See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283275400

The Cooperative Extension Program Development Model: Adapting to a

Changing Context

Article in Journal of Human Sciences and Extension · June 2015

DOI: 10.54718/CWEZ3223

CITATIONS READS
24 8,592

3 authors:

Nancy Franz Barry A Garst

Iowa State University Clemson University
62 PUBLICATIONS 1,111 CITATIONS 107 PUBLICATIONS 1,411 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ryan Gagnon
Clemson University
62 PUBLICATIONS 599 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan Gagnon on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 3

The Cooperative Extension Program Development Model:

Adapting to a Changing Context

Nancy Franz
Iowa State University

Barry A. Garst
Ryan J. Gagnon
Clemson University

For over 100 years, Cooperative Extension in the United States has used a
consistently articulated program development model including program planning,
design and implementation, and evaluation that involves stakeholders in the
process. This issue of the Journal of Human Sciences and Extension examines the
history and evolution of the program development model for successful Extension
work and adaptations to that model that have emerged due to the changing
educational context. This issue provides information on how elements of the
model have changed over the last 100 years; delves into contemporary issues and
challenges; and provides important analysis, implications, lessons learned, and
applications for current and future success of Extension programs. In this article,
we provide a definition of a program, the rationale for using a program
development model in Extension work, the Extension Program Development
Model, other program development models used by Extension professionals, and
the changing context surrounding Extension work that impacts the Program
Development Model.

Keywords: Cooperative Extension, Extension, program, program development

model, context, Extension professional, program development

For over 100 years, Cooperative Extension (Extension) in the United States has used a
consistently articulated program development model including program planning, design and
implementation, and evaluation that involves stakeholders in the process (Baker, 1984; Boyle &
Mulcahy, n.d.; Forest & Baker, 1994; Franz & Townson, 2008; Heckel, 2004; Seevers et al.,
1997, 2007, 2012; Vines & Anderson, 1976). This issue of the Journal of Human Sciences and
Extension (1) articulates the historical Program Development Model on which successful
Extension work is based and adaptations due to the changing educational context; (2) provides
information on how elements of the model have changed over the last 100 years (technology,
audiences, etc.); (3) delves into contemporary issues and solutions/adaptations; and (4) provides
important analysis, implications, lessons learned, and applications for current and future success
Direct correspondence to Nancy Franz at [email protected]

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 4

of Extension programs. In this article, we provide a definition of a program, the rationale for
using a program development model in Extension work, the Extension Program Development
Model, other program development models used by Extension professionals, and the changing
context surrounding Extension work that impacts the Program Development Model.

Definition of a Program

Extension professionals use the word program in a variety of ways to describe their efforts.
They may call a meeting or single educational event a program (i.e., I am holding a pesticide
safety program tonight), a series of educational opportunities a program (i.e., I am teaching a
five-part program on financial management), or a comprehensive effort aimed at addressing a
particular issue a program (i.e., I am working on a youth leadership development program). The
definition of program used for describing the Extension Program Development Model in this
special issue of the Journal of Human Sciences and Extension is “the product resulting from all
activities in which a professional educator and learner are involved. For example, it would
include need analysis, planning, instruction, promotion, evaluation, and reporting” (Boyle, 1981,
p. 5). Patrick Boyle, the originator of this definition, served as a Chancellor of the University of
Wisconsin Extension and promoted this definition throughout the country for Extension and
adult education. Seevers et al. (1997, 2007, 2012) used Boyle’s definition in their textbook on
Cooperative Extension. When the term program is used in this issue of the Journal of Human
Sciences and Extension, it describes a comprehensive approach to addressing an issue with
education. It does not describe single Extension educational opportunities, one time projects, or
a series of educational events.

