View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 1
For Internal Use Only
SITUATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UTAH
Principal Investigator
Lendel K. Narine, Ph.D.
Evaluation Specialist
Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 3
Assessing Community Needs ..................................................................................................... 4 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 6
Societal Issues facing Residents of Utah .................................................................................... 6 Community Needs ...................................................................................................................... 8 Interest in Extension Programs ................................................................................................. 11 Information Access and Social Media Use ............................................................................... 15 Satisfaction with Extension....................................................................................................... 17
Conclusions and Practical Applications........................................................................................ 19
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 2
For Internal Use Only
Introduction
The overarching role of Cooperative Extension is to extend university-generated and
evidence-based research to the public (Rasmussen, 1989). This remains one of the core missions
of land grant universities. Webster and Ingram (2007) indicated traditional Extension
programming was geared towards meeting the needs of rural populations. However, Henning,
Buchholz, Steele, and Ramaswamy (2014) noted a need for Extension to adapt its programming
to serve non-traditional audiences if it is to remain relevant and competitive. Reflecting on the
centennial of Cooperative Extension, Henning et al. emphasized the need for Extension to
respond to demographic changes by adjusting its methodologies, programming, and program
delivery methods to appeal to much broader target audience. As such, Extension is expected to
meet the needs of a diverse and changing clientele.
USU Extension focuses on five major programmatic areas, as defined by USDA, these
are (a) global food security and hunger, (b) climate change and natural resource use, (c)
sustainable energy, (d) food safety, and (e) childhood obesity, nutrition, and community.
Therefore, Extension programs vary considerably in scope, audience, educational activities, and
outcomes. For example, while a livestock management program in global food security and
hunger can focus on improving livestock productivity, a major program in childhood obesity can
target healthy eating habits in low-income communities. Clearly, USU Extension seeks to meet
the unmet needs of a wide audience. While this demonstrates the importance of Extension to
many, it presents an ongoing challenge; how can Extension meet the most urgent needs of
diverse audiences given its limited financial and human resources?
Theoretical Framework
Extension programs exist to address societal problems (Henning et al., 2014; Rasmussen,
1989). As a result, USU Extension must prioritize its efforts and resources to meet urgent needs
of its clientele. In other words, Extension should allocate resources effectively to respond to
persisting and emerging social, environmental, and economic problems facing Utahns. A
comprehensive and valid needs assessment is an appropriate method to guide the allocation of
resources to addressing the urgent needs of a given audience (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). A need
is defined as the difference between an existing and desired state; it represents the gap between
“what is” and “what should be” (Boyle, 1981; Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). A needs assessment
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 3
For Internal Use Only
allows shared involvement in the identification and prioritization of the normative needs of an
audience while providing suitable measures for addressing those needs. A needs assessment is
necessary to understanding the high priority needs of clientele and in turn, directly informs
resource allocation in Extension program planning.
Purpose and Objectives
Given the critical role of Extension within the land grant system, all efforts must be made
to ensure priority needs of clientele and stakeholders are satisfied. In this regard, a Level 1 needs
assessment focusing on normative needs of Extension’s primary audience (i.e. residents) can
guide Extension program planning. Therefore, this research seeks to identify the high priority
needs of Utah residents. Objectives are to (a) describe respondents’ perceptions towards existing
community assets, (b) assess respondents’ perceptions towards priorities for Extension
programming, and (c) describe respondents’ satisfaction with USU Extension programs. Results
would provide administrators and program planners with much needed information to allocate
resources towards impactful Extension programming.
Methodology
This research follows a correlational design (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Walker, 2014) and
relies on primary data from residents of Utah. The target population is residents of Utah over the
age of 18. The sample size was 1043 respondents (n = 1043) and data were gathered using a
convenience sampling technique. The raking (or iterative proportional fitting) method was used
to weigh the sample data to reflect the target population characteristics (Cohen, 2011; Lamm &
Lamm, 2019). According to Cohen (2011), the raking method is a post-stratification procedure
for correcting sample weights to add up to known population totals. In this study, the sample data
was weighted based age, sex, and county population size using 2018 census data to reflect the
actual demographics of Utah. Therefore, sample estimates matched population parameters with
respect to age, sex, and county of residence. While the sample reflects key population
characteristics, this report does not present irrefutable findings. Still, results are intended to guide
USU Extension programing and resource allocations.
Data collection was facilitated by an online survey through Qualtrics after the study was
deemed exempt by IRB (Exempt - #10277) In addition, Qualtrics was tasked with recruiting
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 4
For Internal Use Only
participants of the target population. A structured closed-ended questionnaire was used to gather
data from the sample. Items of the questionnaire were selected based on an extensive literature
review and input from a panel of experts. Further, several items were adapted from needs
assessments conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Extension, University of Florida
Extension (UF/IFAS), and North Carolina State University Extension. Construct validity was
examined by a panel of experts which included the Northern Regional Director, Southern
Regional Director, Director of 4-H and Youth Programs, and two Extension Specialists at USU
Extension. Questionnaire development followed Dillman, Smith, and Christian’s (2015)
discussion on the basics of crafting good questions and constructing close-ended questions. Data
were collected in June of 2019.
