Advancements in Agricultural Development Volume 6, Issue 2, 2025 agdevresearch.org 1. David Agole, Senior Lecturer, Mountains of the Moon University, P.O Box 837 Fort Port, Uganda, david.agole@mmu.ac.ug, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1297-983X 2. Mark A. Brennan, Professor, Pennsylvania State University, 204 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802, unescochair@psu.edu, mab187@psu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8434-3948 3. Connie D. Baggett, Associate Professor Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, bbc@psu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8434-3948 4. John C. Ewing, Associate Professor Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University, 215 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802, jce122@psu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9189-1106 5. Amanda Crump, Associate Professor, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 USA, acrump@ucdavis.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9710-2956 6. Cosmas Wacal, Lecturer, Mountains of The Moon University, P.O Box 837 Fort Port, Uganda, cosmas.wacal@mmu.ac.ug, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-3191 1 Determinants of Food Security Status among Young Farmers with and without Disabilities D. Agole1, M. A. Brennan2, C. D. Baggett3, J. C. Ewing4, A. Crump5, C. Wacal5 Article History Received: November 11, 2024 Accepted: March 10, 2025 Published: April 1, 2025 Keywords agricultural extension; SDG 2: Zero Hunger; participation; policy; Uganda Abstract Food is a basic need; thus, food security status is key to well-being of young farmers. This study examined factors that influence food security status of young farmers with and without disabilities in Uganda. Specifically, the study examined the influence of disability status, region of location, gender, social exclusion, participation in agricultural programs, and social capital on food security of young farmers. The study utilized a comparative and cross-sectional research designs that involved 774 young farmers; 388 with disabilities and 386 who had no disabilities. The sample selection involved the use of stratified, random, and criterion purposive sampling. This research utilized an interviewer-administered paper survey in collecting data. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used in analysing data. The findings indicated disability as a factor of social exclusion as the most curtailing to food security, especially in Eastern Uganda. Participation in training programs and social capital development were most likely to increase food security status of young farmers. Therefore, disability-inclusive provision of agricultural extension services targeting young farmers, disability-inclusive awareness raising, and effective implementation of existing disability policies could create an enabling environment to make young farmers food secure. mailto:david.agole@mmu.ac.ug https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1297-983X mailto:unescochair@psu.edu mailto:mab187@psu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8434-3948 mailto:bbc@psu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8434-3948 mailto:jce122@psu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9189-1106 mailto:acrump@ucdavis.edu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9710-2956 mailto:cosmas.wacal@mmu.ac.ug https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-3191 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 2 Introduction and Problem Statement Currently, Uganda's population is 45.9 million, with young people under 30 years of age constituting 72.3%, as the largest demographics (Uganda Bureau of Statistics [UBOS], 2024). According to Uganda’s Constitution, youth demographic is that category of people between 18 and 35 years of age, which makes up 24.8% of the country’s total population (UBOS, 2024). The African Youth Charter refers youth as individuals between 15 and 35 years of age (African Youth Commission, 2006; Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2015). While Uganda Bureau of Statistics defines the active working age in Uganda as between 15 and 64 years of age as 57.4% of the total population, this study focuses on young farmers between 15 and 45 years of age, representing 43.5% of the active working population (UBOS, 2024). Despite Uganda’s commitment to SDG 2; end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, food insecurity is still rampant among young farmers in Uganda (Adeyanju et al., 2023; Moore et al., 2021 Schwartz et al., 2019). This is further justified by the 2024 Global Hunger Index that ranked Uganda as 105th out 127 countries globally with a score of 27.3 (severe), against the 18.3 score for the world considered moderate (Global Hunger Index, 2024). While the Global Hunger Index for Uganda is 27.3, food security situation for people with disability that constitute 12.4% of Uganda’s population (UBOS, 2024), experience a double disadvantage against attaining food security because of social exclusion as a youth and having a disability (Agole et al., 2021). Theoretical and Conceptual Framework Disability refers to as a limitation in participation in daily living, work, or leisure activities resulting from physical or mental health condition. The study is informed by the social model of disability (Burton, 1993) and interactional theory (Wilkinson, 1991). The social model, which is mostly used in disability studies in the global South; as a disadvantage society