Caribbean Agricultural Extension Project

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Caribbean Agricultural Extension Project evaluation design for phase II, Sept. 1983 - Dec. 1984
Physical Description:
25 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Alkin, Marvin C
Adams, Kay A
Cuthbert, Marlene L
West, Jerry G
Publisher:
CAEP, University of Minnesota and AID
Place of Publication:
Barbados
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural extension work -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension workers -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
evaluation design team: Marvin C. Alkin, Kay A. Adams, Marlene L. Cuthbert, Jerry G. West ; submitted to CAEP, University of Minnesota and AID, Barbados.
General Note:
Cover title.
General Note:
"May 23, 1983"
General Note:
Typescript.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 665146230
ocn665146230
System ID:
AA00007168:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text









CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT








EVALUATION DESIGN

FOR

PHASE II

SEPT. 1'983 DEC. 1984


Submitted to:
CAEP, University of Minnesota
and AID, Barbados


Evaluation Design Team:
Marvin C. Alkin, Chair
Kay A. Adams
Marlene L. Cuthbert
Jerry G. West


May 23, 1983





e


9










INTRODUCTION



The Caribbean Agricultural Extension Project (CAEP) has as a

goal the improvement of the economic and social well-being of

the small farm households within the region. Ultimately, they

anticipate that these improvements will be reflected in in-

creases in the value of agricultural production, in the

generation of agricultural employment, and the like. The

project seeks to attain these goals by increasing the effec-

tiveness of national extension systems, both public and private,

within the seven included countries. Also, a part of the

proposal is an attempt to increase the effectiveness of regional

institutions which provide backstop support to national extension

services and to improve the extension linkages between the

countries and various regional organizations, such as CARDI.

In order to determine the extent to which the project

activities of Phase II have been successful and to provide

feedback for mid-course corrections within the program, provision

has been made for an external, technical evaluation of the Phase

II activities. It is anticipated that the evaluation related

to the Phase II plan will. be completed prior to the November 1984

meeting of the RAECC. Thus, this portion of the evaluation must

focus on the extent to which program implementation has taken

place, changes in the operating system of national extension

services, communication units, backstop agencies, etc. It is








-2-


only to a lesser extent that the impact of the program on farmers

may be determined.


PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING THIS PLAN


The four members of the evaluation design team were invited

to participate in the Apri~l 1983 meeting of RAECC in order to have

a basis for the preparation of the evaluation design plan. The

design team members were provided with a variety of project

materials, including the Phase II proposal, to read.

Prior to attending the RAECC meeting, the Evaluation Design

team met with officials at AID Barbados to discuss their evaluation

concerns and to otherwise obtain their suggestions. Present at

that one-half day meeting were: William Wheeler, AID Director;

Ed Bergells, Project Officer; Don Yemen, Acting Agriculture

Section Director; Terry Liercke, Project Officer and Darwin Clark,

Evaluation Officer. Their concerns were incorporated into this

document.

At the RAECC meeting, held in St. Vincent, the team members

met with representatives of the different interests assembled at

the meeting in order to obtain a variety of points of view on the

kinds of evaluation information that might be provided. The

design team members were provided with the opportunity of each

leading a discussion group for a full- half-day of the meeting in

order to systematically obtain the thoughts of the participants

on the nature of their evaluation information needs and the possi-

bilities for data collection within their countries and agencies.

Following these discussions the team met over a day-and-a-half







-3-


period to formulate a draft design proposal. An oral report

summarizing the basics of the proposal was presented at the final

session of the RAECC meeting. Following the presentation of the

draft design proposal participants had an opportunity to provide

further feedback on the -tentative plans for the evaluation design.

Subsequent to the meeting, and based upon materials developed by

the evaluation design team, the design team chairman has developed

this proposal.

Prior to examining the specific aspects of the evaluation

plan to be completed. by November 1984, it is appropriate to

consider the place of this evaluation within an overall evaluation

rationale for the project. This discussion is to be found in the

following two sections.