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For all items, ordinal scales were reduced
to standardized scores (i.e. Point-Score) that ranged from 0 – 1. The Point-Score (PS) represents
a modified index of net difference between items of sub-sections of the assessment (Lieberson,
1976). Further, the PS was calculated using the frequency distribution of responses to each item,
and as a result, does not rely on any parametric assumptions. Therefore, the PS allows a direct
comparison and ranking between items in each section of the assessment. This allows the
ranking of priorities, societal issues, and community needs. Interpretation of the PS is described
in the Results section.
Assessing Community Needs
Findings showed residents’ perceptions of the importance of community assets, and their
level of satisfaction towards the current state of these assets in urban and rural counties
respectively. Urban and rural counties designations were determined by the Office of Rural
Health Policy (2016). The difference between a community asset’s perceived importance and an
individual’s satisfaction toward the asset represents a normative need. In other words, if an
individual believes a community service (e.g. children’s park) is very important, and he/she is
satisfied with the service in their community, then there is no need to improve the service. In
contrast, if a resident believes the service is very important, and he/she is dissatisfied with the
current state of the service, then there is a need to improve the service. Ideally, residents’
perceptions towards the importance of a community asset should match their satisfaction with
the asset; perception of the asset’s importance is a proxy indicator for the “desired” condition i.e.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 5
For Internal Use Only
“what should be”, and residents’ satisfaction with the asset is a proxy indicator for the “current”
state of the asset i.e. “what is.” The following matrix demonstrates a normative need.
Community Asset/Service/Issue Dissatisfied Satisfied
Not Important Need does not exist Need does not exist
Important Need Need does not exist
The matrix shows the conditions necessary for a normative need to exist within a
community. The priority of a need is determined by the gap between perceived importance and
perceived satisfaction. That is, the gap between the current and desired state, or gap between
“what is” and “what should be.” A wide gap between the current and desired state indicates a
high priority need, while a narrow gap indicates a less urgent need. The Wilcoxon Signed-rank
test was used to estimate the difference or gap between perceived importance and satisfaction for
each item assessed in the survey. This test is a non-parametric alternative to the paired t-test and
is used to compare two related samples with repeated measurements (e.g. pre-test and post-test
scores). The Wilcoxon Signed-rank test was preferred to the paired t-test since all items were
measured on an ordinal five-point Likert scale and were not ratio/scale variables. The test
statistic (z) was used as an indicator for the magnitude of the difference between the current and
desired state. Therefore, a negative z-statistic indicates a need exist for the respective item.
Further, items with a lower negative z-statistic are higher priority needs compared to those items
with a higher z-statistic.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 6
For Internal Use Only
Results and Discussion
Societal Issues facing Residents of Utah
Table 1 shows residents’ perceptions of the level of effort USU Extension should place
on 35 societal issues. The standardized scores ranged from 0-1 and were interpreted as follows:
• 0 – 0.20: No Effort • 0.21 – 0.40: Low Effort • 0.41 – 0.60: Moderate Effort • 0.61 – 0.80: High Effort • 0.81 – 1.00: Very High Effort
Overall, residents’ perceived Extension should place very high effort on protecting water
quality and protecting air quality. Other top societal issues rated as high priority were youth
mental health and teen suicide prevention, ensuring safe food handling practices to prevent
foodborne illness, and ensuring individuals have access to affordable healthy food. Nevertheless,
most issues were rated as high priority for Extension programming. Results were similar for
rural, suburban, and urban residents.
Residents in rural areas perceived Extension should place very high effort on protecting
water quality, protecting air quality, and ensuring safe food handling practices to prevent
foodborne illness. Other high rated issues were youth mental health and teen suicide prevention,
strengthening the local food system, and preserving agricultural farmland.
Residents in suburban areas perceived Extension should also place very high effort on
protecting air quality and protecting water quality. Other top areas of high effort for Extension
programming were youth mental health and teen suicide prevention, ensuring safe food handling
practices to prevent foodborne illness, and preserving natural ecosystems and habitats.
Residents of urban areas perceived USU Extension should place very high effort on
protecting water quality, protecting air quality, and youth mental health and teen suicide
prevention. Ensuring individuals have access to affordable healthy food, and preserving natural
ecosystems and habitats were also assigned as high effort for Extension programming.
