615 forum

Engle, M., & Altschuld, J. W. (2014). Needs assessment: The perspective from the public sector. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New Directions for Evaluation, 144, 33–45.

3

Needs Assessment: The Perspective From the Public Sector

Molly Engle, James W. Altschuld

Abstract

While examining needs is common in many public-sector agencies, questions arise about how it has been carried out and if a focus on deficits (or gaps) is too narrow when not accompanied by the assessment of assets. The authors oper- ate in this chapter as actors in a play. The first author offers a short personal perspective about her long experience in the public sector, with emphasis on Extension and the nature of needs assessment within it. In that discussion are two illuminative historical examples with clear relevance to what we might do today. They demonstrate that linking asset-thinking to such efforts might be a good thing when embarking upon improvement of programs for the public. The second author enters in by amplifying the examination of assets and how they might be linked to the thinking of public-sector assessors. The authors conclude by recommending that such an expansion of the toolkit of needs assessors would be useful. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Associa- tion.

Introduction

To put this chapter into a context, let me start by telling you a lit- tle about my story (the Engle side) with needs assessment. For the last 30+ years, I have been an academic in a public-sector role, the public sector being one that receives some support from state/federal

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION, no. 144, Winter 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ev.20101 33

34 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

governments. In this role, I have had the opportunity to serve as an internal evaluator, a program planner, and a classroom teacher. Among other things, I have been asked to evaluate externally funded programs, internally funded programs, programs of my own design without additional funding (no easy task), and programs designed by others (with and without external fund- ing). On several occasions, I have had to retrofit (design and implement an evaluation after the program has been conducted) program evaluations as well as design program evaluations. For many of you, this diversity of roles will sound familiar; my perception is that this is common among evaluators.

Only rarely, however, has my help been sought for straight-up needs assessments. I find that odd because a needs assessment is the first activity evaluators can and should undertake, especially at the start of programs and projects. After all, needs assessment can guide the many design, imple- mentation, and evaluation decisions that follow. Given that a needs-based approach to problems is so engrained in the public-sector thinking, it is easy to get disenchanted with it. However, needs assessments are said to be done on a regular basis by many in the public sector. While this situation appears contradictory on several levels, I believe that my story and expe- riences in Extension service assessments can help shed some light on the practical value of assessment in the public sector (especially when assets are also integrated in the approach).

Background

To be effective, public-sector programs in Extension service, healthcare, public health, education, social service programs, marketing, policy devel- opment, and others must have a strong foundation; that foundation is needs assessment. Ideally, programs are identified and then developed only after a thorough assessment has been done particularly of the current condition or status. This is especially important for programs that are offered to and af- fect the public. But the reality is that programs are often undertaken without that needs assessment foundation, such as when they are the result of po- litical deals or when a solution is selected before the needs are well defined and understood.

The skills and tools of a social scientist (evaluation being a social sci- ence) are key to doing needs assessment work. They include identification of appropriate stakeholders; delineation of the nature of the problem or is- sue in consideration; prioritizing issues, identifying underlying causes of problems, and hence, potentially illuminating variables to which resources should be directed; solicitation of possible solutions; and using the data from the process to inform decision making. The skills extend to evaluat- ing programs and new initiatives that have come about as a result of doing the upfront work and are consistent with what Witkin and Altschuld (1995) suggest would be required for conducting needs assessment. Yet in my ex- perience, this rarely happens in Extension services (Extension), and I find

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR 35

Figure 3.1. Linear Logic Model (University of Wisconsin Extension Service)

this odd because needs assessment and asset building are the first things that ought to be implemented when an issue comes to the table.

Extension programs are frequently simplified using a logic model ap- proach. Typically those models are linear (Figure 3.1), though they may be circular. Looking at a linear logic model, the situation (at the far left) is the place where needs assessment occurs. In a circular program model, there may be no specific “situation” identified; rather, alternatives for a “sit- uation” exist. So assessment is a task that is included in conceptualizing projects, activities, and their evaluations regardless of the logic model used, and it can provide a valid foundation on which to design a realistic logic model. Sometimes, but not as often, a needs assessment is done after the program has been implemented—perhaps identifying the audience or the activities, or whether the intended group did in fact use services and events provided for them, and how new variations may be more effective. Nowhere in these schemas do assets usually get mentioned (Altschuld, 2014), though they can be a valuable enabler for needs assessments.

