































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 3, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Laura Greenhaw, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 219 Rolfs Halls, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL, 32611, 

laura.greenhaw@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1562-9798  

2. Rachel Biderman, PhD Candidate, University of Florida, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, rbiderman@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9738-5896  

14 

 

Evaluating an Agriculture and Natural Resources Leadership 
Development Program Utilizing the CIPP Model 

 
L. Greenhaw1, R. Biderman2 

 
 

Article History 
Received: March 19, 2025 
Accepted: August 4, 2025 
Published: August 22, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
leaders; SDG 4: Quality Education; 
adult education; outcomes; 
stakeholders 
  

Abstract 
The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of the Context, Input, 
Process, and Product (CIPP) model to evaluate agriculture and natural 
resources (ANR) leadership development programs (LDP). We evaluated 
Washington AgForestry Leadership Program, one of over 50 similarly 
structured ANR LDPs around the world, and used the CIPP model to 
determine the extent to which the leadership program is meeting both 
the current and future needs and expectations of stakeholders. We found 
the CIPP model to be an appropriate and adequate evaluation framework 
that resulted in robust data collection and analysis, leading to meaningful 
recommendations for Washington AgForestry. Overall, stakeholders 
support the current content and structure of the program and find it to 
be fulfilling the stated mission. Simultaneously, areas for immediate 
improvement, future growth, and longevity were noted. We recommend 
that other ANR LDPs conduct robust program evaluations using the CIPP 
model. Applying a consistent evaluation process to similarly structured 
ANR LDPs would build a valuable knowledge base of outcomes, impacts, 
and potential needs of such programs. Minimally, programs should 
develop and implement regular formative and summative evaluations to 
better understand and document program outcomes and impacts. 
Program directors should utilize evaluation data to continually improve 
their programs.  

 

https://agnettamu0-my.sharepoint.com/personal/karissa_palmer_agnet_tamu_edu/Documents/Desktop/laura.greenhaw@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1562-9798
mailto:rbiderman@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9738-5896


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   15 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
“Leadership is a highly sought-after and highly valued commodity” (Northouse, 2022, pg. 1). 
Agriculture and natural resources (ANR) leadership development programs (LDPs) provide non-
formal education to help build leadership capacity (Dunbar, 2022). ANR LDPs have existed since 
the 1960’s, beginning with the Kellogg Farmers Study Program administered by Michigan State 
University (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2000). Similar leadership development programs, 
specifically those in the International Association for Programs of Agricultural Leadership 
(IAPAL), span the globe and have over 25,000 alumni (Dunbar, 2022). However, limited research 
has been published on these programs’ outcomes. Program evaluations published to date 
report ANR LDPs enhance participants’ leadership knowledge, skills, networks and social capital, 
although continued rigorous evaluation of programs has been recommended (Carter & Rudd, 
2000; Lamm & Carter, 2019; Lamm et al., 2016; Madsen et al., 2014; W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 
2000). Moreover, most LDP evaluations focus on participant outcomes (Wallace et al., 2021) 
and neglect assessing program relevance within the broader context of the ANR industry. 
Furthermore, given that IAPAL member programs use similar program design and delivery 
methods and routinely share resources and information, an opportunity exists to strengthen 
the collective knowledge base by applying a consistent program evaluation approach. 
Therefore, we evaluated IAPAL member program, Washington AgForestry, using the Context, 
Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model to explore its utility as an evaluation framework for 
ANR LDPs, especially IAPAL member programs. Additionally, we sought to determine 
Washington AgForestry’s current relevance and potential future needs. Our use of the CIPP 
framework may guide evaluation of similar ANR leadership development programs. Moreover, 
our findings may inform facilitators’ or administrators’ decision-making for similar ANR LDPs. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
We used the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model, developed by Daniel 
Stufflebeam in 1960 to frame this evaluation. “The CIPP approach is based on the view that the 
most important purpose of evaluation is not to prove but to improve” (Stufflebeam, 1983, p. 
118). Information is systematically collected to identify program strengths and areas of growth. 
One benefit of the model is its broad application. Methodological decisions can be made based 
on what the program and evaluation teams want to know. Uniquely, the model “guides both 
the evaluators and stakeholders in posing relevant questions and conducting assessments at 
the beginning of a project (context and input evaluation), while it is in progress (input and 
process evaluation), and at its end (product evaluation)” (Zhang et al., 2011, p. 59). CIPP was 
originally designed to assess efficacy of inner-city school reform projects but has been applied 
to a wide variety of contexts from education to military personnel review and more 
(Stufflebeam, 2003).  
 