OVERALL EVALUATION PURPOSE



The overall purpose of the evaluation is to assess how well the

project is helping Caribbean nations make progress towards meaningful

and self-supporting agricultural activities. An evaluation plan

for this project must ultimately address three major questions:

I. To what extent have self-supporting, effective
national and regional extension programs been built?

II. What is the impact of the project on farm families?

III. Under what conditions is agricultural extension more or
less successful in the Caribbean Region?

While these questions define the long term evaluation objectives

to be served, a portion of the evaluation can be performed during the

period prior to December 1984. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to

define the general criteria applicable to the complete longer term

evaluation of this project.


GENERAL EVALUATION CRITERIA


I. Building National and Regional Extension Programs

A. National level extension
Are the National Extension Improvement Plans operating?
e.g. functional?
-realistic?
integrated into a total agricultural strategy?
institutionalized within individual countries?

Has the effectiveness of extension staffs increased?
e.g. clear roles, functions, and relationships?
wholistic knowledge and skills?
positive work attitudes and morale?

Has the role of women in agriculture been clarified
and enhanced?
e.g. extent to which extension services oriented
to women?
women involved in extension services?-







-5-


B. Communication units
Are the National communication strategies being
implemented?
e.g. quality training taking place?
equipment present, maintained, and used?
relevant newsletters, radio programs, and slide
tape programs?

C. UWI backstopping
Have UWI capabilities for providing backstop as-
sistance in extension and communication been more
fully institutionalized?
e~g. outreach offices established?
programs established and university approved?

D. Regional linkages
Are appropriate regional research linkages established
and functional?
e.g. RAECC providing guidance and direction?
TJAC established and functioning?
two-way information flow with CARDI?

E. Training
Are Regional training plans for extension staff being
implemented?
edg. participants attending a certificate program?
participants attending diploma program?
frequent, well-attended regional and sub-regional
workshops on relevant topics?

F. Equipment
Is necessary equipment (vehicles, demonstration kits,
farm equipment) available?
e.g. operable?
maintained?
frequently used?

II. Impact on FaZrm Families

To what extent have farm families been reached through
extension activities?
e~g. type of farms reached?
level of outreach through newsletters and radio?
number and distribution of client contacts?
number and distribution of group contacts?

What are the ways in which farm families use the in-
formation provided through extension services?
e.g. type of information?
patterns of use?
-extent of use?











What has been the impact of extension services on farm
families?
e.g. self-sufficiency?
yield?
-income?
-reduced costs?
diversification?
reduced market gluts?
quality of rural life?
-role of women in farm families?

III. Successful Extension Programs

What strategies for building extension programs are
more or less effective?
e.g. training focus and methods?
communication strategies?
agricultural structure and role functions?
extension methods?
linkages?
back stopping?

What conditions are most critical to successful
national/regional extension programs?
e.g. economy of scale?
national policy?
regional cooperation?

What factors inhibit successful national and regional
extension programs?






-7-


PLAN OF ACTION:
1983-84


The plan of action for the evaluation report of November 1984

goes a considerable way towards fulfilling the general evaluation

criteria spelled out in the prior section. We are able to properly

reflect each of the issues raised within category I (Building

National and Regional Extension Programs)--and, indeed, the plan

which follows adequately measures the issues presented in that

category.

Needless to say, it is not possible at this time to determine

the full impact on farm families (category II) of the changes ef-

fected by the CAEP project. Certainly it is possible to obtain

data on the extent to which farm families have been reached through

extension activities and this general issue is reflected in the

plan.

An examination of the ways in which farm families use the in-

formation provided by extension services and the extent to which

agricultural and financial impacts are attained is yet another

question. One reason for this, of course, is that Phase II of the

project would only be a little over one year old at the time of

completion of this evaluation study and it is not likely that the

kinds of impacts called for could be detected at such an early

point. In fact, changes on practice and subsequent changes on the

nation take many, many years.







-8-


However, we feel it is possible to examine a related aspect

of impact. Within the research literature on impact, the notion

of "utility" has been put forth (Alkin et al, 1982). In essence,

these writings present an alternate way of considering impact in

those instances where it is not feasible to use a traditional

definition, either because a project or activity has not had

opportunity to be conducted for sufficient time or because resources

are not available for systematically sampling all (*or a reasonable

sampling of) project participants and components. The alternate

approach proposes that "utility" may be examined. In this instance

we refer to the utility of extension services as the extent to

which the extension services have the potential for impact. Thus,

one may examine best case instances in order to determine whether

something like the extension services, when operating in ways in

which its advocates feel are effective, do have impact. We will

describe this procedure later on in the proposal.