These results suggest residents of Utah believe air and water quality, youth mental health,
food safety, and natural ecosystems are critical issues that should be addressed by USU
Extension programming. Programs such as air quality management (e.g. learning about idle-free
zones), landscape irrigation and fertilizer runoff, teen mental health and wellbeing counselling,
and environmental conservation initiatives may be well suited to addressing these critical issues.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 7
For Internal Use Only
Table 1 Residents’ Perceived Level of Effort that Extension should place on Critical Issues Overall Rank Societal Issue Residence Overall Rural Suburban Urban
1 Protecting water quality 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83 2 Protecting air quality 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.82 3 Youth mental health and teen suicide prevention 0.80 0.79 0.81 0.79
4 Ensuring safe food handling practices to prevent foodborne illness 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.77
5 Ensuring individuals have access to affordable healthy food 0.77 0.73 0.79 0.75
6 Preserving natural ecosystems and habitats 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.75 7 Strengthening the local food system 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.72 9 Addressing food and hunger issues 0.72 0.71 0.77 0.71
8 Helping youth develop leadership, citizenship, and life skills 0.73 0.71 0.67 0.71
11 Helping communities be better prepared for natural disasters 0.73 0.69 0.72 0.70
10 Preserving agricultural farmland 0.78 0.68 0.69 0.70 13 Promoting economic development 0.71 0.68 0.70 0.69 15 Teaching healthy relationship skills to teens 0.74 0.67 0.70 0.69 14 Chronic disease prevention 0.72 0.67 0.70 0.69
12 Assisting farmers in agricultural production and profitability 0.74 0.69 0.60 0.69
16 Preventing drug and/or alcohol abuse 0.73 0.65 0.70 0.67
17 Composting, reusing and recycling consumer goods 0.69 0.66 0.68 0.67
19 Strengthening workforce readiness and entrepreneurship 0.73 0.64 0.75 0.66
18 Addressing prescription drug abuse through education 0.70 0.64 0.69 0.66
21 Tackling the opioid crisis 0.68 0.63 0.69 0.65 22 Building healthy and strong families 0.70 0.64 0.63 0.65
20 Helping households become more energy efficient 0.69 0.64 0.63 0.65
23 Managing and protecting rangelands 0.70 0.65 0.62 0.65 24 Reducing obesity through educational programs 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.64
25 Helping rural communities improve their quality of life 0.71 0.63 0.63 0.64
27 Helping households reduce water use 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.63 26 Helping consumers make healthy food choices 0.64 0.62 0.62 0.63
29 Assisting local government and businesses with land use decisions 0.63 0.60 0.62 0.61
28 Providing physical fitness education 0.64 0.60 0.61 0.61
32 Strengthening couple and/or marital relationships 0.62 0.59 0.60 0.60
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 8
For Internal Use Only
30 Building resilient communities through collaborative efforts 0.63 0.59 0.58 0.60
31 Home food safety practices, food preservation, and canning 0.68 0.58 0.55 0.60
33 Getting more adults involved in mentoring youth through 4-H clubs 0.62 0.57 0.57 0.58
34 Helping first-time homeowners make smart financial decisions 0.61 0.56 0.58 0.57
35 Building the capacity of nonprofits and community leaders 0.56 0.54 0.54 0.54
Community Needs
Table 2 shows the normative needs of residents in urban counties in Utah, ranked from
most urgent to least urgent based on the z-statistic. Table 2 also describes the perceived
importance and satisfaction with each community asset according to the Point-Score (PS). The
PS was interpreted as follows:
• 0 – 0.20: Not Important or Very Dissatisfied • 0.21 – 0.40: Of little Importance or Dissatisfied • 0.41 – 0.60: Moderately Important or Moderately satisfied • 0.61 – 0.80: Important or Satisfied • 0.81 – 1.00: Very Important or Very Satisfied
The top five needs in urban counties of Utah were affordable housing options, affordable
medical clinics, well-paying jobs, quality public schools, and affordable internet connection.
While residents indicated affordable housing options was very important, they were dissatisfied
with the state of this issue. In addition, though residents of urban counties indicated affordable
medical clinics, well-paying jobs, quality public schools, and affordable internet connection was
all very important, they were moderately satisfied with the current state of these services.
Emergency healthcare facilities, affordable food options, and steady jobs were also very
important to residents of urban counties and were assessed as high-priority needs. While there
was some glaring difference between perceived importance and satisfaction for the top 10 needs,
there were room for improvement in most areas shown in Table 2.
The list of needs in Table 2 presents a wide range of opportunities for impactful
Extension programming. USU Extension can demonstrate impact by creating programs to close
the gap between perceived importance and satisfaction (i.e. current and desired states). The long-
term outcomes of an Extension program should align to an identified need; a program is
impactful if it clearly addresses any need shown in Table 2. For example, a program on
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 9
For Internal Use Only
mortgages is directly tied to the need for affordable housing options which was assessed as the
most urgent need in urban areas. Another program on health savings accounts and health
insurance is related to affordable medical clinics. It is critical for all Extension programs to
connect to a need; to have an impactful program suggests it closes the gap between “what is” and
“what should be” with respect to a problem. Faculty should consider each need in Table 2 as a
broad Social, Economic, and Environmental condition as described in the Targeting Outcomes of
Programs model (Rockwell & Bennett, 2004).