The CIPP model is a comprehensive framework that guides formative and summative 
evaluation of four concepts as denoted by the acronym: context, inputs, processes, and 
products (Stufflebeam, 2003). Context evaluation assesses program goals through research on 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   16 
 

program background, resources, and needs. It allows a broader group of stakeholders to weigh 
in on program priorities and objectives. This stage helps shape the direction of the overall 
evaluation. Input evaluation is aptly named, as it targets the inputs of a program with an aim to 
help assess alternative or competing approaches, staffing and budget plans and other inputs 
that should be considered when determining cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation assesses 
the activities and implementation of the program, to identify what changes need to be 
addressed. Finally, product evaluation focuses on program outcomes and how effectively needs 
are being met. Product evaluation includes intended and unintended, as well as short- and 
long-term outcomes, and is comprised of four subparts: impact, effectiveness, sustainability, 
and transportability. Transportability asks whether the processes that produced desirable 
outcomes were found to be transportable and adaptable for effective use in other settings 
(Stufflebeam, 2003). This is of particular importance given the similarities of ANR LDPs, 
especially those in IAPAL. 
 
A reciprocal relationship exists between each type of evaluation - context, input, process, and 
product- and four evaluative foci: goals, plans, actions, and outcomes, respectively 
(Stufflebeam, 2003). Each foci, and subsequently each type of evaluation, is grounded in the 
core values of the program being evaluated (see Figure 1). Accordingly, programs seeking to 
set, validate or improve goals engage in context evaluation. Planning improvement efforts raise 
input evaluation questions and input evaluation should, in turn, provide an assessment of 
program plans and direction for improving plans. Process evaluation is prompted by program 
actions and accordingly provides feedback on program activities. Outcomes necessitate product 
evaluation, which correspondingly provides judgements of results being achieved by the 
program. All of this, then, emanates from the program’s core values, as seen in Figure 1 
(Stufflebeam, 2003).  
 
Figure 1  
 
Key components of the CIPP Evaluation Model, recreated from Stufflebeam (2003) 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   17 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of the Context, Input, Process, and Product 
(CIPP) model to evaluate agriculture and natural resources (ANR) leadership development 
programs (LDPs). We systematically evaluated the Washington AgForestry Leadership Program 
to inform program administrators’ decision-making. Washington AgForestry, an active member 
of IAPAL, is an experiential leadership learning program for adults working in agriculture, 
forestry, and other natural resource-based businesses in Washington. The following questions 
guided this study:  
1. Does the CIPP model provide a useful framework to evaluate ANR LDPs? 
2. To what extent are the goals, plans, actions, and outcomes of Washington AgForestry 

meeting the current and future needs and expectations of stakeholders?  
 

Methods 
 
The Washington AgForestry evaluation was a multi-phase process, involving multiple data 
sources and collection points. Throughout the process, researchers reflected on the utility of 
the CIPP model as a framework for ANR LDP evaluation. The University of Florida’s Institutional 
Review Board (IRB) approved the research protocol and all participants in all phases were 
provided informed consent. Context and input evaluation was conducted with the program 
administrative team consisting of three members directly responsible for administering 
Washington AgForestry and the executive director of the Agriculture and Forestry Education 
Foundation that houses the leadership program. This provided the evaluation team a thorough 
understanding of program goals and the planned administration of the program. Process and 
product evaluation included three data points collected from two groups of participants. First, 
program perceptions were collected from purposefully selected stakeholders. Stakeholders 
represented varying relationships with Washington AgForestry and thus, varying perspectives. 
Examples include program donors, current and past program participants’ employers, program 
alumni, program Board of Directors members, and representatives of ANR organizations. 
Participants represented different parts of the state and varying industry interests. An 
electronic survey was sent to ten participants and nine responded. Ten open-ended questions 
gathered general perceptions of the program, including strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, 
and threats as well as the current reputation and value of the program. Second, program 
information and documents were organized into three categories: content and structure, 
participant recruitment and selection, and general policies and procedures. We identified 15 
people with expertise corresponding to at least one category and invited them to participate in 
a review of program documents and subsequent focus group. Experts included administrators 
of similar ANR LDPs, Washington AgForestry alumni, industry representatives, and leadership 
and adult education specialists. Each participant was assigned to the category corresponding to 
their expertise, given access to the relevant documents, and provided a fillable PDF form 
prompting them for feedback on the content of the documents (the actual information that 
exists regarding the program) and the process (the actual administration and facilitation of the 
program components). Subsequently, the experts were brought together for an in-person focus 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   18 
 