Some insights into the nature of successful extension programs

(category III -- successful extension programs) will be obtained

from the farmer impact studies and other interviews. Generalizations

about these regional programs and such things as appropriate models

for regional cooperation are beyond this study but will hopefully

be examined at another point in time.





-9-


SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES


Starting with the general evaluation criteria described in the

preceding section we derived specific evaluation questions for in-

vestigation. For each evaluation question we further indicated the

most appropriate data collection procedures given the time and

fiscal constraints. These steps are described in Table I which pro-

vides the general evaluation plan for the November 1984 study, in-

cluding the instrumentation for each question.

For example, under National Level Extension in Table 1, there is

an expected outcome statement (number 1) dealing with the activities

of the national planning committee in each country. This expected

outcome, in turn, has four related evaluation questions related to

the extent to which there is a functioning committee, the manner in

which they operate, and the nature of inputs from other sectors.

In the third column of Table 1 are listed the data sources related

to each of the evaluation questions. In this instance these sources

include project documents such as minutes of meetings that would be

sent to the evaluation team, information collected by CAEP and pro-

vided on their monthly report to the evaluation team, and interviews

conducted during the course of the in-country site visit.

In Table 2 we have taken the evaluation data listed in the last

column of Table 1 and arranged it by instrumentation type, Thus,

for the in-country interviews, we have arranged by respondents or

data sources each of the evaluation questions presented in the

previous table. In this way, it is easily seen which evaluation















NATIONAL LEVEL EXTENSION


Table 1
CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT:
Evaluation Issues


Expected Outcome
1. Active national planning committee
in each country providing guidance
to and evaluation of extension
services with significant private
input





2. Seven annual extension program
workplans each year for each
country, to guide and direct
national extension efforts at
implementing national plans







3. Effective coordination and involve-
ment between private sector exten-
sion services (commodity associa-
tions, farmers, groups, etc.),
CARDI National Team, and national
extension services so that both
public and private services are
working towards similar goals
and objectives


Evaluation Question
a. Is there a functioning committee?
b. How do they guide extension services?
c. What is the private sector input to
the committee?
d. How has the committee linked to
other government agencies (e.g.,
marketing boards, commodity
associations, etc.) for action?


a. Does a plan exist?
b. To what extent was the plan im-
plemented at each level of the
extension service?
c. If not, what factors inhibited
implementation?
d. In what ways are farmers' needs- taken
into consideration in developing
and revising work plans?
e. Do the plans suggest realistic
programs, projects, and linkages
for action?
a. What private sector extension
services exist?
b. What is the nature of coordination
between private sector and national
extension services?
c. What linkages have occurred between
CARDI and National Extension Serv-
ices? (i.e., both research results
and feedback on field practices)


Data Source
a. Monthly CAEP report/Chief
Ag Officer Interview/UWI Outreach
Interview
b. In-country interview with com-
mittee members and Extension
Staff
c. Attendance at Committee
Meetings/minutes
d. Interviews: CARDI Rep, Chief Ag
Officer, Private Sector Assns.
a. Document review
b-e. Monthly CAEP report and in-
country interviews


a-b. CAEP Data Report and follow-up
during in-country interviews: Chief
Ag Officer, UWI Outreach Staff
c. CARDI National Rep. Interview/
UWI Field Staff Interview/Chief
Ag Officer Interview










NATIONAL LEVEL EXTENSION


Table 1 (cont)


Expected Outcome
7. Increased competence and technical
skill of extension agents (and other
extension personnel) due to a
minimum of 96 hours a year of
in-service training



8. An increase of more than 300% in
farmer contacts due to use of a group
approach and greater mobility from
project vehicles


Evaluation Question
a. What is the nature and extent of
agents (thr xtnsonstff?
(e.g., topics, number of partici-
pants, training hours)
b. What changes in knowledge, skills,
and attitudes have resulted from
training?
a. What is the number and distribution
of direct farmer contacts?
b. What is the number and participation
of farmers in group meetings?