Why Profess and Use a Program Development Model

The use of a particular program development model in Extension programming has been
promoted for a variety of reasons. Buford, Bedeian, and Lindner (1995) suggest using a program
development model to improve Extension program success, direction and purpose, program
performance, and the Extension professional’s ability to cope with change. Forest, McKenna,
and Donovan (1986) find using a program development model in Extension work results in the
best use of fiscal resources, efficiently addresses client problems, helps Extension professionals
respond to shifts in organizational direction, enhances accountability, and shows return on
investment of public funds for public officials. Similarly, Boyle and Mulcahy (n.d.) indicate
using a program development model enhances program relevance and allows for concentrated
resources to be focused on the most serious, contemporary needs of a large number of people.
This in turn shows value to relevant stakeholders, decision makers, the community, Extension,
and the Extension professional. Baker (1984) and Forest and Baker (1994) believe a program
development model helps Extension professionals address problems that are increasingly
complex; better meet the rising educational levels of learners; compete with programs offered by

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 5

other organizations; and improve program effectiveness, relevance, and efficiency. Seevers and
Graham (2012) propose that using a program development model helps Extension professionals
reach intended audiences, use time efficiently, and improve stakeholder buy-in and support for
programs.

The most comprehensive rationale for using an Extension program development model was
articulated by Duttweiler (2012). He suggested use of the model creates (1) improved outcomes,
(2) a focus on intended outcomes, (3) a basis for resource planning and management, (4)
documentation of the educational process for understanding and accountability, (5) reflection and
assessment for personal and organizational growth, (6) a framework for diagnosing
disappointments, (7) a framework for replicating success, (8) a basis for Extension professionals
to negotiate expectations, and (9) a way for Extension professionals to communicate impact.

A Widely Articulated Extension Program Development Model

Program development has been defined by the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
(ECOP) as “a continuous series of complex, interrelated processes which result in the
accomplishment of the educational mission and objectives of the organization” (Seevers &
Graham, 2012, p. 103). The program development model most often used by Extension
professionals includes (1) needs assessment, (2) program design and implementation, (3)
program evaluation and reporting, and (4) stakeholder involvement (Franz & Townson, 2008).
Seevers and Graham (2012) popularized this model across the country in their Extension
textbook as (1) planning; (2) design and implementation; and (3) evaluation informed by
organizational context, personal interest and expertise, and the needs of the community and
society (Figure 1). Because many Extension graduate and undergraduate students, as well as
practitioners, start with the model articulated by Seevers and Graham (2012) when studying and
practicing Extension program development, it is the basis for discussion in this special issue of
the Journal of Human Sciences and Extension and will be examined throughout the issue.

In the last two decades, Extension has increased its focus on program evaluation and reporting in
program development due to cuts in public funding and increased accountability for the use of
these funds (Franz, 2009, 2011; Franz, Arnold, & Baughman, 2014; Kalambokidis, 2004, 2011).
Wells-Marshall (2012) also found Extension staff are more committed to using evaluation
results, analyzing data, and focusing evaluation. All Extension systems overtly articulate using
the main three elements of Conklin’s (1997) model – planning, design and implementation, and
evaluation (Figure 1). However, the other elements in the model are less often emphasized or are
seen as assumptions of Extension program development.

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 6

Figure 1. A Basic Program Development Model

Source: Conklin (1997). Used with permission from Seevers and Conklin (2012).

Other Program Development Models

Program development models vary. Extension professionals often learn about and use program
development models differently than described above. For example, they may discover program
development models through graduate coursework in adult education or through curriculum and
instruction or other professional development opportunities. They experiment with these
models, or even parts of these models, with different levels of depth and with varying degrees of
integration. Many Extension professionals blend a number of program development models to
fit their context, interests, and values. The program development models described below have
much in common with the Extension Program Development Model articulated by Seevers and

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 7

Graham (2012); all the models described address needs assessment, program design and
implementation, and program evaluation but have differing emphasis on specific aspects or
operationalization of the model (Boone, Safrit, & Jones, 2002).