Table 2 Community Assets in Urban Counties
Rank by Need Community Asset/Service/Issue Point-Score (PS) [Need]
Importance Satisfaction z 1 Affordable housing options 0.83 0.39 -24.59 2 Affordable medical clinics 0.86 0.48 -24.38 3 Well-paying jobs 0.85 0.50 -23.65 4 Quality public schools 0.85 0.54 -23.17 5 Affordable internet connection 0.81 0.53 -20.80 6 Emergency healthcare facilities 0.86 0.62 -20.49 7 Affordable food options 0.82 0.57 -20.27 8 Community shelters for domestic violence 0.77 0.53 -19.52 9 Community services for mental health 0.76 0.50 -19.07 10 Steady jobs 0.82 0.61 -18.37 11 Community shelters for natural disasters 0.70 0.51 -15.87 12 Community services for alcohol or drug
abuse treatment 0.70 0.54 -13.16
13 Healthy food options 0.76 0.65 -11.54 14 School lunch programs 0.70 0.58 -10.23 15 Family counselling services 0.67 0.56 -9.55 16 Individual counselling services 0.67 0.56 -9.04 17 Employment opportunities for youth 0.67 0.56 -8.69 18 Home financial planning services 0.61 0.52 -7.05 19 Affordable clothing stores 0.68 0.60 -6.30 20 Public parks 0.76 0.71 -5.28 21 Vocational skills programs 0.60 0.58 -2.16 22 Senior living communities 0.63 0.59 -2.00 23 Senior citizen centers 0.61 0.59 -1.02 24 Community gardens 0.56 0.53 -0.87 25 Reliable public transportation 0.62 0.60 -0.67 26 Public libraries 0.72 0.73 1.22 27 High-quality childcare facilities 0.50 0.56 2.75 28 Organized activities for adults 0.53 0.53 3.11 29 Grocery stores accepting food stamps 0.57 0.63 4.18 30 Community meeting spaces (e.g. townhalls) 0.51 0.60 10.24
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 10
For Internal Use Only
Table 3 shows the community needs of residents in rural counties. The top five needs of
rural residents were well-paying jobs, quality public schools, steady jobs, emergency healthcare
facilities, and affordable housing options. Residents indicated well-paying jobs and affordable
housing options were very important, however, they were dissatisfied with these services.
Similarly, residents’ perceived quality public schools, steady jobs, and emergency healthcare
facilities were very important, but they were moderately satisfied with the current state of these
issues. Affordable medical clinics, food options, and internet connections were also very
important to residents of rural counties and were assessed as high-priority needs. The negative z-
statistic across many items shows there is a need to address almost all items listed in Table 3.
Extension programs can target any need specified in Table 3. Impactful programs can
focus on creating jobs for rural residents (e.g. the Rural Online Initiative), providing professional
development training for K-12 teachers or after-school activities for students, or conducting
workshops on individual and family financial management.
Table 3 Community Assets in Rural Counties
Rank by Need Community Asset/Service/Issue Point-Score (PS) [Need]
Z Importance Satisfaction 1 Well-paying jobs 0.86 0.38 -9.14 2 Quality public schools 0.87 0.51 -8.47 3 Steady jobs 0.83 0.44 -8.31 4 Emergency healthcare facilities 0.88 0.55 -8.15 5 Affordable housing options 0.80 0.40 -8.02 6 Affordable medical clinics 0.86 0.45 -7.29 7 Affordable food options 0.84 0.52 -7.10 8 Affordable internet connection 0.84 0.50 -6.18 9 Employment opportunities for youth 0.72 0.43 -5.87 10 Healthy food options 0.78 0.55 -5.53 11 Community shelters for domestic violence 0.74 0.47 -5.44 12 Community services for mental health 0.73 0.48 -5.20 13 Community shelters for natural disasters 0.63 0.48 -4.93 14 Community services for alcohol or drug
abuse treatment 0.69 0.47 -4.68
15 Affordable clothing stores 0.70 0.45 -4.62 16 School lunch programs 0.70 0.59 -2.67 17 Family counselling services 0.64 0.51 -2.61 18 Senior living communities 0.63 0.54 -2.24 19 Individual counselling services 0.64 0.52 -2.19 20 Home financial planning services 0.61 0.52 -2.12 21 Reliable public transportation 0.59 0.46 -1.76 22 Senior citizen centers 0.60 0.59 -1.39
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 11
For Internal Use Only
23 Public parks 0.73 0.66 -1.14 24 Vocational skills programs 0.59 0.57 -0.66 25 Organized activities for adults 0.52 0.46 -0.66 26 High-quality childcare facilities 0.54 0.49 -0.40 27 Public libraries 0.75 0.69 -0.23 28 Community gardens 0.48 0.47 -0.11 29 Grocery stores accepting food stamps 0.60 0.64 0.95 30 Community meeting spaces (e.g. townhalls) 0.53 0.64 3.51
Interest in Extension Programs
Table 4 shows Utah’s rural, suburban, and urban residents’ interest in topics addressed
through USU Extension programs. The Point-Score method was used to rank residents’ level of
interest in different programs. The PS was interpreted as follows:
• 0 – 0.33: Low Interest • 0.34 – 0.66: Moderate Interest • 0.67 – 1.00: High Interest
Overall, there was moderate interest in most Extension programs; residents did not have a
high level of interest in any program area. The top five programs of interest were natural disaster
preparedness, home gardening and farming, individual financial planning, healthy eating, and
home financial planning. Residents in rural areas were most interested in programs related to
natural disaster preparedness, healthy eating, home gardening and farming, renewable energy,
and water conservation. Residents in suburban areas were most interested in programs related to
natural disaster preparedness, home gardening and farming, individual financial planning,
healthy eating, and home financial planning. Lastly, residents in urban areas were most interested
