SITUATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UTAH

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



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



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



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.



“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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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 [email protected] if elaboration of data is needed.

https://usu.app.box.com/file/465384907443

mailto:[email protected]



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.



Table 15

Practical Applications II

Tables


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


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


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.



Table 16

Practical Applications III

Tables


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


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


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.



APPENDIX

Figure 1: Top 10 Critical Issues According to Residents of Utah



Figure 2: Top 10 Community Needs in Urban Areas



Figure 3: Top 10 Community Needs in Rural Areas



Figure 4: Level of Interest in USU Extension Programs by Location (Top 10)



Figure 5: Level of Interest in USU Extension Programs by Age (Top 10)



Figure 6: Social Media Use of Residents



Figure 7: Social Media Use by Demographics (Top 3 Platforms)



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.

SITUATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UTAH

Documents

Transcript of SITUATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UTAH