group, with the aim to clarify perceived program outcomes and consolidate feedback into 
actionable recommendations for the program administrators to consider. Program data from 
the context evaluation and a summary of the program perceptions survey results were shared 
at the beginning of the focus group to provide additional information, then experts convened in 
their assigned groups for category-specific discussion. Six participants discussed content and 
structure, four participants discussed recruitment and selection, and four participants discussed 
general policies and procedures. One expert was unable to attend the focus group. A 
designated note taker accompanied each group to prompt discussion, and capture thoughts, 
ideas, questions, and feedback. Following the initial round of discussions, participants were 
reassigned with at least one expert from each category group assigned to a new group, to 
provide an opportunity to identify overlapping discussion points and recommendations. Again, 
each new group was assigned a note taker. Finally, the full expert group was reconvened, and 
each category group shared their recommendations aloud for any additional perspective or 
comments. The final session was audio-recorded and transcribed. 
 
The program perceptions survey, expert comments from the document pre-review, notes from 
the segmented focus group sessions, and transcripts from the final open sharing and discussion 
of actionable recommendations were analyzed through basic qualitative analysis procedures. 
Inductive, or “open coding” was utilized, in which the evaluators read through the data and 
developed categories based on what was most important and recurring (Maxwell, 2013). To 
“condense large amounts of data into more manageable units for analysis” (Saldaña & Omasta, 
2022, p. 245) common recurring thoughts and ideas were grouped into similar categories 
labeled as codes. The codes were then compared and evaluated “both within and between 
categories” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 107), and themes were derived from the codes. To ensure 
validity of the research process, two approaches were taken. First, researcher bias was explored 
and mitigated by having a multi-person evaluation team, and findings were regularly reviewed 
with the Washington AgForestry administrators. Secondly, reactivity, which is defined as “the 
influence of the researcher on the setting or individuals studied” (Maxwell, 2013, p.124) was 
addressed through researcher reflexivity. 
 

Findings 
 
Our primary research question explored the utility of the CIPP model for evaluating ANR LDPs. 
CIPP can guide both formative and summative evaluation which is particularly useful for ANR 
LDPs because they are reiterative, selecting a cohort of participants, delivering the multi-
seminar program, graduating the cohort, then selecting a new cohort of participants. This 
provides an opportunity to evaluate previous iterations from a summative perspective while 
also conducting formative evaluation, given the ongoing nature of the program.  
 
Context 
Our context evaluation was primarily summative, seeking to assess the basis for program 
objectives and what needs, opportunities, or problems were identified that led to them. We 
analyzed program documents and information shared by program administrators to clarify 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   19 
 

what program goals were espoused and prioritized. This important first step allowed us to 
subsequently evaluate alignment between programmatic decision-making and stakeholder 
expectations. One challenge we encountered was the breadth of program information that 
existed, coupled with a lack of organization and consistency across documents. Conversations 
with program administrators were important sources of data as well as clarification of data. 
Overall, we found evaluating the context of Washington AgForestry to be a critical first step in 
the process.  
 
Input 
Our input evaluation focused primarily on the three-module framework that guided the 
delivery of Washington AgForestry across multiple seminars delivered in locations in-state, out-
of-state, and internationally. One limitation is the depth of information available about the 
content. Frequently, only seminar and presentation titles were in program documents, which 
made it difficult to discern what was conveyed and how. This could be enhanced through 
observations or by collecting data from current program participants. While we did not assess 
the program budget, we did evaluate programmatic choices in terms of time, other resources 
such as access to people and locations, participant time and tuition, and stakeholder priorities. 
Washington AgForestry administrators simultaneously evaluated their budget and assessed 
alternative choices and opportunities for future efforts. It may have been useful for program 
administrators to share budgetary information, particularly during the focus group, as it could 
have prompted additional or more applicable ideation considering budget resources and 
restrictions. Overall, we were able to evaluate inputs in a way that informed program 
administrators’ decision-making.  
 