programs related to individual financial planning, natural disaster preparedness, healthy eating,
home financial planning, and mental health. USU Extension should promote programs with
higher levels of community interest to improve its presence and relevance in Utah. Further,
programs should be tied to a need identified in Tables 2 and 3. For example, residents in urban
areas were most interested in individual financial planning. These programs can be tied to top
needs in urban areas by aiming to help individuals manage their personal finances so they can
afford housing options and healthcare.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 12
For Internal Use Only
Table 4 Level of Interest in Extension Programs by Location Overall Rank Program Location Overall Rural Suburban Urban
1 Natural disaster preparedness 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.63 2 Home gardening and farming 0.63 0.59 0.49 0.59 3 Individual financial planning 0.55 0.58 0.63 0.58 4 Healthy eating 0.64 0.56 0.56 0.57 5 Home financial planning 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.56 6 Water conservation 0.57 0.53 0.48 0.53 7 Couple relationships 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.52 8 Renewable energy 0.58 0.50 0.54 0.52 9 Mental health 0.51 0.50 0.56 0.51 10 Family relationships 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.51 11 Natural resource conservation 0.56 0.47 0.51 0.49 12 Weed control 0.56 0.48 0.37 0.48 13 Landscape care 0.55 0.46 0.35 0.46 14 Tree and shrub care 0.52 0.43 0.30 0.43 15 Leadership skill development 0.42 0.43 0.47 0.43 16 Adult vocational skills 0.47 0.39 0.52 0.42 17 Home food safety practices 0.47 0.38 0.45 0.40 18 Land use 0.52 0.38 0.39 0.40 19 Career readiness 0.41 0.37 0.43 0.39 20 Organic agriculture 0.46 0.35 0.40 0.38 21 Food production 0.44 0.35 0.37 0.37 22 Plant disease control 0.42 0.36 0.34 0.37 23 Forest management 0.46 0.32 0.33 0.35 24 Diversity and multiculturalism 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.35 25 Elderly nutrition 0.39 0.32 0.31 0.33 26 Youth nutrition 0.38 0.30 0.32 0.32 27 Beekeeping 0.41 0.29 0.34 0.32 28 Youth development 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.31 29 Children after-school programs 0.31 0.29 0.34 0.30 30 Alcohol or drug abuse treatment 0.30 0.24 0.30 0.26 31 Forage production 0.34 0.22 0.21 0.24 32 Livestock management 0.37 0.19 0.25 0.23 Overall Interest in Extension Programs by Residence 0.49 0.43 0.44 0.44
Table 5 shows level of interest in Extension programs among male and female residents
of Utah. Overall, there was a high level of interest among females for programs only related to
natural disaster preparedness. Otherwise, females were moderately interested in programs related
to healthy eating, home gardening and farming, individual financial planning, and home financial
planning. Males did not show high level of interest for any Extension program. They were
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 13
For Internal Use Only
moderately interested in natural disaster preparedness, individual financial planning, home
gardening and farming, home financial planning, and renewable energy.
Table 5 Interest in Extension Programs by Sex
Program Sex Male Female
Natural disaster preparedness 0.58 0.68 Individual financial planning 0.57 0.59 Home gardening and farming 0.56 0.61 Home financial planning 0.56 0.56 Renewable energy 0.56 0.48 Water conservation 0.54 0.52 Healthy eating 0.53 0.62 Couple relationships 0.51 0.53 Weed control 0.50 0.46 Landscape care 0.49 0.44 Natural resource conservation 0.48 0.49 Mental health 0.47 0.55 Family relationships 0.47 0.55 Leadership skill development 0.46 0.40 Tree and shrub care 0.45 0.41 Land use 0.44 0.37 Adult vocational skills 0.43 0.41 Home food safety practices 0.40 0.41 Forest management 0.40 0.29 Career readiness 0.39 0.38 Food production 0.38 0.36 Plant disease control 0.38 0.35 Organic agriculture 0.36 0.40 Diversity and multiculturalism 0.33 0.37 Elderly nutrition 0.33 0.33 Beekeeping 0.32 0.31 Youth nutrition 0.27 0.36 Youth development 0.27 0.36 Alcohol or drug abuse treatment 0.26 0.26 Forage production 0.26 0.21 Livestock management 0.25 0.20 Children after-school programs 0.24 0.36
Overall Interest in Extension Programs by Sex 0.44 0.44
Table 6 shows level of interest in Extension programs by age groups. Overall, younger
residents (18-34 and 35-54 years old) had greater interests in Extension programs compared to
older residents (55-64 and >64 years old). Those between the ages of 18-34 years had a high
level of interest in programs relating to individual financial planning and home financial
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 14
For Internal Use Only
planning. They also showed moderate (tending to high) interest in programs relating to natural
disaster preparedness, couple relationships, and mental health. Residents 35-54 years of age had
high levels interest in programs relating to natural disaster preparedness and home gardening and
farming. Further, they showed moderate to high interest in individual financial planning and
home financial planning. Those 55-64 years old did not show a high level of interest for any type
of Extension program. They indicated moderate interest for programs relating to home gardening
and farming, natural disaster preparedness, weed control, landscape care, and water conservation.
Similarly, those older than 64 years did not have a high level of interest in any Extension
program. They were moderately interested in natural disaster, preparedness, water conservation,
elderly nutrition, healthy eating, and home gardening and farming.
