socw6311-wk8D-Planning a Needs Assessment

  

Social workers often identify client problems that suggest the need for a new or more focused service. Rather than bemoaning the lack of resources, many social workers consider creating new services in the future. They might next imagine what an appropriate service or program would look like. This week, you generate a needs assessment plan for a program that meets an unmet need of your choice.

To prepare for this Discussion, review the examples of needs assessments presented in both of the readings. Consider the elements of a needs assessment plan that you must include in your own plan.

Post(2 to 3 pages) a needs assessment plan for a potential program of your choice that meets a currently unmet need. Describe the unmet need and how current information supports your position that a needs assessment is warranted.

Identify the sources of information that you might use when conducting a needs assessment, including potential informants. Explain who among these potential informants would be valuable resources and why. Identify steps for obtaining credible, unbiased information.

Be sure to cite course resources or other resources, such as those in the Walden Library, related to both the program idea and to approaches to needs assessments.

Required Readings

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
(For review) Chapter 6, “Needs Assessment” (pp. 107–142)
Chapter 7, “Crafting Goals and Objectives” (pp. 144–164)
Document: Tutty, L. M., & Rothery, M. A. (2010). Needs assessments. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed.,pp. 149–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (PDF)
Copyright 2010 by Sage Publications, Inc.
Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc. via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Optional Resources

Stewart, K. E., Phillips, M. M., Walker, J. F., Harvey, S. A., & Porter, A. (2011). Social services utilization and need among a community sample of persons living with HIV in the rural south. AIDS Care, 23(3), 340–347.
Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Needs Assessments

Leslie M. Tutty and Michael A. Rothery

N
eeds assessments are a form of research conduclcd to gather information
about the needs of a population or group in a community. One of the
more practical types of research, needs assessments are used to develop
new services or to evaluate the relevance of exist ing programs. They may
also be used to establish a need to revise or create policy.

Th is chapter begins with a definition o[ needs assessment, how we define “needs:’ and
how we determine who to ask about needs. Common methodological approaches to
needs assessments are described and evaluated using examples p rimarily from the social
work literature. The benefits of triangulation, or using more than one source or method
of gathering information, are presented, followed by a discussion of who shou ld digest
and weigh inform at i.on about needs once the information is ga thered. Finally, we consider
the importance of developing a plan to implement recommendations so that the work of
assessing needs is used to clients’ benefits, not relegated to the shelves occupied by other
dusty and neglected reports.

What Is a Needs Assessment?

Needs assessments have not changed much over the years. In 1982, Kuh (cited in Stabb,
1995) listed five general purposes commonly served by needs assessment research that
remain relevant today:

l. Monitoring stakeholders’ perceptions of various issues, which can guide the devel-
opment of new programs or policies

2. Justifying existing policies or programs

3. Assessing client satisfaction with services

4. Selecting the most desirable program or policy from several alternatives

5. Determining if needs have been met, a purpose closely akin to program evaluation

Two key questions are addressed when needs <1ssessments are undertaken: "Who?" and "IIow?" The "who" question requires the researcher to be dear about the membership of the group whose needs are to be assessed. Often, a study entails gathering information from a variety of respondents, from individuals who may never have been clients to those

149

150 PART II • QUAII.TITATIVE APPROACHES: TYPES OF STUDIES

receiving multiple services. In almost every case, however, at least one set of respondents
will be the individuals who are most immediately affected by gaps in services or supports,
rather than relying solely on the opinions of service providers, academics, or funders.

The “how” question addresses the methods used to gather informa tion from the group
whose needs are of interest. These are not unique; rather, needs assessments borrow
familiar techniques such as surveys, interviews, and focus groups, all of which are high-
lighted in other chapters in this book. Quantitative methods such as surveys or standard-
ized measures may be used, as may qualitative methods such as in-depth individual
interviews or focus groups. Combinations of both arc increasingly popular since each
method has its advantages and limitations.

Defining Need
When we invoke the concept of needs, we may easily assume that we share with others a
common understanding of what it is we are talking about. However, it is worthwhile look-
ing more closely at the definition of the term since useful characteristics and distinctions
are highlighted when we do so.

The concept of need is not new: Researchers have been defining and redefining the
term for decades. Stabb (1995) distinguishes between met and zmmet needs. “Met
needs are necessary or desirable conditions that already exist in actuali ty. Unmet needs
arise when there is a discrepancy between desirable conditions and current actuality”
(p. 52). Both met and unmet needs could conceivably become the focus of needs assess-
ment research, although unmet needs will be the main concern in the vast majority of
cases.

A different distinction (perhaps more useful for our purposes) is provided by Witkin
and Altschuld (1995), who define a need as “a discrepancy or gap between ‘what is,’ or the
present state of affairs and \vhat should be; or a desi red state of affairs” (p. 4). In this
analysis, needs equate with unmet needs, the most common focus fo r needs assessment
research. Revere, Berkowitz, Carter, and Ferguson (1996) add the suggestion that need is
defined by “community values, [and is) amenable to change” (p. 5).