imposes on people with disabilities that impedes them from accessing existing social and economic opportunities, rendering them dependent on other people for support services (Ikendi et al., 2023; Lamino et al., 2024). While most disability studies in the global North prefer the medical model (Eide et al., 2021), which views disability as pathological condition– an individual affected can be diagnosed and treated (Agole et al., 2019). Therefore, the social model of disability seeks to explain how social structural barriers in society disadvantage people with disability from accessing benefits meant for the public like participating in agricultural extension capacity building programs. Most often people with disability are either directly or indirectly deprived from participating in public programs by outrightly being told to wait for programs that specifically target them that never come or are denied information (Agole, 2021). This deprives people with disability the right to participate in public programs that are meant to benefit the public, a factor that keeps constrains people with disabilities from developing capacities that would enhance agricultural productivity to assure food security. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 3 This study used the interactional theory to understand the influence of interactions of people with disability with other members of community to assure food security. The theory posits that a community is comprised of social fields that emanate from individual community members that allow people to connect and interact with one another to form community fields (Pigg, 1999; Wilkinson,1991). From this perspective, creation of social fields tends to develop wider interactions of community members, which in turn allows individuals to access resources like information on existing capacity building programs a factor that would promote participation of people with disabilities in capacity building programs meant for the public (Agole, 2021). Therefore, the individuals with strength social fields tend to access community benefits as opposed to individuals that experience weak social fields. The conceptual framework (Figure 1) is derived from the social model of disability and interactional theory. This study conceptualized food security to be influenced broadly by disability status, region of location, stigma of social exclusion, participation in capacity-building programs, and social capital. Figure 1 Conceptual Framework Purpose The primary purpose of this paper was to examine factors that influence food security situation among young farmers with and without disability in Uganda. The specific objectives of this study were to assess the influence of disability status, region of location, social exclusion, participation in training programs, and social capital on food security status of young farmers with and without disability. Methods This study was conducted in the Northern and Eastern regions of Uganda because they have the highest disability rates in Uganda, with 14.5% in Northern and 14% in Eastern (Uganda Bureau of Statistic, 2024). The study employed a comparative and cross-sectional research designs. The sample size of 774 young farmers, 388 with and 386 without disability of 16 to 45 years of age, was determined using sampling a table of 95% confidence, with a 5% margin of Individuals’ Characteristics • Disability status • Gender • Region of location • Institutional Factors • Participation in capacity building programs • Social capital • Stigma of social exclusion Food security • Number of meals eaten in a day https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 4 error. The sample composed of 493 selected from Northern Uganda (258 with disability and 235 without disability) and 281 from Eastern Uganda (130 with disabilities and 151 without disabilities). Young farmers with disabilities were in the categories of: speaking, hearing, walking, handling, and visual disabilities. The study employed a mixture of stratified, simple random, and purposive criterion sampling techniques (Table 1). Northern and Eastern regions were purposively selected to participate in the study. The regions were stratified into districts. With the district level, as a point of entry to respondents, a list of all people with disabilities was obtained from the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU) district offices, which served as the sampling frame for individuals. The unit of analysis for enumeration was the individual young farmer with or without disability. The sample scheme is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Sampling Scheme for 774 Young Farmers with and without Disabilities Stratified Purposive Random With Disability (N = 388) With out Disability (N = 386) Reason Region Northern 258 235 Have highest disability rates Eastern 130 151 Sub region Acholi Gulu District 111 Gulu District 85 Protracted civil was between 1986 and 2004 Nwoya District 70 Nwoya District 34 Omoro District 52 Omoro District 107 Amuru District 20 Amuru District 06 Agago District 05 Agago District 03 Teso Kumi District 103 Kumi District 83 Bukedea District 27 Bukedea District 22 Ngora District 46 The interviewer-administered paper survey, only differentiated by the disability demographic, was used for collecting quantitative data from young farmers with or without disabilities. Social exclusion and social capital were measured on five-point Likert scale responses consisting of most often = 5, often = 4, sometimes = 3, rarely = 2, and not at all = 1. Item on