Ralph Tyler’s (1949) program development model analyzed the educational program of an
institution by asking (1) What educational purposes should be attained, (2) What educational
experiences can be provided to meet those purposes, (3) How can these educational experiences
be effectively organized, and (4) How can it be determined whether these purposes have been
attained? Tyler’s (1949) model focuses on the desired results of curriculum and instruction in
formal educational settings. He provided few suggestions for involving stakeholders in program
development, but he did suggest a series of questions to guide program evaluations.

Boone et al. (2002) provided a conceptual programming model from a systems approach for
organizational improvement. In this model, the program planner is seen as a change agent and
decision maker through program facilitation, implementation, and evaluation. Program
development is viewed as complex and technical. The main steps in this model include
understanding the organization and its renewal process, linking the organization to its publics
(i.e., community), designing the planned program, implementing the planned program,
evaluation, and accountability. Program development is comprehensively addressed at macro
and micro levels, but no decision-making power is given to stakeholders, and diversity of
stakeholders is not addressed.

Using a lifelong learning perspective, Boyle (1981) proposed that there are developmental,
institutional, and informational programs with varying goals, sources of objectives, use of
knowledge, involvement of the learner, roles of the programmer, and standards of effectiveness.
He suggested these steps for programming: (1) establish a philosophical basis for programming;
(2) analyze problems and needs or concerns of people and communities; (3) involve potential
clientele; (4) determine intellectual and social development levels; (5) select sources to
investigate and analyze in determining program objectives; (6) recognize organizational and
individual constraints; (7) establish criteria for determining program priorities; (8) decide on
degree of rigidity/flexibility of planned programs; (9) legitimize and obtain support of formal
and informal power situations; (10) select and organize learning experiences; (11) identify
instructional design with appropriate methods, techniques, and devices; (12) utilize effective
promotional priorities; (13) obtain resources necessary to support the program; (14) determine
the effectiveness, results, and impact; and (15) communicate program value to appropriate
decision makers. Boyle (1981) fully included stakeholder involvement in his program
development process.

Caffarella and Ratcliff Daffron (2013) provided an interactive model of program planning for
adult education reflecting the dynamism of the changing educational context. They suggested

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 8

their planning concepts are not used in a particular order – discerning the context; building a
solid base of support; identifying and prioritizing ideas and needs; developing program goals and
objectives; designing instruction; devising transfer-of-learning plans; formulating evaluation
plans; selecting formats, schedules, and staffing programs; preparing and managing budgets;
organizing marketing campaigns; and coordinating details. This applied model focuses on the
Extension professional as an instructor on a micro level and does not take into account complex
situations.

Cervero and Wilson (2006) proposed a people-centered model of program planning based on
responsible planning theory. Their model focuses on politics, ethical obligations, power,
interests, communication, and language as important contexts for the success of programs. In
this model, programming is a social activity requiring constant negotiation with stakeholders.
The program planner negotiates the program’s needs assessment; the educational, management,
and political objectives; instructional design and implementation; administrative organization
and operation; and formal and informal education strategies and curricula. If all of these
elements are negotiated, the learners are empowered to meet their needs and their voices are fully
heard and acted upon. Therefore, the planner is primarily concerned about the management and
politics of outcomes through power relations of program stakeholders. This model has little
emphasis on program evaluation and reporting.

Klein and Morse (2009) described business plans developed and used by 54 Extension teams for
statewide programs. Elements of the plan included an executive summary, list of program team
members, educational goals, target audience, market research on target audience needs,
promotional plans, logic model and research base, public and private value, implementation plan,
evaluation plans, and financial plan. This approach intends to reach out to audiences as a
community of interest around a topic for learning rather than a geographic community of
learners. This process also creates an analysis of comparative advantage (i.e., competing
educational programs), improved collaboration between educators and specialists, articulation of
financial stability of programs, and meeting of organizational needs for detailed statewide
information on programs.

The University of Wisconsin – Extension (2003) logic model is often used as a program
development tool in Extension. The logic model describes the program’s situation, inputs,
outputs, outcomes, assumptions, external factors, and evaluation to visually show how the
program is supposed to work. A logic model is most often used by Extension professionals as a
tool to describe their program to stakeholders and rarely used as a program development model
(Braverman & Engle, 2009). Logic models are often used to develop more detailed program and
evaluation plans (Rennekamp & Arnold, 2009). The logic model as a planning tool often does
not take into account the complex context of program development. For a full critique of the
logic model in Extension program planning, see Arnold’s (2015) critique later in this issue.

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 9

The program development models used by Extension professionals often rely on the approach
and simplicity of use of the model. Tyler’s (1949) approach is a classic model most often used
directly or as the basis for all program development models. For example, Tyler’s (1949) four
programming questions can be directly cross-walked with the planning model presented by
Seevers and Graham (2012) and the logic model (University of Wisconsin – Extension, 2003).
Boone, Safrit, and Jones’s (2002) model is the most comprehensive and complex of the models
used by those wanting to address programming from a systems perspective. Boyle (1981),
Caffarella and Ratcliff Daffron (2013), and Klein and Morse’s (2009) models are attractive to
Extension professionals who prefer a micro and simplified approach to program development
(i.e., a checklist of specific actions), while Cervero and Wilson’s (2006) model appeals to
Extension professionals who value programming with social justice goals. The interests of
Extension professionals and their programming context, including their organizational history,
tend to determine which program model or models they use to guide their educational efforts.

Changing Context

The ever-changing context surrounding Extension work impacts the Program Development
Model. These changes include a move from discipline-specific programming to interdisciplinary
program expectations, changes in program funding sources and expectations of funders, and
increased interest of funders to implement evidence-based programming that reflects high quality
fidelity of program delivery. As a result of these changes, Extension’s relationship with
stakeholders includes increased accountability for program value and the need for increased
capacity building of paid and volunteer staff. Extension systems have also developed and used
specific criteria to select programs to pursue and maintain, such as program attractiveness,
competitive position, alternative coverage, program urgency, funding limitations, and emerging
issues (Franz, 2005).

This Issue

The articles in this special issue of the Journal of Human Sciences and Extension explore how
Extension has adapted to a changing context and associated changes in the Program
Development Model. Each article highlights a particular component of Extension’s Program
Development Model, including program development and Extension’s public value, needs
assessment, program design, program implementation, program evaluation, involving
stakeholders, the importance of professional development of Extension professionals for
Program Development Model success, and Extension’s role in community-university
engagement. The final article provides a synthesis of the special issue and recommendations for
future directions for Extension.

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 10

References

Arnold, M. (2015). Connecting the dots: Improving Extension program planning with program
umbrella models. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 3(2), 48–67.
Baker, H. (1984). The program planning process. In D. Blackburn (Ed.), Extension handbook
(pp. 50-64). Geulph, Canada: University of Guelph.
Boone, E., Safrit, D., & Jones, J. (2002). Developing programs in adult education: A conceptual
programming model (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Boyle, P. (1981). Planning better programs. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Boyle, P. & Mulcahy, S. (n.d.). Take a giant step: A guide to major programs. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin – Extension.
Braverman, M., & Engle, M. (2009). Theory and rigor in Extension program evaluation
planning. Journal of Extension, 47(3), Article 3FEA1. Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/a1.php
Buford, J., Bedeian, A., & Lindner, J. (1995). Management in Extension (3rd ed.). Columbus,
OH: The Ohio State University.
Caffarella, R., & Ratcliff Daffron, S. (2013). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical
guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cervero, R., & Wilson, A. (2006). Working the planning table: Negotiating democratically for
adult, continuing, and workplace education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conklin, N. (1997). University Extension. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Duttweiler, M. (2006). CCEPDC 101 Program Development [video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XRLlt1evrG0
Forest, L., & Baker, H. (1994). The program planning process. In D. Blackburn (Ed.), Extension
handbook: Processes and practices (pp. 86-99). Toronto, Canada: Thompson Educational
Publishing.
Forest, L., McKenna, C., & Donovan, J. (1986). A “how-to” handbook for developing Extension
long-range plans and major programs. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin –
Extension. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/planning/pdf/connect.pdf
Franz, N. (2005). How does UNH Cooperative Extension determine what programming to
pursue? Personal collection of N. Franz, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Franz, N. (2009). Promoting organizational sustainability: Engaging volunteers to tell the
program impact story. International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 26(3), 3–11.
Franz, N. (2011). Advancing the public value movement: Sustaining Extension during tough
times. Journal of Extension, 49(2), Article 2COM2. Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/comm2.php
Franz, N., Arnold, M., & Baughman, S. (2014). The role of evaluation in determining the public
value of Extension. Journal of Extension, 52(4), Article 4COM3. Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2014august/comm3.php