From these perspectives (and with reference to considerations introduced earlier), a
needs assessment gathers information about gaps between real and ideal conditions, the
reasons that these gaps exist, and what can be done about them, all within the con text of
t.he beliefs of the community and available resources for change.

Another distinction introduces the question of degree. Some needs are stronger or
more important than others. f undamental needs with relevance to people’s survival,
safety, or basic comforts are not the same as “wants” or less compell ing needs. A social
work professor’s desire for a week in Mexico as a break from winter is qualitatively very
different from a homeless person’s need for food and shelter in the face of the same cold
conditions. While it is often difficult to draw the line between relatively important needs
and less important wants, it is still important to do so. Needs assessments are focused on
needs that affect ind ividuals’ abilities to function well in important areas of their lives.
Wants associated with perceived quality of life (but not to the same extent with life’s real
essentials) are more lhe purview of market research.

Social workers generally find Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs useful when consid-
ering the needs and priorities of their clients. It is also a framework that can inform needs
assessments. Maslow’s five levels of need are physical and life-sustaining needs (such as
air, water, food, warmth, and elimination of bodily wastes), physical safety (e.g., protec-
tion from physical attack and disease), love and support, self-esteem and self-worth, and
self- realization (e.g., needs to be productive and creative) . Maslow contended that these

CH APTER 9 • N EEOS A SSESSMENTS 151

basic needs must be attended to before attempting to address higher level needs (or
“wants”). Needs assessments can gather information relevant to any one or more of these
five levels, but the hierarchy of priorities provides useful cr iteria fo r deciding on what to
focus first in data collection and recorn mending changes.

Finally, some authors argue that once an “expressed need” is verbalized, it becomes a
want or a demand (Stabb, 1995) . This is not the same as differentiating needs from wants
on the basis of the strength of the potential impact on someone’s well -being and is prob-
ably less useful for our purposes. However, a related point is noteworthy: Verbal demands
are not always the direct expression of need. Just because someone expresses a want does
not mean that it represents a need. Thus, in needs assessments, it is important to gather
information from members of a population beyond those publicly advocating for specific
demands.

Who Do We Ask About Needs?
The term stakeholders is often used to refer to clients or potential clients or the people who
actually n-perience the need thal is being studied. However, Revere and colleagues (1996)
suggest broadening the definition to refer to “service providers and management, com-
munity members, certain politicians, the funding source, business/trade associations and
the actual research •..vorkers” (p. 7) since each of these has a vested interest in the study and
its outcomes. Th is flex[ble use of the term is helpful, suggesting a range of potential
sources of data and recognizing that needs assessments have ramifications for people
beyond those normally surveyed .

Needs assessments traditionally look to three groups as sources of data: the target group
(i.e., clients or potential clients), key informants such as community leaders or service
providers, or a sample of aJI members of the relevant comm unity. Each is described in more
detail below.

The target group or populatio11 comprises the very individuals about whom we arc con-
cerned and whose needs we wish to assess. Common sense suggests that these are the
voices we most wish to listen to in our quest to gather the best and most current infor-
mation. However, engaging with individuals to encourage them to share their needs and
opinions is not always easy. Highly disadvantaged, socially m arginalized individuals and
groups, the typical focus of social workers’ interventions, are nol always accustomed to
being asked their opinions and may not easily articulate their needs to a researcher when
invited to do so. Furthermore, they may have understandable reasons for not trusting
members of those who have more power in society, a group to which researchers belong.
Consider the homeless as an example, especially the subpopulation that has been diag-
nosed with psychiatric disorders. With any such group, the researcher cannot simply
approach and invite them to enumerate Lheir needs. Strategies (and time) for building
trust, rapport, and for encouraging engagement in the research process are prerequisites
for successful data gathering.

McKillip (1998) defines another group serving as a common source of data, key infor-
mants, as “opportunistically connected individuals with the knowledge and ability to
report on community needs. Key info rmants arc lawyers, judges, physicians, ministers,
minority group leaders, and service providers who are aware of the need and services per-
ceived as important by a community” (pp. 272- 273). An advantage of gathering data
from key informants is that they may have a broader knowledge of serv ices available in
the community than the target population, and they may be better at articulating what
needs must be effectively addressed. One disadvantage is that key informants sometimes
have a vested interest in developing new services or preserving established resources even

152 PART II • Q UANTITAIIVE A PPROACHES: T YPES OF STUOIES

though they arc less than adequate (we all develop loyalties, and these can affect our judg-
ment). McKfllip (1998) also notes that key informants may underesti1nate the willingness
of members of the target population to participate in programs while overestimating the
extent of the problems.