young farmers participation in training programs were rated on a scale of very high = 5, high = 4, neither high nor low = 3, low = 2, and very low = 1. Food security was rated on a four-point response scale consisting of once = 1, two times = 2, three times = 3, and four times = 4, because four is the highest number of meals eaten in a day Eastern and Northern regions of Uganda. Cronbach Alpha (α) was used for testing internal consistency of the summated scales and ranged between α = .76 and α = .94. The reliability analysis for participation α = .94, social capital α = .76, food security α = .86, social exclusion α = .87. Data were collected in 2017 by research enumerators https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 5 that included social workers with disability organizations, youth with disabilities, and sign language interpreters in accordance with standards approved by Penn State University Institutional Research Board. Data for young farmers with or without disabilities were entered in SPSS as separate data files, cleaned, then two data sets were merged with identifier variables created regarding disability status and region. The study employed basic descriptive univariate statistics, bivariate correlations and regression analysis to identify factors that influenced (explain) food security situation of young farmers with and without disabilities. Factors with significance p = or < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Findings The findings of the influence of social exclusion, region of location, gender, participation in training programs, and social capital on food security status of young farmers are summarized in descriptive statistics in Table 2, and empirical findings in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. Descriptive Statistics There were more young farmers with disabilities in Northern Uganda (33.3%) than Eastern Uganda (18.8%). Also, there were more young farmers without disabilities in Northern region (30.4%) than in Eastern region (19.5%). Also, in Table 2, generally very few young farmers with disabilities in Northern region have worked with extension workers on issues related with agriculture (7.7%) and Eastern Uganda (10.7%) and young farmers without disabilities in without in Eastern region (9.3%) and Northern region (8.5%). Both young farmers with disability in Eastern region (27.8%) and Northern region (24.1%) and those without disabilities in Eastern (25.6%) and Northern (21.2%) regions are members of farmer groups in their communities. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 6 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Used in the Study (N = 774) Variables used in the study With Disability (N = 388) Without Disability (N = 386) Eastern Region (N = 130) Northern Region (N = 258) Eastern Region (N = 151) Northern Region (N = 235) % % % % Disability status (N = 774) 16.80 33.30 19.50 30.40 Region of Uganda (N = 774) Eastern (N = 281) 16.80 19.50 Northern (N = 493) 33.30 30.40 Gender Female (N = 247) 12.10 20.30 16.70 13.40 Male (N = 527) 34.20 32.00 37.00 34.30 Participation in extension programs Have you worked with any extension worker on issues related with agriculture? Yes (N = 136) 10.70 7.70 9.30 8.50 No (N = 638) 35.60 44.60 44.50 39.10 Have you been contacted to participate in any community training programs? Yes (N = 136) 10.70 7.70 9.30 8.50 No (N = 638) 35.60 44.60 44.50 39.10 Stigma of exclusion Are you a member of any social group in your community? Yes (N = 372) 27.80 24.10 25.60 21.20 No (N = 399) 18.50 28.60 28.10 26.10 Social capital M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Interact with people outside of your community (N = 773) 3.42(0.931) 3.74(1.069) 3.60(1.053) 3.82(1.094) Travel to places outside of your community (N = 773) 2.50(1.087) 3.00(1.248) 3.09(1.061 3.68(1.188) Food security How many times do eat a meal in a day (N = 767) 1.79(0.764) 2.10(0.618) 2.09(0.653) 2.56(0.690) Correlation Results The factors of social exclusion, region of location, gender, participation in capacity building programs, social capital and food security status of young farmers were correlated to determine the relationship among factors with food security as summarized in Table 3. There is a statistically significant positive relationship between region of Uganda (r = .25, p < .01), working with any extension worker on agriculture (r = .15, p < .01), interact with people outside of your community (r = .14, p < .01), traveling to places outside of your community (r = https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 7 .35, p < .01) and food security status of young farmers. There is a statistically significant negative relationship between disability status (r = -.26, p < .01) and food security. Table 3 Correlation Coefficient of the Factors Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Disability status 1 .06 (p<.11, n = 774) .01 (p<.97, n = 774) -.42** (p<.00, n = 562) -.05 (p<.21, n = 771) .06 (p<.12, n = 774) -.05 (p<.21, n = 773) -.25** (p<.00, n =773) -.26** (p<.00, n = 767) 2. Region of Uganda .06 (p<.11, n = 774) 1 .05 (p<.20, n = 774) -.08 (p<.06, n = 562) .08* (p<.03, n=771) .05 (p<.17, n = 774) .12** (p<.01, n = 773) .20** (p<.00, n = 773) .25** (p<.00, n = 767) 3. Have you worked with any extension worker? .01 (p<.97, n = 774) .057 (p<.19, n = 774) 1 .38** (p<.00, n = 562) .24** (p<.00, n=771) .05 (p<.13, n = 774) -.01 (p<.79, n = 773) -.05** (p<.17, n = 773) .15** (p<.00, n = 767) 4. Have you been contacted to participate in any training? -.42** (p<.00, n = 562) -.08 (p<.07, n = 562) .38** (p<.00, n = 562) 1 .33** (p<.00, n = 559) -.01 (p<.90, n = 562) -.03 (p<.56, n = 561) -.02 (p<.69, n = 561) .09* (p<.03, n = 555) 5. Are you a member of any social group? -.05 (p<.21, n = 771) .08* (p<.03, n = 771) .24** (p<.00, n = 771) .33** (p<.00, n = 559) 1 -.10** (p<.01, n = 771) -.25** (p<.00, n =771) -.16** (p<.00, n = 771) -.07 (p<.12, n = 766) 6. Gender .06 (p<.12, n = 774) .05 (p<.165, n = 774) .05 (p<.13, n = 774) -.01 (p<.90, n = 562) -.10** (p<.01, n = 771) 1 .02 (p<.63, n = 773) -.03 (p<.39, n = 773) -.00 (p<.93, n = 767) 7. Interact with people outside of your community -.045 (p<.209, n = 773) .12** (p<.01, n = 773) -.01 (p<.80, n = 773) -.03 (p<.56, n = 561) -.25** (p<.00, n = 771) .08 (p<.63, n = 773) 1 .42** (p<.00, n = 773) .14** (P<.00, n = 767) 8. Travel outside of your community -.25** (p<.00, n = 773) .20** (p<.00, n = 773) -.05 (p<.17, n =773) -.08 (p<.69, n = 561) -.16** (p<.00, n = 771) -.03 (p<.37, n = 773) .42** (p<.00, n = 773) 1 .35** (p<.00, n = 767) 9. Number of meals eaten in a day -.26** (p<.00, n = 767) .25** (p<.00, n = 767) .15** (p<.00, n = 767) .09* (p<.03, n = 555) -.06 (p<.12, n = 766) -.00 (p<.93, n = 767) .14** (p<.00, n = 767) .35** (p<.00, n = 767) 1 https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 8 Table 4 Correlation Coefficients of the Variables Model R R Square Adjusted R Squared Std. Error of the Estimate 1 0.52s 0.28 0.26 0.61 Note. The predictors (constant) were disability status, region of Uganda, working with extension workers on agricultural issues, being a member of any social group in a community, gender, interacting with people outside your family, and traveling to places outside your community. The dependent variable was the measure of food security, which is the number of meals eaten in a day. F Values The F value with the number of meals eaten in a day as the dependent variable and the independent variables are disability status, region of Uganda, working with extension workers on agricultural issues, being a member of any social group in a community, gender, interacting with people outside your family, and traveling to places outside your community. The large F value (F = 25.84, p < 0.05) reveals that the independent variables influence the outcomes of the dependent variable. Table 5 F Values Model Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F Values p 1 Regression 76.77 8 9.60 25.84 <0.05b Residual 202.36 545 0.37 Total 279.12 553 Note. a Predictors (constant) disability status, region of Uganda, working with extension workers on agricultural issues, being a member of any social group in a community, gender, interacting with people outside your family, and traveling to places outside your community. Dependent variable how many meals do you eat in a day. bThe b-superscript on the p-value of <0.05 implies that the F-value of 25.84 significantly improves the estimation of food security using some of the predictor variables in a-superscript. Food Security Regressed on Disability, Regions of Uganda, Gender, Social Exclusion, Participation in Training Programs, and Social Capital The study conceptualised social inclusion (disability status, gender, membership to social groups), region of Uganda, participation in community programs (working with agricultural extension workers, being contacted to engage in community trainings), social capital (interaction with people outside of your community, travel to places out of your community), as factors that influence food security status of young farmers with and without disability in Uganda (Table 6). https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 9 Northern region of Uganda has a significant positive influence on food security (beta = 0.31, p < 0.05) of young farmers. Further, working with extension worker on issues related with agriculture (beta = 0.15, p < 0.05), or travelling to places outside their communities of residence (beta = 0.25, p < 0.05) have positive significant influence on food security of young farmers. Contrary, disability status has a significant negative influence (beta = -0.27, p < 0.05) on food security. In addition, being contacted to participate in community training programs (beta = - 0.03, p = 0.54), membership to a social group (beta = -0.08, p = 0.10), or interaction with people outside of your community (beta = -0.04, p = 0.29), or gender (beta = -0.03, p = 0.49) have negative influence on food security status of young farmers. Reduced Regression Equation: Y (food security) = 1.04 – -0.27 (disability status) + 0.31 (region) + 0.15 (working with any extension worker on agriculture) + 0.25 (travel to places outside your community) Table 6 Food Security Regressed against Social Exclusion, and Participation in Programs Model Unstandardized Coefficient Standardized Coefficient Β SE of B Beta t P Constant 1.05 0.20 5.25 <0.05 Disability status (1 = With) -0.41 0.07 -0.27 -6.23 <0.05 Region of Uganda (0 =Eastern) 0.47 0.06 0.31 7.83 <0.05 Have you worked with any extension worker on issues related with agriculture? 0.26 0.07 0.15 3.72 <0.05 Have you been contacted to participate in any community training programs? -0.04 0.06 -0.03 -0.62 >0.05 Are you a member of any social group in your community? -0.10 0.06 -0.07 -1.66 >0.05 Gender -0.04 0.06 -0.03 -0.69 >0.05 Interact with people outside of your community -0.03 0.03 -0.05 -1.06 >0.05 Travel to places outside of your community 0.14 0.03 0.25 5.80 <0.05 F = 25.844 df = 8/545 p = <.005 R Square = .28 Adjusted R Square = .26 Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.61 Note. Dependent variable: Number of meals eaten in a day. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 10 Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations The more the young farmers live in a given region of Uganda, work with extension workers on agriculture, interact with people outside of the community, travel to places out of their community, young farmers tend to become food secure and vice versa. Northern Uganda is more likely to be food secure than Eastern Uganda. Disability is the most curtailing factor in young farmers’ food security status. Therefore, young farmers with disabilities are more likely to experience food insecurity than their counterparts because the culture and traditions of the community greatly influence the social life of young farmers with disabilities. Usually, young farmers with disabilities tend to experience more difficulties to travel to places outside their communities because of the nature of disability a person possesses and absence of assistive devices such as white cane and wheel chairs. This is because most of the farmer capacity building activities are usually conducted in demonstration sites outside their communities of residence and others in form of exchange visits to other farmers, yet young farmers with disabilities tend to require additional assistance in form of sign language interpreters, wheel chair and pushers, and guides that are often lacking. Also, many public community agricultural programs meant to improve food security status of community members are likely to exclude and discriminate against participation of young farmers with disabilities. Young farmers with disabilities have a lower chance of interacting with people outside their families and communities, and therefore less opportunity to access information and build social capital compared to young farmers without disabilities. During the 1986 to 2004 civil war in Northern Uganda, people of the region lived in camps. All the people regardless of their social status lived in the same socioeconomic situations and faced similar challenges such as loss of assets, loss of lives, and displacement from their communities of residence. Facing similar challenges and living close to one another, created social cohesion between people with and without disabilities, resulting to improved food security. Moreover, young farmers in Eastern Uganda are more likely to experience food insecurity because community structures like the Uganda National Union of Persons with Disability that tend to be avenues for capacity building programs that would benefit young farmers with disabilities are less developed in Eastern Uganda. therefore, existence of weak community structures that would facilitate participation of young farmers in capacity building programs tend to disadvantage and exclude participation of young farmers in program meant for the public. It is, especially, worsened by participation in programs that is based on social ties and relatives, thus young farmers with and without disabilities with less social capital tend to miss out participating in community programs. Much as both young farmers with and without disability experience food insecurity, it is important to note that having a disability, social exclusion tend to deflect a young farmers food security status, especially in Eastern Uganda. Building social capital, especially through travelling to places outside community of residence, and participating in community programs through working with agricultural extension workers are more likely to improve food security of https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 11 young farmers. These findings could inform development agencies and organizations for the need for a concerted to build the capacity of young farmers with or/and without disability a fundamental driver to assure food security. Also, critical is reorienting agricultural extension educators and institutional development programs for young farmers towards building structures and programming mechanisms that directly target and accommodate young farmers’ interests to attain food security. In addition, alleviation of the antecedents of social exclusion of young farmers with disabilities through disability-inclusive awareness raising and effective implementation of disability policies could create an enabling environment for food security of young farmers with disability. It is therefore, important to conduct research on the appropriate livelihood strategies that could assure food security in young farmers with and without disability. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Fulbright Junior Program Scholarship 2015, AgrAbility Project for Pennsylvanians 2017, and UNESCO-Community Leadership and Youth Development at Pennsylvania State University 2017. https://agsci.psu.edu/unesco/initiatives This article was a component of the doctoral dissertation for Agole, D. (2018). Participation in capacity-building programs and the implications for the livelihood and well-being of young farmers with and without disabilities in Uganda. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/15300dja5368 Author Contributions: D. Agole – conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, writing- original draft; M. A Brennan – supervision, formal analysis, investigation, writing-review and editing, funding acquisition; C. D. Baggett – supervision, formal analysis, investigation, writing- review and editing, funding acquisition; J. C. Ewing – writing-review and editing; A. Crump – writing-review and editing; C. Wacal – writing-review and editing. References Adeyanju, D., Mburu, J., Gituro, W., Chumo, C., Mignouna, D., Ogunniyi, A., Akomolafe, J. K., & Ejima, J. (2023). Assessing food security among young farmers in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. Agricultural and Food Economics, 11(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-023-00246-x. African Youth Commission. (2006). African Youth Charter. https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2006_African_Youth_Charter_Eng.pd f. Agole, D., Baggett, C. D., Brennan, M. A., Ewing, J. C., Yoder, E. P., Makoni, S. B., Beckman, M. D., Epeju, W. F. (2021). Determinants of participation of young farmers with and without https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 https://agsci.psu.edu/unesco/initiatives https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/15300dja5368 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-023-00246-x https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2006_African_Youth_Charter_Eng.pdf https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2006_African_Youth_Charter_Eng.pdf Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 12 disability in agricultural capacity-building programs designed for the public in Uganda. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 10(2), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v10n2p74. Agole, D., Ewing, J. C., Baggett, C. D., Wester, N. (2019). A review of theories related to inclusive-capacity building of people with disabilities. Workforce Education Forum 39(1), 52-63. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/psu/wef/2019/00000039/00000001/art000 06. Burton, L. (1993). The struggle for citizenship: The case of disabled people. Disability & Society, 8, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674649366780251. Eide, A. H., Nanono, N., & Omona, J. (2021). Living conditions among persons with disabilities in Uganda. Research Gate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11513.70242. Global Hunger Index. (2024). Global hunger index website. https://www.globalhungerindex.org. Ikendi, S., Owusu, F., Masinde, D., Oberhauser, A., & Bain, C. (2023). Does participation in livelihood education programs impact household food security? A comparative study in rural Uganda. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 13(1), 235–265. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2023.131.009. Lamino, P., Millares-Forno, C., Landaverde, R., Boren-Alpízar, A. E. (2024). Rural youth migration intentions in Ecuador: The role of agricultural education programs. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 5(3), 2024. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.433. Moore, R., Dada, S., Emmambux, M. N., & Samuels, A. (2021). Food and nutrition security in persons with disabilities. A scoping review. Global Food Security, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100581. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Evidence-based policy making for youth well-being: Toolkit. https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2017_OECD_Policy_Making_for_You th_Well_being_Eng.pdf. Pigg, K. E. (1999). Community leadership and community theory: A practical synthesis. Community Development Society Journal, 30(2), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575339909489721. Schuler, M. T. (2022). The food is not enough: Disability and food aid technologies in a Ugandan refugee settlement. Journal of the International African Institute, 92, 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001972022000390. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v10n2p74 https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/psu/wef/2019/00000039/00000001/art00006 https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/psu/wef/2019/00000039/00000001/art00006 https://doi.org/10.1080/02674649366780251 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11513.70242 https://www.globalhungerindex.org/ https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2023.131.009 https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.433 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100581 https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2017_OECD_Policy_Making_for_Youth_Well_being_Eng.pdf https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2017_OECD_Policy_Making_for_Youth_Well_being_Eng.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/15575339909489721 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001972022000390 Agole et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.567 13 Schwartz, N., Buliung, R., & Wilson, K. (2019). Disability and food access and insecurity: A scoping review of the literature. Health & Place, 57, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.011. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2024). National population and housing census 2024: Final report. https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/National-Population-and-Housing- Census-2024-Final-Report-Volume-1-Main.pdf. Wilkinson, K. (1991). The community in rural America. Greenwood Press. © 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.v6i2.567 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.011 https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/National-Population-and-Housing-Census-2024-Final-Report-Volume-1-Main.pdf https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/National-Population-and-Housing-Census-2024-Final-Report-Volume-1-Main.pdf