Critical Factors for Successful Programs

Good program planning, rather than luck, is assumed to be the bedrock of successful Extension programs. Agents are introduced to, occasionally reminded of, and encouraged to use program planning for developing nonformal educational programs. Although much is written about how agents should do program planning, little is known about how they actually do it. Dohr and Finley, in a study of planning processes of agents, identified six different approaches. Brown2 looked at needs assessment as a part of the planning process. However, it was a study by Copa3 that inspired our study. She looked at the elements of successful practice of home economists. We wanted to find out how program planning processes used by agents who continually produce successful programs are different from or similar to the processes used by other agents.

Twenty agriculture agents were individually interviewed. Ten of the agents had been identified by district directors and program leaders as exemplary program planners-agents who continually produced successful programs. Agents were asked to participate in a study of program planning processes and confidentially was promised. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using the Glaser-Strauss constant comparative method of content analysis.4

Findings

Responses from exemplary agents were compared with responses from other agents.

1. Agents who continually produced successful programs were eclectic in their search for ideas. Many program planning models suggest that ideas should come from clientele, and indeed, these agents got ideas from people within the county. But, they didn't stop there. They gleaned ideas from other agents, specialists, and people outside Extension. They got information from people in other states and other agencies. They were always on the lookout for new ideas when they read and when they went to Extension functions. Some agents got ideas from state and National Initiatives. Some came up with their own.

   These agents didn't depend on advisory committees for programming ideas (although advisory groups may be valuable for sanctioning or gaining support for programs).

2. Agents who continually produced successful programs promoted and created interest in their ideas and programs. If agents had an idea they liked, but for which they had few or no requests, they'd bounce it off a specialist or another agent. If it still seemed to be a good idea, they'd try to create interest. Once they'd launched the program, they promoted it not only to clientele, but also to supervisors. One agent described his philosophy of promoting programs this way:

   You've got to be kind of creative. You can't just sit there and wait till the door opens up and someone says, "Let's do this." You'd like that to happen, but that isn't always the way it does. Somebody has to have a little vision....But you can't just sit there. I have this philosophy about programs. They should come from the grassroots, but you have to fertilize the grass or it dies. You feed it.

3. Agents who continually produced successful programs set priorities. They had limited time in which to accomplish goals and they used that time effectively. They tried to focus energy on their most important programs. They continually asked themselves: Is this an important program for this county? Are there more important programs I should be working on? Is this the best use of my time? As one agent said:

   One of the things I'm guilty of like any other agent is that there are certain things that I like to do...so I'm always checking and balancing myself. "Now is this something that I really need to do or are there two other things that are more important?"

4. Agents who continually produced successful programs looked ahead. They tried to anticipate clientele needs and develop contingency plans to meet those needs. They thought strategically. For example, agents who described drought activities as being particularly successful started thinking about them months before the drought become a problem. They tried to anticipate the kinds of information farmers would need and think about how they might deliver such information.

5. Agents who continually produced successful programs looked back. They reflected on what they'd done and looked for strengths, weaknesses, and ways to improve programs. They used both formal and informal methods to obtain feedback and evaluate their programs. Then they used these insights to modify programs. One agent reflected:

   I think seriously about what I've screwed up. And I have had my share of that. I guess I'm at the point in my career that I've enough confidence in my ability and the Extension Service to know that it's all right not to have everything go perfectly every time. But don't do it a second time. Learn something.

6. Agents who continually produced successful programs described success as more than just numbers. Initially all agents described success by the number of people who attended a program or meeting. But that's only one indicator of success for the exemplary program planners. These agents also described success as having a positive influence or impact on people, such as increasing the number of alternatives and the consequences of those alternatives considered by people in decision making. As one agent indicated, this isn't easy to do:

   It's hard to tell what's successful. The meeting we had yesterday I thought was successful. It was timely, it was well done, people were well prepared for it. But I also thought it was successful because we had a good crowd. There have been other meetings where we've had almost as many people and I haven't thought the meeting was successful at all....We have had those meetings before: dairy buy-out, the PIK program, and every year the feed grain program. Those are the types of programs where we pack the houses wherever we go. Some of those haven't been very successful because they haven't been educationally geared.

   Summary

   Agents who continually produced successful programs got ideas for programs from extended networks not limited to their county or Extension. They tried to optimize their time by using it effectively and prioritizing activities. They tried to keep their perspective-anticipating what may be on the horizon and reflecting on the past. They ultimately defined success as having a positive impact on people.

   Footnotes

   1. J. Dohr and C. Finley, "County Extension: Program Development, A Descriptive Study" (Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension, 1979).

   2. J. Brown, "The Process of Program Development for Adult Learners: Information Used by Cooperative Extension Service Home Economists" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1982).

   3. P. Copa, "Exploring Essential Elements of Successful Practice" (Madison: University of Wisconsin, Department of Continuing and Vocational Education, 1986).

   4. B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Hawthorne, New York: Adline de Gruyter, 1967).

   ---

   This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1991fall/a2.html.

   ---

   Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.