Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsAGRICULTURE-PAPER-I202510 Marks
हिंदी में पढ़ें
Q27.

8. (c) Explain in detail about Bennett's hierarchy extension programme evaluation model.

How to Approach

The question asks for a detailed explanation of Bennett's Hierarchy Extension Programme Evaluation Model. The approach should involve defining the model, detailing each of its seven hierarchical levels, and explaining its utility in evaluating extension programs. It is crucial to highlight the 'chain of events' logic and how evidence strengthens as one moves up the hierarchy. Incorporating examples, and discussing its application in agricultural extension, will enrich the answer.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

Programme evaluation is a systematic process of assessing the effectiveness, impact, and outcomes of initiatives, crucial for accountability and continuous improvement, especially in dynamic fields like agricultural extension. In this context, various models have been developed to provide a structured approach to evaluation. Among them, Bennett's Hierarchy Extension Programme Evaluation Model, developed by Claude Bennett in the 1970s, stands out as a widely used and robust framework. This model provides a "seven-link chain of events" that helps extension professionals plan, implement, and evaluate programs by logically linking inputs to ultimate end results, thereby ensuring that evaluation efforts are comprehensive and outcome-oriented.

Bennett's Hierarchy Extension Programme Evaluation Model

Bennett's Hierarchy is a widely recognized evaluation model, particularly in agricultural and rural extension, designed to assess the effectiveness and impact of programs. It posits a logical, sequential "chain of events" across seven levels, where evidence of program impact strengthens as one ascends the hierarchy. This model helps in structuring evaluation efforts from basic resource allocation to long-term societal changes.

Seven Levels of Bennett's Hierarchy

The model is typically depicted as a staircase or a chain, with each level building upon the previous one. The seven levels are:

  1. Inputs: This foundational level refers to the resources invested in an extension program.
    • Description: These are the tangible and intangible resources required to conduct the program.
    • Examples: Funds, personnel (extension workers, specialists), equipment, materials (handouts, demonstration kits), time, facilities, and knowledge base.
  2. Activities: This level focuses on the actions taken or services provided by the extension program utilizing the inputs.
    • Description: The specific educational or developmental activities conducted.
    • Examples: Workshops, training sessions, field days, demonstrations, farmer visits, development of educational materials, advisory services, use of mass media.
  3. Participation: This level measures the engagement of the target audience in the program activities.
    • Description: The extent to which the intended beneficiaries participate in the planned activities.
    • Examples: Number of farmers attending workshops, number of participants in field demonstrations, frequency of engagement with extension agents, duration of participation.
  4. Reactions: This level assesses the immediate responses and satisfaction of participants regarding the program activities.
    • Description: Participants' feelings, perceptions, and attitudes towards the activities.
    • Examples: Feedback on program quality, relevance, satisfaction with trainers, perceived usefulness of information, interest generated. This is often measured through feedback forms or informal discussions.
  5. Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Aspirations (KASA) Change: This is a crucial intermediate outcome level, focusing on internal changes within participants.
    • Description: Changes in participants' understanding (Knowledge), their feelings or predispositions (Attitudes), their ability to perform tasks (Skills), and their desire for future actions (Aspirations).
    • Examples: Increased knowledge about new farming techniques, positive attitude towards sustainable practices, improved skills in pest management, aspiration to adopt new technologies or increase yield.
  6. Practice Change (Behavior Change): This level measures the actual adoption of new behaviors or practices by the participants.
    • Description: The application of acquired KASA into tangible actions and changes in farming methods or household practices.
    • Examples: Adoption of new crop varieties, implementation of improved irrigation methods, use of recommended fertilizers, adoption of hygienic practices, diversification of crops.
  7. End Results (Social, Economic, Environmental Conditions - SEEC): This is the highest level of the hierarchy, focusing on the ultimate societal, economic, and environmental impacts.
    • Description: The long-term, broader impacts on individuals, communities, and the environment, often reflecting the ultimate goals of the program.
    • Examples: Increased agricultural productivity and income, improved food security, enhanced livelihood, reduced environmental degradation, improved community health, poverty reduction.