Altschuld and Witkin (2000) noted that occasionally potential program users reject the current program because there is no need; because the ques- tions were not asked to elicit the current situation; or, in the extreme, be- cause the target audience does not see value in the service to be offered. In these instances, potential program participants simply do not partici- pate, are not willing, or are adverse to the program that is made available. This situation is troubling, but it has been observed in both educational and health settings. Integrating assets, often including programs currently

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

36 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

valued and being used by target participants, can improve the appetite for a closer examination of needs.

Figure 3.1 is an example of a prototypical logic model used by Exten- sion services in the United States. In it, assets might come after the “situa- tion” but less attention seems to be paid to them. Assets appear to be only superficial rather than a fully explored aspect of the context of the logic model. Perhaps, Extension could benefit from exploring these more, and in doing so make needs assessment more applicable to programming.

What You Find in the Literature

A cursory examination of literature is a useful starting place for getting a sense of the dissemination of information about needs assessment as used in Extension. The literature is replete with illustrations and appli- cations in Extension, likely more so than in other public sectors. Within the last 10 years, for example, there have been over 200 articles in the Journal of Extension with needs assessment in the title or abstract (using the search terms needs+assessment+2003+2013). Modifying the search to the American Journal of Evaluation surfaced only two articles (none were re- turned with the additional key words); 361 articles were found in Evalua- tion and Program Planning for all fields using “needs assessment.” The first journal covers Extension programs in the public sector; the last two report evaluation findings, with needs assessment seen as a subset of the broader evaluation field. Some disparity would be expected between the journals (one deals with programs more and the others address evaluations). Using a similar search and the terms “needs+assessment+assets+2003,” the Jour- nal of Extension returned 151 articles. It is important to emphasize that there is no journal devoted specifically to assessment, nor is there a source for gathering information on how assets are integrated (if at all); thus, resources are scattered throughout these journals and potentially those of other pro- fessional fields (such as training and performance improvement).

Needs assessment is clearly a topic of interest to authors, editors, and readers of the Journal of Extension; assets receive some but not much atten- tion. Most of the articles that include assets talk about them only in terms of economics (mainly monetary resources available to the public/individual). Some deal with positive youth development and minimizing risk behaviors. Still others (and this is more tied to building capacity, called asset assess- ment) relate to the skills, knowledge, behaviors, and programs that currently exist in the community or individual, and are not being used (Adams, Place, & Swisher, 2009; Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). Mathie and Cunningham (2003) wrote of the “stronger, accountable forms of governance at the local level and the emergence of effective . . . organizations” (p. 474). It is unclear from the article if these governance forms will focus on assets, continue to look more at needs, or deal with both entities.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR 37

The literature from the public sector leans heavily on case study ap- plications, offering guidance of what to do and what not to do for those charged with implementing a needs assessment. This has been particularly useful to Extension service, though at times it has led to the replication of ineffective approaches and minimal integration of assets.

Needs Assessment and Extension

Although I have worked in varied fields, what is explained below is based on my (Engle) work with the Extension service and a sampling of what was found in the literature. First, a little background about the Extension ser- vice, often called the Cooperative Extension Service because of the cooper- ative funding streams. Extension is “a land-grant university-based outreach and educational organization” (Franz & Townson, 2008, p. 5) in every U.S. state and territory. The Morrill Act of 1862 established the land-grant uni- versities, and there are today the “1862,” the “1890,” and the “1994” insti- tutions based on the date of the legislation that designated them as such. The 1914 Smith–Lever Act established the Extension service with funds to provide community audiences (i.e., the public) research-based information in nontraditional educational settings. Historically, the Extension service has programming in food and nutrition, community development, natural resources (agriculture, forestry, and water-related topics), and 4-H youth development, with agriculture and forestry research stations (often called “other state-wide agencies”) working with it.

In the 21st century, the Extension service moved into recycling, energy efficiency, and other areas responsive to changing dimensions of our soci- ety. Emerging programs may include topics such as marine coasts, invasive species, energy use and misuse, disaster preparedness, and/or climate chaos, depending on the locale and the target audience. Programs are located in diverse urban and rural settings and are aligned with the times. Whereas agriculture was once the focus, today programming embraces a broad array of topics.

