U1D1-28- Describe a public needs assessment that you have worked on as part of your job, etc. see details below. answer all questions

1 Beginnings

A DIALOGUE

Here is a conversation that might have taken place at the author’s academic institution. Participants are the author (TA) and a person who is a composite of former students (FS) who took his needs assessment courses during the 24 years he taught them.

TA Hey FS, it’s great to see you after so many years. What have you been doing since you graduated?

FS It’s nice to see you. I went into program planning and development after finishing and have been able to use some of the needs assessment concepts and methods you taught in my work. You will recall I was not too sure if they all fit into my thinking. What have you been doing?

TA It’s good as a teacher to know that things were useful and I certainly hope meaningful, but I did sense you were somewhat skeptical in the course. As for me I have continued to write and conduct NA research since I left the university. A couple of years ago I was involved with producing a new NA kit, and recently I am into another book about comparing asset/capacity building to needs assessment to see if it is possible to bridge the gap between the two, to create some sort of synthesis.

FS I’m surprised to hear this. In class and I understand even professionally you were almost always thought of as proselytizing for needs assessment. What happened? Why did your thinking change?

TA You are correct. Yes, I was out there hawking about needs and indeed built my reputation on the topic. It took me all over the U.S. and to other countries and led to many opportunities on projects that came from teaching about needs and how we learn about them. At the same time I encountered another approach, one in opposition to NA. Frankly, I paid lip service to it, and as time passed I incorporated some of it into the classes but admittedly with very limited coverage and little discussion.

FS That’s kind of vague. Could you be more concrete about what you did?

TA After about 10 years of the courses I added a reference about assessing the needs of the rural elderly by Iutcovich (1993). It seemed to be a mixture of assessment and asset/capacity building with regard to senior citizens. This was about the mid-’90s. Then later, I also brought into key tables the concept of looking at assets and resources in communities and how they could be utilized for improvement and growth. Along the way I was coming to the recognition that I ought to not only broaden my thinking but even reevaluate it.

FS As you were talking I was reflecting on the classes, and I can’t seem to dredge up anything about what you’ve just said. Am I forgetting something, did I not attend in class, or am I simply getting older?

TA The answer to all three of your questions is yes, and the blame lies entirely with you. Only kidding! One other possibility is that you participated before some of this thinking was embedded in my approach to NA.

I guess that the fault is mine. Although the Iutcovich article was in the handout materials for courses, it was not reviewed even once in all the years of NA at the university. Sorry about that. As far as the table entries, at best they were highlighted for something like 10 minutes, and that was it. That was the total extent of coverage.

FS This seems to be a big departure for you, so what exactly are you planning to do in this new book?

TA I’m shifting from a previous stance of focusing on discrepancies as the sole starting point for planning and development. I still consider that idea to be important but recognize that individuals might shy away or feel uncomfortable with what a need means or denotes. It is seen as a problem, a discrepancy, or an indication of something being amiss or wrong. The critics are right: That is a negative kind of thinking that could certainly get us off on the wrong foot. Don’t misunderstand me—needs are integral to where I am and to how I view planning and improving what we do as institutions, agencies, and societies. On the other hand, being positive is valuable, and we should not lose sight of assets and strengths that we, as communities, as individuals, and through our organizations, bring to the table. Our skills, motivation, organizations (governmental and otherwise), commitment, and fiscal resources are part of the foundation that enables us to advance and that must be in the focal lens. This is a radical change and will be difficult for me to do. Here’s the way I am going to accomplish it. My thoughts are to give a brief background and history of the two competing viewpoints and then to compare and contrast them, sort of a philosophical bases examination. That could be done by dispelling what I see as misperceptions about them and finally proceed to their unique and in-common features and methods followed by real-world examples, ones that are bridging the gap between needs assessment and asset/capacity building. I want to dissect these works and probe into how they accommodated the two opposite sides of the thought process. I have been finding reports in the literature that are going in this direction.

FS What I am understanding is that there is a “positive thesis” as to how we make progress emanating from strengths and assets and an “antithesis” that looks at weaknesses or needs as the fundamental thing, and you want to see if you can meld them together, the “synthesis.” (See Figure 1.1.) If that is correct and it appears fairly straightforward, why is this book necessary?

