Integrating farmer field schools into national extension program frameworks: Challenges and opportunities

Introduction

What happens to farmer field schools once the donor funding cycle ends? FFS emerged in Southeast Asia during the late 1980s as a season-long, field-based learning approach where groups of 20 to 30 farmers meet weekly under a trained facilitator to observe, analyze, and experiment with agricultural practices [1] . The approach spread to Africa during the mid-1990s, driven by international agencies seeking alternatives to the top-down training-and-visit system [2] . Despite evidence that FFS can improve farmer knowledge and adoption of improved practices [3] , the method has struggled to move beyond project-based implementation into routine extension service delivery. A central tension exists between the resource-intensive nature of FFS and the budget-constrained reality of most public extension agencies [4] . Extension systems face chronic underfunding, high staff-to-farmer ratios, and competing demands from multiple agricultural sub-sectors [5] . FFS operates on principles of experiential learning and farmer empowerment, which can clash with hierarchical bureaucratic cultures that prioritize message delivery and coverage targets [6] . Donor-supported FFS projects often create parallel implementation structures that bypass government channels, making post-project sustainability difficult [7] . This research investigated factors that enable or hinder FFS integration into national extension program frameworks in East Africa. It assessed perspectives of extension managers and policy officials, examined existing policy environments, and identified institutional conditions associated with higher integration levels.

Materials and Methods

Materials

The research was conducted across six East African countries: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Malawi, between March 2021 and August 2022. The primary research site was Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya. Research materials included a structured questionnaire with 48 items covering institutional capacity, policy environment, financial allocation, and human resource availability. The questionnaire was pilot-tested with 32 extension officers in Nakuru County (Cronbach alpha = 0.84). Semi-structured interview guides, national extension policy documents, and staffing records were also used. Ethical clearance was granted by the Egerton University Research Ethics Committee (Protocol EU/RERC/2021-0147, approved February 2021).

Methods

A cross-sectional mixed-methods design was employed. For the quantitative component, 384 respondents were selected through stratified random sampling across six countries, with strata based on administrative level and institutional type. Quantitative analysis involved descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and binary logistic regression to identify predictors of FFS integration status. The dependent variable was whether the respondent agency had formal FFS integration (coded 1) or not (coded 0). For the qualitative www.extensionjournal.com component, 42 semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior administrators. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke six-step protocol [10] . The logistic regression model was statistically significant (chi-square = 67.34, df = 6, p < 0.001) and correctly classified 74.2% of cases. Donor financial dependence was the strongest predictor (OR = 3.78), meaning agencies reliant on external funding were nearly four times more likely to lack formal integration. Figure 2 compares barrier categories across the six countries. Financial constraints were most commonly reported, with Kenya (81.6%) and Ethiopia (79.5%) highest.

Results

Institutional barriers followed closely in Kenya (72.3%) and Ethiopia (71.8%). Technical capacity gaps were highest in Rwanda (62.4%) and Uganda (58.6%), where extension reforms had increased demand for FFS-trained staff.

Comprehensive Interpretation

The results point to a clear pattern: FFS integration succeeds when three conditions align. First, a policy environment must explicitly recognize participatory methods as legitimate extension approaches. Second, financial resources need to be embedded within recurrent extension budgets. Third, a critical mass of trained facilitators must exist with ongoing professional development pathways. Weakness in any single area substantially undermines progress in the others.

Discussion

The finding that donor financial dependence was the strongest barrier aligns with broader critiques of aiddependent extension programming. Feder, Murgai, and Quizon [11] argued that sustainability of participatory extension methods hinges on domestic ownership of both processes and funding. When FFS operates as a donor project with separate management structures, it creates what Anderson and Feder [4] described as institutional dualism.

The association between decentralized governance and higher integration rates echoes findings from Southeast Asia, where Indonesia decentralization reforms enabled local governments to allocate FFS resources based on district-specific needs [12] . The weak supervisory structures identified as a barrier deserve attention. FFS requires facilitators to guide open-ended discovery processes, which demands different supervision than traditional extension. Interview participants noted that existing supervisory frameworks emphasize activity reporting rather than learning quality, creating a mismatch between what FFS requires and what the system measures [13] . Without supervisory models adapted to facilitation-based extension, integration remains superficial even when policies and budgets are favorable.

Limitations

The cross-sectional design prevents causal conclusions. Self-reported data may introduce social desirability bias. Country-level variation limits regional transferability, and the sampling may miss community-based perspectives.

Practical Implications

Creating dedicated FFS budget lines signals institutional commitment. Accrediting facilitator training through national institutions builds sustainable personnel pipelines.

Revising supervisory frameworks to include learning quality indicators would align monitoring with FFS principles.

Conclusion

This research examined institutional, financial, and technical factors shaping FFS integration into national extension frameworks across six East African countries. Integration remains limited despite widespread recognition of FFS effectiveness, with only 29.1% of agencies reporting formal integration policies. Donor financial dependence, weak supervisory structures, and shortages of trained facilitators emerged as the strongest barriers, while decentralized governance was associated with higher integration levels. Moving FFS from project-based implementation to institutionalized practice demands simultaneous changes: explicit policy provisions for participatory approaches, dedicated budget allocations, and accredited training pathways with adapted supervisory models. Coordinated action across these dimensions can gradually shift FFS from the periphery of extension systems toward their operational core.

References

1. Braun A, Jiggins J, Roling N, van den Berg H. A global survey and review of farmer field school experiences. Report prepared for IFAD. 2006; 1:1-87.
2. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, Mekonnen DA, Odendo M, Miiro R, Nkuba J. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. World Development. 2012;40(2):402-413.
3. Waddington H, Snilstveit B, Hombrados J, Vojtkova M, Phillips D, Davies P, White H. Farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer outcomes: a www.extensionjournal.com systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2014;10(1):1-335.
4. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Research Observer. 2004;19(1):41-60.
5. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper. 2010;45:1-206.
6. Duveskog D, Friis-Hansen E, Taylor EW. Farmer field schools in rural Kenya: a transformative learning experience. Journal of Development Studies. 2011;47(10):1529-1544.
7. Tripp R, Wijeratne M, Piyadasa VH. What should we expect from farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case research. World Development. 2005;33(10):1705-1720.
8. Scott WR. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Fourth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2014.
9. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. New York: Free Press; 2003.
10. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
11. Feder G, Murgai R, Quizon JB. The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge: the case of pest management training in farmer field schools, Indonesia. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2004;55(2):221-243.
12. Quizon J, Feder G, Murgai R. Fiscal sustainability of agricultural extension: the case of the farmer field school approach. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2001;8(1):13-24.
13. Simpson BM, Franzel S, Degrande A. Farmer-to-farmer extension: issues in planning and implementation. MEAS Technical Note. 2015;11:1-12.
14. Mancini F, Van Bruggen AHC, Jiggins JL. Changes in farmer pest management practices following field school participation in India. International Journal of Pest Management. 2007;53(2):169-178.
15. van den Berg H, Jiggins J. Investing in farmers: the impacts of farmer field schools in relation to integrated pest management. World Development. 2007;35(4):663-686.