Mid-term impact estimation on evaluations of rural development programs

Mid-term evaluations are carried out during the implementation of the program and shall indicate whether it is necessary to redirect and make corrections before the ex-post evaluation, or for the next programming period. One of the core elements within these evaluations is the estimation of programs expected impacts. This is especially important for the Commission in order to support sound decision making, but also a very challenging task, as many evaluators have pointed out, mainly due to the lack of available data at the time the study had to be carried out. The aim of this study is therefore to analyze how impact estimation has been done in all European Union regions, as well as the problems encountered by evaluators.

A Thirst for history : an assessment of the compatibility of federal rural development programs and historic preservation /

"Contract #53-3157-9-0026"--Prelim. p. [i].

Hearing to review U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development programs and the agency's rural development proposals for the 2007 farm bill : hearing before the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, March 21, 2007.

"Serial no. 110-6."

Environmental impact indicators estimation in European rural devlopment programs. Limitations of evaluators and financial institutions? Expectatios

The European Commission established Mid-term evaluation for the period 2007-2013 on Rural Development Programs as part of a continuous evaluation system. Mid-term evaluations are important for the Commission because they help measuring the success of a program, as well as giving advice and pointing out good practices for the current and consecutive programming periods. One of the main elements used to achieve these objectives is the impact indicators estimation of the program. This paper will focus on how impact indicators estimation is done for just the environmental indicators. To do this the 88 Mid-term evaluations of Rural Development Programs for 2007-2013 period, were analyzed. This study shows how far the actual methodologies to obtain impact indicators? values are from what the European Commission expects when demanding this task to be done.

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations for 2005 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session /

Shipping list no.: 2004-0116-P (pts. 1A-B), 2004-0162-P (pt.2), 2004-0180-P (pt. 3), 2004-0204-P (pt. 4), 2004-0198-P (pt. 5), 2004-0199-P (pt. 6), 2004-0207-P (pt. 7), 2004-0208-P (pt. 8).

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations for 2006 : hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, first session /

Shipping list no. : 2005-0156-P (pt. 1A), 2005-0131-P (pt. 1B), 2005-0136-P (pt. 2), 2005-0172-P (pt. 3-5, 7), 2005-0185-P (pt. 6), 2005-0168-P (pt. 8), 2006-0066-P (pt. 9).

Review of REA loan programs and lending policies [microform] : hearings before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, and Rural Development of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, May 4 and 13, 1982.

"Serial no. 97-QQQ."

Interest rate levels of FmHA loan programs [microform] : hearing before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification and the Subcommittee on Rural Development of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, second session, June 10, 1980.

Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Hearing to review food aid and agriculture trade programs operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development : hearing before the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, May 10, 2007.

"Serial no. 110-21."

Methodologies for Impact Assessment in the Ex Ante Evaluation of European Rural Development Programmes.

The ex ante quantification of impactsis compulsory when establishing a Rural Development Program (RDP) in the European Union. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to learn how to perform it better. In order to this all of the European 2007-2013 RDPs (a total of 88) and all of their corresponding available ex ante evaluations were analyzed.Results show that less than 50% of all RDPs quantify all the impact indicators and that the most used methodology that allows the quantification of all impact indicators is Input-Output. There are two main difficulties cited for not accomplishing the impact quantification: the heterogeneity of actors and factors involved in the program impacts and the lack of needed information.These difficulties should be addressedby usingnew methods that allow approaching the complexity of the programs and by implementing a better planning that facilitatesgathering the needed information.

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations for 2013 : hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, second session /

Shipping list no.: 2012-0266-P (pt. 1A), 2012-0262-P (pt. 1B), 2012-0267-P (pt. 1C), 2012-0317-P (pt. 2), 2013-0006 (pt. 3), 2013-0008-P (pt. 4), 2013-0027-P (pt. 5), 2013-0033-P (pt. 6), 2013-0042-P (pt. 7), 2013-0038-P (pt. 9).

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations for 2012 : hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, first session /

Shipping list number: 2011-0276-P (pt. 1A), 2011-0274-P (pt. 1B), 2011-0283-P (pt. 1C), 2011-0318-P (pt. 2), 2011-0339-P (pt. 4), 2011-0366-P (pt. 5), 2011-0375-P (pt. 6), 2011-0367-P (pt. 7), 2011-0372-P (pt. 8), 2012-0014-P (pt. 9).

Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies appropriations for 1983 [microform] : hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session /

CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 82 H181-27 (pt.1), CIS 82 H181-28 (pt.2), CIS 82 H181-37 (pt.3), CIS 82 H181-38 (pt.4), CIS 82 H181-39 (pt.5), CIS 82 H181-40 (pt.6), CIS 82 H181-41 (pt.7), CIS 83 H181-1 (pt.8)

Catalog of courses in agriculture and rural development /

Description based on: 1985.

Training civic bridge builders: Outcomes of community leadership development programs

As rural communities experience rapid economic, demographic, and political change, program interventions that focus on the development of community leadership capacity could be valuable. Community leadership development programs have been deployed in rural U.S. communities for the past 30 years by university extension units, chambers of commerce, and other nonprofit foundations. Prior research on program outcomes has largely focused on trainees’ self-reported change in individual leadership knowledge, skills, and attitudes. However, postindustrial leadership theories suggest that leadership in the community relies not on individuals but on social relationships that develop across groups akin to social bridging. The purpose of this study is to extend and strengthen prior evaluative research on community leadership development programs by examining program effects on opportunities to develop bridging social capital using more rigorous methods. Data from a quasi-experimental study of rural community leaders (n = 768) in six states are used to isolate unique program effects on individual changes in both cognitive and behavioral community leadership outcomes. Regression modeling shows that participation in community leadership development programs is associated with increased leadership development in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are a catalyst for social bridging. The community capitals framework is used to show that program participants are significantly more likely to broaden their span of involvement across community capital asset areas over time compared to non-participants. Data on specific program structure elements show that skills training may be important for cognitive outcomes while community development learning and group projects are important for changes in organizational behavior. Suggestions for community leadership program practitioners are presented.