TA That is the underlying premise of the book. Why it is necessary gets to the heart of the matter. One answer is that there is not a large literature base that deals with the blending of the perspectives, and it will help to reduce the gap between the two sides. Excuse the pun, my slipping into needs jargon—I just could not avoid it. Going further, it will describe an emerging set of needs assessment/asset/capacity-building efforts now accessible. One other thing that it could do is to relieve some tension that may be there for some adherents to one or the other camp. It could be that the synthesis will lead into more meaningful efforts in our communities and organizations than either side could produce by itself.

FS As you described that, I perceived that there is some beneath-the-surface friction that might arise from this effort. Since I have to go in a few minutes, give me the long story short. Is that a delicate spot in this?

TA It is, and some prior criticisms of NA have valid points, and for that matter the same applies to asset/capacity building. The idea is not to brush these away; instead, it is to see them as related to extremes in usage, which may not be so common. I think that there is a middle ground in most situations, and so I will put forward the idea that more will be achieved by bringing disparate positions together than by rigid ties to either one. Delicate is very relevant to what is being attempted. I too have to go. It was delightful seeing you again, and best wishes.

FS Same here, and you definitely have your work cut out for you. Good luck on this newest venture.

Figure 1.1 Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis

EARLY CRITICISM AND DEFENSE—1970S AND 1980S

Some history about how the dialectic came about and evolved to the point where a synthesis might be appropriate is helpful. As the author began to read about needs assessment early in his career, he found an article by Kamis titled “A Witness for the Defense of Need Assessment” (1979). What an odd title because an approach to planning is just that, something that is useful but would be adapted and tailored to a context—that is nothing unusual or unexpected. There are advantages and disadvantages to using it, and assessors must understand concepts and techniques, but why would it have to be defended? It seems that any issues associated with conducting a needs assessment are obvious and anticipated—what’s the big deal? What is there to be defensive about and to warrant the article?

Recognize that from the 1970s to the mid-1980s much was happening in needs assessment—a sampling follows. Warheit, Bell, and Schwab (1979) were writing about the topic from a federal perspective. Neuber and Associates (1980) were doing similar work as was Lauffer (1982). Kaufman (1987) was in the process of developing and publicizing his systems-oriented model (Organizational Elements Model—OEM) for identifying and then resolving needs. Some of that effort has been continued up to the present by Kaufman (1992; Kaufman & Guerra-Lopez, 2013) and students he trained.

At the same time, Witkin conducted a major research study in the late 1970s about needs assessment strategies used by school districts to comply with federal funding and its requirements that programs be based upon identified needs. She surveyed districts in the United States and collected information and materials from them. From a detailed, extensive examination of what came from that effort her first book was published in 1984.

It contained a rationale for assessing needs, a theoretical framework, and a solid overview of methods. Additionally, although not in depth, a three-phase process model for needs assessment was proposed. To this day, the book is a seminal contribution to the field.

In 1987, McKillip followed with his text on needs analysis. It was oriented toward social services rather than education, business, or communities. It is important to note that he did cover the assessment of resources or strengths but not in a manner that would be viewed as asset/capacity building (see Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Resources in his case were to resolve needs that were determined mostly by quantitative assessments of discrepancies, in other words after needs had been identified, analyzed, and prioritized, were they to enter the picture, but certainly not as a starting point.

That is contrary to what asset/capacity building is even while the act of finding and cataloging resources might be similar to or overlap with it. The intentionality is quite different, and McKillip would not be considered an asset/capacity builder.

There were more writings about needs assessment in this period, but enough is here to give a sense of the interest in the topic and discrepancy-based planning. Against that backdrop, the title of Kamis’s article was striking and implied that there were negative feelings about such activities for changing communities,

organizations, and agencies. Kamis presaged literature that would appear later. What are her main points and the reasoning underlying them?

