Love for humanity and universal goodwill: reflections on philanthropy through theory of change and the United States Land grant values in Uganda

Introduction

In 1862, the Morrill Act was signed, which culminated in the establishment of land-grant institutions. [1][2][3] The Act was titled An Act Donating Public Lands to the Several States and [Territories] which may Provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts, thus providing 30,000 acres of federal land to each state. The development of the United States agricultural education programs are embedded within three fundamental values of the land-grant philosophy of learning, discovery, and engagement. Learning involves teaching to provide and share knowledge, discovery involving research and creation of new knowledge and new use or application of old knowledge, and engagement involves extension collaboration, sharing, and application of knowledge.

Historically, Iowa State University became one of the first institutions to accept the provisions of the Morrill Act in 1868 [4] . The 1862 Morrill Act metamorphosed into subsequent Acts to cater to the different needs of the community. The 1887 Hatch Act established experimental stations; the 1890 Morrill Act granted Black Colleges land grant status; the 1914 Smith-Lever Act established Cooperative Extension; the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act; 1963 Vocational Education Act; and 1987 NCA-24 Committee focused on high school teaching on farming, training in other agriculture fields beyond high school, and agriculture research respectively; and the 1994 Tribal Colleges all rooted within the land-grant philosophy [3] . Over time, many countries across the globe have sought to adopt and adapt the land-grant philosophy through www.extensionjournal.com partnerships with the United States land-grant institutions. Uganda, our case study is one example of such partnerships through sustainable livelihood programs implemented by a state university [5][6][7] .

Sustainable Livelihood Program in Uganda

By its mission: create, share, and apply knowledge Iowa State University joined the world's call to give deliverance to the hungry through tapping philanthropy [5][6][7] . The university's intent in its sustainable livelihood program is to redefine philanthropy back to its classical meaning love for humanity … and readiness to do good to everyone (p. 10). [6] To achieve its mission, Iowa State University established Center for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL) in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The benefactors of the program wanted their dollars to help the poorest of the poor. A thinktank was conducted, and Uganda was selected because of reliable partners, and Kamuli district became the foundational operational area due to high poverty levels. The CSRL established its base in Uganda in 2004 under a three-partner model with Makerere University and a local non-government organization called Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns between 2004-2014; and since then, Iowa State University Uganda Program (ISU-UP) is the implementing partner [6,8] . The program use gifts from private benefactors, and their generosity is implemented through the theory of change to improve livelihood by building human capacity towards food and nutrition security, building assets, and fostering sustainability of development in communities [5][6][7] . A human capacity-building framework (Figure I) was designed and adopted to guide program operations, starting from supporting infants during their first 1000 days through seniors in an intersection of livelihood programs to end hunger.

Fig 1: CSRL/ISU-UP Sustainable Human Development Framework in Uganda

The Sustainable Livelihood Framework and the Theory of Change: The CSRL program was developed based on the sustainable livelihood approach, also referenced as the sustainable livelihood framework [9] . The two livelihood strategies have been revised and a new framework developed to suit the 21 st Century's rural development efforts (p. 12) [10] , caring for global shifts in climate and environmental degradation impacting agricultural production. In his seminal work, Scoones asserts that livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets, and activities required for a means of living, and adds that a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses (p. 5) [9] .

The livelihood framework has five key asset capitals including human, social, financial, physical, and natural capital the pentagon of assets capital (pp. 10-11) [11] which are the foundations of the theory of change-a cornerstone of development in many regions, such as Latin America and the Caribbean (pp. 18-19), South Asia, [12] and learning about rural development [13] . The CSRL programs were operationalized after an assessment of the assets capital that guided program development priorities [14] . The theory of change is embedded its mission of using the power of education to develop sustainable communities and vision looking toward developing responsible global citizens and thriving local communities that benefit from food and www.extensionjournal.com financial security (p. 8) [6] . The CSRL/ISU-UP conducts community mapping of assets through participatory appraisals to give an idea of how assets can be productively harnessed [14] . The program also relies on the indigenous knowledge [15] and blending with rigorous scientific research [16] to develop livelihood programs and tailored extension education programs for the communities. In this study, we corroborate community capitals illustrated in Sseguya et al. [14] as CSRL foundation in determining program priorities, operationalized through the land-grant values of teaching/learning, research/discovery, and extension/engagement to achieve sustainable community development. Therefore, the purpose of this inquiry was to gain knowledge and an understanding of how CSRL/ISU-UP has executed their mission to meet its goal of working within the frameworks of the livelihoods framework, theory of change and land-grant philosophy. The study was guided by two questions: 1. How has CSRL/ISU-UP achieved its philanthropy goals through the land-grant values? 2. Do program benefits spread beyond its clients to contribute to overall sustainable livelihood?

Methods

This investigation was founded on a social constructivist orientation, driven by a conviction that knowledge is socially constructed, and its meaning is gleaned inductively through an in-depth engagement with study participants [17] . A case study methodology was adopted [18] and we employed dual qualitative mixed methods, including content analysis and focus group discussions. In question one on how CSRL/ISU-UP has achieved its philanthropy, we conducted content analyses of CSRL annual reports. There were seventeen annual reports available in digital format, 2008-2024, and eleven reports were purposively selected (2014-2024) that focus on CSRL/ISU-UP partnership [6,8] . The data were contained in these reports (Table 1), and each report was analyzed as a case. [19] .

During analysis, we engaged in dialogues with our data, sought to recognize and classify commonalities across cases and perspectives that appeared distinct. Three categories of learning, discovery, and engagement were assigned a priori as land-grant values. We wrote analytic memos to reflect on emerging unique ideas within and across the reports and developed themes inductively [20] in line with each category. Additionally, we also critically observed artifacts and pictures captioned in each report and wrote memos on intuitive captions that we used to generate new knowledge on the program's accomplishments as a form of triangulation. We shared drafts among ourselves for peer reviews to help with discussions and conclusions, making connections between the land-grant values and theory of change elements through community asset capitals. In question two, which asked whether program benefits spread beyond its clients, we used responses from focus group discussions that were conducted as part of a larger study. The study oversight was provided under IRB-18-356-01. Twelve focus group discussions were conducted with a subset of 125 mothers who were attending the at-risk-for-malnutrition rehabilitation programs at seven nutrition education centers [21][22] . We constituted our focus groups with a maximum of 12 mothers (Figure 2), and all locations of nutrition centers are illustrated on the map (Figure 3). Our focus groups were conducted following the guidelines of qualitative inquiry. The lead author worked with three enumerators. After thorough training of enumerators on focus group dynamics, distinct roles were assigned, such as asking stem questions, managing voice recorders, and writing detailed responses. The lead author managed the focus groups to ensure every mother got a chance to speak and also took up the roles of asking probing questions and writing field memos for use during discussions to improve the trustworthiness of the data. The field team spoke the local dialect, which eased the natural flow of conversations while maintaining the focus on the research goal [18,23] . Handwritten, detailed notes were typed into a Word document. The lead author cross-checked for clarity between typed documents and audio recordings. Alongside these crosschecks, a paper trail of analytic memos was kept in addition to field memos, www.extensionjournal.com Note: Mothers who responded to the question do program benefits spread beyond its clients are reflected in orange color but does not represent responses to other focus group questions. generating rich data memos that were used in discussions, providing a holistic view of how philosophy is manifested through the theory of change and land-grant values. Inductive coding was used, and interpretations are presented in the form of themes. Excerpts from the reports are used, and also from mothers with details, emotions about their lived experience (p. 172) [23] . The authors were well conversant with the study area and the programs. At the time of the focus groups, the lead author had spent two years as a research assistant assisting with the monitoring and evaluation of the program activities. This role views the lead author as an insider, but coauthors are outsiders. To navigate these insider-outsider tensions, the lead author www.extensionjournal.com relied on the advice of qualitative investigators relating to keeping a trail of journals that included memos relating to the data collection and its process [24] . Specifically, sticking to research goals during focus groups with minimal personal disclosures and maintaining the natural flow of conversations [23] . The lead author, who was immersed in focus groups, took the lead in data analysis as well as reflecting on the analytic memos, which eased gleaning knowledge and making connections between and among themes, across cases, linking land-grant values to the theory of change and livelihood capitals. Making these connections was partly because of the lead author's continuous engagement in evaluation activities, as well as constant peer debriefing with the research team. Also, the presentation of data in thick descriptions and excerpts from cases clears personal bias.

