Targeting Outcome of Programs Model - Program and Staff Development Department

Pictures of chickens, flowers, wheat, a boy looking through a magnifying glass, irrigation pipe, soybean pods, and fruits and vegetables.	Cooperative Extension Service





Cooperative Extension Service	Agricultural Experiment Station
Search \| Publications \| Jobs \| Personnel Directory \| Links County Offices \| Departments

U of A Board Policies
Division Policy and
Management Guidelines
Extension Policy Manual
4-H State Policy Handbook
Departments
OPM Policy Manual
Classified Pay Plan
Blue Letter

Giving

Dale Bumpers College
of Agricultural, Food &
Life Sciences

Division Home

Agricultural Experiment
Station Home

Cooperative Extension
Service Home

Cooperative Extension Service Departments
Program and Staff Development
Programs - FSLL Initiative Evaluation

Evaluation of Programs and Activities for Educators Bennett/Rockwell - Targeting Outcome of Programs Model

The Bennett/Rockwell Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) Model Hierarchy is a model for program development, objective writing and evaluation widely used in Extension work to identify and categorize program objectives and outcomes. The TOP Model (Figure 1) consists of seven levels of expected inputs and outcomes that take place through Extension programming efforts.

Figure 1. Bennett/Rockwell Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) Model

Bennett / Rockwell TOP Model (Targeting Outcomes of Programs).

The graphic shows the Targeting Outcomes of Programs (or TOP) Model developed by Claude Bennett of CSREES-USDA and Kay Rockwell of the University of Nebraska for use in program development by Extension educators. The graphic shows the seven levels of the TOP Model.

The hierarchy and the seven levels of program inputs and outcomes are shown in Figure 1. Looking at the hierarchy, one can see that levels 1 (Resources) and 2 (Activities) describe what Extension does to produce and conduct educational programs. Levels 3 (Participation) through 7 (SEEC) are representative of outcomes that result from participation of clientele in Extension educational programs. Levels 5 (KASA), 6 (Practices) and 7 (SEEC) are more often seen as the real "impact" levels of Extension programming. In general, the following statements are found to be true in relation to the levels of the Bennett/Rockwell TOP Model Hierarchy:

1. Evidence of program impact becomes stronger as the hierarchy is ascended.
2. The difficulty and cost of obtaining evidence on program accomplishments increases as the hierarchy is ascended. (NOTE: Costs include time and personnel, as well as dollars.)
3. Evaluations are strengthened by assessing Extension programs at several levels of the hierarchy.

In the program development process, the TOP Model can be used to identify the hierarchical level of program objectives. Knowing at which level the program objectives are at then helps in identifying appropriate measures (or evidence) of program impact in the evaluation planning process. Examples of “hard” and “soft” evidence that might be collected for each of the TOP Model levels is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Examples of "hard" and "soft" evidence in the Bennett/Rockwell TOP Model Hierarchy

TOP MODEL LEVEL	EXAMPLES OF HARD AND SOFT EVIDENCE
7. SEEC Change	"Hard" Evidence: Trends in profit-loss statements, live birth weights of babies, reduction of pesticide residues in well water sources.	"Soft" Evidence: Perceptions of changes in quality of economy, health or the environment.
6. Practices Change	"Hard" Evidence: Direct observation of use or evidence of clientele use of recommended practices.	"Soft" Evidence: Self-reported use of recommended practices by clientele.
5. KASA Changes	"Hard" Evidence: Changes in scores on validated measures of knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations. Direct observation of skills.	"Soft" Evidence: Self-reported perceptions of change in participants" knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations.
4. Reactions	"Hard" Evidence: Direct observation or measurement of all or a representative sample of participants’ reactions during and/or after a program.	"Soft" Evidence: Recording the views of only those who volunteer reactions about the program (non-representative sample).
3. Participation	"Hard" Evidence: Use of sign in sheets, recorded observation of individuals participating or holding leader positions.	"Soft" Evidence: Casual observation of attendance and leadership given by participants.
2. Activities	"Hard" Evidence: Pre-structured observation of activities and social processes through participant observation, use of video or audio tapes, etc.	"Soft" Evidence: Staff recall of how activities were conducted and the extent to which they were completed.
1. Resources	"Hard" Evidence: Documentation of staff time and resource allocations through a formal process.	"Soft" Evidence: Staff's subjective reports regarding time allocation.

SOURCE: Bennett, C. F., & Rockwell, K. (1996). Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP): An Integrated Approach to Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC: CSREES, USDA.

Back to Participant Changes
Back to Evaluation of Programs and Activities for Educators

University of Arkansas • Division of Agriculture
Cooperative Extension Service
2301 South University Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 • USA
Phone (501) 671-2000

Mission • Disclaimer • EEO •
Privacy • FOI

Cooperative Extension Service Departments Program and Staff Development Programs - FSLL Initiative Evaluation

Cooperative Extension Service Departments
Program and Staff Development
Programs - FSLL Initiative Evaluation