First, Kamis noted that needs assessment, or NA, was really in its infancy (remember it was 1979 although criticisms persist to the present). Standards for the “what should be” condition of needs assessment were hard to come by or were value positions in areas such as education and recreation, and assessing needs in community programs and health had changed from doing social good to being predicated on shortages (needs) and as concrete justifications for expenditures. The foundation had to be driven by data that clearly depict needs (problems) as a guide for agencies and institutions. Solutions for problems must flow out of data that assessors generate and that directly attend to the causes of discrepancies. Second, Kamis went on to acknowledge some criticisms, among other concerns:

• Needs assessment activities cost precious resources. • Most results do not address the funding for solutions related to underlying problems. • Hard-core empirical data are based on social indicators and don’t fully reflect human situations (hence

the later emphasis on multiple sources of data including qualitative ones). • The data collected may lead to inferring needs rather than observing or measuring them. • Perceptive data should be used and are a valuable source of data (an outgrowth of previous entries). • Poor payoffs from identifying discrepancies and gaps have been realized to date, calling into question

whether the expenditures for assessment are worth it. • There is a lack of conceptual frameworks underlying the endeavor. • Assessments might be done retrospectively rather than prospectively. • Different needs might not be treated in detail; that is, there is not a fine enough sifting of what was

found. • There is a lack of good methods for pulling data together. • There is a tendency to stop at the identification of needs, without probing what is causing them. • Assessors might not understand factors that lead to the utilization of findings. • Needs assessments are fads, ego trips for those who advocate their use. • Need represents a negative, a problem, not an uplifting concept. • The evaluation of the costs versus benefits of completed assessments is not evident in the literature or in

reports.

For the defense of the enterprise, Kamis emphasized that assessment provided useful information and social indicators and quantitative measures help in identifying and understanding gaps. They are not the entirety of what might be delved into, but they are important for decision making and should not be disregarded. She went on to observe that many quantitative variables and/or social indicators from databases have been reasonably chosen and are reliable, valid, and defensible. There are values inherent in their selection and use, but they just cannot be easily dismissed, and, as she put it,

Knowledge influences policies. It is a slow but worthwhile process. (Kamis, 1979, p. 9)

NA was beginning to be viewed as having merit when Kamis made her comments, and from the current vantage point she predicted, ahead of the curve, that it would grow and evolve in line with the criticisms. As we learned how to perform assessments, they would improve and be of more value. They would become accepted as part of the planning environment for new programs for social improvement. They would be another resource in the tool kit of those working on dimensions of positive change.

She went further by noting that many assessments done prior to her article were based not on a single method but on multiple ones. They were not as narrow as critics had suggested. Sometimes they collected information about perceived need from interviews, focus group interviews, and observations in conjunction with quantitative methods. She felt that such information was good for understanding and we should not shy away from it.

Kamis was open-minded in her rejoinder to the critics and agreed with what they offered, especially in regard to refining and improving methods, data analysis, and how information from different sources can be amalgamated into a meaningful summary with well-formed conclusions and recommendations. The

instruments and procedures were also of concern as to the truthfulness of information for decisions. Were they trustworthy for making changes in services for program recipients?

Her discussion took on issues forthrightly, not defensively as in her title but from the stance of doing a more sophisticated job of identifying and working with needs. Thus she made suggestions for enhancing NA practice, some of which have been discussed.

CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND CRITICISM—1980S AND 1990S

Despite advancements in assessments and even with more theoretical foundations being provided (Witkin, 1984), by the late 1980s a negative theme was still there as was the sharp attack on needs assessment, especially its linkage to positivism and quantification. Weintraub (1988, 1989) posited that it was a cold, numbers type of thing and not very meaningful in promoting positive growth. It was not getting to the personal level, tapping into what people and groups actually do or could do and what would energize them for improvement. Exhibit 1.1 contains the gist of her position.

Exhibit 1.1 Main Points in Weintraub’s Critique of Needs Assessment

Needs assessment and program planning has a technocratic flavor and feel to it. It does not include the voice of those for whom the effort is supposedly done.

It is not value free but value laden, and positions and ideas embedded in it should be fully acknowledged, not camouflaged.

In the extreme it could be compared to what occurs in highly regulated police states although the author noted that she was not seeing assessors or planners like those in control.

There was an undue focus on positivism in many needs assessments. She underscored that there are alternative routes to knowledge and obtaining insights into human conditions and problems.