The structure of the service varies from state to state, county to county, and, of necessity, must deal with a wide spread of internal and external con- stituencies with interests related to actual services to be rendered. (For an in-depth discussion see Braverman, Engle, Arnold, & Rennekamp, 2008.) Content specialists are state-level faculty and Extension educators (also called field faculty or agents) who serve the county or region. These two groups (specialists and field faculty) are responsible for developing pro- grams. Some of what they do is content related (cereal crops, recycling, or another area) and other efforts arise from trends (rainwater gardens, per- meable ground covers), increased frequency of public occurrence (invasive species), or skills of the specialist (weeds, demography).

In the terminology of needs assessment (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995), the programs are at Level 1 (individuals or groups requiring assistance or

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

38 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

help) or Level 2 (individuals who provide a service, such as teachers, health- care providers, Extension professionals, and similar personnel). Most often, the Extension service will not invest in programs unless there is a demand for them generated from the ground up (stated by the target audience, such as related to cereal crops) or top down (skills necessary to do the job, con- flicts of interest).

In a perfect world, needs assessments establish direction—with that direction being different from county to county, region to region, and state- to-state. Sometimes the process is neat and well done, and at others it op- erates on the squeaky wheel principle (those that complain get resources). Caravella (2006) in an article titled “A Needs Assessment Method for Exten- sion Educators” describes a method to Extension educators for conducting a needs assessment using existing sources and information. She mentions that numerous procedures have been used to collect data (advisory boards, surveys, focus group interviews, key informant interviews). These processes may or may not be systematically implemented. Always the assessment is based on what the stakeholders perceive to be lacking and this may include what are called wants (more wishes or desires) than actual needs (Watkins & Kavale, Chapter 2 of this issue).

Nowhere do the approaches in her discussion nor do many other needs assessment methodologies talk about what IS in terms of assets, only what is NOT. From an interview with an Extension Administrator (D. Maddy, personal communication, January 23, 2014), I was able to learn when an assessment is conducted there is (typically) a “laundry list” of programs presented; nowhere are the stakeholders or the constituencies they repre- sent asked what they already have in terms of services that Extension could support or augment. Stakeholders are only asked what they need/want/don’t have, and their views or perceptions appear to be impetus for future pro- grams. A full needs assessment (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995) would not have been implemented as in questions like:

• Have concrete discrepancies, between what is and what should be, been determined?

• Were discrepancies identified by a variety of methods with triangulation across them?

• Have discrepancies been prioritized for actions to be taken? • Were concerns looked at with regard to the counterfactual state (what

would happen if nothing were to be done, would some of them resolve themselves)?

• What are the risk factors of not attending to a need been considered in terms of costs?

• Have political risks been taken into account? • What is the number of people affected by meeting or not meeting a need

or multiple needs been identified?

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR 39

• Did easy-to-resolve needs guide decisions as opposed to the harder, more long term, intransigent needs?

• Have programs and efforts put in place to resolve needs actually been evaluated as to their impact and effectiveness in accord with the short- term and long-term features on logic maps?

Next are cases illustrating needs assessment in Extension.

One Example From the Extension Service

A “needs assessment” that was implemented by the Extension service with which I (Engle) am familiar was designed for strategic guidance for future programming and developing a legislative funding package. The process de- liberately focused on where Extension should invest new funds and what shifts in staff that might be needed as attrition happens. The county level administrators (stakeholders) were asked to assist in the process by provid- ing logistical support at the county level. The expected outcomes were to provide a practical vision of the preferred future for Extension and a prior- itized list of the most important issues and needs of the specific jurisdiction in consideration. An issue was defined as an area of concern or challenge; a need was defined by what was lacking, or what was wanted. Surprisingly, although each county was involved in the process, the needs assessment resulted only in a state-wide report coming from county data.

Stakeholders were individuals visible in the county, such as com- missioners, legislators, industry leaders, civic groups, and possible new audiences. By inviting them to focus groups, it was anticipated that the audience would have a good grasp of local circumstances and needs. Ex- tension faculty members and staff were not the target audience, but they had the opportunity to observe the interviews in an unobtrusive way so as to not bias the responses of interview participants.