Data Source
a. Data Work Sheet to Training
Officer (follow-up with in-
country interviews)





a-b. Ag Officer Data Work Sheet/
Interviews: Extension Agents,
Farmers







Table 1 (cont)


NATIONAL LEVEL EXTENSION


Expected Outcome
4. Increased recognition of women
in agriculture







5. Job descriptions for extension staff
at all levels in each country with
emphasis on educational activities
and removing all regulatory
functions









6. Increased supervision of field staff
by district officers, each of whom
receives a minimum of 40 hours of
supervisory training per year


Evaluation Question
a. Are there increased numbers of
women represented as extension
agents?
b. Do extension prepared materials
reflect womends role i.n the farm
partnership?
c. Have extension agents made ef-
forts to address their programs
to "farm fami-lies?"
a. Is there an organization chart?
Are there clear roles and reporting
relationships?
b. Are there job descriptions for
Extension Staff?
c. Do the job descriptions emphasize
educational activities and re-
move regulatory functions?
d. Are the job descriptions being
followed?
e. Is there a mechanism for reviewing
and updating job descriptions?
f. How has the role of the Extension
Agent changed?
a. Have district officers received
supervisory training? How much?
b. What type of supervision have
district officers provided to
field staff?


Data Source
a. Data Work Sheet
b. Document Review and Interviews
c. Interviews: Extension Agents,
Farmers





a-f. In-country document review.
Interviews: Chief Ag Officer,
Extension Agents, UWI Outreach
Staff










a. CAEP Periodic Report. UWI Out-
reach and Chief Aq Officer
Interviews.
b. Review of performance evaluation
reports and organization charts/
Interview: Extension Agents,
District Officers










COMMUNICATION UNITS


Table 1 (cont)


Expected Outcome
9. National communications units
integrated into the ministry
structure and functioning
effectively





10. National extension newsletters pub-
lished at least quarterly with dis-
tribution to at least 25% of all farm
households. (Newsletters focus on
agricultural production techniques,
not "gossip'" about people in agri-
culture.) This is a 500% increase
in farmer coverage
11. Adequately equipped national com-
munication units to produce at
least three slide programs a year
on technical topics of importance
to local farmers
12. Regular agricultural, production-
oriented radio programs In all
countries, effectively doubling the
mass media outreach in Caribbean
LDCs. Radio air time devoted to
agricultural production will be
doubled on a daily basis and weekly
half-hour features will be added
in all countries


Evaluation question
a. Is the national communications unit
integrally placed in the ministry
s truck ture ?
b. What are the sources of information
for developing communication
features?
c. What are the linkages with relevant
communications units (e.g., WINDBAN,
UWI, CARDI)?
a. Is a newsletter published?
b. How frequently?
c. How many copies are distributed?
d. What is the quality of the news-
letter?
e. How are farm families using
newsletter information?

a. What AV equipment is available?
b. How many slide/tapes have been
produced?
c. What is the frequency of their use?

a. How much daily radio air time is
devoted to agricultural topics/
announcements?
b. What is the nature, extent, and
source of weekly radio features?
c. How do the features relate to work
plans?


Data source
a-c.In-country interview:Communica-
tions Officer
c. Interview: Private Sector
Assn.; CARDI National Rep.





a-c. Data Work Sheet and in-country
interview with Communications
Officer
d. Newsletter review by evaluation
staff expert
e. Interview: (armers, extension
agents/case studies

a-c. Data Work Sheet and interview:
Communications Officer



a-c. Data Work Sheet and interview
Communications Officer









UWI BACKSTOPPING


Table 1 (cont)


Expected Outcome
13. The quality, appropriateness, and
technical impact of radio programs
will be substantially in-
creased. UWI will produce and
distribute to all countries ten
half-hour radio features each
year to support and enhance
national efforts
14. Increased backstopping capability
of UWI to support national ex-
tension units in communications
and extension methodology



15.'Three UWI outreach offices es-
tablished and functioning in the
region
16. Diploma in Extension Program,
UWI established as an ongoing,
permanent course in the Faculty
of Agriculture