Results

Results are presented based on the research question, with themes in each question illustrating interconnected scenarios depicting how philanthropy is manifested through the theory of change, transforming livelihood along the lines of sustainable livelihood capitals and land-grant values. We introduce themes in thick descriptions to illustrate their nuances, followed by excerpts.

RQ1. How has CSRL/ISU-UP achieved its philanthropy goals through land-grant values?

In this research question, we determined the categories a priori to focus our analysis on the three land-grant values prescribed by the 1862 Morrill Act, including learning, discovery, and engagement, from which various themes emerged.

Teaching and Learning: Six teaching and learning themes emerged relating to learning and teaching, including global service-learning, vocational education, youth development, home schooling, innovation skilling, and school gardening. The essence reflected in these themes describes an interface between the new knowledge learned and the real world, moving the needle of livelihood strategies to advancing stages in improving livelihood through education.

Global service-learning

This global service-learning theme reflects efforts to develop global competence among students rooted in landgrant values abroad. In 2014, for instance, the report reads that service-learning is deeply connected to both the mission and culture of Iowa State University (CSRL, 2014, p. 17). This connection was illustrated in a way that not only do students learn while contributing to the social good [but also] strengthens their resolve to make the world a better place (p. 17). Global service-learning is implemented through school gardening and related activities in schools, and students live together and form lasting bonds as they teach in schools and care for school gardens (p. 17). In assistance with teaching, it was illustrated that servicelearners worked in schools with children in primary schools and secondary schools by assisting in teaching integrated science and math (CSRL, 2019, p. 10). Students also form bi-national teams and in 2014, for instance, 40 students completed projects in poultry management, irrigation, agroforestry (CSRL, 2014, p. 17). Service-learning has had several developments, 2018 marked the first time that semester-long service-learning opportunities were offered (CSRL, 2018). Since its inception in 2006, [25] service-learning programs were six to eight weeks [and] the new [semester-long] program allows students to learn about development programs across an entire semester (CSRL, 2018, p. 17), fostering students learned through deep immersion in communities.

Home schooling

The COVID-19 pandemic altered how education was delivered and CSRL/ISU-UP designed home schooling approaches. It was illustrated that the program worked with school administrators, teachers, local leaders, guided by the District Education Office, the staff worked with parents to encourage students to continue their schoolwork in small groups in their communities (CSRL, 2020, p. 10). They added that as the word of the program spread, students from neighboring schools joined in. The ISU-UP staff also worked with headteachers of each school to enlist teachers who could help in evaluating the students' work (p. 10). Additionally, the program has engaged elementary pupils in reading clubs to promote literacy and improve their communication skills with service-learners. In 2021, it was reported that the program distributed home reading materials to 640 fifth-and sixth graders during school closures (CSRL, 2021, p. 5). The 2024 program report indicated that since 2022, 600 children have benefited from supplementary reading and writing instruction with teachers, and 3,000 children have engaged in debates at five primary schools (CSRL, 2024, p. 16).

Vocational education for teen mothers

In 2022, CSRL/ISU-UP launched the vocational program for teen mothers in response to challenges increased with the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown of schools which forced [most girls] to drop out of school and get married due to poverty (CSRL, 2022, p. 11). With the promise of rehabilitation, the program reported that some of the young mothers [could] resume their formal education, reflecting a commitment to giving teenage mothers another chance at pursuing formal education (p. 11). These initiatives provide mothers with skills that enable them to pursue incomegenerating activities. Teen mothers are clustered into groups based on their interests like Twezimbe-let's develop ourselves, makes exercise books for schoolchildren while Twisa-Kilalaunity is power, makes leather crafts (p. 16). The sustainability of teen mother programs are embedded in the opportunity it grants students to partner with staff when skilling the mothers, who then provide a service to students who are in school. The program has continued to expand project offerings in tailoring, hairdressing, baking, with training delivered by qualified tutors, three days a week for six months, thereby allowing participants to earn income and sustain themselves (CSRL, 2023, p. 11; 2024, p. 14).

Youth development

Youth programs allow both in-and out-of-school youth to participate in agricultural businesses. At its inception in www.extensionjournal.com 2013, Youth Entrepreneurship Program (YEP) had narrow focus on teaching students how to create and manage crop and poultry enterprises (CSRL, 2015, p. 15). However, the program expanded to include out-of-school youth to give them renewed purpose (p. 15). In 2016, an in-school youth recounted, before I joined YEP, my large family never had enough food to eat. The income I earned from poultry allowed me to diversify to other enterprises such as piggery, beekeeping (CSRL, 2016, p. 7). This level of involvement has also shown that the beneficiaries can extend the same support to other community members. Another out-ofschool youth, enrolled in YEP when earned income by selling handmade knives; however, through the training provided by the program, [they] constructed a poultry house and received 70 chicks, and loan repayments are made through egg sales (CSRL, 2015, p. 15). The transformation of youth in YEP explains the program's potential to enhance economic independence and skill youth to thrive. The program offerings for in-school youth also include the Youth Institute. It was first held in 2018, and in 2019, the institute successfully engaged 82 youths from 13 schools, highlighting their capacity to articulate community challenges and propose solutions while citing existing projects in their schools (CSRL, 2019, p. 12). This approach to youth development allows them to reflect on their footprints in community development, emphasizing mentorship and peer collaboration, enhancing confidence, and encouraging youth to take active roles in their communities. The program's resilience was evident in 2022 when the Youth Institute resumed after COVID-19, and had 134 participants graduate (CSRL, 2022, p. 6).