Table 6 Interest in Extension Programs by Age Group
Program Age 18-34 35-54 55-64 >64
Individual financial planning 0.71 0.65 0.38 0.34 Home financial planning 0.69 0.63 0.38 0.30 Natural disaster preparedness 0.66 0.70 0.52 0.50 Couple relationships 0.66 0.58 0.31 0.27 Mental health 0.66 0.58 0.33 0.21 Healthy eating 0.65 0.59 0.50 0.45 Family relationships 0.63 0.59 0.33 0.25 Home gardening and farming 0.57 0.69 0.54 0.44 Renewable energy 0.55 0.57 0.44 0.41 Leadership skill development 0.54 0.52 0.26 0.16 Career readiness 0.54 0.46 0.18 0.08 Water conservation 0.52 0.56 0.51 0.49 Natural resource conservation 0.52 0.54 0.42 0.37 Adult vocational skills 0.48 0.51 0.32 0.18 Home food safety practices 0.44 0.45 0.30 0.31 Youth nutrition 0.44 0.38 0.11 0.10 Youth development 0.43 0.40 0.12 0.06 Diversity and multiculturalism 0.42 0.40 0.22 0.21 Food production 0.42 0.43 0.31 0.19 Beekeeping 0.42 0.36 0.19 0.13 Children after-school programs 0.42 0.37 0.10 0.05 Weed control 0.41 0.56 0.52 0.42 Land use 0.41 0.47 0.37 0.27 Organic agriculture 0.41 0.45 0.33 0.19 Landscape care 0.39 0.53 0.52 0.42 Forest management 0.37 0.38 0.29 0.26 Plant disease control 0.35 0.41 0.38 0.30
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 15
For Internal Use Only
Tree and shrub care 0.34 0.49 0.48 0.43 Alcohol or drug abuse treatment 0.34 0.29 0.15 0.12 Forage production 0.28 0.29 0.16 0.10 Livestock management 0.28 0.26 0.16 0.10 Elderly nutrition 0.24 0.30 0.46 0.48
Overall Interest by Age 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.29 Information Access and Social Media Use
Table 7 shows the type of devices residents used to access the internet, and their preferred
sources of information. The Point-Score (PS) was used to rank devices by their level of usage,
and to rank the most preferred information source. The PS was interpreted as follows:
• 0 – 0.20: Never • 0.21 – 0.40: Sometimes • 0.41 – 0.60: About half the time • 0.61 – 0.80: Most of the time • 0.81 – 1.00: Always
Based on the results in Table 7, residents of Utah accessed the internet using their
smartphones most of time. They used a desktop or laptop about half the time to access the
internet. Further, residents used search engines such as Google most of the time to get
information. They turned to family, friends, and neighbors about half the time to get information.
These results highlight the need for USU Extension to maintain a strong online presence,
especially through online search engines. In addition, Extension websites must be smartphone-
friendly since residents often used their mobile devices to look for information.
Table 7 Internet Use and Information Source
Question Category PS How often do you access the internet from the following devices?
Smartphone 0.67 Desktop/Laptop 0.58 Tablet 0.28
How often do you use the following resources to get information?
Internet - Search engines (e.g. Google) 0.77 Family, friends, neighbors 0.43 Internet - Social Media 0.39 Television 0.32 Radio 0.26 Newspaper 0.21 Magazines/Newsletters 0.20
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 16
For Internal Use Only
Table 8 and 9 shows residents’ usage of various social media platforms. Social media use
was ranked by frequency using the Point-Score method. The PS was interpreted as follows:
• 0 – 0.33: Never/Infrequent • 0.34 – 0.66: Occasionally • 0.67 – 1.00: Frequently
Overall, residents frequently used Facebook, occasionally used YouTube and Instagram,
and rarely used Pinterest, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and Tumblr. This points to
the importance for USU Extension to maintain a social media presence, especially on Facebook
and YouTube.
Table 8 Social Media Use
Social Media PS Facebook 0.69 YouTube 0.65 Instagram 0.36 Pinterest 0.33 Twitter 0.21
Snapchat 0.20 LinkedIn 0.19
WhatsApp 0.06 Tumblr 0.05
Table 9 shows the top three social media platforms used by residents based on selected
demographic variables. Rural and suburban residents used Facebook frequently, while residents
in urban areas frequently used YouTube. Furthermore, males frequently used YouTube, while
females frequently used Facebook. Facebook and YouTube were frequently used by those 18-34
years old and 35-54 years old, but only occasionally used by those 55 years and older. Instagram
use appears more popular among females and residents between the ages of 18-34 compared to
others.
Combined with other findings, social media use should be taken into consideration when
recruiting participants; the patterns of social media use by a target audience affects marketing
strategies. For example, those between 18-34 years of age were most interested in individual
financial planning programs (Table 6). These programs can aim to help residents manage their
finances so they can afford housing and healthcare which was a rated as a high priority need in
Table 2. Based on the findings in Table 9, Extension faculty can use Facebook and YouTube to
advertise their programs since the target audience frequently used these social media platforms.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 17
For Internal Use Only
Table 9 Top 3 Social Media Use by Age and Sex
Variable Categories PS Facebook YouTube Instagram
Residence Rural 0.69 0.66 0.37
Suburban 0.70 0.64 0.35 Urban 0.63 0.74 0.32
Sex Male 0.60 0.68 0.26 Female 0.78 0.62 0.46
Age
18-34 0.72 0.79 0.54 35-54 0.76 0.69 0.35 55-64 0.62 0.58 0.20
>64 0.52 0.33 0.11 Satisfaction with Extension
A major limitation of the findings related to clientele satisfaction with USU Extension is
the extremely low sample size. Only 83 respondents of the entire sample indicated they received
information or attended a program by USU Extension (n = 83) over the past 12 months.