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 11

Franz, N., & Townson, L. (2008). The nature of complex organizations: The case of Cooperative
Extension. In M. T. Braverman, M. Engle, M. E. Arnold, & R. A. Rennekamp (Eds.),
Program evaluation in a complex organizational system: Lessons from Cooperative
Extension (pp. 5–14). New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(120). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/ev.272
Heckel, M. (2004). People make the program: An oral history of Cooperative Extension.
Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension.
Kalambokidis, L. (2004). Identifying the public value in Extension programs. Journal of
Extension, 42(2), Article 2FEA1. Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a1.php
Kalambokidis, L. (2011). Spreading the word about Extension’s public value. Journal of
Extension, 49(2), Article 2FEA1. Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/a1.php
Klein, T., & Morse, G. (2009). Extension program business plans. In G. Morse (Ed.),
Cooperative Extension’s money and mission crisis: The Minnesota response.
Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.
Rennekamp, R., & Arnold, M. (2009). What progress program evaluation? Reflections on a
quarter-century of Extension evaluation practices. Journal of Extension, 47(3), Article
3COM1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/comm1.php
Seevers, B., & Graham, D. (2012). Education through Cooperative Extension (3rd ed.).
Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.
Seevers, B., Graham, D., & Conklin, N. (2007). Education through Cooperative Extension (2nd
ed.). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Curriculum Materials Service.
Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through Cooperative
Extension. Washington, DC: Delmar Publishers.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
University of Wisconsin – Extension. (2003). Logic model. Retrieved from
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/LMfront.pdf
Vines, C., & Anderson, M. (1976). Heritage horizons: Extension’s commitment to people.
Madison, WI: Journal of Extension.
Wells-Marshall, J. (2012). The Extension Program Development Model: A look at commitment
and engagement. Retrieved from http://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/3062

Nancy Franz, Ph.D., is an Emeritus Professor in the School of Education in the Higher Education
Program at Iowa State University who served with Cooperative Extension in Iowa, New
Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin for 33 years. Her scholarship and consulting
interests include measuring and articulating the program quality and private and public value of

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

 Extension Program Development Model: Changing Context 12

community-university engagement and the conditions that promote transformative learning in

nonformal educational environments.

Barry A. Garst, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of youth development leadership at Clemson

University and a former Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist of youth development at
Virginia Tech. Barry’s current interests include the influence of over-parenting on youth
program quality, developmental outcomes of out-of-school time experiences, and organizational
practices that impact youth transformation.

Ryan J. Gagnon, M.A., is a Ph.D. student in Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management at
Clemson University. His scholarship interests focus on the multidisciplinary development and
assessment of programs, specifically relating to program implementation. His goal is to improve
and promote rigorous program design and delivery.

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks Zanariah Mohd Nor, Ph.D. candidate at Iowa State University in the
Agricultural and Education Studies Department, for the excellent analysis of program
development models for use in Extension as part of her preliminary written exam for Ph.D.
candidacy.

Journal of Human Sciences and Extension Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

View publication stats