Innovation skilling: Through the community income generating innovations, innovation skilling focuses mostly on malnutrition-rehabilitated mothers of the nutrition program [26] . The initiative utilizes local knowledge to create practical solutions that address local challenges and enhance community resilience by supporting women to create sustainable sources of income. As noted in the 2017 report, sales of the mats, baskets and other items created in crafts project have improved the standard of living for numerous women and families (CSRL, 2017, p. 2). The program has diversified its offerings to include craft production, sewing projects, soap making, and notebook construction (CSRL, 2019, p. 16). These activities empower women and promote food and income security. For instance, the Tusubila we have hope crafts group was certified as a community-based organization, launching its enterprise, electing officers, and opening a bank account (p. 16). Tusubila group was bolstered by the establishment of Uganda Alliance a student-led organization at Iowa State University that sells Tusubila's products through a globe pop-up shop a wheeled cart with cupboard space to carry the baskets and a countertop to display them (p. 19). Innovation skilling stresses the collaborative efforts of students-mothers, allowing international visibility and sales to support their enterprises.

School gardening

School gardens and related projects, such as livestock, are powerful educational tools, promoting knowledge transfer and entrepreneurial skills among service-learners, pupils, and communities. One parent noted that, at first, I did not understand how the children would benefit from school gardening. I now see it is imparting knowledge and life skills (CSRL, 2015, p. 4). Two parents further explained we've been impressed with the techniques taught in livestock rearing. Our children advise us on vaccination … (p. 4). These insights highlight the multifaceted benefits of school gardening, which extend beyond experiential elementary agricultural education practices to encompass broader outcomes, such as students transferring their gained knowledge and skills to their respective families. Pupils also learn skills, including marketing, applied in their entrepreneurial endeavors as one parent reported, my daughter grows her eggplants, and this helps save us money (p. 4). This approach encourages parents to participate in the learning process, creating reciprocal knowledge exchange and building a community of shared learning.

Research and Discovery

Five research and discovery themes emerged relating to livestock development, postharvest technologies, food safety, crop and soil improvements, illustrating the integration of local knowledge and scientific practices to enhance agricultural productivity, food security, and community vitality.

Livestock development

In livestock, farmers face significant challenges when selling their animals due to the lack of scales to weigh them, leading to their undervaluation. With program support, a service-learning alumni conducted an experimental study to develop a mobile phone application for estimating pig weight based on specific measurement inputs, including animal's body length, heart-girth, body width and height (CSRL, 2014, p. 4). It was reported that the calculations tested on more than 400 pigs, and the predictions accurate within two or four kilograms and envisioning empowering farmers when selling livestock (p. 4). In feeding, the program also worked with International Potato Center and International Livestock Research Institute to assess viability of sweet potato vines as a food source for pigs to address challenges of seasonal feed shortages (CSRL, 2016, p. 12). To enhance breeding, the program also introduced bovine artificial insemination to increase milk yield, improving their nutrition and income (CSRL, 2021, p. 13).

Food safety

Improving food safety practices in butcher shops and among consumers is relevant for public health. Service-learning alumni collaboratively conducted studies studying food handling practices used at butcher shops in Kamuli (CSRL, www.extensionjournal.com 2021, p. 5). This study was in conjunction with a meat safety study of consumers in the United States Virgin Islands when shopping, storing, preparing, and cooking beef at home (CSRL, 2021, p. 5).

Postharvest technologies

Effective grain storage is necessary to improve food security in communities where grain losses are high due to biohazards like aflatoxins and pests like weevils. A student researched hermetically sealed barrels that decrease damage from common storage pests, intending to transfer the storage solution to farmers and schools (CSRL, 2014, p. 3). When the technology was introduced and adopted in school feeding programs, it was reported that it resulted in preservation of more than 2,400kgs of maize by July 2017 (CSRL, 2017, p. 10). Additionally, there was a need to improve threshing processes of grain amaranths before drying and storage, a key ingredient in nutrition program [21][22] . It was reported that a service-learning alumni with support from the program designed an amaranth thresher that operates with a hand-powered crank and further improved with the new design powered by a small gasoline engine (CSRL, 2023, p. 3). Yet alumni, designed a pedal-operated maize cleaner that has been adopted in communities and schools (CSRL, 2020, p. 14). The program also introduced steel presses for oil extraction from crops, a cost-effective technology expected to become popular enough that farmers will share the device and profits from selling the oil (CSRL, 2021, p. 16).

Crop improvements:

In agronomy programs, experimental studies were conducted to address low crop yields and management practices. For instance, service-learning alumni experimented with pumpkins/squashes, envisioning that squashes could improve nutritional dietary intake and create farm income (CSRL, 2021, p. 5). Additionally, in 2022, other alumna was facilitated to set up demonstration garden focused on best practices in tomato production and disease management. The program illustrated the need for this focus, stating that tomato wilt and root rot diseases had decreased production, which hindered sales (CSRL, 2022, p. 8). The demos identify locally available practices to combat tomato wilt and root rot.

Soil improvements:

The prevalence of parasitic weeds like striga due to soil infertility was found poses significant threats to maize and millet production in the program area [27] . Earlier service-learning alumni conducted a study to gauge the severity of striga and provided training on management strategies. The program recognized that we need to figure out how to control striga, or the gains we've made over the last decade will be wasted (CSRL, 2015, p. 12). Efforts have been devised by service-learning alumni focusing on soil mapping and testing as major components of sustainable land management in identifying soil properties and approaches to enhancing agricultural practices (CSRL, 2021, p. 4).

Extension and Engagement

Six extension and engagement themes emerged, including livestock, agronomy, agroforestry, postharvest, nutrition, and public health education. These themes explain the role of practical training, resource sharing, and community engagement, encouraging the practical application of discovered knowledge and learned principles, ultimately promoting sustainable development and community resilience.

Livestock education

The program developed targeted extension programs to enhance animal husbandry practices, targeting farmers, including women farmers. It was reported that, for instance, after attending multiple training sessions, [ 4). In livestock, additional programs have been added, for instance, the send-an-animal initiative has led to the establishment of 18 community groups, comprising 784 members who collectively pool resources to acquire livestock (CSRL, 2022, p. 14). This approach to agricultural extension education promotes shared prosperity, community solidarity, and empowerment.

Agronomy and land use education

These education programs focus on improving crop production and market access. As an example, the program reported that after joining YEP, [Agnes] expanded his smallholder tomato operation, owing to the collective training on best practices such as mulching and irrigation (CSRL, 2016, p. 11). Agnes added that, I don't think I'll ever stop growing vegetables. I hope to get my truck so I can transport my produce to markets farther away (p. 11). This sentiment explains the role of agronomical extension in enhancing food, nutritional, and income security. The 2021 report also explains the role of collective marketing as it stated field team determined that chili pepper is a crop in demand in Europe, so several smallholder farmers began planting and marketing chili peppers for export, under the guidance of vegetable export companies in Kampala (CSRL, 2021, p. 3). Through agronomy initiatives, the program supported 74 youth-owned startups in agricultural crop enterprises, including chili peppers, green peppers (p. 3).

Agroforestry, orchards, and natural resources

These initiatives focus on sustainable land management and fruit production. The program has worked with communities to establish tree nurseries, resulting in the propagation of over 8,540 seedlings and 974 plantings, which are aimed at providing essential resources such as fruit, fuel, fencing, and fodder (CSRL, 2021). Additionally, the agroforestry binational service-learning teams engaged in hands-on www.extensionjournal.com projects that include planting trees and educating community members about sustainable practices. A servicelearner noted that the bi-national team experience provided an opportunity to apply what [they] has learned as a Forestry major (CSRL, 2022, p. 7).