Process 
We evaluated the Washington AgForestry process from two perspectives: internal from 
program administrators and external from other stakeholders, including alumni, industry 
experts, and leadership specialists. We found value in pairing the internal and external 
perspectives regarding program processes, particularly as a formative process for planning for 
future program needs and opportunities. Our evaluation uncovered actionable 
recommendations to modify some program processes, while retaining or clarifying other 
processes.  
 
Product 
As we engaged stakeholders, we sought to understand their perspectives of the impact 
Washington AgForestry has had on their industry and how they would articulate its value and 
importance. Although difficult to quantify, we were able to collect qualitative evidence that 
strongly supported the continuation of the Washington AgForestry Leadership Program, albeit 
with potential modifications. This section could have been further strengthened with greater 
clarity and agreement on program goals by program administrators, participants, and external 
stakeholders. Additionally, we identified an opportunity to develop an evaluation plan to 
engage program participants and alumni in assessing program outcomes and impacts.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   20 
 

In our evaluation process, we addressed each of the sections of CIPP. The flexibility of the 
model allowed us to ask a range of pertinent questions and collect and analyze a variety of data 
types from multiple sources. We included program administrators and external stakeholders at 
nearly every step. Most importantly, this robust process culminated in actionable 
recommendations for improvement alongside confirmation of the value of current program 
components, with supporting evidence, that were delivered to Washington AgForestry 
administrators and the Board of Directors.  
 
Our second research question explored the extent to which Washington AgForestry is meeting 
the current and future needs of stakeholders. Stufflebeam (2003) recommends evaluations be 
reported in three parts: program background, program implementation, and program results. 
Here, program background findings were derived from analysis of context and input evaluation 
data provided by program documents and communications with program staff and 
administrators. Program implementation findings were derived from analysis of program 
documents, conversations with program administrators, and external stakeholder feedback. 
Program results findings are the product of qualitative analysis of the program perceptions 
survey, focus group participants’ program document pre-review, notes from the focus group 
sessions, and transcripts from the final focus group discussion. These findings are presented as 
themes.  
 
Program Background 
Washington AgForestry began in 1978, graduating the first cohort in 1980. Washington 
AgForestry’s mission is to “cultivate leaders in agriculture, forestry, and natural resources who 
communicate, collaborate, inspire, and serve” (Washington AgForestry, n.d., pg. 2). Prospective 
participants must meet the following eligibility criteria: (a) lived and worked in Washington for 
at least one year; (b) obtain employer approval to take time from work necessary to complete 
program; and (c) remain employed in agriculture, forestry, or related natural resources industry 
(AFNR) for the remainder of the program. As of 2025, Washington AgForestry has graduated 45 
classes, totaling just over 1,200 individuals. Historically, more males than females have 
participated, participants are relatively equally distributed across the state, and most 
participants are employed in the agriculture industry, followed by community/related services, 
forestry, and fisheries. Participants in Class 45 were responsible for $6,000 tuition, plus 
additional expenses such as travel to and from seminars, some meals, a passport, etc. 
Importantly, it was noted that race/ethnicity and age data of applicants and participants have 
not been collected. 
 
Program Implementation 
Washington AgForestry participants are selected through a competitive application process. A 
Selection Committee reviews applications and interviews potential participants prior to 
selecting members for each class. Classes of 15-18 participants engage in nearly 60 days of 
education, through 13 seminars over 18 months. The program learning objectives are,  
1. Learn about exemplary leadership and identify personal strengths and development areas.  
2. Enhance communication skills including active listening, public speaking, and meeting 

facilitation. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   21 
 

3. Effectively work with people with different values, perspectives, and personalities. 
4. Build management skills that emphasize listening, questioning, and creating dialogue. 
5. Learn to inspire others through storytelling, emotion, and logic. 
6. Explore legislative, regulatory, economic, and social issues that impact natural resources 

industries and rural communities.  
7. Learn to take a collaborative approach to problem solving.  
8. Understand the public policy decision-making process and how public policy can be 

changed. 
9. Be equipped with tools for crafting and advancing effective public policy.  
10. Appreciate the value of relationships built on mutual respect and trust. 
11. Develop critical thinking skills. 
 