Therefore, results of this section should not be generalized to all Extension clientele. Table 10
shows residents’ level of agreement with statements relating to the information they received
from USU Extension. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with
the accuracy and relevancy of the information received from USU Extension.
Table 10 Satisfaction with USU Extension
Statement % SD D N A SA
How satisfied were you with the accuracy of the information you received from USU Extension?
0 1 5 56 37
How satisfied were you with the relevance of the information to your situation or problem?
0 1 10 54 36
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly Agree.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 18
For Internal Use Only
Findings from Table 11 showed most respondents used the information provided by
Extension. Also, most stated the information helped solve their problems and they shared it with
others. This suggest a high level of quality in the information provided by USU Extension.
Table 11 Using Information provided by USU Extension
Questions % Yes No Unsure
Did you use the information? 87 10 4 Did the information help you to solve your problem? 81 6 14 Did you share the information with anyone? 66 30 5
Table 12 shows respondents preferred method for receiving information from Extension.
Most respondents preferred to receive information through a website, online or web-based
classes, face-to-face workshops, online videos, and printed materials. This further indicates the
need for USU Extension to establish a strong online presence. Still, resources should be allocated
towards traditional learning environments (i.e. face-to-face training and printed material).
Table 12 Preferred Ways to Receive Information from USU Extension
Method % Yes Website 74 Online/Web-based classes 72 Face-to-face Workshops/Classes 71 Videos (YouTube) 56 Printed material (fact sheets, newsletters) 55 Field days/Demonstrations 45 Social media 40 Personal contacts 23 Television 17 Radio 12 Newspaper articles 9
When asked about overall satisfaction with USU Extension, about 41% of clientele
sampled were extremely satisfied with Extension, while 42% were moderately satisfied. Overall,
USU Extension had a clientele satisfaction rate of 96% based on results of the limited sample.
There is a need to invest resources to accurately measure clientele satisfaction rates on an annual
basis to assess and demonstrate the quality, relevance, and impact of Extension programming to
stakeholders. An annual satisfaction survey will communicate the public value of USU
Extension.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 19
For Internal Use Only
Conclusions and Practical Applications
This report outlines the societal problems and normative needs of residents of Utah, and
it provides an indicator of residents’ current interest in Extension programming. It also shows
residents’ social media use patterns and their preferred sources of information. These findings
are critical to planning and implementing impactful Extension programs that meets the high
priority needs of residents. Extension must take all necessary steps to remain relevant and
demonstrate its unique public value in a competitive environment; there many private and public
organizations working towards improving the lives of residents. As a result, there is an urgent
need for effective and practical evaluation of all Extension programs – evaluation is most
effective when it informs program planning and implementation.
USU Extension must focus on demonstrating impact, however, impact only creates
public value when a persistent societal need is adequately addressed through education over
time. Therefore, evaluation activities must reflect short, medium, and long-term changes in
participants’ quality of life. The evaluation competencies of faculty and overall professional
capacity of USU Extension are critical to creating impactful Extension programs; this report
complements the 2019 Professional Development Assessment of USU Extension. There is a
wide range of needs highlighted in this report to inform Extension program planning and
resource allocation. Table 13 provides a framework to guide Extension program planning. Tables
14, 15, and 16 are applications of the framework. The Appendix provides summary figures.
Table 13
Framework for a Program Plan*
Tables
1 – 3
Societal
Problem
What broad societal problem does the program seek to address? Is
it an important issue for Extension?
Tables
1 – 3
Community
Need
Is there a need for the program? Is it a high-priority need? How
would the program address the need i.e. improve or close the gap
between “what is” and “what should be”?
Tables
4 – 6
Level of
Interest
Is the target audience interested in this type of program? Who are
most likely to be interested (i.e. age group, etc.)
Tables
7 – 9
Communication
Strategies
What are the best ways to recruit participants? What are some
marketing strategies to promote participation?
*Note. Contact Lendel.Narine@usu.edu if elaboration of data is needed.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 20
For Internal Use Only
Table 14
Practical Applications I
Tables
1 – 3 Societal Problem
Water quality: Residents perceived Extension should place
very high effort on protecting water quality according to
results of a 2019 statewide needs assessment.
Tables
1 – 3 Community Need
Affordable medical clinics, healthcare facilities, and healthy
food options were all high priority needs. Also, residents
thought Extension should place high effort on preventing
foodborne illness. These findings suggest a need to ensure
human health and wellbeing. However, groundwater
contamination through lawn fertilizer run-offs can pose a risk
to food and water for human consumption; a public health
risk. An Extension program can aim to educate residents on
best practices for lawn fertilizer application.
