities for dollars. Congress and the White House budget decisions makers are looking for evidence of performance and public value for the dollars appropriated to Federal agencies. Extension has provided evidence of individual State performance and public value, but there is a lack of evidence of performance and public value that can be aggregated to tell a national story. This panel presents both the Federal and State partner perspectives on the need, the value, and the feasibility of developing national outcomes and indicators to provide the evidence Congress, the White House, and other decision makers need to assess the national value of Extension to its citizens. A discussion will explore the next steps evaluators and administration can take to develop national outcomes and indicators and the commitment necessary.
|
|
Federal Partner Data Needs for Reporting National Outcomes
|
| Bart Hewitt, United States Department of Agriculture, bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov
|
|
This presentation describes the Federal Partner budget process with emphasis on reports on evidence of performance and public value to Congress, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), Office of Management and Budget, the agency Budget Office, and USDA. The agency performance-based budget cycle will be discussed. Examples of outcomes used in these reports will be shown.
|
|
|
A National Program Leader's Perspective on Developing National Outcomes and Indicators: Environment and Natural Resources- Renewable Resources Extension Act
|
| Eric Norland, United States Department of Agriculture, enorland@csrees.usda.gov
|
|
Ineffective accountability and broad discretion for program directions are two issues that are often cited as reasons for which formula funds are under constant scrutiny. The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) program has overcome both of those issues. Through a strategic planning process where the state and federal partners "came to the table" with no agenda to push, the partners agreed and commited to a specfic set of strategic issues and a reporting process that included quantitative and narrative information. With facilitation and evaluation expertise from an Extension Evaluation Specialist, national level indicators were developed and adopted.This is one of the few formula programs at CSREES where both partners have agreed to limit program scope to an identified set of issues.
| |
|
A National Program Leader's Perspective on Developing National Outcomes and Indicators: 4-H and Youth
|
| Suzanne LeMenestrel, United States Department of Agriculture, slemenestrel@csrees.usda.gov
|
|
This presentation will provide an overview of efforts that National 4-H Headquarters has engaged in to develop national outcomes for 4-H. These include participation in the PART process, as well as specific examples from the work of the Science, Engineering, and Technology mission mandate (SET) evaluation team. Specifically, the presentation will describe the process of developing a national logic model for SET, identification of and measurement of indicators at the national level, and how state 4-H programs are using these resources.
| |
|
A Land-Grant University Perspective on Developing National Outcomes and Indicators: University of New Hampshire
|
| Lisa Townson, University of New Hampshire, lisa.townson@unh.edu
|
|
Extension programs vary from state-to-state, based on local needs and available resources. Although all states are required to submit federal plans and reports in a similar format, there are important differences in accountability systems and program evaluation support available to staff. While there is a need for flexibility in program planning and the selection of state outcome indicators, state Extension systems would benefit from the ability to select from a menu of common national indicators, particularly those with well-designed evaluation plans/tools.
Such an effort would provide program flexibility yet assist states/regions in prioritizing their evaluation efforts, focusing on fewer, well-defined metrics that are important locally and nationally. It would also facilitate collecting and reporting more credible data that is not only useful to share with local stakeholders, but also to aggregate regionally and nationally to communicate program impacts and public value.
| |