Postharvest education:

Postharvest extension programs are designed to transfer knowledge to mitigate food losses. Notably, the introduction of hermetic storage solutions earmarked as a game-changer, focused on reducing postharvest losses caused by common pests and mold (CSRL, 2018, p. 13). By focusing on extension education, CSRL/ISU-UP can enhance the communities' health and well-being. Service-learners help develop culturally relevant and practical solutions like pedal-operated maize cleaners, demonstrating commitment to improving postharvest efficiency (CSRL, 2020, p. 15). The students' experiences as service-learners working with farmers motivated them to design a postharvest machine using knowledge learned from their engineering classes with faculty support.

Nutrition and infant feeding education:

In the program, nutrition education centers are critical in promoting community health initiatives through education [21][22] especially in the first 1,000 days of children's lives. The program's emphasis on providing nutrient-dense porridge made from locally sourced ingredients is vital for managing malnutrition. The program leader explained that training equips caretakers with knowledge in nutrition, hygiene, good health practices, and good agronomic practices, thereby saving [children's and women's] lives while preparing [the] women to maintain their families' improved health (CSRL, 2023, p. 12). Additionally, the integration of superfoods like grain amaranth into the local diet has also yielded significant benefits. One mother, Tara, reported that she received training and seeds and planted amaranth, millet, and soybeans (CSRL, 2018, p. 6). The program reported that Tara is now able to feed her family with nutrient-dense foods and earn an income from sales (p. 6).

Public health education:

Program efforts have been instrumental in addressing the community's need for improved access to clean water through activities implemented in the water, sanitation, hygiene, and health (WASH) program [28] . The was reported that in response to this critical and continuing need [for clean water], the program supported the installation of three boreholes (CSRL, 2019, p.

15). Program staff work with local communities to establish and train members of water committees who manage use and maintain the operation of the boreholes (p. 15). WASH program also established two model homes as training centers for overall health and sanitation practices such as hand washing, drying stands

for dishes, garbage disposal, and improved latrines (CSRL, 2020, p. 15). These efforts are geared towards reducing household predisposition to WASH related illnesses such as malaria and diarrhea among others by constructing and maintaining WASH infrastructures.

RQ2: Do CSRL/ISU-UP benefits spread beyond their clients to contribute to overall sustainable livelihood?

The results 12 focus group discussions with 125 mothers of the nutrition program are divided into perceived benefits and limitations in reaching non-program members.

Perceived Benefits of the Program to the Communities

Under benefits, five themes, including social networking, motivation, knowledge sharing, complementary services, and open training, emerged. These themes illustrate the benefit mother's gain from the program and actively contribute to the wider community development through their willingness to share knowledge and resources.

Social networking

Social connections facilitated the sharing of resources and knowledge. One mother narrated that some non-program clients normally come to my home, requesting me to give them some soybean seeds for planting. She added that another non-program member was requesting seeds from the friend I had given. This means that many non-program clients are benefiting indirectly (NAK-01-02). Another mother said, when I got the eggplant seedlings from the nutrition education center and made my keyhole garden, everyone admired my keyhole garden since it looked nice. So, I shared my harvest with some non-program clients, for example, I gave my friend, [Bennah], who is a non-program client (NAK-02-01). Additionally, another mother also noted that most of the people around my community are clients of this program. I was the last in our community to join this nutrition center (NAL-01-05), indicating the program's influence on community participation.

Motivation

Motivation was derived from visible benefits to direct clients' families. For instance, a mother said that nonprogram clients get motivated [to enroll in the program] when they see that our children who take the dense-nutrient porridge are very healthy (BUS-01-01). Another mother shared, I was not a nutrition center beneficiary, but now, am fully a member because of the advice of previous beneficiaries (NAK-02-08). One mother also explained that when my neighbor told me to bring my child to this nutrition education center, I brought the child and implemented what she told me (NAK-02-06). These experiences reflect how successful outcomes inspire mothers to engage with the program, the essence of support provided by members in our social circles to influence our behavior change as explained in the theory of planned behavior [29] .

Knowledge sharing

Knowledge transfer draws on mothers' interactions with non-program clients. One mother narrated that I trained some non-program clients how to fix a tip-tap at their latrine. She added, I trained some other non-program clients how to make a keyhole garden. I used the knowledge at this nutrition center to train them, so they are also benefiting from the program indirectly (BUS-02-02). Other mothers also emphasized their role in educating others, one stated, I train non-program clients how to make densenutrient porridge. They base on our knowledge to make their porridge (NAK-01-04). Another mother recounted, I give advice to non-program clients, based on the skills and knowledge acquired from the training conducted at this nutrition education center, and emphasized, I don't just give www.extensionjournal.com them vegetable seedlings or seeds, but I also train them how to plant them (NAK-02-03). On public health, one mother explained, due to the hygiene and sanitation training conducted at this nutrition center, I managed to teach my neighbor, [Okai], to construct a tip-tap at his latrine. I also [encouraged] him to dig a rubbish pit, and he has already implemented what I taught him (NAK-02-06).

Complementary Services

The program's services are extended to non-clients through nutrition and public health advocacy. One mother explained I mobilize non-program mothers to bring their children to this nutrition education center to get immunization, and fortunately, most of them bring their children. She added that since they no longer move long distances to take their children for immunization [at government health facilities], it means that they also benefit from this program (KIC-02-07). Another mother echoed a similar sentiment and added that those clients also get medicines on clinic days at this nutrition education center (KYA-02-02). The program works alongside nurses from health centers through the Ministry of Health to support immunizations and related education [21][22] .

Open training

Perceived Limitations to Non-Program Client Participation:

In our focus groups, some beneficiaries reported limitations in the program's outreach and impact. They reported in mainly two themes including hesitancy and time constraints, highlighting the challenges faced in attracting and engaging non-clients, explaining the hindrances to awareness of the program's offerings that can be used to provide avenues for tailored extension programs.

Hesitancy: Some participants explained that non-program clients often used excuses related to their homecare responsibilities. One mother noted that we try to train the non-program clients, but they pretend to be busy at their homes (KAB-02-03). Two other mothers echoed similar sentiments, explaining, most of them pretend that they are very busy and finally ignore the program's activities (KYA-01-01; KIC-02-04). Another mother stated, I try to tell some members about the program services, but they show no interest (NAL-01-01). One mother indicated, I informed other people about this program, but they have a negative attitude in their response (NAL-01-05). Time constraints: Time constraints were among the highlighted barriers to engagement and practice, with one mother explaining that, I trained Ms. [Wamuwa] about row crop rotation, but she told me that it is time-consuming (KIC-01-01). Another mother stated, [non-program clients] find it hard to participate because it takes too much time (NAL-01-01), indicating that perceived time investment may deter participation among potential beneficiaries.

Discussion

The discussion synthesize the findings by tying them back to the conceptual frameworks of sustainable livelihood capitals/theory of change operationalized through the landgrant values of learning, discovery, and engagement, and addressing the core questions regarding perceived benefits and limitations by beneficiaries.