Needs assessment comes from a cult of efficiency, and there are a lot of concerns about whose needs are being determined by whom and according to what approach for assessing them.

She points to a lack of humanistic dimensions inherent in the procedures and in the philosophical stance.

This led to a rebuttal by Witkin (1988, 1992), who by then was a stalwart voice for needs assessment. She had worked in and written about the field for more than a decade and felt she had to rise to the challenge (B. R. Witkin, personal communication to J. W. Altschuld, 1992, 1993). Her comments are in Exhibit 1.2.

Exhibit 1.2 Some of Witkin’s Counterpoints to Weintraub

Acknowledged the comments in Exhibit 1.1 and resonated with most of them especially the values woven into an assessment and the “what is” and “what should be” conditions.

Saw needs assessment as inherently democratic since it incorporated many views into identifying discrepancies and gaps.

Needs were to be the determiners of direction in contrast to what was earlier, for programs and projects, administrative fiat. This was an improvement over other ways of thinking.

Needs assessment could be hierarchical as the criticisms implied but if done properly could lead to open discussions about changes in how we move forward.

Needs assessment is based on locally determined goals/objectives and should be a result of shared decision making and leadership as much as possible. Partnership is to be encouraged.

If assessment is incorrectly implemented or implemented in a highly shortened fashion, it could be technocratic and top-down.

It should include an assortment of data and concerns, issues, and input from many different voices. It all depends on how it is carried out.

Positivism is there, but so is interpretation of qualitative data. Results come from both approaches.

Needs assessments and what they produce aren’t to be foisted on service recipients and service deliverers. Instead they arise from multiple stakeholders and involved constituencies.

From Witkin’s (1998/1992) perspective part of the problem resided in how assessments were conducted, not so much in their philosophical underpinnings. Yet the argument persisted and intensified with the publication of “Building Communities From the Inside Out” by Kretzmann and McKnight in 1993. It focused on the value of asset and capacity building for improvement with needs assessment being perceived as the wrong path to follow. Its critique of NA was harsh, and the battle lines were explicitly drawn with a cease-fire nowhere on the horizon.

The main emphasis was that when needs are identified the concern is on what’s wrong with communities and organizations. Deficiencies, and things that are amiss, dominate thinking and are not uplifting or morale boosting, with stress on the negative, and that is depressing. That becomes the reality governing thought, programming, and outlook. When you start this way, it is difficult to move forward—it’s a turnoff.

Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) suggested that in low-income urban areas, while problems are definitely there and known, doing needs assessments does not empower a community but instills a client or recipient-of- service mentality with no incentives for its assets and strengths to be the change agent. In this scenario the community isn’t proactive, initiative doesn’t take place, and a needs-based approach does not lead to change and will ultimately fail.

(Interestingly this same idea was raised by a nationally known political commentator about the presidential election in 2012. David Brooks (Brooks, 2012) noted that the intense negative campaigning might not be the best way to make a case to the public. He suggested decreasing the negatives about an opponent and focusing more on what people can do in policies and action—that is, relying more on positive psychology for a small number of fundamental changes.)

What Kretzmann and McKnight posit is that communities become involved in assessing their strengths and capacities and adapt a more “can do” attitude and stance.

• What are our churches and religious institutions, community organizations, schools, and so forth able to do and provide?

• What can businesses, health providers, cultural groups, libraries, and similar entities offer, and what do they currently offer?

• What synergies could they develop across strengths if they began to think about doing so? • How could the assets and capabilities be leveraged, ramped up for the greater good? • What’s positive about what we have and our capacity to use it to grow? • Surely the creativity and ability are there to do this if we concentrate on strengths to solve problems.

We have assets, and we should take advantage of them. • What about the talents, skills, and accomplishments of individual citizens (for they are many and should

not be overlooked)? • How could they be incorporated into and helpful for movement forward and change? • How could they be linked together in a synergy for the future?