The program is conceptualized as three modules, each containing multiple seminars. Module 
one includes three in-state seminars on personal leadership. Two in-state seminars and a 
seminar in Washington, D.C. comprise the second module on leadership in public policy. The 
final module focuses on leadership and systems thinking, encompassing six seminars, including 
an international seminar. Each cohort concludes their program at a final applied leadership and 
graduation seminar, where they present group public policy projects and celebrate their 
accomplishments. Throughout the program, participants engage in direct instruction paired 
with experiential learning. They complete various activities, readings, assessments, and 
assignments to achieve the stated goals. In-state seminars are conducted at various locations 
around the state, highlighting the breadth and depth of the ANR industry in Washington 
(Washington AgForestry, n.d.).  
 
Program Results 
We evaluated both process and content in terms of program results, with an aim to determine 
if the current structure and delivery methods of the program can be improved and if the 
current content is and will continue to be relevant. Three major themes arose from our data 
analysis: continuity, diversity, and strength in numbers.  
  
Continuity  
The need for continuity emerged as a theme throughout the data. Particular attention was paid 
to whether and how program objectives, content, and outcomes were aligned and if program 
structure and administration supported the alignment. It was noted that program objectives 
should contain measurable outcomes, and those objectives should inform the content of the 
program. Questions were raised about whether current program objectives were measurable 
and, if so, how they were being measured. Likewise, program objectives should inform 
recruitment and selection processes as well as program policies and procedures. The 
knowledge and skills the program aims to develop should be relevant to and needed by the 
participants being recruited. Recruitment goals should be reflected in and supported by 
program policies and procedures. The curriculum map, including the scaffolded modules, was 
seen as a useful tool, especially for ensuring continuity. Similarly, the continuum articulated 
through the program design of guiding participants from a mindset of “learner” to “active 
participant” was noted as positive, and the use of intentional guided reflection was highlighted 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   22 
 

as an optimal way to help program participants connect learning objectives to outcomes they 
perceived or experienced, thus enhancing continuity. Key areas for improvement in this theme 
included refining and clarifying program objectives, aligning policies and activities with program 
objectives such as electing ‘officers’ among participants in each program class, and considering 
how program objectives should inform a recruitment plan and selection processes.  
 
A second aspect of continuity surfaced regarding alignment between program objectives and 
stakeholders’ expectations of program graduates. Program stakeholders include program 
administrators, participants, program alumni, ANR industry representatives and others. 
Specifically, external stakeholders indicated that program success was represented by 
graduates in ‘visible’ leadership roles (i.e. public advocacy, political positions, policy-making 
contributions, etc.). Simultaneously, concern about the lack of traditional agriculture producers’ 
participation was expressed. Focus group participants acknowledged time and cost constraints 
as likely barriers to producers’ participation. There may be misalignment between the desire for 
increased producer participation and the expectation that program alumni fulfill visible 
leadership roles “beyond the farm gate.” Additionally, one focus group participant noted that 
the program “seems to have limited visibility, both within the agriculture and forestry industry, 
and certainly outside those industries.” There seemed to be a disconnect between who is 
participating in the class and who the program was intended to attract and serve, as well as 
stakeholders’ expectations regarding who should be participating in the program and what 
successful program alumni should be doing.  
 
Diversity  
Diversity arose in two distinct yet related ways: diversity of perspectives in content, and 
diversity of participants. Regarding diverse perspectives in content, it was noted that a primary 
outcome for program participants is broad and deep understanding across agriculture and 
natural resources (ANR) industries, from local to global levels. Moreover, it was suggested that 
incorporating content beyond traditional ANR, to include the whole food system as well as 
high-level, cross-cutting issues, such as sustainability, artificial intelligence, and inclusion might 
be beneficial. It was emphasized that various perspectives should not just be acknowledged but 
be incorporated throughout content in an equitable way, including attention to language used, 
the ways in which content is presented, and the amount of time allotted to various 
perspectives.  
 