Teaching and Learning

The results reflect the role played by CSRL/ISU-UP's educational programs in bridging knowledge gaps through formal and informal education, empowering individuals across various educational backgrounds. This composite approach to learning is essential to human capital development in regions like Kamuli district, where access to quality education is challenging [30][31] . Program beneficiaries reported improvements in agricultural practices and literacy skills, indicating that initiatives such as global servicelearning, vocational education, and youth development, equip individuals with the necessary skills to become changemakers in communities. Global service-learning in the Uganda program, for instance, encourages collaboration between students from Iowa State University and Makerere University, working alongside elementary pupils and high school students in hands-on projects, such as creating school gardens. These experiences enrich their educational journeys and strengthen community ties, leading to long-lasting relationships [26, 3234] . These benefits are supported by several other research on how service-learning promotes international interinstitutional collaboration, civic engagement, and student development [35][36][37] . The CSRL/ISU-UP also demonstrated adaptability and resilience during unprecedented periods of COVID-19, evident through its choice to maintain formal educational engagement during Uganda's longest school lockdown in the world [6] . During this period, the program's educational approach transitioned to home schooling and distributing reading materials to individual students, consequently promoting student retention at official resumption of education nationwide. Under the land-grant pillar of learning, the program aligns with the theory of change by focusing on community involvement and human capital development to build assets and diversify livelihood. Additionally, vocational training programs aimed at youth and teen mother groups provide practical skills that enable participants to pursue income-generating activities [26,[38][39] . These programs contribute to financial capital development through entrepreneurship and agribusiness, resulting in rural employment and improved community well-being [40] . These findings align with recommendations emphasizing the need for integrated educational interventions to promote individual and community development [41][42] . Holistic education combines various elements of experiential learning and community development to ensure that program beneficiaries become ambassadors of community change. www.extensionjournal.com

Research and Discovery:

The research pillar emphasizes the value of partnerships between communities and landgrant institutions. Collaborative efforts involving program staff, community members, and university researchers have led to sustainable solutions that integrate local knowledge and practices to holistically address societal challenges. Studies in community-based participatory research suggest that effective community needs assessment and the employment of locally available resources enhance capital productivity [43][44] and uptale of technology [45] . The study results demonstrate CSRL/ISU-UP's commitment to the application of rigorous scientific inquiry [16] and blended with indigenous knowledge [15] to address real-world issues of food insecurity [46][47][48] and nutrition insecurity in Kamuli district [49] and its neighborhoods [50] . The program's research efforts are evidenced by the notable field-based adaptable solutions developed by servicelearning alumni and program associates in programs such as livestock integration, [51][52][53][54] postharvest technologies [55][56][57][58][59][60][61] , soil improvements [62][63][64][65] , crop production [66][67][68][69][70] , food safety [71] , school feeding [72][73][74] , and public health [28,[75][76] . These innovative research projects promote food, nutrition, and income security, and also facilitate learning through extension and engagement which are core principles of the land-grant mission in agricultural transformation. The findings also indicate that collaborative knowledge development fosters a sense of ownership because the research beneficiaries are actively involved in the research process. The resultant effect of community-based participatory research is an increase in acceptability, adoption, and effectiveness of proposed interventions [43] and manifestation of an engaged campus model. [37] Engaging local communities and scientists ensures that the proposed solutions are culturally relevant and practically viable [15-16, 45, 77] . This approach to practical problem-solving complements the theory of change, which emphasizes the need to uplift communities through applied research that is responsive to local challenges identified by community partners. Since applied research is iterative, CSRL/ISU-UP adjusts its innovations in line with the needs of the local population, ensuring that the programs remain relevant [6,16,78] . This approach feasible to adapt to external pressures affecting farmers such as extreme climate events such erratic precipitation [79] , landslides [80] , and related impact such emergency of non-native pest [81] and diseases [82] . Navigating these challenges requires fostering collaboration among stakeholders in applied research.

Extension and Engagement

The extension arm of the land-grant mission represents the practical application of knowledge gained from learning/teaching and discovery/research. The success of CSRL/ISU-UP extension programs rests on the effective use of social capital, which has been built through trust, cooperation, and shared values among community members and field staff toward food and nutrition security. The engagement of beneficiaries in outreach initiatives reflects the idea of shared benefits and accountability, expanding community impact through active participation. Interdependent programs like livestock [51] . agronomy, [27] innovations [26] have equipped beneficiaries with the knowledge to generate income through product sales, enhancing household nutrition and educational opportunities for children. Other interrelated programs in water and public health [28] and nutrition and infant feeding [76] have also equipped households with skills improve their household and community health by managing WASH-related diseases such as diarrhea and feeding-related illnesses and malnutrition [28] . The participation of service-learning bi-national teams (in projects such as agroforestry, beekeeping, composting, health and sanitation) in extension initiatives enhances community development efforts by incorporating contemporary student knowledge to promote efficient resource planning and management [25,[32][33][34] . Extension and service-learning are integrated into models as direct service support, extension as a client, and extension as a broker through the service-learning programs [83] . These partnerships encourage community ownership and enrich the educational experiences of the students and communities. Through school gardens, pupils and students program research shows that pupils and students established their vegetable gardens, increasing food production and income from sales, enabling them to obtain personal items for home and school [84][85][86][87] .

Perceived CSRL/ISU-UP Benefits and Limitations to

Clients' Participation: Focus groups reveal that beneficiaries recognize the widespread benefits of CSRL/ISU-UP programs. These results align with the theory of change framework, which suggests that empowerment and knowledge diffusion can lead to broader community transformation [10,14] . Social capital emerged as a key factor in extending program benefits, leading to behavior modification and encouraging future participation in programs. Many beneficiaries noted that before they participated in program activities, visible improvements in the lives of other participants motivated them to engage with the program. The findings also identified limitations in outreach, particularly due to prospective participants' hesitancy and time constraints. The results reveal a degree of gendered hesitancy as women are disproportionately burdened with homecare work, ultimately limiting their participation in extension programs. These finding directly contradicts some societal expectations that women only contribute to family development without recognizing their participation in community transformation [88][89][90][91] . Similarly, time poverty aligns with findings that development programs sometimes overlook women's unpaid labor constraints and the gender dynamics within different cultural contexts [92] . These phenomena necessitate the design of culturally responsive extension programs with considerations for participants' contributions to agriculture, their availability for training, and workloads. Research on the effectiveness of extension in Uganda suggests emphasizing the value of adapting outreach efforts to the socio-cultural context to harness community engagement [9394] .