The third group, community members, comprises the entire citizen ry of a comm unity.
This group encompasses members of the target population but also includes those not
directly affected by these needs. Approaching community members for information has
the advantage of identifying how broadly based the needs are, rather than assuming that
they are restricted to the target population. lt also offers the opportunities to learn about
how needs (and the strategies Lo ameliorate them) are perceived in the community at
large and to think about how that v.rill affect efforts to implement changes. A disadvan-
tage, though, is that community members m ay be relatively t111awarc of the needs of its
more marginalized citizens.

In summary, each of these groups may be the focus of the needs assessmen t methods
documented in the next several sections. The choice of whom to engage may be based on
access to the group or limitations of tin1e and resources. If possible, representation from
each of the target population, key community stakeholders, and members of the general
public is worth considering as each provides valuable but somewhat different information.

Methods of Needs Assessment

As mentioned previously, one ca n conduct needs assessments u sing a variety of strategies.
We will d£scuss methods in lwo broad categories, quantitative and qualitative.
Quantitative methods gather data that are translated into numerical form and described
using statistics. Using such methods, it is possible, for example, to conclude that in a sam-
ple of 102 shelter residents, 70.5% of these women abused by intimate partners were
abused themselves as children and described 73.7% of their par tners as also having been
abused (Tutty & Rothery, 2002). Such high proportions may be interpreted as suggesting
the need for early in tervention with children in shelters in the hope of preventing the
cycle of violence from affecting a new generation.

Providing statistics about the extent of a need can be a powerful method of raising
awareness of the severity of gaps in services. The section on quantilative needs assessment
will describe three such methods: surveys, s tandardized needs assessment measures, and
using existing statistical databases.

In cont rast, qualitative needs assessments ask questions that are more open-ended and
allow the research info rmant to describe in detail the complexities of the issues at hand.
for example, a qualital ive needs assessment conducting in terviews with another group of
,63 abused women residing in a shelter noted that providing for their basic needs such as
safety and food was of great importance (Tutty, Weaver, & Rothery, 1999) . However, some
women expressed concerns about the fact that a few residents were difficult to live with,
and some mothers did not m anage lhcir children’s aggressive behavior or ignored them.
These results suggest a somewhat different focus for intervention by crisis counselors and
the need to provide parenting programs for some residents.

Results from qualitative needs assessments often lack s tatistical dat a that could convey
the extent of the problem, but they tend to be rich in detail that conveys the complexities
and uniqueness of the experiences of different individuals. The quali tative needs assess-
ments methods described in the chapter include interviews (either face-to-face or by tele-

~!1~ll~h f8EU~ KrGUp~. nomtm1 groupg, ~nd t CMh halt meetings.

CHAPTER 9 • NEEDS ASSESSMENTS 153

Quantitative Methods of Needs Assessment Surveys
Allhough surveys may ask open-ended qualitative questions, the great majority are devel-
oped for quantitative data analysis. Quantitatively oriented surveys, particularly those
employing questionnaires, are the most frequent method of assessing needs. The tasks
involved in developing a survey to assess needs are identical to those undertaken when
surveys arc developed for other purposes, so they will not be detailed here. The major
steps involve

1. Deciding who Lo survey (e.g., target groups, key informants)

2. Selecting a method of sampling (e.g., random or systematic sample)

3. Determining the content of items (through reviewing the literature or holding
focus groups with key informants, as only two examples)

4. Choosing what type of question to use (e.g., open-ended, multiple choice, or scaled
with respect to the extent of agreement)

5. Selecting a method of distribution (e.g., the Internet, mail, or telephone)

The advantages of surveys include the ease and flexibility with which they can be
administered compared to other methods and the relative lack of expense to collect a con-
siderable amount of data. Disadvantages include the extent to which a set questionnaire
can predetermine the issues that respondents address and the consequent danger of not
hearing about needs that would emerge in a more open-ended process.

With such risks in mind, Witkin and Altschuld (1995) recommend being cautious about
assuming that a written questionnaire is the most appropriate tool when considering con-
ducting a needs assessment. While a questionnaire can be an important tool, they suggest
that it should not be used until after more exploratory methods have been employed to
ensure that the factors measured by questionnaire items are as well chosen as possible.

Furthermore, some cultural groups find surveys strange or difficult (especially if
English is not one’s first language) and respond negatively to them. Weaver (1997), for
example, described a questionnaire developed to assess the needs of an off-reservation
Native American community in an urban area. A large number of questionnaires were
mailed out, with virtually no returns. The alternative of a qualitative approach including
focus groups and individual interviews was adopted with considerably greater success.

An example of a needs assessment that employed survey methods more appropriately
is Brennan Homiak and Singletary’s (2007) study that surveyed Christian clergy members
from 15 denominations in central Texas with respect Lo their perceptions of the number
in their congregation experiencing intimate partner violence and what clergy needed to
better address this serious concern. Of the 100 surveys mailed, 44 were returned, a some-
what low but not unusual return rate for mailed surveys.