We can build our communities from within. We have faith in ourselves as people to affect the current status. Should we not be able to take the reins? It is our domain and destiny. If we assume leadership, the situation is empowered, invigorated, and meaningful. The straitjacket of dependency must be broken, and that happens by being involved in and committed to the process. This is the avenue through which progress will be achieved. This position does not eschew external help and funds, but the parameters of development are internal and not other directed. Rather than needs being the game plan, look at the assets and capacity that can

be tapped into with the right catalyst. The various components of the community are the key ingredients for building a better environment.

A group would begin by cataloging and collecting information about the vast array of resources it has. They are found in organizations and individuals and are abundant in every community. Sure, there are negatives and problems, but this view is diametrically opposite to a needs-based one, and procedures for obtaining data are predicated on assets. Identifying assets would be heavily internal, driven and guided by the community, as contrasted to a more external, technocrat-led approach.

Therefore one distinction is that needs assessment would be more an external, expert-led, stark scientific process, and asset/capacity building would be noticeably more locally controlled. After all, consultants are involved in endeavors for a short span of time. They will disappear from the scene, but the community or organization remains. It becomes stronger and more able to proceed, if it relies on itself, its own energy, and its own ideas. It is capacitated, and this is healthy.

Kretzmann and McKnight’s position, like Witkin’s, was seminal for its philosophy and methodological uniqueness. Their efforts had proponents, as did hers. There are examples of both in the literature. What is the right way to go, what is the wrong way, what works, and what are the choices? Is one best in certain contexts and the reverse in others? Could it even be that neither is wrong or right? There is logic in both camps, so what should we do in a change-oriented situation? What are the advantages of each, and could they be used in a complementary manner? Would a synthesis be a step forward and lead to more beneficial and satisfying outcomes for communities and organizations?

HISTORICAL VIEWS LEANING TOWARD SYNTHESIS—1990S TO 2000S AND BEYOND

Figure 1.2 is a snapshot of the history leading to the synthesis that will be proposed. From where does it come, is there a foundation, and are there examples of its use?

Evidence in support of blending the two approaches comes from the mid- to late ’90s up to the present. In the figure, an inverted pyramid contains the evolution in thinking with the current combined usage of needs assessment and asset/capacity building at the top. The bottom is a narrow base starting with Kamis’s article and some criticism. (If this was a full history, it might have gone back to the Egyptian Book of the Dead [see British Museum, 2011], but the goal is to set the stage for bridging the gap, not a complete timeline.) In the ’80s, Witkin’s (1984) standout work, McKillip’s (1987) text, and others appear as well as an escalating attack on needs assessment culminating in 1993 with the Kretzmann and McKnight groundbreaking effort.

What has taken place since is important and explains how needs assessment and asset/capacity building can be unified to improve communities and organizations. Where are they complementary, and can the advantages of each blend into a meaningful structure and platform?

Figure 1.2 Some Historical Events in Needs Assessment and Asset/Capacity Building Up to the Present

Besides what is in the figure, another event that may have had a profound influence should be discussed. It was mostly informal, and just about all of the prime players are no longer professionally active (the author may be the last). When the Evaluation Network and the Evaluation Research Society were merging into the American Evaluation Association (1985–86), there was a small group of needs assessors (mainly in health or mental health) searching for an organizational home. By default and mutual interest they had with evaluation, they joined AEA, eventually becoming a Topical Interest Group (TIG) in the association. It has been small but continuously active since then as an important force for keeping needs assessment alive and promoting research about its practice.

AEA is perceived as affecting thinking about needs assessment and how it is conducted. Emerging conceptualizations of evaluation included empowerment evaluation and greater concerns for the roles of recipients of service, not seeing them as targets or “subjects” for programs in accord with the guiding principles for evaluators. Evaluation capacity building also entered the mind-set of evaluators and hence that of the needs assessors who were now part of the evaluation scene.

Empowerment evaluation embraces the principle that the self-determination of people and groups for their own improvement is a key to progress. Capacity building as portrayed through the evaluation lens refers to developing within organizations the ongoing practice of evaluation as integral to the organization’s functioning and learning. These movements and their relationships to needs assessment and asset/capacity building are in Tables 1.1 and 1.2.

Table 1.1 Aspects of Empowerment Evaluation and Relationship to Needs Assessment and Asset/Capacity Building

Source: Based on Fetterman (2005).