Conclusions

The findings of this study illuminate the approaches used by CSRL/ISU-UP to fulfill the classic essence of philanthropy www.extensionjournal.com love for humanity, through the synergistic application of the land-grant values, the sustainable livelihood approach, and the theory of change. Rooted in Morrill's 1862 vision of democratizing experiential learning, the program implements its philanthropic intent through numerous transformative programs in rural Uganda to promote sustainable development and community vitality. Notably, the principle of sustainability is reflected in how the program's impact extends beyond its immediate beneficiaries to the broader community by training future trainers and leaders. These initiatives exceed transactional aid because they aim at promoting sustainable development based on the principles of mutual respect and shared knowledge. CSRL/ISU-UP illuminates the multiprong approaches operationalizing the concept of classical philanthropy through teaching/learning, research/discovery, and extension/engagement. The CSRL/ISU-UP education programs like global servicelearning, youth entrepreneurship, vocational training, and adaptive education during COVID-19, reflect its commitment to human and social capital development. These programs empower individuals to become self-reliant changemakers while building sustainable communities of practice. The discovery, driven by collaborative research, such as postharvest technologies, livestock improvement, soil management, crop production, school feeding, food safety, integrates local wisdom with scientific rigor, co-creating solutions that address context-specific and practical challenges like food, nutrition, and income insecurity. These initiatives enhance the productivity of financial and natural capital, ultimately contributing to the sustainability of the interventions. Extension efforts bridges theory and practice by amplifying impact through community partnerships to establish cooperative businesses, nutrition centers, school gardens, and WASH programs. This approach to extensions builds on the principles of social capital to promote shared benefit and resilience. Viewing CSRL/ISU-UP's activities from the theory of change perspective reveals the role of philanthropy in creating universal goodwill. Focus groups explain the undeniable ripple effects of beneficiaries transforming their communities beyond program boundaries. The program model demonstrates that joint application of emancipatory philanthropy and landgrant values promotes sustainable and holistic development. CSRL/ISU-UP honors Morrill's legacy of creating opportunities for underserved communities by establishing partnerships with community members as co-creators of change rather than passive beneficiaries. Some of the current staff members in CSRL/ISU-UP were program beneficiaries at some point and have graduated to become program officers after receiving expert training and also contribute to applied research projects of the program.

Recommendations and Implications

Land-grant institutions involved in community development efforts can glean insights into how to build sustainable partnerships with community-based organizations and community leaders to promote engagement and trust. Such collaborations facilitate the co-creation of outreach strategies that address specific cultural and socio-economic barriers faced by community members. For CSRL/ISU-UP, enhancing community impact will require an emphasis on adaptive outreach to ensure that beneficiary recruitment targets those who are most underserved. Culturally responsive communication methods should be developed to raise awareness of program offerings. Building social capital is necessary for needs assessment and collaborative intervention development. When community members and leaders are involved in creating solutions, adoption rates increase due to the relevance of those interventions [95] . Utilizing community networks and locally available tools for information dissemination can extend program reach, especially in areas with limited resources. Ultimately, this work advances academic discourse and discusses tangible real-world impacts, empowering communities to become active participants in their development journeys.

