Conducting Needs Assessments for UF/IFAS Extension Amy Harder, Professor & Director of PDEC

Agenda Welcome and opening comments Overview of the process Questions for the review Developing the final report Interviewing and listening techniques Final thoughts/questions

Purpose of the Reviews To assist counties in their efforts to plan and deliver high quality extension programs for their clientele To strengthen the overall quality of extension programming in Florida

Intended Short-term Outcomes Increased awareness of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each county undergoing review Target audience: County and state staff Secondary audience: County stakeholders How you accomplish this: Develop a detailed report with an emphasis on opportunities for action – specific recommendations

Intended Medium- and Long-term Outcomes Counties develop and implement strategic plan based on recommendations in final report One-year accountability report and survey of county faculty Improved social, economic and environmental conditions in the county, as appropriate for each program

Final Product Comprehensive, external analysis of the county extension unit presented in a concise summary report Results are summarized across all units and are presented to UF/IFAS Extension administration

The Review Booklet Review Schedule County Description Mission County Profile County Budget Organizational Chart Demographics Economic Impacts Faculty Bios Advisory Committees 4-H Enrollment Data

Review Team Roles Chair Supporting Team Members Time keeper/facilitator Responsible for submitting final report to Dr. Tom Obreza (copy Amy Harder and Dean Place) within 14 days of review Pay for county administrator’s lunch (will be reimbursed by IFAS) Supporting Team Members Take turns as “lead” for Q&A with faculty and stakeholders Provide programmatic leadership for the development of the final report

Program Presentations and Faculty Dialogue Suggested Format – divide up the questions Recommended questions can be found on the CPR Web site: http://pdec.ifas.ufl.edu/program_reviews/ Program expert is the “lead” for the discussion Everyone will probably lead at least once Responsible for any “technical” questions Chair is responsible for making sure program presentations stay close to 15 minutes Q&A is most important – protect time for this

Stakeholder Dialogue Suggested Format – divide up the questions Recommended questions can be found on the CPR Web site: http://pdec.ifas.ufl.edu/program_reviews/ County faculty are not allowed to stay for the stakeholder dialogue CEDs are not allowed to attend lunch with county administrator Stakeholder dialogue sessions should begin with a short introduction of the purpose of the review

Conducting a SWOT Analysis What’s a SWOT analysis? Organizational factors – county office only! Strengths Weaknesses...aka “challenges” in final report Environmental factors Opportunities Threats Useful for developing strategic plans

What’s the Difference? Challenge – Lack of technological expertise County faculty and staff can be pro-active about seeking professional development in the use of technology What is (or isn’t) happening in the county office? Threat – Digital divide/lack of access to technology by clientele Providing the appropriate infrastructure for clientele to access technology (e.g. high speed Internet) is not the role of Extension, but impacts what the county office is able to do What’s happening in the big picture?

Developing the Final Report Format requirements Consistency facilitates comparison Achieving consensus List your individual observations during the review Determine where consensus agreement lies first, and move those items to a final list Spend quality time discussing observations that are not agreed upon; set them aside if they are holding up the process Recognize the expertise of each group member Review your final list

Preliminary Report Should highlight the major components of final report; emphasize opportunities to build on strengths Keep remarks broad, although more specific recommendations/observations may be made in final report Leave time for questions and discussion PowerPoint presentation optional DEDs typically attend

Short-Term Outcomes from Reviews Statement 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Increased awareness of opportunities 81.0 95.0 80.0 94.1 100 81.8 86.4 91.7 83.3 Recognized strength of programs 76.2 93.3 72.7 77.3 Increased awareness of challenges 78.6 94.7 88.2 88.9 Increased knowledge of threats 61.9 90.0 76.5 58.3 77.8 CPR process helped improve programming  

Medium-Term Outcomes New and more representative advisory councils Reaching previously underrepresented audiences by providing programming in new locations New partnerships with other community organizations Infrastructure improvements New marketing strategies to improve visibility

Questions?