Tables
4 – 6 Level of Interest
The target audience can be suburban residents with
landscapes. This sub-population showed moderate interest in
attending landscape care (and water conservation) programs.
Tables
7 – 9
Communication
Strategies
Suburban residents frequently use Facebook, and it is likely
they use smartphones to check their social feeds. Promote the
program on Facebook and use eye-catching videos and short
titles to communicate the benefits of the program.
IMPACT
The program is impactful if residents adopt best practices
related to lawn fertilizer application. Continued adoption will
reduce the risk of fertilizer runoffs which can prevent
contaminated food and water supplies.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 21
For Internal Use Only
Table 15
Practical Applications II
Tables
1 – 3 Societal Problem
Youth mental health and teen suicide prevention: Residents
perceived Extension should place high effort on youth mental
health and teen suicide prevention according to results of a
2019 statewide needs assessment.
Tables
1 – 3 Community Need
Community services for mental health was a high priority and
rated as one of the top 10 needs in urban areas: There was a
need to improve educational and counselling mental health
services for teens in urban areas. An Extension program can
aim to provide group and individual counselling services to
at-risk teens to improve their mental wellbeing.
Tables
4 – 6 Level of Interest
The target audience can be at-risk urban teens. This sub-
population showed moderate tending to high interest in
attending mental health programs.
Tables
7 – 9
Communication
Strategies
Urban residents between the ages of 18 – 34 frequently used
YouTube and Facebook, and it is likely they use smartphones
to check their social feeds. Promote the program on YouTube
with short videos and on Facebook with short messages.
IMPACT
The program is effective if teens report a significant and
positive change in their personal mindset after attending the
program, and impactful if they report a positive outlook on
life in the medium-to-long run.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 22
For Internal Use Only
Table 16
Practical Applications III
Tables
1 – 3 Societal Problem
Helping communities be better prepared for natural disasters:
Residents perceived Extension should place high effort on
working with communities to prepare for natural disasters
according to results of a 2019 statewide needs assessment.
Tables
1 – 3 Community Need
Residents in both rural and urban counties believed it was
important to improve community shelters for natural
disasters. Therefore, there is a need to improve the capacity of
communities to handle potential natural disasters. An
Extension program can aim to provide disaster preparedness
workshops to residents and lead community efforts to
improve local shelters. These activities will lead to resilient
communities equipped to deal with natural disasters.
Tables
4 – 6 Level of Interest
The target audience can be all adult residents of Utah.
Findings showed residents of rural, suburban, and urban areas
were most interested in Extension programs related to natural
disaster preparedness.
Tables
7 – 9
Communication
Strategies
Residents frequently used Facebook and YouTube, and it is
likely they use smartphones to check their social feeds, and
search for information on Google. Promote the program on
the Extension website so that it is visible on search engines
and send out promotional messages on Facebook.
IMPACT
The program is effective if adults demonstrate a significant
and positive change in their knowledge of community
resources to deal with natural disasters, and they intend to
implement preparedness measures. The program is impactful
if participants implement preparedness measures and express
strong confidence in their ability to deal with natural disasters
in the long-run i.e. community resilience.
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 23
For Internal Use Only
APPENDIX
Figure 1: Top 10 Critical Issues According to Residents of Utah
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 24
For Internal Use Only
Figure 2: Top 10 Community Needs in Urban Areas
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 25
For Internal Use Only
Figure 3: Top 10 Community Needs in Rural Areas
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 26
For Internal Use Only
Figure 4: Level of Interest in USU Extension Programs by Location (Top 10)
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 27
For Internal Use Only
Figure 5: Level of Interest in USU Extension Programs by Age (Top 10)
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 29
For Internal Use Only
Figure 7: Social Media Use by Demographics (Top 3 Platforms)
Statewide Needs Assessment 2019 30
For Internal Use Only
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorenson, C., & Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to research in
education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Boyle. P. G. (1981). Planning better programs. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Cohen, M. P. (2011). Raking. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods
(pp. 672-673). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412963947
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Henning, J., Buchholz, D., Steele, D., & Ramaswamy, S. (2014). Milestones and the future for
Cooperative Extension. Journal of Extension, 52(6). Retrieved from
https://www.joe.org/joe/2014december/comm1.php
Lamm, A. J., & Lamm, K. W. (2019). Using non-probability sampling methods in agricultural
and extension education research. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension
Education, 26(1), 52-59. doi: 10.5191/jiaee.2019.26105
Lieberson, S. (1976). Rank-sum comparisons between groups. Sociological Methodology,
7(1976), 276-291. doi: 10.2307/270713
Office of Rural Health Policy. (2016). List of rural counties and designated eligible census tracts
in metropolitan counties. Retrieved from
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/ruralhealth/resources/forhpeligibleareas.pdf
Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of Cooperative
Extension. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Rockwell, K., & Bennett, C. (2004). Targeting outcomes of programs: A hierarchy for targeting
outcomes and evaluating their achievement. Faculty publications: Agricultural
Leadership, Education & Communication Department. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/48/
Webster, N., & Ingram, P. (2007). Exploring the challenges for Extension educators working in
urban communities. Journal of Extension, 45(3). Retrieved from
https://www.joe.org/joe/2007june/iw3.php
Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A
practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Recommended