References

1. Clayton AB, Lloyd VC. Land-grant institutions. In: Davis TL, Price-Williams S, Sasso PA, eds. Institutional diversity in American postsecondary education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing; 2024. p. 33-46.
2. King AH, Settle Q, Cartmell D, Cooley A, Sallee J. Perception and conceptualization of the land-grant mission at a land-grant institution. Journal of Applied Communications. 2022;106(1):1-21.
3. Williams D. Focusing agricultural education research: Strategies for the discipline. Journal of Agricultural Education. 1991;31(1):7-12.
4. Iowa State University. 2022-2031 strategic plan. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University; 2022.
5. Butler LM, McMillan DE, eds. Tapping philanthropy for development: Lessons learned from a public-private partnership in rural Uganda. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press; 2015.
6. Ikendi S, Retallick MS. Strategic leadership and management of multistakeholder organizations. Journal of Agricultural Education. 2025;66(2):Article 9.
7. Thurow R. Against the grain: How farmers around the globe are transforming agriculture to nourish the world and heal the planet. St. Paul, MN: Midway Books; 2024.
8. Butler ML, Acker GD. Epilogue: The partnership today and looking towards the future. In: Butler LM, McMillan DE, eds. Tapping philanthropy for development: Lessons learned from a public-private partnership in rural Uganda. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press; 2015. p. 255-268.
9. Scoones I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 1998.
10. Natarajan N, Newsham A, Rigg J, Suhardiman D. A sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. World Development. 2022;155:105898.
11. Elizondo D. Guidance note: Application of the sustainable livelihoods framework in development projects. New York: United Nations Development Programme; 2017.
12. Thennakoon S. Rural livelihood strategies and the five capitals: a comparative study in the selected villages of www.extensionjournal.com Sri Lanka [dissertation]. Colombo: University of Sri Lanka; 2012.
13. Tambe S, ed. Teaching and learning rural livelihoods. Cham: Springer; 2022.
14. Sseguya H, Mazur RE, Masinde D. Harnessing community capitals for livelihood enhancement: Experiences from a livelihood program in rural Uganda. Community Development. 2009;40(2):123-138.
15. Masinde D, Butler ML, Mazur R. Getting started. In: Butler LM, McMillan DE, eds. Tapping philanthropy for development: Lessons learned from a public-private partnership in rural Uganda. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press; 2015. p. 57-81.
16. Acker DG, Musoke HK, Sseguya H. Capitalizing on impacts and CSRL's multiplier effects. In: Butler LM, McMillan DE, eds. Tapping philanthropy for development: Lessons learned from a public-private partnership in rural Uganda. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press; 2015. p. 223-254.
17. Crotty M. The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage; 1998.
18. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2018.
19. Center for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL). Annual reports. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University of Science and Technology; 2025.
20. Saldaña J. An introduction to themeing the data. In: Wolgemuth JR, Guyotte KW, Shelton SA, eds. Expanding approaches to thematic analysis: Creative engagements with qualitative data. New York: Routledge; 2024. p. 11-26.
21. Ikendi S, Owusu F, Masinde D, Oberhauser A, Bain C. Nutrition education centers: A community-based approach to management of malnutrition. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. 2023;13(1):9-15.
22. Masinde D, McMillan ED, Rothschild M, Nonnecke G. Leaving the door open to emerging needs and opportunities. In: Butler LM, McMillan DE, eds. Tapping philanthropy for development: Lessons learned from a public-private partnership in rural Uganda. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press; 2015. p. 145-164.
23. Rossman GB, Rallis SF. An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2017.
24. Savvides N, Al-Youssef J, Colin M, Garrido C. Journeys into inner/outer space: Reflections on the methodological challenges of negotiating insider/outsider status in international educational research. Research in Comparative and International Education. 2014;9(4):412-425.
25. Nonnecke G, McMillan DE, Kugonza D, Masinde D. Leaving the doors open to new beneficiaries. In: Butler LM, McMillan DE, eds. Tapping philanthropy for development: Lessons learned from a public-private partnership in rural Uganda. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press; 2015. p. 165-189.
26. Martin T. Individual capacities (human capital) of the Tusubila crafts group [master's thesis]. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Digital Repository; 2018.
27. Ikendi S, Owusu F, Masinde D, Oberhauser A, Bain C. Assessment of agronomy, agroforestry, orchards, grain storage, and postharvest education programs on empowerment of farmers in rural Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Education. 2024;65(1):99-125.
28. Ikendi S, Masinde D, Owusu F. Toward sustainable community health through participatory water and public health education programs in Southeastern Uganda. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research. 2025;15(1):9.
29. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2020;2(4):314-324.
30. Christiana TF, Nduhura T, Nakajubi S, Wilcky BA, Natamba S. Analysis of the factors affecting the quality of girl child secondary education in Africa: Empirical studies from Kamuli District in Uganda. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research. 2022;6(6):123-145.
31. Lyada D, Rutaro A. Effectiveness of Universal Primary Education Policy and pupils' enrolment in selected primary schools in Buzaaya County, Kamuli District, Uganda. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research. 2024;8(12):133-143.
32. Ikendi S, Retallick M, Nonnecke G. Solving community problems through bi-national global service-learning projects [poster]. Presented at: National AAAE Conference; 2022 May 16-19;
33. Ikendi S, Retallick MS, Nonnecke GR. Implementing global service-learning through school gardens. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 2023;95(6):25-28.
34. Ikendi S, Retallick MS, Nonnecke GR, Kugonza DR. Influence of school garden learning approach on academic development of global service-learners. Journal of Agricultural Education. 2023;64(4):159-179.
35. Grain K, Katumba T, Kirumira D, Nakasiita R, Nakayenga S, Nankya E, et al. Co-constructing knowledge in Uganda: Host community conceptions of relationships in international service-learning. Journal of Experiential Education. 2019;42(1):22-36.
36. Kisambira A, Khadijah B, Ahmed AMM. The role of university community engagement programs in influencing higher education outcomes and community development: An insight from Uganda. Extensive Review. 2024;4(1):15-28.
37. Tapia NM, Giorgetti D, Furco A, Weigert KM, Vinciguerra A, González A, et al., eds. Towards a global history of service-learning. Buenos Aires: CLAYSS; 2024.
38. Nyarko DA, Masambuka-Kanchewa F. Exploring factors influencing Ugandan youths' engagement in agricultural careers: A case study of Kamuli District in Uganda. In: Proceedings of the AIAEE Conference; 2025 Apr 14-17; Inverness, Scotland. p. 38-40.
39. Orozco SJA, Lukwata MK. Financial literacy levels and financial education needs for youth in Uganda. In: Proceedings of the AIAEE Conference; 2025 Apr 1417;
40. Gavigan S, Ciprikis K, Cooney TM. The impact of entrepreneurship training on self-employment of rural female entrepreneurs in Uganda. Small Enterprise www.extensionjournal.com Research. 2020;27:180-194.
41. Kuombola H, Niwamanya M, Chiwaula L, Hermannsson K, Keenan A, Atitsogbui A, et al. Baseline study on scaling-up innovative gender inclusion and safeguarding approaches: Evidence from Malawi, Uganda and Ethiopia [research report]. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Repository; 2025.
42. Makwana G, Elizabeth H. The concept of socioeducational intervention in social pedagogy, community development, and services. Journal of Community Development. 2023;2(2):75-79.
43. Afifi RA, Abdulrahim S, Betancourt T, Btedinni D, Berent J, Dellos L, et al. Implementing communitybased participatory research with communities affected by humanitarian crises: The potential to recalibrate equity and power in vulnerable contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2020;66(3-4):381391.
44. Greenwood M, Bechange S, Emong P, Lawrence E, Kyosaba W, Nsajja D, et al. Using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to explore economic empowerment for youth with disabilities in rural Uganda. Social Sciences and Humanities Open. 2023;8(1):100647.
45. Asasira G, Karubanga G, Okry F, Kibwika P, Agea JG. How video attributes influence farmer learning about maize postharvest handling practices and technologies in Kakumiro District, Uganda. International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology. 2019;9(1):58-65.
46. Ikendi S, Owusu F, Masinde D, Oberhauser A, Bain C. Does participation in livelihood education programs impact household food security? A comparative study in rural Uganda. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. 2023;13(1):235-265.
47. Ikendi S, Owusu F, Masinde D, Bain C, Oberhauser A. Food insecurity coping strategies among households with average dietary diversity and caloric intake scores in rural Uganda. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. 2025;15(1):Article pending.
48. Sseguya H, Mazur RE, Flora CB. Social capital dimensions in household food security interventions: Implications for rural Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values. 2018;35(1):117-129.