The clergy members estimated that less than IOo/o of their congregation members
experienced partner violence–low when compared to incidence studies in Texas that
cited lifetime rates of 47%. Only about one third of the clergy had received domestic
violence-specific training; they were more likely to have resource materials in their
churches and were familiar with local agencies and shelters for abused women. While a
small proportion of the clergy considered themselves very equipped to counsel victims of
domestic violence or make referrals, the majority did not. The authors recommend that
social workers take the lead in offering training to assist the clergy in promoting violence-
free congregations.

154 PART II • Q uANTilATIVE A PPROACHES: TYPES OF STUDIE~

As mentioned previously, surveys may usc both check-lis t type, predetermined
responses and open-ended questions that allow for m ore context ual detai led responses
and arc analyzed using qualitat ivc methods. A recent example of using open-ended ques-
tions is a survey with 206 agency-based social work field instructors, querying their initial
awareness, personal and professional needs, and field issues that arose in response to the
World Trade Center disaster of September lith, 2001. The field instructors had clearly
been weary but retained sensitivity to studen t and client needs. The results suggest the
importance of developing an integrated crisis plan to better link the school, students, and
field instructors in the event of future disasters.

Standardized Needs Assessment Measures
A relatively new needs assessme11t methodology entails developing stand ardized measures
to assess the needs of a specific population group. For example, Wancata and colleagues
(2006) initially used focus groups and in depth individual interviews to develop a mea-
sure comprising 18 common problems experienced by caregivers of adults diagnosed
with schizophrenia. The difficulties were translated into items such as “not enough infor-
mation on the illness, its symptoms and course,” “fear of stigmatization and discrimina-
t ion,” and “burnout or illness of the carer.”

Using such a measure in other needs assessment research has the advantage of building
on the work that has gone into identifying and conceptualizing potentially important
n eeds and of using a measure for whi ch reliabil ity and validity will often have been estab-
lished. A possible disadvantage is that needs proven relevant to caregivers of adults diag-
nosed \’l’ith schizophrenia in one location may not have the same importance in others.
Conversely, items about other needs tha t are important in a new loca le may be m issing
from the standardized measure.

Using Existing Statistical Information
Another quantitative method of conducting needs assessments is using data that have been
previously collected. Existing data may be available in agency fi les or governmen t data
banks, for example. Such secondary analyses have the advantage of sparing researchers the
time and expense of gathering new data. A d isadvantage is that one is lim ited to data that
someone else considered worth gathering, and potentially important variables may be
absent or may need to be inferred indirectly from the data that were recorded.

Reviewing case fil es can be challenging. As a follow-up to a previously completed study
on the outcomes of a specialized domestic violence court (Tutty, McNichol, & Christensen,
2008), we are using district attorney files to collect a number of variables, including the
demographic characteristics of tbe accused and the victim, whether the victims testified or
provided a victims impact statement to the court, and hov,, the trial was resolved.

In contested cases, the files can be very large, literally inches thick! The fi les are created
for the criminal justice system, not researchers, so there is no consistent organization. As
such, collecting data from one file can take several hours. Considerable information may
not be recorded. Lawyers are not necessarily as interested in demographic characteristics
such as ethnicity or age as most researchers are, and so lit tle of this can be found in the
files. Despite these challenges, if we are to evaluate the specialized courts, paper flle
reviews are our only option to assess whether the courts are meeting Lhe needs of both the
victims and the accused.

The following needs assessment used case records to assess whether the needs of abused
and neglected children were adequately addressed by the child welfare intervention. Tracy,

CHAPTER 9 • N EFDS A SSLSSMENTS 155

Green, and Bremseth (1993) reviewed case records of supportive services for abused and
neglected children in one U.S. state. Five hundred child welfare cases were sampled to
explore facto rs associated with decisions to offer one of two services, family preservation if
children at risk were still at horne, or reunification fo r families with children who had been
placed. The authors collected information on demographic variables, presenting problems,
service history, service needs, services planned and provided, service characteristics, and
service outcomes. This enterprise, the aLlthors noted, consumed thousands of hours.

The analysis uncovered significant stresses affect ing the children sampled, parental
substance abuse, economic difficulties, and poor living conditions, which were infre-
quen tly addressed in case plans, whi ch emphasized indications of child abuse. The
authors conclutled that “there was little one-to-one d irect correspondence between the
service need and the service offered” (Tracy eL al., L993, p. 26), raising serious questions
about the quality of service planning (and the training of child welfare workers).

Qualitative Methods of Needs Assessment
Qualitative needs assessment research may be conducted via individual interviews, small
group discussions, or even large town hall meetings, each of which allow for more open
exploration of issues than the quantitative methods previously outlined. Such studies
tend to involve a greater t ime commitment from respondents but offer much more
opportunity to identify and discuss issues in depth.