The concern for Extension Administration was developing a meaning- ful package that could be used to develop new programs as well as by the legislature for funding. So while a state-wide report was the desired out- come, there was the question how can data be disaggregated for county use. “Needs” expressed by water-stressed counties would be different from those from wet counties and so on with regard to urban or rural counties, metropolitan or nonmetropolitan counties, eastern or western counties, and agriculture-based or non-agriculture-based counties. The diversity of con- cerns presented by varied constituencies is vast, and making sure that coun- ties were represented in a meaningful state-wide report was challenging.

The level of possible programming is also challenging for the Exten- sion service. The frequency of a stated “need” could result in a state-wide program or in a county-level program. If the vocal minority voiced a “need” and the silent majority didn’t offer an alternative, did that mean that this was truly a “need”? If the “need” frequency was such that it called for program- ming state-wide, yet it was geographically tied to the eastern or western

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

40 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

part of the state, does that really reflect a state-wide need? If the frequency was such that it occurred only in a few counties scattered across the state (in both eastern and western parts), does that really reflect a county-wide “need”? These are issues that the Extension service must grapple with con- tinually.

Additionally, the service receives a good portion of its funding from the state and those resources are limited by the state budget. Balancing state- wide and county-wide priorities with fiscal and personnel resources is an ongoing problem and is accomplished through a vetted process involving key stakeholders within Extension Administration and counties; individual personal favorite programs are not necessarily those that receive limited resources.

Even though there was a careful process applied to the choice of pro- gramming, not everyone was happy with the outcome (which is common for needs assessments). County staff were advised that not every need iden- tified could be addressed (cost, personnel, and other factors) but that the collection of needs would be taken into account once the meetings were over. Outputs of the focus groups were summarized and shared with the to- tal Extension faculty (emphasis added) for reactions and input into a Strate- gic Directions Workshop later in the year. What came from that meeting was likewise shared with ALL Extension faculty members, staff, and other county-based stakeholders. From there a legislative package was developed with accompanying budget.

The package was developed from a state-wide process with an agenda to demonstrate to the legislature that state-wide agencies had a greater need than covered by the current proposed budget. Thus, politics may have clouded true needs and obfuscated the issues and concerns—again, a com- mon occurrence in many needs assessments. It is important to note that there are covert political forces that weigh heavily on outcomes. This is typical of what the Extension service must deal with and often leads to questions about true need.

Other Examples—Extension and Aging

My (Engle, the first author) experience is that needs assessment can identify unmet needs, provide evidence of community support, and increase public involvement. Frequently, it provides community members with a way to express strong opinions on issues or to get their voices to be heard. Note what took place in the following examples and how assets can become a valuable part of thinking about needs.

In Florida, the Extension service combined a survey-based needs as- sessment with community service learning, involving the youth of the com- munity (Israel & Ilvento, 1995). This effort was an opportunity to enhance the development of concerned citizens in the community, namely youth, and to accomplish another objective—saving funds. Local schools provided

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR 41

the labor, expertise in computers, and potential participants, the location in which to conduct the survey as well as students. Students collected data and provided help to the community in clarifying needs. It is believed that by so doing they experienced a deeper sense of the community, its development and enhancement.

This approach created collaborations where previously there were none. Students helped write the questions and design the survey. Likewise, citizen participation was solicited by slogans generated by the students. The students were also trained to do interviews and actually conducted over half of them. This is akin to rapid appraisal techniques used in ascertain- ing needs. The survey provided information about “needs,” had scientific rigor, and maximized community involvement. The local leaders initiated the project with the idea that getting into the heart of the community was critical. The survey implementation came from a positive vision of the assets (i.e., students and their skills) available through the schools.

The second, and much earlier case, deals with aging and contains prin- ciples that still resonate today. The Alabama Commission on Aging and the University of Alabama (UAB) Center for Aging conducted a face-to-face in- terview of a random sample of individuals 55 and over in 13 counties in Alabama (Hughes, Engle, & Caldwell, 1987). This was only a subset of Al- abama’s 67 counties, but the data matched results from a state-wide survey carried out 15 years back. Over 1,000 respondents were interviewed from metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties to determine the current status of Alabama’s elderly and their needs.

A large number of individuals throughout the state were utilized to gather interview data, with significant time being devoted to training them as mandated by the protocol for the study. The interviewers were instructed to try to understand interviewees without showing reaction to their com- ments or influencing them in any way. In addition, there were three other goals for the interview process: (a) communicating the importance of the respondents’ views, (b) indicating that there are no right or wrong answers to questions, and (c) ensuring that respondents felt that they were making valuable contributions to research and/or service.

