Program planning and evaluation frameworks for programs serving farmers with disabilities: Lessons learned from AgrAbility
| dc.contributor.author | Osman, Nesma | en |
| dc.contributor.committeechair | Archibald, Thomas G. | en |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Rudd, Rickie Duane | en |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Niewolny, Kimberly L. | en |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Peterson, Donna J. | en |
| dc.contributor.department | Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-09T08:01:36Z | en |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-09T08:01:36Z | en |
| dc.date.issued | 2022-06-08 | en |
| dc.description.abstract | One substantial vision of maintaining agricultural productivity and sustainability is to improve farmers' and communities' well-being and quality of life. Offering disability-inclusive programs can ideally improve agricultural producers' social, environmental, and economic conditions. In turn, it has the potential to accelerate efforts to achieve social justice across varied environments and contexts. Thus, the study explored AgrAbility as an agricultural assistance program serving people with disabilities. A mixed-method approach (survey and interview) was employed to (1) explore and aggregate frameworks used by different State and Regional AgrAbility Projects (SRAP) for planning assistance programs, (2) examine the common types of evaluations used for assessing AgrAbility program impact, and (3) identify good practices for maximizing self-report tools' usability in program evaluation. Sixteen AgrAbility states were included in this study (Iowa, West Virginia, Alaska, California, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Two states (Iowa and West Virginia) represent affiliated projects; the other states represent state/national projects. The planning survey was completed by 16 respondents, followed by interviews with 7 of them. The evaluation survey was completed by 11 respondents, followed by interviews with 7 AgrAbility participants (i.e., clients). Three integrated planning models (the Targeting Outcomes of Programs [TOP] model, Sork's planning domains, and Cervero and Wilson's planning model) were used as a conceptual framework to guide the study questions. The study findings offered a framework that could serve as a guideline to answer the following question: "To what extent is the ethical and social-political domain (i.e., power, interests, negotiation, and responsibilities) addressed or enacted within planning programs serving people with disabilities?" Also, the study findings revealed that self-report tools are very frequently used in evaluating AgrAbility outcomes. Ten recommendations were shared by AgrAbility evaluators and program participants with disabilities to improve self-report tools' usability and response rates, specifically in the disability context. | en |
| dc.description.abstractgeneral | Disability has profound effects on farm households. Agricultural workers with disabilities need adequate assistance programs to help them be productive and motivated and feel safe and independent while performing their work. Also, establishing disability-inclusive assistance programs can improve social, environmental, and economic conditions. In turn, these programs have the potential to accelerate efforts to achieve social justice. I explored AgrAbility as an agricultural assistance program serving people with disabilities. I sought to understand AgrAbility's practical implications for enhancing rural well-being and, in turn, seeking social justice. Sixteen AgrAbility states were included in this study (Iowa, West Virginia, Alaska, California, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin). They completed a survey asking questions about technical approaches to program planning, followed by interviews with 7. However, only 11 AgrAbility states completed the survey focused on some evaluation questions, followed by interviews with 7 AgrAbility participants with disabilities (i.e., clients). The purpose of the study was to (1) explore and aggregate frameworks used by different State and Regional AgrAbility Projects (SRAP) for planning assistance programs, (2) examine the common types of evaluations used for assessing AgrAbility program impact, and (3) identify good practices for maximizing self-report tools' usability in program evaluation. I came up with a framework that could serve as a guideline to answer the following question "To what extent is the ethical and social-political domain (i.e., power, interests, negotiation, and responsibilities) addressed or enacted within planning programs serving people with disabilities?" Also, the study findings showed that self-report tools are very frequently used in evaluating AgrAbility outcomes. Ten recommendations were shared by AgrAbility evaluators and program participants with disabilities to improve self-report tools' usability and response rates, specifically in the disability context. | en |
| dc.description.degree | Doctor of Philosophy | en |
| dc.format.medium | ETD | en |
| dc.identifier.other | vt_gsexam:35079 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10919/110512 | en |
| dc.language.iso | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Virginia Tech | en |
| dc.rights | In Copyright | en |
| dc.rights.uri | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | en |
| dc.subject | Program Planning | en |
| dc.subject | Evaluation | en |
| dc.subject | Self-Report Tool | en |
| dc.subject | Disability | en |
| dc.subject | Farming | en |
| dc.subject | Social Justice | en |
| dc.title | Program planning and evaluation frameworks for programs serving farmers with disabilities: Lessons learned from AgrAbility | en |
| dc.type | Dissertation | en |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Agricultural and Extension Education | en |
| thesis.degree.grantor | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | en |
| thesis.degree.level | doctoral | en |
| thesis.degree.name | Doctor of Philosophy | en |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1