Individual Interviews

Face- to-face and telephone interviews are one method of gathering in-depth information
about the needs of particular groups. Preparation involves thinking through the purpose
of the interview, constructing an interview schedule, and train ing interviewers (\Vitkin &
Ahschuld, J 995). When a good rapport develops between interviewer and respondent, the
result can be disclosure of information and ideas about sensitive issues that would not
emerge when more formal, structured approaches are used. Also, in a more open-ended
process, respondents may identify needs that no one had anticipated.

The disadvantages of this approach include the fact that it is notoriously labor intensive.
Interviews arc time-consuming to conduct, often lasting one to two hours, especially if
asking individuals to reveal their personal stories. As a result, often only a relatively small
sample of individuals may or can realistically be interviewed. Training the interviewers also
takes time, and the job of transcribing and analyzing interviews is normally a lengthy, com-
plex task. The following needs assessment is an example of using face-to-face interviews.

In the past 30 years, intimate partner violence has become an issue of significant soci-
etal concern, resulting in specialized justice and physical and mental health shifts to more
adequately safeguard the women and children who are the primary vict ims. Yet certain
ethnocultural groups, including immigrants and refugees, are underrepresented among
those seeking assistance from formal supports such as the police and emergency shelters.

With respect to the question of what would constitute culturally appropriate responses
to domestic violence, Pan ct al. (2006) conducted 120 face- to-face interviews with
members of three ethnic communities in San Diego: Somali, Vielnamese, and Latino. The
interviews were provided in the appropriate language, and within each cultural group,
10 women, 10 men, 10 boys, and 10 girls participated.

Because of tl1e sensitive nature of the issue, the topic of domestic violence was intro-
duced using vignettes, rather than asking interviewees whether they had personally been
abused. This allowed the respondents to speak about abuse in their culture in more gen-
eral terms and to suggest possible resolutions to the problem.

156 PART II • QUANTITI\TIVE APPROACHES: TYPES OF STUDIES

The analysis of the interviews highlighted six core issues, including “varying defmi-
tions of violence, specific definitions of family harmony, strict gender roles, varying con-
flict resolution strategies, cultural identity and spirituality” (Pan et al., 2006, p. 42) . The
differing perspectives from the three ethnic communities suggested the need to develop
diverse culture-specific services.

Focu s Groups

Focus groups are relatively unstructured small group experiences, typically with about 8
to 12 participants. The group composition is usually homogeneous in that members share
a particular experience or interest, like the members of what we described earlier as the
target population. Focus group interviews typically take from one and a half to two and a
half hours, and a number may be conducted for a given study.

Witkin and Altschuld ( 1995) summarize the process of a typical focus group. Initially,
members hear a general statement of the purpose of the session and are given a question
related to this purpose designed to elicit perceptions about important needs. Often, par-
ticipants are asked to write down the ideas that the question stimulates and then to share
them with the group. The leader typically writes ideas as they are shared, summarizing
them and making sure th at there is agreement among members with what is being
recorded. This process is then repeated with other predetermined questions.

Leadership is important to a focus group’s success, especially since there is no highly
structured agenda (except for the posing and answering questions aspect). According to
Witkin and Altschuld (1995), “The leader must be nonjudgmental, create a supportive
group atmosphere, be able to keep the interview process going, be a good listener,
and be alert to sense when a group is deviati ng from the prescribed question route in
meaningful and non-meaningful directions” (pp. 172-173). These are by no means easy
demands.

One advantage of group approaches over individual interviews can also be a disadvan-
tage. Whi le participants do not have the same opportunity to explore their own perceptions
or experiences in depth as in individual interviews, a group approach can elicit information
that would not emerge without the stimulus of i nterC~cting with others and reacting to their
ideas. When group discussions detour in innovative ways, this may lead to original and cre-
ative ideas. Brainstorming, or encouraging members to present any solution to a problem
without prejudging it, is one way to encourage such innovation. Alternatively, without effec-
tive facilitation, the groups may pmsue unproductive tangents, and there is a heightened
risk of interpersonal conflict detracting from the effectiveness with which research goals are
pursued. The following study used focus group methodology.

A relatively new role for sociaJ work graduates is working with seniors and their
ramilies to assist these clients in a number of ways. Yet, how readily are social workers per-
ceived as resources to this population? Naito-Chan, Damron-Rodriguez, and Simmons
(2004) used focus groups to explore what skills social work practitioners need to ade-
q uately address the Heeds of older persons and their families. The four focus groups
included older adults and caregivers of older adults (consumers) as well as providers of
care and recent social work graduates, both working in gerontology settings.

Notably, the analysis highlighted that a number of the consumers had little under-
standing of how social workers could assist them. Key among the consumer needs was
resource finding, which the consumers did understt~nd as a social worker role. However,
other social work competencies such as assessments and case management were not men-
tioned by the consumers. The results suggested the need for public education abo ut the
roles of social workers in the field of aging.