17. Regional Extension Communication
Unit organized and established in
Department of Agriculture Exten-
sion, UWI


Evaluation Question
a. What radio features has UWI
produced?
b. What features have been dis-
tributed to each country?
c. What is the extent of in-country
usage of UWI features?


a. In what ways has the UWI back-
stopping capability in communica-
tions and extension methodology
increased?
b. What changes in extension
methodology training have
occurred?
a. Have outreach offices been es-
tablished?
b. What services have been provided?
a. Is the diploma in Extension Pro-
gram established as a permanent
course?
b. What is the quality of the diploma
program?
c. What changes in trainees' skills,
knowledge, and attitudes have
resulted from participation in
the diploma program?
a. Is the regional Extension Communica-
tion Unit established as a permanent
unit?


Data Source
a-b. UWI Data Work Sheet and
Interview
c. Data Work Sheet and Inter-
view with Chief Communica-
tions Officer



a-b. UWI Interview including
document review and
observation




a-b. CAEP monthly reports and
UWI Interviews

a. UWI interview
b-c. Trainee questionnaire with
follow-up interviews






a. UWI interviews









REGIONAL LINKAGES


Table I (cont)


Expected Outcome
18. Regional Agricultural Extension
Coordinating Committee (RAECC)
organized to provide direction
to CAEP and to monitor its
success

19. Technical Joint Action Program,
UWI established to link research
and extension



20. Two-way information flow with
CARDI


Evaluation question
a. What representatives from each
country participated in RAECC?
b. How has input from RAECC improved
project direction?
c. Has the RAECC recognition program
been initiated?
a. Has TJAC been established?
b. WHat were the meeting dates and
topics of discussion? Who were
the participants?
c. How has TJAC fulfilled its
regional linkage objectives?
a. Have relationships been established
with CARDI which provide a two-
way information flow?


Data source
a. Participant minutes
b. Interviews with project
leaders
c. CAEP Director list of
recipients

a-c. CAEP Director/Committee
minutes




a. Interviews: CARDI Regional
Staff/CAEP Project
Directors










TRAINING


EQUIPMENT


Table 1 (cont)


Evaluation question
a. What is the number and distribu-
tion of 2-year trainees?


a. What is the number and distribu-
tion of 1-year trainees?





a. Is one person from each country
trained in communications?


Data source
a. CAEP Director/Trainee List



a. CAEP Director/Trainee List






a. CAEP Director/Trainee List


Expected Outcome
21. A sixty-five percent (65%) in-
crease in the number of Diploma
trained frontline agents.(28
will be trained)
22. Increased managerial and organiza-
tional effectiveness of 18 UWI
Diploma in Extension graduates,
an increase in managerial expertise
at senior levels of both public
and private extension organiza-
tions
23. Seven knowledgeable and effective
national communications unit senior
officers with one year's intensive
Diploma training in communications
at UWI. None currently exist


Expected Outcome
24. Has equipment been delivered?
Is it being maintained? Is it
in use?


Evaluation question
a. What equipment is available in the
following categories? (e.g., AV,
vehicles, demonstration kits, etc.)
b. What date was it acquired?
c. Is it operational? maintained?
d. What is the frequency of use?


Data source
a-d. Interview: Chief Agricultural
Officer
c-d. Interview: Extension Agents
(See also Data Sources 11a-c)










FARMER IMPACT


Table 1 (cont)


Expected Outcome
25. Skilled, knowledgeable farmers
making wise decisions, using
resources efficiently and
farming profitably


Evaluation question
a. What types of farms have been
involved?
b. What technologies have been
stressed in educational activities?
(e.g., intercropping, improved
storage)
c. What are some of the ways that ex-
tension can be effective in
impacting farmers?
d, What have been the impact on farm
families? (e.g., increased yield,
cost saving, increased income, im-
proved standard of living)
e. What has been the impact on na-
tional goals? (e.g., increased
self-sufficiency, greater crop
diversity, import reduction, im-
proved health standard, reduction
of market gluts)


Data Source
a-c. Interview Chief Ag. Officer/
monitoring activities
a-d. Farmer case studies
e. National data base (deferred
for future study)


GENERAL ISSUE


Expected Outcome
26. What factors contribute to
success or failure in each of
the above areas?