Regarding diversity of participants, the need for a diverse candidate pool and balanced 
selection process aimed at achieving desired representation was expressed. Two specific 
demographic categories of concern were identified; primary industry and race/ethnicity. The 
qualitative data clearly conveyed a concern for increasing the number of participants who 
identify as traditional agricultural producers. The most recent program data indicates a trend of 
nearly half of class participants identifying their primary industry as “community or related 
services” including banking, insurance, conservation districts, government agencies, etc. 
Qualitative data also indicated stakeholder desire for increasing the number of applicants and 
participants from Tribal communities and communities of color. It is important to note that race 
and ethnicity demographics have not been historically collected from applicants or participants, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   23 
 

so their representation or lack thereof cannot be substantiated quantitatively at this point. 
Importantly, stakeholders recognized the program currently does not have a recruitment plan 
and shared concerns that the program may not achieve diverse applicants or participants 
without intentional recruitment efforts focused on desired demographics.  
 
Strength in Numbers  
Networking and network development were identified as important outcomes for program 
participants. Despite some deliberation among focus group participants about how the 
program could be administered differently to address financial, time, or other challenges, there 
was overwhelming agreement that participant relationships developed because of time spent 
together and outweighed any potential advantages of a different program structure. One 
program alum stated, “It was a life changing experience where I gained confidence, a robust 
network and a group of lifelong friends.” Moreover, data suggest that network development 
and maintenance should extend beyond time in the program, to engage alumni more 
intentionally and effectively. This may also lend itself to continuing education opportunities for 
alumni.  
 
Ideas related to enhancing cohesion of the cohort surfaced as well. Stakeholders encouraged 
the expectation of 100% attendance at seminars. They also recommended that additional 
equitable policies modeled after the existing international travel policy be considered to further 
encourage cohesion of class participants. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
We found the CIPP model to be a useful evaluation framework for an ANR LDP. The model is 
robust yet flexible, which allowed us to address pertinent questions for program 
administrators’ decision-making, leading to meaningful recommendations. We incorporated a 
wide variety of perspectives through our data collection to support a well-rounded evaluation 
of Washington AgForestry. Moreover, this approach can be both formative and summative, 
which may facilitate continual improvement of ongoing, iterative programs. Program evaluation 
can be time-intensive and complex. We recognize not all programs have resources to conduct 
such a holistic evaluation. However, evaluators do not have to carry out all four CIPP model 
components. Rather, program administrators and evaluators should carefully consider which 
are most important, given the life stage of the program, the purpose of the evaluation, and the 
availability or accessibility of data. We recommend IAPAL members and other similar ANR LDPs 
use the CIPP model for evaluation and share their process and results. Stufflebeam’s (2003) 
recommended reporting format of program background, context, and results enhances 
transferability. Applying a consistent model to evaluate similarly structured ANR LDPs would 
build a valuable knowledge base documenting outcomes, impacts, and potential needs of such 
programs, potentially resulting in collectively improving programs.  
 
Regarding the Washington AgForestry Leadership Program, we conclude that the current 
content and structure is fulfilling the stated mission and there is strong stakeholder support. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   24 
 

Simultaneously, areas for improvement, future growth and longevity were noted. The cohort 
model was noted as a strength and critical for achieving the network identified as one of the 
most important outcomes for participants, the program, and the industry. We strongly 
recommend the cohort model be retained and opportunities to further enhance and support 
the development and maintenance of participants’ and alumni networks be considered.  
 
Two primary areas for improvement were identified, namely continuity and diversity. Regarding 
continuity, we conclude that alignment from stakeholder expectations, through program 
objectives, to measurement of objectives is important and should be carefully reviewed. 
Moreover, consistency throughout and across program documents and communications can 
confirm and enhance alignment. Therefore, we recommend that Washington AgForestry 
conduct a thorough review of program documents to ensure consistency and alignment of 
program objectives, policies, and communications. Regarding diversity, stakeholders voiced a 
desire to ensure various perspectives were considered and presented equitably across 
programming. This may be difficult to document, however, we recommend that program 
administrators consider what perspectives are included in future programming. Additionally, 
stakeholders shared concern regarding diversity of participants, specifically the number who 
identified as traditional agricultural producers as well as participants who identified as a 
member of a Tribal community or person of color. Given the robust discussion about this topic, 
we conclude that demographic makeup of cohorts is a concern of stakeholders and therefore 
recommend that program administrators work with stakeholders to identify the ideal mix of 
participant demographics in each cohort and develop a corresponding recruitment plan. 
Important demographics should be collected consistently during the application and selection 
process, and if possible, data from previous participants should be collected so an accurate 
assessment of historical participant demographics can guide decision-making.    
 