Table 1.2 Aspects of Capacity Building for Evaluation Purposes and Relationship to Needs Assessment and Asset/Capacity Building

Source: Based on Baizerman, Compton, & Stockdill (2005).

It would be hard to imagine that a portion of the ideas in the tables in small, subtle ways or overtly did not impact needs assessors participating in AEA meetings, events, and discussions. Moreover, such evaluation ideas are related to the tenets of asset/capacity-building efforts in community development and in health promotion efforts. It is reasonable to assume that evaluation movements did affect NA and A/CB and vice versa. In Figure 1.3 they are shown along with other factors that point toward the emergence of the hybrid framework.

Figure 1.3 Some Influences Leading to a Hybrid Framework

Continuing with the historical journey, in 1995, Witkin and Altschuld’s text considerably expanded the three-phase model (pre-assessment, assessment, post-assessment). This was followed by another book by Altschuld and Witkin (2000) with the phases now having 14–15 major steps with additional emphasis being devoted to why the assessment was being done, who should be involved in it, needs-based decision making, and how needs are translated into programs and actions for organizations, institutions, schools, and others. The acceptance of results would be enhanced through greater involvement of various stakeholders.

NA maintained its technical side with quantitative information still important, but it was mutating in relation to how to get the assessment off the ground, what methods or mix of methods should be employed, what solution strategies might be best for identified needs, and how to implement them. Illustrations of these changes are below.

• Who, what persons or groups, should lead the assessment and be fully incorporated in determining needs and solutions from Phase 1 (Pre-assessment) to the end of the process, Phase 3 (Post- assessment)?

• Who makes the decisions, and what are the roles of various players in decision making? • How should the assessment be focused? What are the salient issues to those potentially affected by

them, not driven by external needs assessors? (Phase 1) • What are appropriate methods for examining issues? (Phase 2, Assessment) • Should there be a mix of qualitative and quantitative procedures with concerns about how to put results

together for a comprehensive and deep understanding of problems? (Phase 2) • How valid will the summary be in the eyes of a large and involved constituency? Does it coincide with

what they view as important? (Phases 1 and 2) • How do we prioritize, and who sets the priorities for action? (Phases 2 and 3) • What are the criteria for priorities? • What are potential solution strategies, and how well do they mesh with the local situation? How do we

choose them, and will they work within the setting? (Phase 3) • With whom does the responsibility for the implementation of a solution reside, and what is the role of

an external needs assessor as NA goes through the three phases? • Have we evaluated the process of needs assessment and whether initiated changes have worked? Have

individuals and groups benefited from what has been done and, if so, how? (Phase 3)

The evolving three-phase model doesn’t yet tie into asset/capacity building, but the two positions are getting noticeably closer than before! A shifting perception of the circumstances surrounding change and growth is there. It is not the needs assessment of yore. Awareness of complexity is being embedded in a

pronounced fashion in the gestalt of needs assessment. (The writers did not consciously deal with criticisms of needs assessments, but their thinking was beginning to alter and move in a somewhat new direction.)

Roughly from 2000 to the current time, other things were happening that propel synthesis. Altschuld (Witkin sadly passed away in the late 1990s, but the guess is that she would have agreed) had begun to analyze his views and in 2004 wrote a paper about needs assessment as a way for organizations to learn about what they were doing wrong and transforming themselves accordingly. It was becoming a mechanism for organizations to grow and introspect.

Personnel were going to have to be intimate with all facets of the assessment and thereby come to deeper understandings about the organization, what its current status was, and what it might do in the future. Needs assessment was under the aegis of the organization or community and individuals within it and less externally led. The experience was not an isolated act but one that should include all parts of the organization from top to bottom.

Other needs assessment books were also coming out in the period such as Gupta, Sleezer, and Russ-Eft’s work (2007, currently being updated), which was oriented toward business organizations. In 2009–2010, Altschuld and a group of colleagues produced a five-volume Needs Assessment Kit (Altschuld, 2010b) with some books breaking new ground.

One was devoted to how the process of needs assessment might start—which often had been treated as a short or very small part of one chapter. Who should be initiating the activity, what should the agency be undertaking to better understand itself, and what kinds of information might be collected? Even the use of micro-ethnology was considered for initial efforts.