Utility and Significance of Bennett's Hierarchy

Bennett's Hierarchy offers several benefits for extension program planning and evaluation:

  • Logical Framework: It provides a clear, step-by-step logic that connects program investments and activities to desired outcomes and impacts.
  • Comprehensive Evaluation: It encourages evaluators to move beyond merely measuring activities or participation and delve into actual changes in KASA, practices, and ultimate end results.
  • Improved Program Design: By considering the hierarchy during planning, extension professionals can design programs with a clear understanding of the desired outcomes at each level, making objectives more measurable.
  • Accountability and Justification: The higher up the hierarchy evaluation data is collected, the stronger the evidence of program impact, which is vital for demonstrating accountability to funders and stakeholders. Bennett stated that "Evidence of program impact becomes stronger as the hierarchy is ascended" (Bennett, 1975).
  • Resource Allocation: Evaluation results at different levels can inform decisions about resource allocation, ensuring that funds are directed towards effective strategies.
  • Continuous Improvement: Identifying where a program is falling short within the hierarchy can provide actionable insights for mid-course corrections and future program refinements. For instance, if KASA changes are observed but not practice changes, it indicates a gap in application or motivation.

Challenges in Applying Bennett's Hierarchy

While powerful, applying Bennett's Hierarchy also presents challenges:

  • Difficulty and Cost: Obtaining robust data for higher levels (Practice Change and End Results) is often more difficult, time-consuming, and costly than for lower levels.
  • Attribution: Attributing long-term end results solely to an extension program can be challenging due to numerous confounding factors and external influences.
  • Time Lag: Impacts at the higher levels may only become apparent after a significant time lag, requiring long-term monitoring and evaluation.

Integration with Program Development

The model is not just for evaluation but also serves as a program development tool. By starting with the desired end results, planners can work backward through the hierarchy to identify the necessary practice changes, KASA changes, activities, and inputs required to achieve those results. This ensures that programs are designed with a clear logical pathway to impact.

Conclusion

Bennett's Hierarchy Extension Programme Evaluation Model remains an indispensable framework for agricultural and rural extension. By systematically categorizing program elements from inputs to end results, it offers a robust tool for planning, implementing, and evaluating initiatives. Its hierarchical structure emphasizes the increasing strength of evidence as one moves towards higher levels of impact, fostering greater accountability and informed decision-making. Despite the inherent challenges in measuring long-term outcomes, its comprehensive approach ensures that extension programs are not only well-executed but also demonstrably contribute to significant improvements in the lives of farmers and the sustainability of agricultural practices.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Evaluate your handwritten answer in under a minute

Free trial available • Trusted by 1,00,000+ aspirants

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Extension Programme Evaluation
A systematic process of assessing the effectiveness, impact, and outcomes of agricultural or rural extension initiatives to ensure they meet their objectives and serve the needs of farmers and rural communities effectively.
KASA Change
An acronym representing changes in Knowledge (what participants know), Attitudes (how they feel), Skills (what they can do), and Aspirations (what they want to do) as a result of participating in an extension program.

Key Statistics

According to a 2023 report by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), agricultural extension services reach approximately 40% of farming households directly, highlighting the need for robust evaluation models like Bennett's Hierarchy to assess the impact on the remaining households and improve outreach effectiveness.

Source: ICAR Report, 2023

Studies indicate that while 70-80% of agricultural extension programs successfully achieve outcomes at the 'Reactions' level (participant satisfaction), only 30-40% demonstrate verifiable 'End Results' (significant improvements in income or productivity), underscoring the challenge and importance of measuring higher-level impacts.

Source: Various agricultural extension evaluation studies (e.g., FAO, 2018)

Examples

Neem-Coated Urea (NCU) Promotion

An extension program promoting Neem-Coated Urea (NCU) would use Bennett's Hierarchy. Inputs would include government subsidies, extension staff, and demonstration plots. Activities would involve farmer training and field days. Participation would be the number of farmers attending. Reactions would be farmer feedback on ease of use. KASA change would be farmers' increased knowledge about NCU benefits. Practice change would be the actual adoption of NCU by farmers. End results would be reduced nitrogen loss, improved soil health, and increased crop yields leading to higher farmer income.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Training

In an IPM extension program, inputs would be training modules, entomologists, and pesticide alternatives. Activities would be hands-on training sessions and field scouting. Participation is the number of farmers actively involved in IPM practices. Reactions would be farmers' positive views on reducing chemical use. KASA changes would involve farmers understanding pest life cycles and identifying beneficial insects. Practice change would be the reduced application of chemical pesticides and adoption of biological control. End results would be decreased input costs, healthier produce, and reduced environmental pollution.

Frequently Asked Questions

▶How does Bennett's Hierarchy differ from a simple logic model?

While both are conceptual tools for program planning and evaluation, Bennett's Hierarchy is specifically tailored for educational and extension programs, providing more detailed and specialized levels of outcomes, particularly the KASA (Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, Aspirations) change, which is a crucial precursor to practice change. A generic logic model typically has broader categories like short, medium, and long-term outcomes.

Topics Covered

AgricultureRural DevelopmentAgricultural ExtensionProgramme EvaluationResearch Methods
Back to all AGRICULTURE-PAPER-I 2025 questions