Evaluation Question
a. What is working well? What
factors contributed to success?
b. What is not working? What
~factors Inhibited success?


Data Source
a-b. All interviews related to each
of the areas of evaluation study





Table 2


CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT
Evaluation Instrumentation Specifications


Evaluation Questions
Addressed


Evaluation Technique


Respondent/Data Source


Date of Data Collection


INTERVIEWS
In Country


la-d;2a-b;3a-c;4b,c;5a-f;
24a-c;25a,b,e
10a-e;11a-c;12a-c;13c
7a,b
2b,c,d;6b;4b,c
2b,c,d;5b-f;6b;7a,b;8a,b;
10e;17b;24c
8a,b;10e;25c,d
1c,d;2a,b;9c

1d;3c;9c;19c
18b;19a-c;20a;21a;22a;23a
la-d;2a-d;3a-c;5a-f;6a;15a,b
14a,b;15a;16a;19c
13a-c;14a;17a
16b,c
20a
4a
10a-c;11a-c;12a-c;13c
- 7a
8a,b;25a,b
13a,b


May-June '84


o Chief Ag. Officer


Communications Officer
Training Officer
District Officer
Extension Agents

Farmers
Private Sector
Associations
CARDI National Rep
CAEP Proj. Directors
UWI -Outreach Staff
-Administration
-Communications
-Diploma Students
CARDI Regional Staff
Chief Ag. Officer
Communications Officer
Training Officer
Extension Officer
UWI -Communications Unit


May-June
May-June
May-June
May-June

May-June
May-June

May-June
May-June
May-June
May-June
May-June
May-June
May-June


Regional


DATA WORK SHEET


Mailed April 1984
















































QUESTIONNAIRES


Table 2 (cont)


Evaluation Questions
Addressed


Evaluation Technique


Respondent/Data Source


Date of Data Collection


DOCUMENTS


Needs Assessment
Questionnaire Results (Pre
and Post)
W~ork Plans

Periodic Reports
o CAEP
o Chief Ag. Officer
o Dist. Officer
o Extension Officer
o UWI Outreach Officer
Organizational Charts
Job Descriptions
Newsletters
Minutes
o National Extension Com-
mittees
o RAECC
o TJAC
Lists


Various evaluation questions
(document needs to be
reviewed)
2a



la;2b,c;15a,b
la
2b,c
2b,c
15b
6b
Sia,b,c,f
1d Ir


id


May 1984


As soon as available



Monthly


At site visit



At site visit
At site visit
When available



When available


o RAECC recognition
recipients
o CAEP -2yr. dip. in
agri.
-1 yr. dip. in ext.
-Common Training
iase 1 National Plans


20a


When available


When available


22a
23a
Various questions
16b,c


UWI 1-yr. Extension
Diploma Students


hP


As soon as possible
Administered prior to
site visit







-20-


questions are to be addressed to the Chief Agricultural Officer

during the course of the in-country interviews. The information on

Table 2 is particularly handy in that it may be readily converted

into instrumentation. Thus, in subsequently developing an in-country

interview guide we need only to note the evaluation questions to be

addressed within those interviews (column 3), revise them slightly

into an interview format, and to list them sequentially. Then,

each question may be coded in terms of those individuals who are to

respond. Consequently, the information on Table 2 is readily con-

verted into the instrumentation necessary for the conduct of this

evaluation.

Also shown in Table 2 is the data collection schedule for the

project. This schedule includes the full period of this study. In

some instances (e.g., newsletters) information will be sent to the

evaluation team whenever available. In other instances (e.g., CAEP

periodic reports) information will be sent to the evaluation team

on a monthly basis. The data worksheets will be mailed to the

respondents in April of 1984, allowing respondents ample time to

aggregate data which will be a topic of discussion during the on-

site interviews in May-June 1984.


SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE


While most of the data collection activities are reasonably

self-explanatory, it may be helpful in this proposal to present

some indication of the amount of data collection time involved for

various activities. We will not discuss the time require-

ments related to the collection and analysis of data in the form of






-21-


documents or questionnaires but will focus on the amount of time re-

quired for the various interviews. The anticipated time for the
various interviews is as follows:

0 In-country interviews. Each country will be visited by one

evaluation team member who will conduct the full range of

interviews, an examination of the data work sheets, organiza-

tional charts, job descriptions, etc. Evaluation team

members will be guided in their work by a previously developed

interview guide. The evaluation team member will spend one

week interviewing within each country. This process will

be facilitated by CAEP field staff who will have assisted

in making appointments, arrangements, etc.

o Farmer impact interviews. We intend to conduct farmer im-

pact interviews in order to determine the utility (potential

for impact) of the national extension services as discussed

in a previous section. One impact study will be conducted

in a Windward island, one in a L;eeward island, and one in

Belize. In each study the Chief Agricultural Officer will

be asked to identify a single exemplary extension agent

who, in turn, will be asked to identify five farm households

that have been significantly impacted by the extension serv-

ices. During a three-day period subsequent to the one-week

country visit, the evaluation team member will interview the

indicated farmers in order to determine the nature of the

extension service impact and the factors which are related

to that impact.






-22-


o UWI backstopping. One evaluation team member will conduct

an evaluation related to the extent of UWI backstopping.

This evaluation will also be guided by an interview schedule

developed prior to the visit and by other sources of informa-

tion including diploma student questionnaires that will have

been administered prior to the visit. We anticipate that

this portion of the data collection will require four to

five days in Trinidad and one to two days at an outreach

office.

o Regional linkages. The examination of regional linkages,

particularly with CARDI, will be examined partially within

the course of the in-country interviews. However, the major

source of data for this examination will be meetings with

representatives of regional agencies. Thus, it will be

necessary to spend one to two days in Barbados meeting with

CARDI regional office staff and others.

o Meeting with AID. Near the conclusion of the in-country

visits the chairman of the evaluation team will meet with AID

officials to provide feedback on data collection progress

and to obtain additional inputs. The nature of these inputs

may relate to a variety of the evaluation questions addressed

within this study. This phase will necessitate one day of

meetings in Barbados.






-23-


REPORT FORMAT


The general format for the final evaluation report is as follows

(page estimates for each section are provided):

o Executive Summary (five pages)

o I. Individual country reports (seven reports of approximately

10-15 pages each)

o II. National Extension Services Summary (estimated at 12

pages)

o III. National Communications Summary (estimated at 10 pages)

o IV. UWI Backstopping Capability (estimated at eight pages)

o V. Regional linkages (estimated at five pages)

o VI. Training summary (estimated at five pages)

o VII. Equipment (estimated at four pages)

o VIII. Summary of utility: Farmer impact case studies

(estimated at 10 pages)

o ~Appendix: Fifteen farmer case studies--five each in Windwards,

Leewards, and Belize (estimated at three pages per case study)

The above outline reflects the final report that will be pre-

sented to AID at the conclusion of the evaluation. However, we are

currently considering the possibility of presenting to individual

countries a "tailored" evaluation final report which includes only

their own individual country report and not the reports of the other

six countries.







-24-


EVAID1ATION BUDGET


The project budget reflects the activities discussed on the

previous pages and, in addition, provides a breakout budget for a

four-person team. This budget assumes the division of responsi-

bilities for team members in the following manner:

o Team Member A--evaluation expert (chair):

--Visits

UWI backstopping

Regional linkages

1 country

--Report Sections

UWI backstopping

Regional linkages

1 country report

Training

Equipment

Executive summary

o Team Member B--evaluation expert:

--Visits

-2 countries

1 set of five farmer impact case studies

--Report Sec~tions

2 country reports

1 set of five farmer impact case studies

Summary of utility: farmer impact case studies






-25-


o Team Member C--communications expert:

--Visits

-2 countries

1 set of five farmer impact case studies

--Report Sections

-2 countries

1 set of five farmer impact case studies

National communications summary

o Team Member D--agricultural small farms system expert:

--Visits

-2 countries

-1 set of five farmer case studies

1 day assistance in examining UWI backstopping

--Report Sections

National extension services summary

2 country reports

Five farmer case studies

Assists on summary of farmer case studies

o AID Evaluation officer
We request that the AID Evaluation officer participate
in the field visits by accompanying Team Member B









