As universities tighten their financial belts and make decisions about program value, the need for evaluation data on program impact becomes increasingly more critical (McClure & Fuhrman, 2011). Extension educators can no longer afford to simply assume that their programs worked or that their worth would be self-evident (Rennekamp & Arnold, 2009). 

More than 40 years ago, Arnold (1983) admonished Extension professionals that it can no longer be taken for granted that programs are good and appropriate. Extension is operating in an environment that is more open to criticism and demands for justification of actions. All publicly funded agencies, not just Extension, are vulnerable to these times. In an era of accountability, Extension must be able to defend who and how people are being served. Extension also needs to document that programs are achieving positive results. 

Evaluation has been integral to Extension programming as a means of documenting program outcomes and impact (Lamm, Israel, & Diehl, 2013). With reduced state and federal funding, Extension organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of using evaluation data to demonstrate program value (McClure, Fuhrman, & Morgan, 2012).

With budgets shrinking, Cooperative Extension is competing for limited funds, and policy makers are demanding more accountability for publicly funded programs (Lamm, Israel, & Diehl, 2013; Peters & Franz, 2012). As a result, Extension administrators are placing emphasis on the need to document program outcomes and impacts to attain increased accountability. This heightened demand for accountability by administrators is forcing Extension educators to take steps to evaluate program outcomes and impacts (Baughman, Boyd, & Kelsey, 2012). In this era of accountability, Extension agents are expected to evaluate their programs for accountability (Diaz, Chaudhary, Jayaratne, & Warner, 2019).

Increased demand for accountability has forced Extension educators to evaluate their programs and document program impacts. Due to this situation, some Extension educators may view evaluation simply as the task, imposed on them by administrators, of collecting outcome and impact data for accountability. They do not perceive evaluation as a useful tool in Extension programming and, therefore, pay little or no attention to it. The purpose of this article is to describe how to integrate evaluation into Extension programming to gain all the benefits evaluation offers. These benefits include program improvement, monitoring and marketing, and Extension advocacy (Jayaratne, 2016). 

Evaluation can fit naturally into the Extension programming process. The Extension programming process begins with the identification and prioritization of the needs of the target audience. Then those prioritized needs are used to develop program objectives. Next, the program content, instructional strategies, and delivery techniques necessary for achieving the program objectives are developed (Jayaratne, 2016).

Despite the widespread demand for accountability, an ongoing debate within the evaluation community is whether the ultimate goal of program evaluation is to "prove" or "improve." When evaluation findings are used to demonstrate to critics that a program is worthy of continued investment, we approach evaluation with the mindset of having "something to prove." Other times evaluations are done with the aim of discovering new information that will help improve the program. When such new information is shared with others, we improve more than just the program in question but contribute to the body of knowledge that informs professional practice (Rennekamp & Arnold, 2009).

The 2024 Kentucky Volunteer Forum was designed to satisfy three programming goals: delivering cutting edge educational opportunities in a variety of formats, providing networking opportunities to facilitate information exchange, and recognizing adult and teen volunteers making the greatest impact on 4-H members and programs.  

Satisfying the educational goal were 223 educational workshops, divided into 23 content tracks.  Master Volunteer Accreditation offered specialized training in 9 core content areas; Seminars on Wheels provided volunteers with non-formal learning opportunities.  The Idea Share Fair included Service Projects; Educational, Commercial, & Entrepreneur exhibits, and 4-H members giving championship demonstrations.  

Twenty-three networking events enabled volunteers to visit with conference attendees and exchange information.  Separate awards were presented to adults and teens at two recognition events, based upon their contribution to and impact on the 4-H program.  150-10 year 4-H members were recognized.  KVF is the centerpiece of KY’s 4-H volunteer program; 1236 people attended from all 120 of Kentucky’s 120 counties, 17 states, and the District of Columbia.

The 2024 KVF was evaluated using a Qualtrics Survey.  Participants were invited to access the survey using a QR code, that was printed in both the 2024 KVF Workshop Booklet, the 2024 KVF Hall of Fame Recognition Booklet, posted in each of the 23 breakout rooms, and displayed on the PowerPoint slides at the conclusion of both recognition events.