CHAPTER 9 • NEEDS AsSESSMENTS 157

Nom i nal Groups

An alternate group approach to needs assessment has been developed (McKill ip, 1998).
Nominal groups are more structured than focus groups: The agenda allows group discus-
sion but with a more consistent attention to the goal of achieving consensus about needs.
Fewer needs assessments that use a nominal group approach can be found in the litera-
ture. Although more than a decade old, the following study provides a model of nominal
groups with respect to issues that remain current.

It is com monly acknowledged that interpersonal and social problems, whether at
home, in the neighborhood, or on school grounds, can seriously affect students’ abi lity to
learn. Gerdes and Benson ( 1995) used a nominal group process Lo assess problems expe-
rienced by inner-city African American schoolchildren. The goal was to identify the most
serious problems faced by students from their own perspectives. The authors used a strat-
ified random sample of students from Grades 1 to 9 who were assigned to groups based
on whether they were from primary grades (l-3), middle grades (4-6), or junior high
grades (7-9). Ninth-grade students who had experienced the nominal group process
acted as facil itators.

The group members were first asked to list the problems that they faced at school on a
sheet of paper. Using a round-robin format, every student identified one problem, adding
a new item to a list on a flip chart, until it was agreed that the list was complete. From this
list, each student identified the seven most serious problems and rated their severity. The
facilita to r then calculated the group ranking of the items.

The 1·ankings of concerns varied across the d ifferent age groups. Fighting and prob-
lems with teachers were priority issues for Grades 1 to 3, fighting and drugs were the most
serious to Grade 4 to 6 students, and pregnancy, drugs, and drug deals were the strongest
concerns for the junior high students.

Teachers from the studen ts’ schools also participated in nominal groups, registering
additional concerns about student issues such as low parental support, parental problems,
and lac.k of mot ivation. Both students and teachers expressed a sense of powerlessness in
addressing the problems that they were identifying. While the nominal group iden tified
needs very effectively and in a way that encouraged partnership, it was but the first step in
the process of change.

Community Forum Approach

Large open public hearings or community forums may be used to g<1ther information from the diverse individuals comprising a community whose needs are being assessed (McKillip, 1998). Similar to a town hall meeting lasting for several hours with large numbers of par- ticipants (sometimes 50 or more), this method aims to ensure thaL the b roadest possible sampling of opinions results in a data set reAecting a community consensus regarding the issues being scrutinized. Clearly, this approach aims to give a voice to all community memhers, including many who are immediately affected by the problems of interest.

Witkin and Altschuld (1995) note tha t special leadership skiJJs are vital to the success
of this approach. Not everyone has the skills to facilitate large meetings that encourage
group members to participate actively and trust that they can openly share ideas that may
be different from the majority view.

The advantages of community forums include the fact that they arc a relatively inex-
pensive way to hear from large numbers of interested individuals. Another advantage is
that pubHc meetings serve to sensitize lhc general public to the problems or to highlight
potential resistance to proposed solutions. Also, engaging a cross section of community

158 PART I I • QUAN TITATIVt APPROACHES: TYPFS or SIUDIES

members may have valuable secondary benefits. For example, when the time comes to
implement recommendations, important people may have bought into the changes being
suggested.

A primary disadvantage to this method is that there is no means of ensuring rhat the
participants are a representative sample of their community. lndeed, this will normally
not be the case: The ideas and perceptions collected will be those of people who, for some
reason, are motivated to influence what happens. Citizens who are less interested will not
attend and will not be heard, even though they may have reactions to the needs being
assessed and the eventual recommendations for dealing with them.

reeds assessments using a community forum approach were rarely described in the
literature. The following study is an in triguing model of using the forum t·o both present
the results of a previously conducted needs assessment to the research respondents, which
subsequently used the forum to further refine and develop action plans arising from the
initial study.

The author included a community forum as one aspect of a study of the relative con-
tribution of social class and ethnicity Lo the differential functioning of Puerto Rican
elders in Springfield, Massachusells. The first phase of the study consisted of individual
interviews with 591 elders. The purpose of the community forum was both to present a
number of the research respondents with the interview results and to ask subsequent
questions. A total of 41 elders participated in the fo rum.

The forum discussion questions grew from the quantitative survey findings. Two of the
five forum questions were, “Why are cultural support systems not playing a mo re active
role in helping elders with their needs?” and “Why are churches not playing a more active
role?” The author highlighted the extent to which the forum participants assisted in inter-
preting the previous quantitative needs assessment findings, resulting in rccom menda
tions that fit closely with this unique and previously marginalized community.

Triangulation of Needs Assessment Information
To obviate risks of bias from using limited sources of information, Yegidis, Weinbach, and
Morrison-Rodriguez (1999) recommend “triangulating” or “collecting data from three
(or more) sources, each having different perspectives!’ Witkin and Altschuld (1995) argue
for this step more strongly, suggesting that studies using only one method should be con-
sidered seriously flawed.