EVALUATION BUDGET

BUDGET IITEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER PROJECT
CATEGORIES (IA B C D TOTALS


I. Evaluation Per-
sonnel Consulting
Fees: (2400)
A. Instrument
Devel opment (600) (300) (1200) (4,500)
In-country
interview guide $900 i $150 $150 $600
Farmer impact
'interview guide
UWI interview
guide $450
UWI student
questionnaire $450
Develop needs
assessment
analysis pro- 1)$300
cedure
Data work sheets 11$600 $150 $150 $300
B. Site Visits
(including
prpration time (3450-) (3750-) (4060-) (4350-) (15,600)
Country visits $1500 $3000 $1 500 1 $3000
Belize visit III1 $1800
Farmer case
study visit I)1$750 $750 $750
UWI backstopping
training visit 11$1200 $600


CAPE PHASE II












BdUDGET ii TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER PROJECT
CATEGORIES iiA B C D II TOTALS


Regional
linkage/AID
visit (Barbados) $750
C. Other Data
Collection and
Anal'ysis II(1050) (11650) (1050) (1050) (.4,800)
(Documents and
materials) $1050 $1650 $1050 $1050
D. Project Liaison
and Related
Meetings (5850) (2100) (2100-) (.2100-) (12,150)
AID visit to
finalize design
(Aug-Sept 83) (($750
Staff meeting to
finalize instru-
ments (N~ew
Orleans, April 84) $450- $450- $450- $ 450
Staff meeting
with CAEP at
Antigua (June 84)1 $600 $600 $600 $600
REA\CC meeting
(November 84) 11 $1050- $1050 $1050 $1 050
Project coopera-
ti~on and
management ,l $3000


I *_ r 1 ---


CAPE PHASE II


EVALUATION BUDGET











TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER PROJECT
A B C D TOTALS


E. Report
Preparation
Executive summary
Country reports
Farmer case
studies
National exten-
sion summary
National comm.
summary
UWI backstopping
report


Ig r I


CAPE PHASE II


EVALUATION BUDGET


BUDGET
CATEGORIES


(5550)


(4050)


(4350-)


(4800)


(18,750)


$300-
$1050


$2100

$1200














$750


$2100

$1200



$1050-


$2100

$1200

$1200












$300


$1050

$900
$450
$300


- Regional
linkages


report


- Training report
- Equipment report
- Farmer impact
(case study)
summary
- Substantive tech-
nical editing
and report
management


$11500











BUDGET II TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER PROJECT
CATEGORIES A B C D TOTALS


___ -L-C -- I '----- L-


CAPE PHASE II

EVALUATION BUDGET


II. Travel
A. Airfare
AID Sept '83
Site visits
and staff
meeting
(June '841)
REACC meeting
Staff meeting
(New Orleans)
B. Per Diem
Expenses
AID Sept '83
Site visits
and staff'
meeting
REACC meeting
Staff meeting
C. Misc. Travel
Expenses


(3400-)


(2500-)


(1700-)


(2400-)


(10,000)










$11,100)


$1000



$1400 o
$1000


$1300
$1000

$200-


$900
$400

$400


$1400
$1000


(3000-)


(2700-)


(2700-)


(2700)


.$300


$2000
$500
S$200


$2000
$500
$200


$2000
$500
$200


$2000
$500
$200


(55:0)


(600)


(550)


(550)


(2,250)











BUDGET TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER TEAM MEMBER ~TEAM MEMBER PROJECT
CATEGORIES (IA B C D TOTALS


Sub-Totals -1 (26,600) (18,750) (17,650) (20,000) (83,000)

Final report
typi ng and
publ ication .(2000-)


II r r II_


CAPE PHASE ITI


EVALUATION BUDGET


III. Miscellaneous
Office Expenses
Typist/clerical
assistance
Phone
Photocopying
Mailing


(850)


(850) ~


(850)


(3,850)


(1300)


$700
$400
$1.50
$50


$500
$200
$100
$50


$500
$200
$100
$50


$500
$200
$100
$50


(85,000)


Total