2001
Exemplary
Program
Evaluations
Exemplary
Program
Evaluations
 |
|||||
| State: | Indiana | ||||
| Project name: | Partners for Better Communities | ||||
| Participants: | Community residents who served on the County Extension Boards. To stimulate discussions and get a variety of perspectives, a minimum of at least 15 - 20 people was recommended. If boards were smaller than this, it was recommended that community stakeholders or clientele including youth be invited to participate. | ||||
| Number involved: | 5 County Extension Boards | ||||
| Program: | County Extension Boards participated in 18-20 hours (seven modules) of Board Development. This report focuses on 3 of the 7 modules pertaining to diversity. During the Diversity Management Modules, the board utilized the "Inclusivity Model" to help them conduct a baseline assessment of the degree on inclusivity of the county Extension program in five major areas: 1) audience/clientele base, 2) Extension education delivery, 3) board leadership, 4) financial resources and 5) human resources. After completion of the initial assessment, the Boards worked with facilitators to develop an action plan to increase inclusivity in each of the 5 major areas. The Boards then worked in their individual community to carry out their action plan. Each year the Boards reconvened and reassessed their inclusivity. | ||||
| Where: | Extension Boards in five counties-Crawford, Dearborn, Fayette, Marion, and Newton-were selected as participants of the program. | ||||
| When: | The training was divided into three modules totaling a minimum of seven hours. The first two modules require approximately one and a half to two hours each. The third module requires a minimum of four hours, but can take longer. Based on the team's experience, an overnight retreat works best for this module. Using that format, the organizational assessment can be done on the first afternoon or evening, and the plan of action can be developed the following day. After the initial training was conducted Extension Boards worked to carry out their plans of action. Follow-up data was collected annually for five years. | ||||
| Who: | Facilitators from Purdue University | ||||
 |
||
|
There
are four major objectives of the training and assessment process.
Volunteer advisory board members will:
|
||
 |
become more sensitive to and begin to value diversity; | |
|
gain a better understanding of diversity issues in their organization; | |
|
assess the degree to which their organizational structure, policies, and programs are inclusive; and | |
|
develop an action plan for the organization to become more inclusive. | |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Methods & Tools | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The facilitator works with the boards and the staff to place each of the five systems on the 12-point inclusivity continuum. This served as baseline data and by doing this assessment annually the board monitored their progress toward becoming more inclusive. The information provided in this report summarizes 5 years data. The five systems that were monitored are listed below. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Audience/clientele—What are the demographics of the people reached through the organization's programs and are they representative of the population in the community? Does everyone have the same rights, privileges, and opportunities? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivery systems—What are the service or educational methods being used by the organization? Are these methods effective in reaching the diverse population in the community? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Board leadership—What are the demographics of the board members and are they representative of the population in the community? Does the method for choosing board members involve input from the community? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Human resources—How are human resources used in the organization? Is there equality in service to all program areas? Are one or two staff members assigned to work underserved audiences, or do all staff members have that as a portion of their assigned job description? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Financial resources—How are financial resources used in the organization? Is there equality funding for all program areas? Are hard dollars only used for traditional programs? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For each system, specific traits for each group (Exclusive Club, Passive Group, Inclusive Team) on the inclusivity continuum were developed. By comparing these traits with those that were present in their county, the boards were able to place each of their systems on the continuum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A mean improvement was calculated from comparing the fifth year score on the continuum with baseline data. A qualitative record of action steps toward inclusivity was also kept for each county. The team also conducted in-depth interviews. They interviewed administrators and board members and Extension staff in each county and at the state level. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Four counties moved entirely out of the exclusive range. The county that still had some systems in the exclusive range had undergone a variety of personnel changes and illness that affected their progress. Two of the five counties completely changed their board composition by adding representatives of new audiences and their recruitment process. Additionally changes occurred in each of the five systems. Selected examples of some of the changes that occurred within counties to increase their inclusivity are noted below. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Family Nutrition Program Assistants began working with Headstart families | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Began providing transportation for youth from at-risk communities to programs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Began recognition of volunteer leaders based on performance and innovation rather than years of service | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Internal restructuring of staff assignments legitimized non-traditional programming as an integral part of Extension | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Developed and implemented a new Extension Advisory Board Orientation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Extension staff enrolled in Spanish language class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Began including innovative non-traditional programming in the Extension newsletters | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Extension Board is seeking funding from the Lilly Endowment to conduct a feasibility study about moving the Extension office to a site that is more accessible to public transportation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One county secured $1.3 million dollars from the Department of Education to continue their CYFAR community sites as 21st Century Learning Centers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||
|
To assess program effectiveness | |||
|
Program planning | |||
|
Program modification | |||
|
Documentation in grant proposal writing | |||
|
Reports to collaborators and funders | |||
|
Marketing to the community | |||
 |
|
| Susan
Barkman Email: susan.barkman@four-h.purdue.edu |
|
 |
|||
|
Module lesson plans | ||
|
Overheads and handouts | ||
|
Assessments tools | ||
|
Training for facilitators | ||