‘lo illustrate, suppose one is researching the need in a community for a shelter for
women. One could condu ct a survey of key informants (social workers, the police,
women’s organizaLions, self-help group leaders, etc.), host a community forum, and per
form a secondary analysis of existing data in police and social service agency files about
the incidence of women requiring shelter. Congruence in the perceptions obtained from
each study aspect would clearly represent a stronger case than if only one source was
accessed. rr the results contradict each other, however, the researcher has the difficult task
of assessing which set of perceptions enjoys Lhe greatest credibil ity.

A number of the examples provided in this chapter illustrate the use of more than one
m ethod of data collection. An assessment of the health needs of transgendered individu-
als in Philadelphia (Kenagy, 2005) is a case in point.

Transgendered individuals have or are in the process of undergoing medical proce-
dures to change their gender. Wbile this process entails considerable involvemen t with
the medical system, it is not clear what health needs transgendered people experience

C HAPTER 9 • NEEDS A SSESSMENTS 159

afterwards. Kenagy (2005) used face-to-face interviews or self administered mail surveys
with 182 individuals (1 13 male-to-female and 69 female-to -male individuals).

The responses to queries about health needs were primarily concerns with respect to
HIV/AIDS status {6% were HIV positive), risk ofHIV infection or rein fection (60% had
engaged in unprotected sex within the past year), suicide (30% had attempted), their
experiences of violence (54% had been forced to have sex; 52% had been physically
ab used), and access to health care (about two thirds had a doctor or primary care physi-
cian). Importantly, though, more than one quarter of the informants had been refused
medical care because they were transgendcred. The results were used to argue the need for
prevention services specific to the transgendered population.

It is n ot uncommon for various constituents to have different views about needs. As
noted by Revere et al. ( 1996),

It is relatively easy to decide that a starving man needs food or a homeless person
needs shelter. But what if an assessment points to areas of need that are not
acknowledged by the individuals themselves, who may believe they need something
else altogether? What if the target population and the service providers in the com-
munity recognize different areas of need or disagree as to what will best meet that
need? (p. 4)

For example, a needs assessment standardized instrument was developed by M. Carter,
Crosby, Geertshuis, and Startup ( 1996) to assess the needs of people with a chronic
mental illness. Thiny-two questions measured perceptions as to whether clients needed
assistance with a variety of tasks and issues, such as shopping and cooking, family
relationships, making use of spare time, and motivation.

Two forms were developed, one for clients and one for staff members, so that the
perceptions of the clients and the key informants could be triangulated. The results
showed poor agreement between workers and clients on many items, suggesting critical
differences in perceptions. The issue in such a case is not who to believe but how to
address the discrepancies so that they do not negatively affect services.

Another sense in which discrepancies can be problematic has lo do with who priori-
tizes needs once they are identified. How and whether research results get used is often a
political decision, and different social issues are given importance al different times.
For example, child abuse has existed throughout recorded history, but its perceived
importance as a problem varies considerably over time and place, and the resources avail-
able to reduce it and ameliorate its effects fl uctuate as well.

Over the past several decades, we have come to recognize the surprisingly large number
of children who have been sexually abused. Identifying this problem entailed measuring its
prevalence and also clarifying Lhe needs of child victims, for child welfare intervention and
psychotherapeutic help and so on . As these efforts absorbed scarce research resources, some
have argued that our push to assist sexual abuse victims has been given such a strong prior-
ity that we have not attended sufficiently well to the needs of other mistreated children,
those who are neglected or who witness violence between their parents, for example.

Implementing the Results of Needs Assessments

Although needs assessments are, by defini tion, research with practical implications,
ensuring that the results are implemented is freque ntly challenging. Several issues are part

160 PAin II • QuANTITATi v~ API’ROACHES: TvPes Ol· STuDIES

of this general problem. First, the results must be presented in a form in which the sug-
gestions and how to implement them are clearly outlined. This has been problematic in
the past, as C. Carter ( 1996) noted in her review of needs assessments from the late 1970s
through 1989. She found that, while authors usuaHy detailed the research process, they
offered few suggestions about how to carry out the required changes. Second, Carter
observes that researchers often write for other academics. Important as the academic
audience is, with needs assessments, the people we want to i.nlluence with our work
include service providers, policy makers, and the target population. These groups may
require a report different from professors and their students. The organization of mater-
ial and the style of presenting findings and recommendations should be sensitive lo the
likely interests and priorities of nonacademic readers. Researchers might even consider
writing more than one report, in the interests of effective communication with diverse
audiences.

Amodeo and Gal (1997) recommend another strategy for facilitating utilization of needs
assessment research, which is to involve the sponsor organi7.ations in all steps of the study.
T his ensures that the sponsor is knowledgeable about the research and committed to fol-
lowing it up effectively. In their discussion of this theme, Amodeo and Gal propose that
researchers should allot a generous amount of time after data collection to help the spon-
sor agency digest the findings and plan a response Lo them.