Not capacity building, this had more similarity with some of the ideas suggested by Kretzmann and McKnight (1993). NA was becoming part of a richer landscape.

And that pattern continued in the methods book in the kit with treatment of only five methods that were most commonly seen in assessments. Several of them were qualitative and coming from almost a community perspective (an organization in this context might be viewed as a community) although not totally. Another book dealt with taking information from multiple procedures and sources and assembling it into a coherent summary of results—what do they say individually about needs, and do they agree or conflict in their findings? The final volume in the kit examined how decisions for action are made and interpersonal factors that shape them, focusing less on technical concerns and more on the complex milieu of intraorganizational relations. This was not capacity building, but indeed different from earlier views.

Along similar lines, Watkins, West Meiers, and Visser (2012) were dealing with NA in their book written for the World Bank. From the viewpoint of developing nations, the concern for community involvement and direction is clear as a critical element in shaping how a society, or groups in sectors within it, improve. The book has an extensive compendium of methods. Also Kaufman and Guerra-Lopez in 2013 reentered the expanded listing of library resources on assessment.

Overall, NA was more respectful of the rights of individuals and groups and that their input was vital in processes, procedures, and direction setting, and a driving force in assessing needs and utilizing resources to resolve them. Still the critics would be right in saying that it was based on discrepancies but softer in this regard. Is it old wine in new bottles? It was insufficient for a synthesis, but the terrain had shifted and was more amenable to compromise.

HISTORY CONTINUED—EMERGENT ASSET/CAPACITY-BUILDING VIEWS LEANING TOWARD SYNTHESIS

Concurrent with what was happening in needs assessment, there was a noticeable trend in publications from the asset/capacity-building side of the ledger in fields such as public health, health, social programming, and crime prevention. For the latter, Neves (2011) proposed tweaking available assets to crime prevention through environmental design, CPTED. One example was simply moving a park bench so that people would have a better view of potential threatening situations. In an e-mail survey she conducted (Neves, 2013) about interrelated principles of CPTED (natural surveillance and access control, territorial reinforcement, and maintenance and management), a prominent feature was the idea of leveraging existing aspects and resources available in locations. So assessing assets to reduce crime is important.

Additionally, asset/capacity-building studies often used methods (photovoice, community determination of information to be collected, cataloging of resources, rapid appraisal, and others) not commonly seen in needs assessment. These were implemented under the umbrella that strengths, not “what’s amiss,” are foremost. What do we have, and how can it be utilized for a higher level of community or organizational performance? Many of the articles and reports reviewed indicated that communities looked at needs in accord with resources by means of “hard” data, surveys, or the outcomes of database analyses with such information entering significantly into deliberations. In practice, the two camps were drifting toward a middle ground and had undergone a practical synthesis. A very natural and seamless blending was making sense.

For those conducting these projects there was a strong commitment to the asset/capacity-building philosophy but without much hesitation at looking at needs and quantifiable data. There was concern about toward what goals and problems we should be applying what had been learned about strengths. Gaps were helpful in setting the direction, governing not the process but just a part of it. This evolution was striking and helped needs assessors deal with an obvious criticism of the opposite end of the spectrum.

In a clever dissertation, Hansen (1991) observed that as people think about problems and issues there is a pattern to how they probe situations pursuant to seeking ways to improve. Whether they termed it a problem, a need, an issue, or a concern, they identified common elements in their analysis—what is the current status, what should be, and the discrepancy between the two. These are consonant with needs assessment.

There were other findings, but the above were pronounced. The data were subjected to different cluster analysis techniques with the same results. There is exact alignment with discrepancy thinking. This may be an artifact of research coming from a needs perspective, but on the other hand the study was striking since it was done in five distinct fields and generally identical outcomes were realized. The implication is that it may be impossible to fragment how we approach development by wearing blinders (restricting the field of vision) and limiting thinking to needs or asset/capacity building. The conceptual mechanisms relate, and separation would be artificial. Neither should be ruled out, and could they be linked together?