Final registration counts for the 2024 KVF included the following:

1. 1236 people registered from 120 Kentucky counties and 13 states
2. 225 workshops were offered in 25 content tracks
3. 6 seminars on wheels
4. 9 Master Accreditation Content Areas; 73 volunteers completed accreditation requirements.
5. 75 volunteers were recognized in 13 recognition categories
6. 140 youth were recognized for completing 10 years of 4-H membership.
7. 12 current or former National 4-H Hall of Fame laureates were recognized.

Eight months following the Forum, on October, 16, 2024, a follow-up evaluation was developed and distributed to all adult volunteers who had registered for the Forum.  The evaluation was a quantitative Qualtrics Survey that was validated by an expert panel, consisting of the KVF Evaluation Committee (including 4-H and FCS Agents, the Extension Specialist for Volunteerism & Evaluation, and a volunteer serving both 4-H and FCS.)  

The population included all adult volunteers (890) and all adult award winners (200) attending the 2024 Kentucky Volunteer Forum (including duplications).   However, of the 1090 volunteers registered for the 2024 KVF, there were 413 adult volunteers and 74 adult award winners with usable email addresses.  The Qualtrics Survey link was emailed to the population on October 16, 2024.  A total of 27 emails were returned as invalid, undeliverable, or the wrong email address, yielding a sample of 460.  A total of 67 responses were collected, for a response rate of 14.57%.  Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

The evaluation instrument asked respondents “After attending KVF 2024, which did you do after returning home?”.   Their responses included “I became a more effective volunteer” (71%), “I increased my level of involvement in my county” (44%), “I taught a class or workshop” (40%), “I recruited new 4-H members” (40%), “I recruited volunteers” (29%), and “I became an Accredited Volunteer and coordinated a 4-H Project Area” (10%). 

When asked “What motivated you to attend KVF 2024?” the following responses were reported: “to attend workshops; obtain new information” (85%), “to get new ideas I could use” (78%), “to attend recognition events” (57%), “to network with other volunteers and staff” (48%), “to receive Master Volunteer status / become an Accredited Volunteer” (35%), “to make new friends” (22%), “to teach workshops” (14%).  

Interestingly, this compares with the question on the evaluation that was administered at the conclusion of the 2024 KVF as follows. The top four responses that motivated them to attend the 2024 KVF included workshops (20.94%), previous attendance (14.15%) networking opportunities (12.22%) and becoming motivated (11.25%).

When asked “How did attending the 2024 KVF better equip you to serve as a volunteer?” respondents reported: “to get new ideas I could use” (87%), “I learned new information” (75%), “to attend and be inspired by recognition events” (21%), “to network with other volunteers and staff”      (51%), “to obtain new resources and materials” (54%), “to be motivated, energized, and excited” (59%), “other” (6%).

Following the 2024 KVF, there was some discussion regarding the cost of printing.  The cost of printing 1300 copies of the workshop and recognition booklets was $11,898 (combined.)  The question was raised regarding the cost savings and suitability of a conference app.   Therefore, the KVF follow-up evaluation probed that topic by asking “How useful did you find the KVF 2024 Program Booklet?” Participants overwhelmingly reported the workshop book as either “extremely useful” or “very useful”.  Their responses included: “extremely useful” (43%), “very useful” (43%), “moderately useful” (11%), “slightly useful” (3%), “not useful at all” (0%). 

The follow-up question asked, “how pleased would you be to use an app instead of the workshop booklet at KVF 2026?”, to which they indicated they would not be very pleased.  Their responses included “extremely displeased” (25%), “somewhat displeased” (23%), “neither displeased nor pleased” (26%), “somewhat pleased” (22%), “extremely pleased” (12%).  

Finally, respondents were asked to rank the components of the 2024 Kentucky Volunteer Forum that were most valuable to them.   As expected, “workshops” were overwhelmingly ranked first, followed by “networking events” in a virtual tie with “recognition events”.  The entire list of 14 components is indicated in the table below.

Rank the components of KVF 2024 that were most valuable to you.

The 2024 Kentucky Volunteer Forum follow-up evaluation provided valuable insight to the perceptions of adult volunteers attending the 2024 Kentucky Volunteer Forum.  The follow-up evaluation helped us understand the motives that influenced volunteers to attend the event, how the Forum benefitted them in their volunteer role, determine the level of importance to place on different component of the Forum during the planning process, and helped us make budgetary decisions based on volunteer needs and perceptions.  The follow-up evaluation both proved and documented the Forum’s impact, and also provided valuable insight to improve it.