Prior to the availability of electronic communications, initial contact was made with respondents using paper forms or by phone. This study in- dicated that face-to-face contact was more effective than mail or phone con- tact. (Today, consents are more often electronic but for some groups face to face may still be best.) Personal interaction was critical due to the fact that the interview could take up to two hours and every question had be asked; skipping them could lead to an incomplete picture of the status of aging.

Besides demographics, this survey gathered information on health, health risks, psychosocial well-being, daily living activities, environmen- tal status, and awareness of social services. Data summaries were used to identify areas where the citizens’ needs were not being met. Agencies were then responsible for developing programs to meet them. A significant

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

42 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

conclusion was that many of the respondents reported the “assets” that contributed to their quality of living. What were anticipated as problems did not materialize (lack of services) while other areas did (access to ser- vice). Assets were built into the interview process, but not specifically labeled as such. Respondents were allowed to focus on individual situa- tions rather than specifically addressing generalized community needs or assets.

Although this study is from the late 1980s, it shows how respondents choose to talk about assets when the interviewer was specifically seeking “needs” from the discrepancy perspective. It appears that the respondents wanted the interviewers to know that being “old” didn’t necessarily imply that something was lacking in their lives (needs), rather what was present was just as important (perhaps more so) as what was missing. Although not recognized at the time, this survey demonstrated how the target community viewed its strengths and focused on them, and that perceived “needs” were not needed. Strengths of the community supported the respondents, and the Center on Aging was potentially imposing a cognitive bias on what it was investigating.

Collectively in these last two examples a subtle point is evident. Needs and asset assessment are being done in the public sector (and have been for some time) but they take on many different shapes and forms. And even articles and reports about such assessments may not identify them using today’s terminology.

Glass Half Full; Glass Half Empty

So what is a “need” in the context of public institutions like Extension? Is true need about what is lacking or about what is present? Does a needs assessment fully make sense for improving lives if we only think about a need as a deficit? Does this constrain our vision and narrow our assessments too much?

Altschuld (the coauthor) reenters the discourse by stressing the philo- sophical stance of gaps (needs) as opposed to assets, that is, a deficit defini- tion of need can connote a negative viewpoint (focusing on the empty half of the glass), whereas when thinking about assets a positive perception is apparent (the half full glass). The idea is that starting out with needs un- derscores the lack of something instead of the presence of something. In his 2014 book, he shows that beginning with needs may not lead to good new programming, whereas launching efforts from assets may indeed provide a more complete picture and improved results.

This principle (building from assets as opposed to needs) was observed in a study about curbing gun violence (Altschuld, 2014). It employed a coalition to set up a program to stop or lower the use of weapons. In another case, investigators took advantage of a radio station to bring out the voice of the people and as way to include community members in the delivery

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR 43

of services. This illuminated the almost hidden resources and strengths the community possessed and that had not been thought about much. Most of this would not have happened if the initial premise was that of needs, deficits.

Initiatives such as just discussed, and some of those given earlier, are actually reflective of a hybrid approach of asset-based capacity building and needs assessment (Altschuld, Hung, & Lee, Chapter 7 of this issue). In ev- ery circumstance, assets were the foundation and governing philosophy for thinking about improvement as tempered by an understanding of needs. Neither needs assessment nor an asset approach can operate and make sense in a vacuum devoid of the other. A balance is necessary for resolv- ing complex social problems, by themselves they are not up to the task but a hybrid position is (the glass is both half full and half empty at the same time).

Assets set the picture more comprehensively (looking at what is present and what the target audience brings to the table); at the same time, many individuals and groups are attuned to what is NOT present (need, discrep- ancy, gap) as opposed to what IS (asset, resource, strength). The latter seems to be done less often and people are perhaps more conditioned to see needs rather than how their strengths can affect situations.

Throughout all the examples here, and in the 2014 book, a hybrid ap- proach requires longer implementation and more resources (dollars, human skills, etc.). We suggest that resolving serious problems in society and in- stitutions more than compensates for the extra time and resources. This leads to the question why haven’t we seen more hybrid approaches in the public sector (where complex societal issues are supposed to be addressed) regardless of its greater upfront costs?

