Cross-sectional mixed-methods study reveals key institutional and infrastructure determinants of training center performance, indicating the necessity of internal capacity building.
Farmers’ Training Centers (FTCs) play a central role in Ethiopia’s agricultural extension system as local platforms for technology dissemination and farmer learning. However, their functionality varies considerably, and the factors associated with their performance remain insufficiently understood. This study assessed the operational functionality of FTCs in South Wollo Zone and identified key institutional and organizational determinants. A cross-sectional mixed-methods design was employed to collect data from 36 extension experts using semi-structured interviews. In addition, the study conducted nine focus group discussions (FGDs), one in each kebele with six participants per group, and seven key informant interviews involving district and kebele officials as well as model farmers, complemented by structured field observations. The study employed Kendall’s tau-b rank correlation to examine associations between FTC functionality and key determinants. The results show that institutional support (τb = 0.99), infrastructure (τb = 0.89), human capital (τb = 0.79), and management and governance (τb = 0.78) are strongly correlated with FTC functionality, while stakeholder linkages (τb = 0.442) have a moderate association. The district-level analysis revealed clear variation, with Tenta demonstrating high functionality, Jama showing moderate performance, and Wegde displaying lower functionality alongside prominent systemic constraints. These findings highlight that strong internal capacity positively linked to better FTC performance, while external partnerships play a complementary role. Thus, policy efforts should prioritize predictable institutional support, investment in infrastructure, continuous capacity building, and strengthened governance to support FTC functionality and enhance agricultural development outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kebede et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: