615 forum

profilejsbfg0001
aprimeronneeds.pdf

Altschuld, J. W., & Watkins, R. (2014). A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New Directions for Evaluation, 144, 5–18.

1

A Primer on Needs Assessment: More Than 40 Years of Research and Practice

James W. Altschuld, Ryan Watkins

Abstract

This chapter consists of an overview of needs assessment’s rich history, defi- nitions, models, tools, and techniques. These closely align its theory, research, and practice to several associated fields—most notably strategic planning and evaluation. The highlights of the content include a comparison to—and differ- entiation from—evaluation, a brief timeline of the recent history of the field, the notable emergence of hybrid assessment and asset/capacity building approaches, some discussion of opposition to needs assessment, and a description of two prominent models that guide what assessors do. The summary captures the dy- namic nature of the enterprise and how it is evolving. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

Introduction

You may be asking what is a primer and why are the editors starting with one? A primer is simply a book, or in this case a chapter, that is sometimes used to get students started. Primers typically assume little prior knowledge and focus on basic skills. For this New Directions for Evaluation issue, we are taking some liberties with this description since most readers will have some understanding of needs assessment. Yet, we believe that clarification and amplification are desirable, since the topic can be complex and is frequently misunderstood or misapplied.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION, no. 144, Winter 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ev.20099 5

6 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

In that light, the chapter explains what a needs assessment is and its relation to evaluation. From there is a brief historical discussion, followed by two prominent approaches to conducting an assessment. In conclusion, we offer a quick glimpse of several applications of basic needs assessment principles. Altogether, we hope that this primer will provide an adequate base from which you can gain the most from the chapters that follow.

Needs Assessment and Evaluation

A need in the simplest sense is a measurable gap between two conditions— what currently is and what should be. (Watkins & Kavale in Chapter 2 of this issue provide additional perspectives on defining needs.) This requires ascertaining what the circumstances are at a point in time, what is to be desired in the future, and a comparison of the two. Needs assessment also includes making judgments with regard to needs and putting them into prioritized order to guide decisions about what to do next.

Defining the gaps between what we want to accomplish and what we are currently achieving, and judging them in relation to one another, makes the endeavor rather complex (Rosen, 1991). The assessment process points to problem areas, issues, or difficulties that should be resolved. In most contexts, needs assessment focuses on gaps in results rather than in wants or possible solutions. Beyond that, tying needs assessments together with the identification of assets can provide valuable insights (see Altschuld, Hung, & Lee, Chapter 7 of this issue) and are best undertaken before beginning a new effort or before a decision about what to do has been made. Needs assessments are often considered a form of strategic or program planning even more than as a type of evaluation (see Wedman, Chapter 4 of this issue).

Usually when needs are assessed, several are found and there are lim- ited resources for improvement (closure of those gaps), so, as mentioned previously, priorities must be set. Causal analysis, for example, may be em- ployed to identify which gap might be most amenable to change and for which a solution strategy has a high likelihood of success (possibly based on evaluation from previous implementations). This is also helpful in think- ing about how solutions could be done and when collecting evaluation data would be most useful. By identifying the desired/required state when de- termining needs, anticipated outcomes to measure later are brought into perspective. Further, it is to be noted that there are types of needs such as short- and long-term, maintenance, severe and slight, and others (Altschuld & Kumar, 2010).

Turning to evaluation, it may be thought of as the provision of infor- mation for making decisions about a program or project. Descriptions of evaluation frequently refer to formative and summative evaluation, though other frameworks can be applied (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2004). For formative evaluation, questions might be: Is the new entity taking place

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

A PRIMER ON NEEDS ASSESSMENT: MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 7

as planned, is it performing well? How are the activities proceeding? What deviations are occurring? Are they on schedule? Are they working as in- tended? What snags are encountered, is the process being monitored, are appropriate data being collected, are in-course corrections being made, are the components of the program working in a complementary fashion, etc.? For summative, or bottom-line, impact, the questions concern: Has the project attained its objectives? Did it work in an equal fashion for all in- tended groups? Was it worth the expenditure of precious resources (time, personnel, materials, etc.)?

In contrast, needs assessment deals with questions such as What re- sults should be accomplished at the societal, organizational, and individual levels? How do current results relate to desired results? How should we think about diverse needs in terms of importance? Which alternative solu- tion strategies (or sets of solutions) can best reduce gaps in results? What criteria can be used to evaluate the alternatives?

Needs assessment is therefore at times more oriented to planning than evaluation, so you may be asking “Why is an issue of New Directions being devoted to it instead of one more firmly seated in evaluation?” In reality, the two concepts (and associated processes) are highly connected in methods and mission. This was very noticeable to a small national group of needs as- sessors who decided to affiliate with the American Evaluation Association (AEA) in the mid-1980s. What they observed was that the majority of pro- grams and projects are predicated on quantified needs, perceived needs, or a combination of the two. If needs have been identified, prioritized, and their causes determined with solutions selected, these factors contribute directly to evaluation of the project or program—inevitably linking the two fields of study and practice.

In Table 1.1, evaluation and needs assessment are compared in relation to a number of key dimensions to demonstrate similar and unique proper- ties. The table is intended to be illuminative, not comprehensive.

Other dimensions could be included in Table 1.1, but these hopefully suffice for clarifying why a national group of needs assessors selected AEA as its home. The two fields of study and practice are intertwined processes with a sharp demarcation between them being superficial, or even artifi- cial. Needs assessment takes place early in the development of programs and feeds into the other, which is most common during implementation and operation. The idea of discrepancy readily applies when a program or project is being monitored or evaluated—thus the thinking is in tandem. Indeed, gaps in outcomes could be considered as input into recycling back to the need that guided the program’s design in the first place.

One popular evaluation model (Context, Input, Process, and Prod- uct, or CIPP) developed by Stufflebeam in the 1960s (now being revisited by Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014) embedded needs assessment into evalu- ation. More specifically, Context includes needs as the platform for new projects and interventions; from there, it moves to the examination of

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

T a b

le 1 .1

. E

va lu

a ti

o n

a n

d N

ee d

s A

ss es

sm en

t: S

o m

e S

im il

a r

a n

d U

n iq

u e

P ro

p er

ti es

E va

lu at

io n

D im

en si

on N

ee ds

A ss

es sm

en t

E va

lu at

io n

o cc

u rs

af te

r a

p ro

je ct

o r

p ro

gr am

h as

b eg

u n

an d

o ft

en co

n ti

n u

o u

sl y

th er

ea ft

er .

W h

er e

d o

es it

ta k

e p

la ce

in th

e li

fe o

f a

p ro

je ct

o r

p ro

gr am

? A

ss es

sm en

ts o

cc u

r b

ef o

re (o

r at

th e

b eg

in n

in g)

w h

en an

in te

rv en

ti o

n , p

ro je

ct ,

o r

p ro

gr am

is im

p le

m en

te d

. D

et er

m in

e h

o w

w el

l th

e in

te rv

en ti

o n

is p

ro gr

es si

n g

an d

ev en

tu al

ly ac

h ie

ve s

it s

in te

n d

ed en

d s.

P u

rp o

se o

f th

e ac

ti vi

ty D

et er

m in

e im

p o

rt an

t ga

p s

an d

w h

at en

d s

ar e

th e

ta rg

et s,

w h

at ar

e li

k el

y so

lu ti

o n

st ra

te gi

es , th

ei r

k ey

fe at

u re

s, an

d w

h at

p o

te n

ti al

ly m

ig h

t b

e ev

al u

at ed

in te

rm s

o f

an ti

ci p

at ed

re su

lt s.

L o

gi c

m ap

s, id

ea ll

y d

ev el

o p

ed d

u ri

n g

p ro

gr am

p la

n n

in g,

ar e

u se

d in

ev al

u at

io n

as a

gu id

ep o

st fo

r fo

rm at

iv e

an d

su m

m at

iv e

ev al

u at

io n

s.

U se

o f

lo gi

c m

ap s

St ra

te gi

ca ll

y d

efi n

e lo

gi c

m ap

s (o

r th

eo ri

es o

f ch

an ge

) to

in fl

u en

ce p

ro gr

am o

r p

ro je

ct d

es ig

n ;

ca u

sa l

an al

ys es

m ay

le ad

to m

ap s

o f

so lu

ti o

n s.

E va

lu at

io n

p ra

ct ic

e ca

ll s

fo r

m ea

n in

gf u

l in

vo lv

em en

t o

f co

n st

it u

en ci

es in

id en

ti fy

in g

m aj

o r

o u

tc o

m es

an d

ev en

in in

te rp

re ta

ti o

n o

f o

b ta

in ed

d at

a.

In vo

lv em

en t

o f

co n

ce rn

ed co

n st

it u

en ci

es In

th e

p as

t, as

se ss

m en

ts w

er e

d o

n e

m o

re b

y th

e as

se ss

o r,

b u

t fo

ll o

w in

g th

e le

ad o

f ev

al u

at io

n ar

e n

o w

m o

re in

cl u

si ve

o f

th e

ac ti

ve p

ar ti

ci p

at io

n o

f co

n st

it u

en ci

es (s

ee C

h ap

te r

7 o

f th

is is

su e)

. E

va lu

at io

n u

ti li

ze s

a ra

n ge

o f

m et

h o

d s

an d

vi ew

s q

u al

it at

iv e

an d

q u

an ti

ta ti

ve o

n es

as co

m p

le m

en ta

ry .

M et

h o

d s

an d

p ro

ce d

u re

s In

p ra

ct ic

e, th

ey ar

e si

m il

ar to

ev al

u at

io n

re ga

rd in

g a

ra n

ge o

f q

u al

it at

iv e

an d

q u

an ti

ta ti

ve m

et h

o d

s, b

u t

th er

e ar

e se

ve ra

l sp

ec ia

li ze

d to

n ee

d s

as se

ss m

en t

d u

e to

th e

p la

n n

in g

fo cu

s, in

cl u

d in

g ga

p an

al ys

is , ca

u sa

l an

al ys

is , p

ri o

ri ti

za ti

o n

st ra

te gi

es , an

d p

ro ce

d u

re s

fo r

co m

p ar

in g

so lu

ti o

n st

ra te

gi es

. E

va lu

at io

n is

in co

rp o

ra te

d in

to n

ea rl

y ev

er y

p u

b li

c en

d ea

vo r

as a

re q

u ir

em en

t o

f gr

an ti

n g

ag en

ci es

. It

is p

ar t

o f

th e

ac co

u n

ta b

il it

y sc

en e.

F re

q u

en cy

o f

fo rm

al em

p lo

ym en

t o

f th

e ac

ti vi

ty A

ss es

sm en

t is

n o

t o

b se

rv ed

as o

ft en

as ev

al u

at io

n ,

p er

h ap

s b

ec au

se fu

n d

in g

is o

ft en

b ei

n g

li n

k ed

to p

re d

et er

m in

ed so

lu ti

o n

s an

d a

d es

ir e

to m

o ve

q u

ic k

ly in

to ac

ti o

n .

A PRIMER ON NEEDS ASSESSMENT: MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 9

varied inputs (solutions) to deal with the inherent problems. For Stuffle- beam, assessment and evaluation could not be thought of apart from each other.

Other evaluation schema should be brought into the discussion. Em- powerment and participatory approaches are strong in terms of the inclu- sion of involved groups and individuals in deciding what the evaluation is to be about—what variables are most critical to a project, how might they be measured, what should we be looking in terms of success, how would we know that a project is moving along properly, what levels of participation should be there, and so forth? Analogously, these are likewise characteris- tics of high-quality needs assessments and ones that are more frequently posited in the literature.

Assessments necessitate a careful examination of how to modify or even completely alleviate needs. They elucidate the best ways to do so and direct evaluators toward where to look at how programs operate and the impacts or effects they might have. This usually leads to greater program accountability and more sophisticated evaluations.

Opposition to Needs Assessment and the Emergence of Hybrids

As the concept of needs assessment was emerging in the 1960s and 1970s, sharp criticisms were appearing. One was that many of the then-new models were more heavily top-down, outside-in, and frequently those most affected by the needs came into the process as “subjects” instead of collab- orators (or cotravelers) on the journey (Altschuld, 2014). Another concern was that most approaches were too focused on quantifying needs, pushing assessment to rely on indicators from databases or Likert-type scale surveys. Such assessments were not humanistic and did not get to the subtleties of the human condition that could be understood by utilizing qualitative data on perceived or felt needs for identifying deficiencies and opportunities. Because of these limitations, assessments were sometimes viewed as not very useful or a waste of time and money. Often they did not produce out- comes that led to significant, long-lasting change. Eventually, factors like these prompted the strident attack on the very premise of the enterprise.

In 1993, Kretzmann and McKnight noted that not much will come from assessing needs because they are seen as deficits, things that are wrong or amiss, or missing. This is fundamental to their argument (Altschuld, Hung, & Lee, Chapter 7 of this issue). When communities remain focused on deficits, they argued, they can lose direction and may not be empowered. The dependency mindset can constrain a community or organization, keep- ing it from seeing what is possible with the varied resources it has. In other words, the collective can become devoid of strength in their view. Seeking resources from outside is not necessarily a bad thing, but they assert it can rob the spirit and soul of power. Metaphorically, the argument is that the needs assessment process itself pushed people to see “the glass as half empty,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

10 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

not half full”. Building from assets and capacities (half full) rather than solely needs (half empty) was viewed as a way to enhance moving ahead. For a time, this perspective led to an increasing number of asset/capacity building efforts rather than needs assessments in some public-sector contexts.

Of course, to continue the metaphor, the glass is both half full and half empty, so it is not that needs assessments at the time were giving an inac- curate view of the situation; rather, they were not giving the full picture. An approach that can strike a balance across both views is therefore po- tentially most useful. Recently, a hybrid of the two has been emerging, and many of such efforts include a healthy reverence for evaluation being part of them (Altschuld, 2014; Altschuld, Hung, & Lee, Chapter 7 of this issue). A comprehensive framework of needs assessment and asset/capacity build- ing with evaluation integrated into it would be very utilitarian. Most of us today hopefully see these as intertwined processes within a system, not as separate or independent ones. It has taken some years to reach this point, with guidance from work both within the fields of needs assessment and evaluation, as well as from outside (e.g., systems theory, positive psychol- ogy, and appreciative inquiry). How has this transformation taken place? What were some of the main events and periods in the evolution of needs assessment to where it is today?

A Timeline for the Development of Needs Assessment

Going back to the very beginning of our existence as human beings we might suspect that need is embedded in our innate fiber. Coming very much forward from the murky start of us as a species, the Egyptian Book of the Dead contains references to what a person would “need” to survive in the afterlife. Of course, that assertion cannot be proved. Leap forward a few thousand years, and Hansen (1991) showed that we continued to attack problems and issues by looking at discrepancies (or needs), even if they were not called by that name. This was observed across fields and contexts. The idea of need for humans is also inherent in the writings of Abraham Maslow. But for this chapter, and the others in this issue, a distinction must be made that “need” refers to those of individuals and groups in organizational, community, and societal settings, not the Maslow connotation that focuses on psychological motivation.

Table 1.2 contains a number of historical events that have shaped understanding of needs and their assessment. Some significant contribu- tors to the history of needs assessment, as well as evaluation, are also in- cluded. The table is a broad brushstroke, not a detailed listing of everything that has taken place and all contributors. It depicts, nevertheless, how NA progressed and evolved over time. The timeline starts in the mid-1960s when federal mandates with required needs assessments came onto the scene.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

T a b

le 1 .2

. O

ve rv

ie w

o f

T im

el in

e o f

M o d

er n

N ee

d s

A ss

es sm

en t

T im

e P

er io

d N

at u

re of

E ve

n t(

s) C

on tr

ib u

to rs

T h

e ea

rl y

ye ar

s (m

id -1

9 5

0 s

to m

id -1

9 6

0 s)

M as

lo w

p o

p u

la ri

ze s

th e

co n

ce p

t o

f n

ee d

in p

sy ch

o lo

gy an

d th

e te

rm en

te rs

th e

n at

io n

al d

is co

u rs

e o

n ed

u ca

ti o

n E

le m

en ta

ry an

d Se

co n

d ar

y E

d u

ca ti

o n

A ct

(E SE

A )

o f

1 9

6 5

ca ll

ed fo

r th

e d

et er

m in

at io

n o

f th

e n

ee d

s fo

r p

ro gr

am s

an d

p ro

je ct

s C

IP P

ev al

u at

io n

m o

d el

p ro

d u

ce d

in 1

9 6

5

B er

n ar

d Ja

m es

q u

es ti

o n

s th

e ro

le o

f n

ee d

s in

d efi

n in

g ed

u ca

ti o

n al

go al

s (J

am es

, 1

9 5

6 )

C o

n gr

es s

o f

th e

U n

it ed

St at

es St

u ffl

eb ea

m d

ev el

o p

s ea

rl y

ve rs

io n

o f

C IP

P

T h

e fo

rm at

iv e

pe ri

od (m

id -1

9 6

0 s

th ro

u gh

ab o

u t

1 9

8 0

) M

an y

n ee

d s

as se

ss m

en ts

b ei

n g

d o

n e,

es p

ec ia

ll y

in p

u b

li c

sc h

o o

ls M

aj o

r st

u d

y o

f th

o se

as se

ss m

en ts

W ri

ti n

gs an

d p

re se

n ta

ti o

n s

o f

so m

e p

ro m

in en

t au

th o

rs P

ro m

in en

t cr

it ic

is m

s ap

p ea

r

To m

G il

b er

t b

eg in

s th

e d

ia lo

gu e

o f

n ee

d s

in te

rm s

o f

tr ai

n in

g re

q u

ir em

en ts

(G il

b er

t, 1

9 6

7 )

W it

k in

co n

d u

ct s

n at

io n

w id

e st

u d

y o

f n

ee d

s as

se ss

m en

ts co

n d

u ct

ed in

sc h

o o

l d

is tr

ic ts

W ar

h ei

t et

al . b

o o

k is

w ri

tt en

(W ar

h ei

t, B

el l,

& Sc

h w

ab ,

1 9

7 7

) K

au fm

an b

eg in

s d

ev el

o p

m en

t o

f h

is O

rg an

iz at

io n

al E

le m

en ts

M o

d el

an d

p u

b li

sh es

se ve

ra l

b o

o k

s (s

ee N

o te

s b

el o

w )

o n

co n

d u

ct in

g n

ee d

s as

se ss

m en

t (e

sp ec

ia ll

y w

it h

th e

ed u

ca ti

o n

se ct

o r)

Sc ri

ve n

an d

R o

th p

ap er

p u

b li

sh ed

in N

ew D

ir ec

ti on

s fo

r P

ro gr

am E

va lu

at io

n (S

cr iv

en &

R o

th , 1

9 7

8 )

K am

is ’m

aj o

r an

al ys

is o

f th

e cr

it ic

is m

s o

f N

A ;

M o

n et

te ’s

cr it

iq u

e o

f p

h il

o so

p h

ic al

as su

m p

ti o

n s

(K am

is , 1

9 7

9 )

T h

e fi

rs t

(a n

d o

n ly

) N

at io

n al

N ee

d s

A ss

es sm

en t

C o

n fe

re n

ce w

as h

el d

in O

ak la

n d

, C

al if

o rn

ia .

T h

e co

n fe

re n

ce w

as sp

o n

so re

d b

y th

e N

at io

n al

In st

it u

te o

f E

d u

ca ti

o n

an d

th e

In te

rn at

io n

al So

ci et

y o

f E

d u

ca ti

o n

al P

la n

n er

s

(C on

ti n u ed

)

T a b le

1 .2

. C

o n

ti n

u ed

T im

e P

er io

d N

at u

re of

E ve

n t(

s) C

on tr

ib u

to rs

C om

in g

of ag

e bu

t so

m e

h ea

dw in

ds (1

9 8

0 s

th ro

u gh

th e

ea rl

y 1

9 9

0 s)

A h

ey d

ay o

f w

at er

sh ed

ev en

ts in

N A

A t

le as

t fo

u r

m aj

o r

b o

o k

s ar

e w

ri tt

en an

d ga

in w

id e

ac ce

p ta

n ce

Sm al

l n

u m

b er

o f

co u

rs es

d ev

o te

d to

N A

ar e

at se

ve ra

l u

n iv

er si

ti es

Sm al

l n

at io

n al

n ee

d s

as se

ss m

en t

gr o

u p

jo in

s A

E A

C ri

ti ci

sm s

re ap

p ea

r to

w ar

d th

e la

tt er

p ar

t o

f th

e p

er io

d

W it

k in

, K

au fm

an , N

eu b

er ,

an d

L au

ff er

al l

p ro

d u

ce b

o o

k s

o n

va ri

o u

s as

p ec

ts o

f th

e to

p ic

(s ee

N o

te s

b el

o w

) C

o u

rs es

o n

n ee

d s

as se

ss m

en t

w it

h in

ev al

u at

io n

p ro

gr am

s ge

t st

ar te

d at

So u

th er

n Il

li n

o is

, U

ta h

St at

e, an

d O

h io

St at

e; al

re ad

y in

te gr

at ed

in in

st ru

ct io

n al

cu rr

ic u

la in

se ve

ra l

p ro

gr am

s R

o ss

et t

p o

p u

la ri

ze d

te rm

in th

e tr

ai n

in g

fi el

d (R

o ss

et t,

1 9

8 7

) T

h e

m o

d el

s o

r ap

p ro

ac h

es o

f W

it k

in an

d K

au fm

an ta

k e

sh ap

e

P ro

du ct

iv e

ye ar

s bu

t ch

al le

n ge

s (E

ar ly

1 9

9 0

s th

ro u

gh th

e ea

rl y

2 0

0 0

s) R

ej o

in d

er s

to th

e cr

it ic

is m

s b

y W

it k

in A

tt ac

k o

n n

ee d

s as

se ss

m en

t fr

o m

an as

se t/

ca p

ac it

y b

u il

d in

g st

an ce

A ss

et /c

ap ac

it y

b u

il d

in g

ef fo

rt s

ta k

e o

ff b

as ed

o n

w an

ti n

g to

st ar

t fr

o m

a p

o si

ti ve

n o

t n

ee d

s- o

ri en

te d

p o

si ti

o n

M aj

o r

n ew

b o

o k

s o

n N

A ar

e p

u b

li sh

ed

W it

k in

ta k

es o

n th

e cr

it ic

s K

re tz

m an

n an

d M

cK n

ig h

t h

ar sh

ly n

o te

th e

n eg

at iv

es o

f as

se ss

m en

t (K

re tz

m an

n &

M cK

n ig

h t,

1 9

9 3

) A

lt sc

h u

ld an

d W

it k

in w

ri te

tw o

b o

o k

s an

d G

u p

ta ge

n er

at es

o n

e o

ri en

te d

to w

ar d

b u

si n

es s

se tt

in gs

(A lt

sc h

u ld

& W

it k

in , 2

0 0

0 ;

G u

p ta

, 1

9 9

9 )

K au

fm an

co n

ti n

u es

to p

u b

li sh

se ve

ra l

b o

o k

s o

n n

ee d

s as

se ss

m en

ts (e

sp ec

ia ll

y w

it h

in p

ri va

te -s

ec to

r o

rg an

iz at

io n

s) Sc

ri ve

n an

d R

o th

p ap

er re

is su

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

E va

lu at

io n

A ss

o ci

at io

n (C

on ti

n u ed

)

T a b le

1 .2

. C

o n

ti n

u ed

T im

e P

er io

d N

at u

re of

E ve

n t(

s) C

on tr

ib u

to rs

B u il

di n g

a fo

u n da

ti on

fo r

th in

gs to

co m

e (E

ar ly

2 0

0 0

s th

ro u

gh n

ea rl

y th

e en

d o

f th

e d

ec ad

e)

M aj

o r

p ap

er ab

o u

t th

e p

la ce

m en

t o

f N

A in

o rg

an iz

at io

n s

P ap

er s

ab o

u t

th e

P er

fo rm

an ce

P yr

am id

an d

th e

N A

an d

ev al

u at

io n

su rv

ey P

er si

st en

ce o

f N

A -T

IG gr

o u

p at

A E

A as

a vi

ab le

en ti

ty E

m er

ge n

ce o

f h

yb ri

d -l

ik e

n ee

d s

as se

ss m

en t

an d

as se

t/ ca

p ac

it y

b u

il d

in g

ef fo

rt s

ap p

ea r

M o

re b

o o

k s

ab o

u t

n ee

d s

as se

ss m

en t

F o

r p

ap er

s se

e A

lt sc

h u

ld , W

ed m

an ,

an d

W at

k in

s, an

d W

at k

in s

an d

K au

fm an

, ea

ch p

u sh

in g

n ee

d s

as se

ss m

en t

in n

ew d

ir ec

ti o

n s

T h

e fi

ve -v

o lu

m e

N ee

d s

A ss

es sm

en t

K it

, ed

it ed

b y

A lt

sc h

u ld

(s ee

N o

te s

b el

o w

) G

u p

ta , Sl

ee ze

r, an

d R

u ss

-E ft

(2 0

1 4

)

C om

in g

in to

fr u

it io

n an

d m

at u

ri ty

(2 0

1 0

to th

e p

re se

n t)

B o

o k

s co

n ti

n u

in g

to ap

p ea

r, ap

p li

ca ti

o n

s in

in te

rn at

io n

al si

tu at

io n

s M

o re

ex am

p le

s o

f h

yb ri

d as

se ss

m en

t ar

e se

en in

th e

li te

ra tu

re T

h is

is su

e is

p ro

d u

ce d

G u

p ta

, Sl

ee ze

r, an

d R

u ss

-E ft

; W

at k

in s,

W es

t M

ei er

s, an

d V

is se

r; K

au fm

an an

d G

u er

ra ; an

d A

lt sc

h u

ld al

l p

ro d

u ce

n ew

b o

o k

s o

n n

ee d

s as

se ss

m en

ts

N ot

es : A

n an

im at

ed ti

m el

in e

is av

ai la

b le

at w

w w

.N ee

d sA

ss es

sm en

t. o

rg . T

h e

co -a

u th

o rs

al so

su gg

es t

th at

re ad

er s

co n

su lt

th e

fo ll

o w

in g

su p

p le

m en

ta l

so u

rc es

w h

ic h

ar e

in ch

ro n

o lo

gi ca

l o

rd er

:J am

es (1

9 5

6 );

G il

b er

t (1

9 6

7 );

St u

ffl eb

ea m

(1 9

6 8

); K

au fm

an (1

9 7

2 );

E n

gl is

h an

d K

au fm

an (1

9 7

5 );

K am

is (1

9 7

9 );

W ar

h ei

t et

al .(

1 9

7 7

); Sc

ri ve

n an

d R

o th

(1 9

7 8

); M

o n

et te

(1 9

7 9

); K

au fm

an an

d E

n gl

is h

(1 9

7 9

); N

eu b

er ,A

tk in

s, Ja

co b

so n

,a n

d R

eu te

rm an

(1 9

8 0

); L

au ff

er (1

9 8

2 );

R o

ss et

t (1

9 8

7 );

K au

fm an

(1 9

9 2

); K

au fm

an (1

9 9

8 );

G u

p ta

(1 9

9 9

); K

au fm

an (2

0 0

0 );

W at

k in

s an

d K

au fm

an (2

0 0

2 );

A lt

sc h

u ld

(2 0

0 4

); G

u p

ta ,S

le ez

er ,a

n d

R u

ss -E

ft (2

0 0

7 );

A lt

sc h

u ld

(2 0

1 0

); W

at k

in s,

W es

t M

ei er

s, an

d V

is se

r (2

0 1

2 );

an d

G u

p ta

, Sl

ee ze

r, an

d R

u ss

-E ft

(2 0

1 4

).

14 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

Parsing all the history and exceptional contributions that have shaped the study and practice of needs assessment is beyond the scope of the primer. In our judgment, however, two seminal contributions are most salient to understanding how needs assessment has evolved in recent decades, and those are the models (or approaches) of Belle Ruth Witkin and Roger Kaufman. We should mention that the coeditors have been in- fluenced deeply by, and have been long-term collaborators with, both these thought leaders in the field. Kaufman and Witkin were pioneers, and indeed friends. Through their mentorship both also planted the strong roots that sustained the field as it grew. Witkin died in 1998, while Kaufman continues to be an active contributor (Kaufman & Guerra-Lopez, 2013).

The Approaches of Witkin and Kaufman

In 1984, Witkin published what has come to be seen as the theoretical tome on the topic. In that book she mentioned, although not prominently, a three- phase model of assessment that was in its early stages of development. By the early 1990s, she along with the first coeditor (Altschuld) were ready to push the field forward with a new book and systematized approach to needs assessment (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). In it, they greatly expanded explanations of the three phases, including the steps and tools within each. Later, the analysis of what might be done in each phase continued to expand (Altschuld & Kumar, 2010; Altschuld & Witkin, 2000). Based on Witkin’s original conceptualization, the most recent version of the three-phase ap- proach is provided in Table 1.3.

Concurrent to the advancements being offered by Witkin (and sub- sequently by Witkin and Altschuld), Kaufman was applying a systems- engineering perspective to the goals of identifying and prioritizing needs. Initially focusing on U.S. educational reform in the 1970s and later on find- ing applications in both global public and private institutions, applying the systems perspective to needs assessment led to Kaufman’s Organization Ele- ments Model (OEM) as a key element of systemic assessment and planning. Not to be confused with a process model (such as the three-phase approach described above), the OEM is a framework with three eternally linked types of needs: gaps in results at the societal level (Mega), organizational level (Macro), and individual/team level (Micro). Discrepancies at each of these levels of the framework then must be aligned with the Processes and In- puts that drive the system (Table 1.4). Kaufman’s influential writings on the OEM, and the processes for assessing needs within his framework, largely provided a specialized theory base for needs assessments.

Summary

This primer on needs assessment is intended to provide an overview of the field’s rich history, definitions, models, tools, and techniques that closely

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

T a b

le 1 .3

. W

it k

in ’s

T h

re e

P h

a se

s o f

N ee

d s

A ss

es sm

en t

(a s

U p

d a te

d in

A lt

sc h

u ld

& K

u m

a r,

2 0

1 0

)

P h as

e N

at u re

M et

h od

s’ O

ve rv

ie w

P h

as e

1 :

P re

as se

ss m

en t

T h

e p

u rp

o se

is to

d o

re co

n n

ai ss

an ce

to se

e w

h at

th e

si tu

at io

n is

ab o

u t:

Is th

er e

a n

ee d

o r

ar e

th er

e n

ee d

s, an

d ar

e th

ey o

f su

ffi ci

en t

sc o

p e

an d

d ep

th to

b e

p u

rs u

ed fu

rt h

er (u

su al

ly u

n d

er th

e ae

gi s

o f

an o

rg an

iz at

io n

o r

co m

m u

n it

y N

ee d

s A

ss es

sm en

t C

o m

m it

te e

[N A

C ])

? T

h e

p h

as e

re li

es o

n ex

is ti

n g

in fo

rm at

io n

an d

d at

a b

ef o

re go

in g

in to

th e

ex p

en si

ve an

d ti

m e-

co n

su m

in g

se co

n d

o n

e. P

h as

e 1

co u

ld le

ad to

d ec

is io

n s

su ch

as d

o n

o th

in g

m o

re b

ec au

se th

e n

ee d

s ar

en ’t

th er

e; go

to P

h as

e 2

an d

d o

m o

re ex

te n

si ve

d at

a co

ll ec

ti o

n ; o

r go

to P

h as

e 3

(a ct

io n

p la

n s

to re

so lv

e th

e n

ee d

s u

n co

ve re

d ).

D at

a in

re co

rd s

D at

ab as

es In

fo rm

at io

n fr

o m

th e

li te

ra tu

re D

at a

ex is

ti n

g o

f ro

u ti

n el

y k

ep t

b y

ex te

rn al

ag en

ci es

E va

lu at

io n

re p

o rt

s if

av ai

la b

le In

fo rm

al o

r a

sm al

l se

t o

f in

te rv

ie w

s O

b se

rv at

io n

s O

th er

m et

h o

d s

as ap

p ro

p ri

at e

P h

as e

2 :

A ss

es sm

en t

If P

h as

e 1

d id

n o

t p

ro vi

d e

en o

u gh

u n

d er

st an

d in

g ab

o u

t n

ee d

s an

d m

o re

w as

re q

u ir

ed ,

yo u

en te

r in

to P

h as

e 2

. In

-d ep

th su

rv ey

in g,

d ee

p er

an al

ys es

o f

ex is

ti n

g so

u rc

es ,

lo o

k in

g fo

r m

o re

in fo

rm at

io n

, d

et ai

le d

ex p

lo ra

ti o

n o

f th

e li

te ra

tu re

, an

d in

te n

si fy

in g

th e

co ll

ec ti

o n

o f

d at

a. T

h is

p h

as e

m ay

ge t

in to

su ch

th in

gs as

th e

ca u

sa l

an al

ys is

o f

n ee

d s

(p o

ss ib

ly to

lo o

k in

g fo

r p

o te

n ti

al so

lu ti

o n

st ra

te gi

es )

an d

th e

p ri

o ri

ti za

ti o

n o

f n

ee d

s. D

ec is

io n

s ar

e to

go n

o fu

rt h

er o

r th

at w

e k

n o

w en

o u

gh an

d h

av e

n ee

d s-

b as

ed p

ri o

ri ti

es to

p la

n an

d in

it ia

te so

lu ti

o n

s (P

h as

e 3

).

F o

rm al

an d

sp ec

ia li

ze d

su rv

ey in

g In

d iv

id u

al an

d fo

cu s

gr o

u p

in te

rv ie

w s

C o

ll ec

ti n

g m

o re

li te

ra tu

re to

il lu

m in

at e

n ee

d s

an d

so lu

ti o

n s

F o

rm al

ca u

sa l

an al

ys es

F o

rm al

p ri

o ri

ti za

ti o

n st

ra te

gi es

O th

er p

ro ce

d u

re s

as ap

p ro

p ri

at e

P h

as e

3 :

P o

st as

se ss

m en

t T

ak in

g w

h at

w as

le ar

n ed

in P

h as

es 1

an d

2 an

d b

eg in

n in

g to

in it

ia te

ac ti

o n

s to

re ct

if y

n ee

d s.

P h

as e

3 o

ve rl

ap s

w it

h th

e la

st p

ar t

o f

P h

as e

2 , so

, if

n ec

es sa

ry ,

so m

e o

f th

e ac

ti vi

ti es

m ig

h t

b e

d o

n e

in m

o re

d et

ai l.

H o

p ef

u ll

y, in

th is

p h

as e

w e

m ig

h t

ge t

to im

p le

m en

ti n

g ac

ti o

n p

la n

s an

d ev

al u

at in

g h

o w

w el

l th

e so

lu ti

o n

s w

er e

w o

rk in

g. L

as tl

y, th

is p

h as

e w

o u

ld in

cl u

d e

st ra

te gi

es fo

r ev

al u

at in

g th

e n

ee d

s as

se ss

m en

t it

se lf

.

M an

y o

f th

e p

ro ce

d u

re s

in d

ic at

ed ab

o ve

, es

p ec

ia ll

y fo

rm al

an d

in -d

ep th

ca u

sa l

an al

ys es

an d

p ri

o ri

ti za

ti o

n A

ct io

n p

la n

re la

te d

ac ti

vi ti

es su

ch as

b en

ch m

ar k

in g,

m u

lt ia

tt ri

b u

te u

ti li

ty th

eo ry

F o

rm at

iv e

an d

su m

m at

iv e

ev al

u at

io n

p ro

ce d

u re

s

T a b le

1 .4

. K

a u

fm a n

’s O

E M

(a s

U p

d a te

d in

K a u

fm a n

& G

u er

ra -L

o p

ez ,

2 0 1 3 )

O rg

an iz

at io

n al

E le

m en

t E

xa m

pl es

N ee

ds A

ss es

sm en

t L

ev el

Ty pe

of P

la n n in

g K

ey S ta

k eh

ol de

r

O u

tc om

es : so

ci et

al re

su lt

s an

d co

n se

q u

en ce

s Q

u al

it y

o f

li fe

, h

ea lt

h ,

se lf

-s u

ffi ci

en cy

, ga

in fu

ll y

em p

lo ye

d gr

ad u

at es

M eg

a St

ra te

gi c

p la

n n

in g

C li

en ts

, cl

ie n

t’s cl

ie n

ts , co

m m

u n

it y,

so ci

et y

O u

tp u

ts : o

rg an

iz at

io n

al re

su lt

s P

ro fi

ts ,

sa le

s, p

at ie

n ts

d is

ch ar

ge d

, gr

ad u

at es

M ac

ro T

ac ti

ca l

p la

n n

in g

O rg

an iz

at io

n it

se lf

P ro

du ct

s: en

-r o

u te

re su

lt s

o r

b u

il d

in g

b lo

ck s;

n o

te th

er e

m ay

b e

m u

lt ip

le le

ve ls

o f

p ro

d u

ct s

C o

m p

et en

t em

p lo

ye es

, co

u rs

es co

m p

le te

d , as

se m

b le

d ve

h ic

le s,

m ed

ic al

p ro

ce d

u re

s co

m p

le te

d ,

ac co

m p

li sh

ed /m

et st

an d

ar d

s

M ic

ro O

p er

at io

n al

P la

n n

in g

In d

iv id

u al

an d

gr o

u p

s o

f em

p lo

ye es

o r

p er

fo rm

er s

P ro

ce ss

es :

in te

rv en

ti o

n s,

so lu

ti o

n s,

m et

h o

d s

Te ac

h in

g, tr

ai n

in g,

le ar

n in

g, m

an u

fa ct

u ri

n g,

se ll

in g,

m an

ag in

g, m

ar k

et in

g

Q u

as i

A ct

io n

p la

n n

in g

In d

iv id

u al

an d

gr o

u p

s o

f em

p lo

ye es

o r

p er

fo rm

er s

In pu

ts :

re so

u rc

es F

u n

d in

g, em

p lo

ye es

, eq

u ip

m en

t, re

gu la

ti o

n s,

st an

d ar

d s

Q u

as i

R es

o u

rc e

p la

n n

in g

In d

iv id

u al

an d

gr o

u p

s o

f em

p lo

ye es

o r

p er

fo rm

er s

A PRIMER ON NEEDS ASSESSMENT: MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 17

align its theory, research, and practice. At the same time, we have hopefully illustrated that needs assessment is closely associated with, and works in conjunction with, several other fields—most notably strategic planning and evaluation, sometimes borrowing on the tools and techniques of both to guide practice and at other times deriving theoretical constructs to shape research. As a result, we believe, needs assessment has undergone several transformations over the past half century to become a dynamic field that improves the quality of decisions being made in a wide variety of contexts.

The history of needs assessment is likewise rich on several dimensions, including that it (a) is largely influenced by public- and private-sector appli- cations (see Engle & Altschuld, Chapter 3 of this issue; Wedman, Chapter 4 of this issue; and Lepicki & Boggs, Chapter 5 of this issue); (b) draws ex- tensively on the literature of varied disciplines, including but not limited to evaluation; and (c) has continued to evolve while other related processes be- came yesterday’s fad. Though much smaller in scale than other sister fields (e.g., evaluation), needs assessment has been able to maintain its utility to practitioners while developing its own research-based theoretical foun- dations and specialized tools. Fueled by exceptionally productive thought leaders, such as Witkin and Kaufman, the field has continued to flourish within varied contexts (evaluation, performance improvement, and organi- zational development). In its latest stage, the future of needs assessment as it moves to integrate asset/capacity building looks bright.

References

Altschuld, J. W. (2004). Emerging dimensions of needs assessment. Performance Im- provement, 43(1), 10–15.

Altschuld, J. W. (Ed.). (2010). The needs assessment kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Altschuld, J. W. (2014). Bridging the gap between asset/capacity building and needs assess-

ment: Concepts and practical applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D. (2010). Needs assessment: An overview. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage. Altschuld, J. W., & Witkin, B. R. (2000). From needs assessment to action: Translating

needs into solution strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. English, F. W., & Kaufman, R. (1975). Needs assessment: Focus for curriculum develop-

ment. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Gilbert, T. (1967). Praxeonomy: A systematic approach to identifying training needs. Management of Personnel Quarterly, 6(3), 20–33.

Gupta, K. (1999). A practical guide to needs assessment. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Gupta, K., Sleezer, C. M., & Russ-Eft, D. F. (2007). A practical guide to needs assessment.

San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Gupta, K., Sleezer, C. M., & Russ-Eft, D. F. (2014). A practical guide to needs assessment.

San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Hansen, D. J. (1991). An empirical study of the structure of needs assessment (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

18 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: TRENDS AND A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

James, B. (1956). Can ‘Needs’ define educational goals? Adult Education, 6, 95–100. Kamis, E. (1979). A witness for the defense of needs assessment. Evaluation and Program

Planning, 2(1), 7–12. Kaufman, R. (1972). Educational system planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kaufman, R. (1992). Strategic planning plus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaufman, R. (1998). Strategic thinking: A guide to identifying and solving problems (Re-

vised ed.). Washington, DC: The International Society for Performance Improvement and the American Society for Training and Development.

Kaufman, R. (2000). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1979). Needs assessment: Concept and application. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Kaufman, R., & Guerra-Lopez, I. (2013). Needs assessment for organizational success. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.

Lauffer, A. (1982). Assessment tools: For practitioners, managers, and trainers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Monette, M. L. (1979). Need assessment: A critique of philosophical assumptions. Adult Education Quarterly, 29(2), 83–95.

Neuber, K. A., Atkins, W. T., Jacobson, J. A., & Reuterman, N. A. (1980). Needs assess- ment: A model for community planning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Rossett, A. (1987). Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Tech- nology Publishing.

Scriven, M., & Roth, J. (1978). Needs assessment: Concept and practice. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1978, 1–11. doi:10.1002/ev.1196

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1968). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision-making. Columbus: Ohio State University Evaluation Center.

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Warheit, G., Bell, R. A., & Schwab, J. (1977). Needs assessment approaches: Concepts and methods (Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication No. (ADM) 77-472). Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Watkins, R., & Kaufman, R. (2002). Assessing and evaluating: Differentiating perspec- tives. Performance Improvement Journal, 41(2), 22–28.

Watkins, R., West Meiers, M., & Visser, Y. I. (2012). A guide to assessing needs. Wash- ington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/International Development Association or the World Bank.

Witkin, B. R. (1984). Assessing needs in educational and social programs: Using information to make decisions, set priorities, and allocate resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

RYAN WATKINS is an associate professor at George Washington Univer- sity in Washington, DC, and founder of www.NeedsAssessment.org and www.WeShareScience.com.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

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