This finding could be explained in several ways. Viewing the picture comprehensively is more than asking stakeholders to articulate what issue is important; it involves asking them what is available (assets). Every stake- holder in a community can delineate existing strengths but more than likely they have not been asked about them. Simultaneously recognize that they are more used to talking about what is lacking rather than what is present. Is the glass half full (assets) or half empty (deficits)? It is both and you should assess both.

The hybrid approach raises numerous questions for evaluators, such as:

• What are the organizational, service, and social groups that add strength to the community?

• What other groups (police, fire personnel, healthcare providers, churches, sporting groups) could be involved?

• What kinds of connections (networks), formal or informal, exist or might exist across organizations that might be the bedrock for change? Exten- sion reaches out to partners, engaging the community; this would be an opportunity to demonstrate that.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

44 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

• How has the community worked together in the past to improve rela- tionships and provide services? How could this be done today and in the future?

• What is the community spirit—cooperation, isolation, coordination— that can be built and used to the advantage of the community?

• What are the skills of individuals in our communities—youth, adult, se- niors? What resources do these groups have?

• What assistance can those skills provide? • What can community individuals do to help in facilitating activities? • How can schools and other educational institutions contribute? • How can local businesses and establishments contribute? This could be

as simple as places for people to meet about local issues or perhaps having small discounts on goods and services for local participants.

Lessons Learned

Given much of what has been said so far, you might conclude that needs assessments in the public sector are largely contrived based on personal or political agendas. It is likely that organizations (Extension, public health, education) identify what is lacking so they can resolve gaps with solutions they already have in mind (admittedly a cynical perspective of the public sector). Or, more optimistically, perhaps there is just a lack of awareness of what can be achieved from a broad participatory approach to needs assess- ment that integrates assets into the mix.

In the context of public-sector needs assessment, it would likely make sense to focus more, though not exclusively, on where the strengths lie. Devoting time to the study and experiment with assets and needs should be done to develop programming based on consensus.

Conducting a needs assessment is costly. There are training, travel, mar- keting, and other costs associated with gaining the input of multiple stake- holders groups. They may (and probably do) have personal agendas that they want to address and which may (or may not) speak to the needs of the community. That being said, conducting a systematic assessment of needs and assets for that matter is critical for programs which will provide the community with skills that are currently not existing or only minimally ex- isting. The community is a rich source of direction; needs assessment with assets embedded can capture that richness.

References

Adams, A. E., Place, N. T., & Swisher, M. E. (2009). Knowledge levels regarding the concept of community food security among Florida Extension agents. Journal of Ex- tension, 47(4). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2009august/rb2.php

Altschuld, J. W. (2014). Bridging the gap between asset/capacity building and needs assess- ment: Concepts and practical applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR 45

Altschuld, J. W., & Engle, M. (2013, October). Needs assessment and asset capacity build- ing: Linking the concepts. Professional development workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Washington, DC.

Altschuld, J. W., & Witkin, B. R. (2000). From needs assessment to action: Transforming needs into solution strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braverman, M. T., Engle, M., Arnold, M. E., & Rennekamp, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). New Di- rections for Evaluation: No. 120. Program evaluation in a complex organizational system: Lessons from Cooperative Extension. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Caravella, J. (2006). A needs assessment method for Extension educators. Journal of Extension, 44(1). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/tt2p.shtml

Franz, N. K., & Townson, L. (2008). The nature of complex organizations: The case of Cooperative Extension. New Directions for Evaluation, 120, 5–14.

Hughes, G. H., Engle, M., & Caldwell, J. A. (1987). Statewide survey of Alabama’s Elderly. Birmingham, AL: UAB Center for Aging.

Israel, G. D., & Ilvento, T. W. (1995). Everybody wins: Involving youth in community needs assessment. Journal of Extension, 33(2). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1995april/al.php

Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven develop- ment. Development in Practice, 13(5), 474–486. Retrieved from http://www. coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/27454fab-98e8-4d89-80a0-044837593aa0.pdf

Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MOLLY ENGLE is professor in the College of Education, the Extension Service evaluation specialist at Oregon State University, and past-president of the Amer- ican Evaluation Association.

JAMES W. ALTSCHULD is professor emeritus in the College of Education and Hu- man Ecology, The Ohio State University.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

Copyright of New Directions for Evaluation is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.