So how should we operate in the real world? Should asset and resource assessment take place before we determine need, or should the logic be reversed—identify needs and then, as McKillip (1987) proposed, locate resources and figure out what could be adapted or applied for the resolution of needs? Or, should both be done simultaneously via a split personality? Wear different hats and periodically switch them as you go through the process. Sometimes you are the needs assessor, the asset/capacity builder, or both combined into one.

FIRST STEPS TOWARD SYNTHESIS

Synthesis is exactly the reason for this book. If you identify assets and capacity, toward what purpose or goal are they to be directed? This is what needs assessors would ask and why they would criticize the other side. From that point of view, you, either consciously or subliminally, will be considering needs in the equation. Analogously, the challengers of needs assessment are appropriate in that it is negative and may lead to dependency. The critics are right about having a “can do” mind-set and that more will be accomplished by having it. Their stance on the internal drive for improvement is on target.

So is it one, the other, or both with the answer here based on the emerging trend that it is feasible to do needs assessment in a complementary way with a realistic degree of compromise starting with the asset side of things? You are not beginning with negatives, and people will become more involved in processes, procedures, and decision making due to that. As they buy in, introduce needs assessment and, if it already has come up, just let it happen. Hansen’s findings indicate that no matter what is done or in what order, needs enter the picture. It is normal and cannot be avoided even as we focus on assets and strengths. The two processes relate to each other.

An illustration of this occurred in a study of community development in Appalachia. Photovoice (Chapter 4) was a technique used with community members. Teenagers and young adults were given inexpensive cameras to photograph what they considered to be the assets of the community and its issues. The community was producing the data, interpreting it, and giving it meaning in its own words and vantage points. The entire endeavor was heavily community led and guided.

Needs and assets were in what was generated. The photographers were asked to write short narratives about what the pictures were illustrating. The photos with narratives were posted for a large community group discussion and an open interchange about the community’s current situation, its strengths and assets, its

problems, and where it might go. It would be difficult to cast the activity as asset/capacity building or needs assessment without losing a sense of what was taking place. It was a combination of the two beginning from the strengths side of the ledger. It was a merger, and that is exactly where this text will be going in Chapter 2.

A COMMENT ON THE VALUE OF SYNTHESIS

There are examples of the combined usage of needs assessment and asset/capacity building but not an overabundance of them. Given that, is moving toward a synthesis more of an academic exercise with limited practical value? Hopefully not! It is possible to envision many ways of utilizing such a concept via incorporation into the formulation of governmental policies for not only attending to current concerns and issues but planning for a variety of beneficial social programs. This could be done in mental health, public health, and agriculture to name just a few. This is notable and is partly embedded in several of the case studies in Chapters 7 and 8. Moreover, the idea could have applicability to nongovernmental activities, business settings, and joint public and private ventures. Needs assessors and asset/capacity builders will have to understand each specific situation and temper the principles accordingly to make them work.

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHAPTER 1

1. A fictitious conversation was used to start off the discussion for this book. 2. The historical roots of the needs assessment were laid out in regard to criticisms and the expansion of

writings about needs assessment from the ’70s to the ’80s. 3. The journey went into the ’90s with intensified criticism of needs assessment along with more

writings about its practice. Asset/capacity building was woven into the narrative. 4. The trip was brought to the present with the evolution of needs assessment and by noting that a trend

seemed to combine it and asset/capacity building almost seamlessly. A synthesis was taking place naturally.

5. A practical project doing just that was briefly described. 6. The value of a synthesis was briefly noted.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Might there be situations where it would be better to not combine needs assessment and asset/community-building efforts? Explain and offer examples.

2. There are drawbacks to starting with needs assessment as noted in the text. What might be some negatives about beginning with asset/capacity building?

3. Internally led projects for improvement were contrasted to projects that are externally directed. Based on your experience, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

4. Communities and organizations are always in a constant state of flux and change, so how often should they do one or the other of the activities or do them in combination?

5. Discuss implications of the activities from a fiscal point and from the standpoint of morale and invested energy.

6. Discuss implications of the time required for a needs assessment and/or an asset/capacity-building venture.

7. Do you know of any government programs where a combined approach was implemented? If so, describe them and their success.