49. Ikendi S, Owusu F, Masinde D, Oberhauser A, Bain C. Towards nutrition security among mothers and children through livelihood programs [poster]. Presented at: Western Region AAAE Conference; 2023 Sep 18-20;
50. Kalinaki H, Martianto D, Riyadi H. Food security and its determinants among rural households: A case study in Buwenge, Eastern Uganda. BIO Web of Conferences. 2025;171:03003.
51. Ikendi S, Owusu F, Masinde D, Oberhauser A, Bain C. Livestock extension education: A livelihoods revitalization strategy in rural Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Education. 2025;66(1):Article 50.
52. Kugonza DR, Stalder KJ, Rothschild MF. Effects of buck and doe size on the growth performance and survival of their progeny. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2014;26(3):Article 47.
53. Semahoro F, Kugonza D, Babigumira BM, Walusimbi S, Nadiope G, Okot MW. Growth performance of chicken genotypes based on indigenous populations of Eastern Uganda. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 2018; Auckland, New Zealand. p. 557.
54. Walugembe M, Nadiope G, Stock JD, Stalder KJ, Pezo D, Rothschild MF. Prediction of live body weight using various body measurements in Ugandan village pigs. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2014;26(5):Article 96.
55. Ahimbisibwe S, Ikendi S, Buyinza T, Namata M, Waaswa A, Kaaya AN. Mitigating maize postharvest losses through participatory training in rural Uganda [poster]. Presented at: Southern Region AAAE Conference; 2024 Feb 3-6; Atlanta, GA.
56. Asimo AE, Kigozi J, Kambugu R, Brumm T, Ikendi S, Somers RM. Design, construction, fabrication, and testing of an indirect heated biomass grain dryer appropriate for low-income farmers. In: Proceedings of the AIAEE Conference; 2024 Apr 22-25; Orlando, FL. p. 637-641.
57. Bbosa D, Brumm TJ, Bern CJ, Rosentrater KA, Raman DR. Evaluation of hermetic maize storage in 208 liter (55 gallon) steel barrels for smallholder farmers. Transactions of the ASABE. 2017;60(3):981-987.
58. Bbosa D, Brumm TJ, Bern CJ, Rosentrater KA, Raman DR. Effect of blending amaranth grain with maize kernels on maize weevil control during storage. Transactions of the ASABE. 2020;63(2):401-406.
59. Brumm TJ, Bern CJ, Webber DF. Hermetic storage of maize grain in repurposed food oil containers to control maize weevils. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research. 2021;12(2):42-46.
60. Mayanja IK, Oluk I. Intermediate technologies: The key to eradicating post-harvest losses (PHLs) in SubSaharan Africa. Journal of Advances in Food Science and Technology. 2023;10(4):64-74.
61. Tumutegyereize P, Oluk I, Kigozi J, Mayanja I, Buyinza T, Mbeiza M. Assessing the effect of access on the use of improved seed cleaning technologies: Challenges and opportunities among farmers in the Kamuli District, Uganda. International Journal of Postharvest Technology and Innovation. 2022;8(23):243-256.
62. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Digital Repository; 2021.
63. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Digital Repository; 2023.
64. Wokibula AR, Westgate EM. Green manure intercropping systems to boost maize yields: A case study in Kamuli District, Uganda [poster]. Presented at: ASA Annual Meeting; 2016 Nov 6-9; Phoenix, AZ.
65. Wokibula RA, Akitwine F, Mtama JG, Burras LC. Cation exchange capacity within and between pedons of the Kamuli catena, Busoga sub-region, Uganda [online presentation]. Presented at: ASA Annual www.extensionjournal.com Meeting; 2024 Nov 10-13; San Antonio, TX.
66. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Digital Repository; 2022.
67. Muyonga JH, Ugen M, Bisikwa J, Nakimbugwe D, Masinde D, Bbemba J, et al. Promoting production and utilization of grain amaranth for improved nutrition and health in Uganda [report]. Kampala: McKnight Foundation; 2010.
68. Tusiime SM, Nonnecke GR, Jensen HH. Tomato seed value chain analysis and seed conditioning among seed companies in Uganda. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 2020;23(4):501514.
69. Tusiime SM, Nonnecke GR, Masinde DM, Jensen HH. Evaluation of horticultural practices for sustainable tomato production in Eastern Uganda. HortScience. 2019;54(11):1934-1940.
70. Wokibula RA, Dentzman K, Akitwine F, Mtama JG, Mbeiza M, Burras CL. Factors that affect the adoption of fertilizer among cocoa farmers in developing countries: A review. Global Challenges. 2025;9(1):2400175.
71. Nabwiire L, Shaw A, Nonnecke G, Talbert J, Muyanja C, Boylston T, et al. Compliance with food safety standards by beef vendors at butcheries in Kamuli district, Uganda. African Journal of Food Science. 2023;17(9):192-206.
72. Byaruhanga LA, Masinde DM, Nonnecke GR, Lutwama D, Kimiywe J, Nyangaresi DM. Effect of school garden food production on nutrient adequacy of school meals for children attending Namasagali primary school in rural Kamuli district, Uganda. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition. 2017;2(4):114118.
73. Nonnecke G, Masinde D, Byaruhanga L, Lutwama D, Acker D. Using school gardens to support school feeding programs at elementary schools in Uganda. HortScience. 2016;51(9):S370.
74. Ssabika G, Buyinza T, Brumm T, Byakika S, Mukisa IM. Microbiological safety and nutritional adequacy of composite porridge flour used in a selected schoolfeeding program in Kamuli District, Uganda. European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. 2024;6(2):60-66.
75. Buyinza T, Ssengooba F, Mayega RW, Mutyoba NJ, Warugaba BS, Mutole G, et al. Perceived risk for hypertension and associated factors among adult persons living with HIV in Kamuli district, Uganda. medRxiv. 2024 Jul. doi:10.1101/2024.07.
76. Ikendi S, Owusu F, Masinde D. Community education for behavioural change towards food and nutrition security. In: AAAE Conference; 2023 May 15-18;
77. White PJ, Okello D, Casey BP, Najjuuko C, Lukanga R. Co-designing with engineers for community engagement in rural Uganda. Design Science. 2023;9:e12.
78. Masinde D, McMillan DE. Starting where the people are. In: Butler ML, McMillan DE, editors. Tapping philanthropy for development: Lessons learned from a public-private partnership in rural Uganda. Kumarian Press; 2015. p. 111-144.
79. Obubu JP, Mengistou S, Fetahi T, Alamirew T, Odong R, Ekwacu S. Recent climate change in the Lake Kyoga basin, Uganda: An analysis using short-term and longterm data with standardized precipitation and anomaly indexes. Climate. 2021;9(12):179.
80. Nedala S, Puja S, Kempango L, Ikendi S. Assessing flood susceptibility and effectiveness of structural flood mitigation measures applied within Mubuku catchment in Rwenzori Region, Uganda. Natural Hazards. 2025;121(2):1375-1397.
81. Mulema J, Nankinga C, Kagorora JPK, Tusiime G, Amayo R, Chemonges M, et al. Prioritising non-native pest species to inform plant health biosecurity policy decisions and to safeguard agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, and livelihoods in Uganda. Frontiers in Agronomy. 2025;7:1601845.
82. Nameere-Kivunike F, Gamukama EA, NakatumbaNabende J, Mutembesa D, Tusubira JF, Nsumba S, et al. Assessing the contribution of the Adhoc crop health surveillance tool on the food security and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Uganda. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 2023;89(3):e12249.
83. Stoecker R. Extension and higher education servicelearning: Toward a community development servicelearning model. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2014;18(1):15-42.
84. Banige D, Ikendi S, Somers RM, Asimo AE, Kitayimbwa R, Kabbale F. Approaches educators use to implement school-based agricultural education in Uganda. In: Southern Region AAAE Conference; 2024 Feb 3-6;
85. Banige D, Ikendi S, Somers RM, Asimo AE, Kitayimbwa R, Kabbale F. Contributions of SBAE to scholarship of agriculture education and lifelong learning. In: Southern Region AAAE Conference; 2024 Feb 3-6;
86. Duerfeldt K, Tusiime S, Nonnecke G. Impact of sack gardening by youth in a Ugandan school garden program. HortScience. 2016;51(9):S371-S372.
87. Ikendi S. Developing school-based agriculture education through school gardens [poster presentation]. In: National AAAE Conference; 2022 May 16-19;
88. Ampaire EL, Katungi EM, Tegbaru A, Buruchara R. Gender differences in agrimarketing farmer organizations in Uganda and Malawi: Implications for R4D delivery mechanisms. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2020;16(6):916-930.
89. Bain C, Ransom E, Halimatusa'diyah I. Dairy livestock interventions for food security in Uganda: What are the implications for women's empowerment? Rural Sociology. 2020;85(4):991-1020.
90. Kakungulu B, Mwenyi RM, Ikendi S, Natwijuka M, Arinda A, Muhe L, et al. Harnessing gender roles in the dairy value chain to improve its productivity in the Southwestern milkshed of Uganda. In: AAAE; 2025 May 19-22; Texas. p. 463-466.
91. Mukoda M, Ikendi S, Mwenyi RM, Semyalo J. Toward www.extensionjournal.com gender inclusivity in tomato variety selection and production chain in Uganda [poster proceedings]. In: National AAAE Conference; 2025 May 19-22;
92. Rodgers Y. Time poverty: Conceptualization, gender differences, and policy solutions. Social Philosophy and Policy. 2023;40(1):79-102.
93. Kansiime MK, Mugambi I, Rware H, Alokit C, Aliamo C, Zhang F, et al. Challenges and capacity gaps in smallholder access to digital extension and advisory services in Kenya and Uganda. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering. 2022;9(4):642-654.
94. Turyasingura B, Chavula P. Climate-smart agricultural extension service innovation approaches in Uganda. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture. 2022;6(1):35-43.
95. Sseguya H, Mazur RE, Wells B, Matsiko F. Quality of participation in community groups in Kamuli District, Uganda: Implications for policy and practice. Community Development. 2015;46(1):14-25.