Finally, we recommend Washington AgForestry and other ANR LDPs establish and maintain an 
evaluation plan, regularly collecting and analyzing relevant data to ensure program objectives 
are being realized in the best way possible.  
 

Acknowledgments 
 
We thank Hannah Poush, Kyle Brooksher, Julie Grenfell and Vicky Scharlau who were our 
partners at Washington AgForestry and Agriculture and Forestry Education Foundation, without 
whom this work would not have been possible. Thank you for initiating this work, inviting us to 
conduct this evaluation, and providing information and support throughout the process. 
 
Funding Information: This research was funded by the Washington State Department of 
Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Grant program, Grant No. K3952 (AGR00026754) 
 
Conflict of interest: There are no known conflicts of interest. 
 
Previous Dissemination: This evaluation research has not been previously reported. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   25 
 

 
Artificial Intelligence: No artificial intelligence was used in the development of this manuscript.  
 
Author Contribution Statement: L. Greenhaw- conceptualization, methodology, formal 
analysis, investigation, writing- original draft, review, & editing, supervision, project 
administration; R. Biderman- formal analysis, investigation, writing- original draft, review, & 
editing.   

References 
 
Carter, H., & Rudd, R. D. (2000). Evaluation of the Florida leadership program for agriculture 

and natural resources. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 50(1), 199–
219. http://jsaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Volume-50-Full-Issue.pdf   

 
Dunbar, J. D. (2022, July). International Association of Programs for Agricultural Leaders. Who 

we are. https://www.iapaleadership.org/who-we-are  
 
Lamm, K. W., & Carter, H. S. (2019). Leadership development program evaluation: A social 

network analysis approach. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 69(1), 
4-19. http://jsaer.org/2019/01/02/leadership-development-program-evaluation-a-
social-network-analysis-approach/  

 
Lamm, K. W., Carter, H. S., & Lamm, A. J. (2016). Evaluating extension-based leadership 

development programs in the southern United States. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
57(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01121   

 
Madsen, W., O’Mullan, C., & Keen-Dyer, H. (2014). Learning and leadership: Evaluation of an 

Australian rural leadership program. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(1), 30–49.  
 
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE Publications, 

Inc.  
 
Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Washington AgForestry. (n.d.). Participant program handbook. 

https://agforestry.org/programs/ 
 
Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2022). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. SAGE Publications, Inc.  
 
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In: D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. 

Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 279–317). Springer, Dordrecht. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_7  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591
http://jsaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Volume-50-Full-Issue.pdf
https://www.iapaleadership.org/who-we-are
http://jsaer.org/2019/01/02/leadership-development-program-evaluation-a-social-network-analysis-approach/
http://jsaer.org/2019/01/02/leadership-development-program-evaluation-a-social-network-analysis-approach/
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01121
https://agforestry.org/programs/
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_7


Greenhaw and Biderman  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591   26 
 

Stufflebeam D. L. (2003, October 3). The CIPP model for evaluation. [Paper presentation]. 
Annual conference of the Oregon program evaluators network (OPEN), Portland, OR, 
United States. https://goeroendeso.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cipp-
modeloregon10-031.pdf  

 
Wallace, D. M., Torres, E. M., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2021). Just what do we think we are doing? 

Learning outcomes of leader and leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 
32(5), 101494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101494  

 
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2000). The legacy of the ag leadership development program: Rich 

heritage cultivates future opportunities (Item #534). W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  
 
Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C., & Misulis, K. (2011). Using 

context, input, process and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive 
framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning 
programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 57–83. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ957107.pdf   

 
© 2025 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.591
https://goeroendeso.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cipp-modeloregon10-031.pdf
https://goeroendeso.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cipp-modeloregon10-031.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101494
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ957107.pdf

