Role of 4-H and young farmer clubs in fostering agricultural leadership and extension participation

Introduction

Rural youth in South Asia are leaving agriculture in record numbers, yet the few who stay tend to become the most innovative and engaged farmers in their communities. What makes the difference? In Nepal, where agriculture employs 66% of the population but is increasingly abandoned by younger generations, youth agricultural clubs have been one of the few institutional mechanisms actively working to keep young people connected to farming [1,2] . The 4-H model (Head, Heart, Hands, Health), adapted from its American origins, and locally developed young farmer clubs together serve roughly 48,000 youth across Nepal's 77 districts [3] . These clubs combine hands-on agricultural projects with leadership training, community service, and peer networking. The premise is straightforward: young people who develop both technical skills and leadership capacity through club activities will be more likely to stay in agriculture and engage productively with extension services throughout their careers [4,5] . Evidence from the United States and parts of Africa supports this logic, showing that 4-H alumni demonstrate higher civic engagement, better problem-solving skills, and stronger community ties than matched non-participants [6,7] . In Nepal's context, however, the evidence is limited. Most evaluations have focused on individual club projects ratherthan measuring broader impacts on leadership development and extension system engagement [8] . This research addressed that gap by comparing club members and non-members on leadership competency, extension engagement, and agricultural practice adoption across three districts with active club programs [9,10] .

Theoretical framework

The research applied Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory [11] adapted for youth agricultural development contexts. The theory posits that effective learning occurs through a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Youth clubs operationalize this cycle through project-based activities (experience), group reflection sessions (observation), training modules (conceptualization), and field application (experimentation). The framework predicts that longer and more intensive exposure to this learning cycle builds cumulative competency that transfers to broader agricultural engagement [12] .

Material and Methods

Material

This research used a comparative cross-sectional design, conducted from the College of Agriculture, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, from August 2022 to January 2024. Ethical approval was granted by Tribhuvan University's Research Division (Protocol TU-RD-2022-073, approved July 14, 2022). The sample included 296 rural youth ages 16-30 across three districts: Kaski, Chitwan, and Morang, selected for their active 4-H and young farmer club programs. Participants were stratified into current club members (n = 148) and matched non-members (n = 148) based on age, gender, education level, and district. Data were collected through structured surveys and 32 focus group discussions (4 per district per stratum) [13] . www.extensionjournal.com

Methods

Leadership competency was measured using an adapted Youth Leadership Life Skills Development scale (0-100) covering communication, decision-making, team management, financial literacy, and conflict resolution. Extension engagement was assessed through a composite score (0-100) combining extension contact frequency, participation in field days, adoption of recommended practices, and information-seeking behavior. Data analysis used independent-samples t-tests, Pearson correlation, chisquare tests, and binary logistic regression in SPSS version 28. Focus group data were transcribed and analyzed thematically using NVivo 12 [14,15] .

Pilot research

A pilot with 28 youth (14 members, 14 non-members) from Lalitpur district in June 2022 tested survey comprehension and facilitation guides. Cronbach's alpha was 0.85 for leadership and 0.82 for engagement scales. Minor wording adjustments were made to three ambiguous items. The 45minute survey duration and focus groups of 6-8 participants were confirmed as appropriate. Club members significantly outperformed non-members on every indicator (Table 1). Leadership competency was 24.6 points higher, practices adopted doubled, and 72.3% of members intended to continue farming versus only 34.5% of non-members. The model (χ2 = 68.47, df = 5, p<0.001) classified 77.4% of cases correctly (Table 2). Club membership was the strongest predictor of high adoption (OR = 3.40), followed by leadership competency and extension contact frequency. Communication and public speaking (31.4%) was the most developed skill (Figure 1), followed by decision-making (24.7%). Focus groups noted financial literacy and conflict resolution had the most direct farm management impact. The pathway model (Figure 3) traces how club recruitment leads to parallel hands-on projects and leadership training, which converge in combined skill development, branching into extension engagement and community roles that ultimately support agricultural careers.

Results

Discussion

The results confirm that youth clubs in Nepal function as effective incubators for agricultural leadership and extension engagement. The 24.6-point leadership gap is consistent with American 4-H evaluations [6] , and the www.extensionjournal.com participation-engagement correlation (r = 0.71) supports experiential learning theory [11] . Perhaps most importantly, 72.3% of club members intend to stay in agriculture versus 34.5% of non-members, suggesting these programs actively counteract the youth farming exodus. Focus groups revealed clubs create a peer identity that makes agriculture seem like a viable, modern career [3,8] .

Conclusion

Youth agricultural clubs serve as effective vehicles for developing agricultural leadership and sustaining extension participation among rural youth in Nepal. Club members showed significantly higher leadership competency, extension engagement, practice adoption, and agricultural career intent. Scaling these programs requires investment in trained facilitators, project-based curricula aligned with local farming systems, and stronger linkages between clubs and formal extension services to ensure that leadership development translates into productive agricultural careers.

References

1. Acharya S. Youth employment in Nepal: Trends, opportunities and challenges. Nepal Rastra Bank Working Paper. 2015;33:1-28.
2. Paudel B, Zhang Y, Li S, Liu L, Wu X, Khanal NR. Review of studies on land use and land cover change in Nepal. Journal of Mountain Science. 2016;13(4):643660.
3. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development. National Agricultural Extension Strategy 2020-2030. Government of Nepal Publications. 2020;1-64.
4. Lerner RM, Lerner JV, Almerigi JB, Theokas C, Phelps E, Gestsdottir S, Naudeau S, Jelicic H, Alberts A, Ma L, Smith LM, Bobek DL, Richman-Raphael D, Simpson I, Christiansen ED, von Eye A. Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence. 2005;25(1):17-71.
5. Radhakrishna R, Doamekpor P. Teaching leadership and communication skills using 4-H as a laboratory. Journal of Extension. 2008;46(3):1-8.
6. Arnold ME, Nott BD, Dolenc BJ. The 4-H study of positive youth development: Findings from the first wave of data. Oregon State University Extension. 2009;1-24.
7. Bates S, Anderson-Butcher D, Ferrari TM. The 4-H club and community service: Pathways to contribution and competence. Journal of Youth Development. 2014;9(4):89-104.
8. Subedi R, Khanal AR. Youth involvement in agricultural activities in Nepal: Current status and future prospects. Journal of Agriculture and Environment. 2019;20:135-145.
9. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper. 2010;45:1-98.
10. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, Mekonnen D, 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.
11. Kolb DA. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 2nd ed. Pearson Education; 2015. p. 1-390.
12. Roberts TG. A philosophical examination of experiential learning theory for agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education. 2006;47(1):17-29.
13. Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 6th ed. Rowman and Littlefield; 2017. p. 1-680.
14. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. SAGE Publications; 2018. p. 1-816.
15. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
16. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003. p. 1-551.
17. Bhandari H, Yasunobu K. What is social capital? A comprehensive review of the concept. Asian Journal of Social Science. 2009;37(3):480-510.
18. Shrestha N, Shrestha S. Extension service delivery system in Nepal. Journal of Extension Systems. 2018;34(1):67-78.
19. Amanor KS, Chichava S. South-South cooperation, agribusiness, and African agricultural development. World Development. 2016;81:13-23.
20. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: Good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Research Observer. 2004;19(1):41-60.