Conclusions

The examples we have offered illustrate that needs assessments are a practical research
method with vast potential usefulness to social work. The results can be especially mean-
ingful in our work because they document the needs of people experiencing problems,
rather than addressing the more esoteric interests of social scientists bent on testing or
developing theory. Needs assessment can raise important questions, identify what aspects
of services or policies are useful, indicate what needs to be improved, and highlight gaps
or misapplica tions of services. The results can challenge us in the same ways that all good
J”escarch does, inviting us to test our assumptions against evidence gathered from the
clients and wmmunities we serve, changing our beliefs and interventions in beneficial
ways as a result.

References

Amodeo, M., & Gal, C. (1997). Strategies for ensuring use of needs assessment findings:
Experiences of a community substance abuse prevention program. journal of Primary
Prevention, 18, 227-242.

Brem1an Homiak, K., & Singletary, J. E. (2007). Family violence in congregalions: An exploralory
study of clergy’s needs. Social Work and Christia11ity, 31, 18-46.

Carter, C. (1996). Using and communicating findings. In K. Revere, S. Berkowitz, C. Carter, &
C. Ferguson (Eds.), Needs assessment: A creative and practical guide for social scientists (pp. 185- 20 l ).
WashinglOn, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Carter, M., Crosby, C., Ge(‘rtshuis, S., & Startup, M. (1996). Developing reliabili ty in clienL-ccntered
mental health needs assessment. Journal of Mental Health, 5, 233-243.

CHAPTER 9 • NEEDS ASSESSMENTS 161

Gerdes, K. E., & Benson, R. A. (1 995). Problems of inner-city schoolchildren: Needs assessment by
nominal group process. Social Work in Education, 17, 139-147.

Kenagy, G. P. (2005). Transgender health: Findings from two needs assessment studies in
Philadelphia. Health artd Social Work, 30( 1 ), 19- 26.

Maslow, A. ( J 970) . Motivation and personality. New York: llarper & Row.
McKillip, J. (1998) . Needs analysis: Process and techniques. fn L. Sickman & D. Rag (Eds.),

Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 261 284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Naito-Chan, E., Damron-Rodriguez,}., & Simmons, W. (2004). Identifying competencies for geri-

atric social work practice. journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43( 4 ), 59- 78.
Pan, A., Daley, S., Rivera, L. M., Williams, K., Lingle, D., & Reznik, V. (2006). Understanding the role

of culture in domestic violence: The Ahimsa Project for Safe Families. Journal for Immigrant
and Minority Health, 8(1 ), 35-43.

Revere, R., Berkowitz, S., Carter, C., & Ferguson, C. ( l996).lntroduction. Iu R. Revere, S. Berkowit7.,
C. C. Carter, & C. F. Ferguson (Eds.), Needs assessment: A creative and practical guide for social
scie11t-ists (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Stabb, S. (1995). Needs assessment methodologies. In S. D. Stabb, S. M. Harris, & ). E. Talley (Eds.),
Multicultural needs assessment for college and university student populations (pp. 51-115).
Spri11gfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

‘ tracy, E. M., Green, R. K., & Bremseth, M.D. {1993). Meeting the environmental needs of abused
and neglected children: implications from a statewide survey of supportive services. Social
Work Research & Abstracts, 29(2), 21 – 26.

Tutty, L., & Rothery, M. (2002). How well do emergency shelters assist women and their children?
In L. TuLly & C. Goard (Eds.), Reclaiming self Issues and resources for women abused by intimate
partners (pp. 25-42). Halifax, NS: Fernwood and Resolve.

Tutty, L M., McNichol, K. , & Christensen,}. (2008). Calgary’s Homefront specialized domestic vio-
lence court. In J. Ursel, L. Tutty, & }. LeMaistrc (Eds.), What’s law got to do with it? The la”~ spe-
cialized courts and domestic violence in Canada. Toron to, ON: Cormorant Press.

Tutty, L. M., Weaver, G., & Rothery, M. A. ( 1999). Residents’ views of the efficacy of shelter services
for abused women. Violence Against Women, 5, 869- 925.

Wancata, }., Krautgartncr, M., Berner,}., Scumaci, S., Freid!, M., Alexandrowic7., It, et al. (2006). The
“Carer’s r eeds Assessment for Schizophrenia”: An instrument to assess the needs of relatiYes
caring for schizophrenia patients. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41, 221-229.

Weaver, H. W. ( 1997). The challenges of research in Native American communities: Incorporating
principles of cultural competence. Journal of Social Service Research, 23, l – 15.

Wilkin, B. R., & Al tschuld, 1. W. ( 1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yegidis, B. 1.., Weinbach, R. W., & Morrison -Rodriguez, B. (1999). Research melhodsfor social work-
ers (3rd eel.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

http:/ /www.extension.iastate.edu/communitics/tools/assess/
This Web site by the Iowa State University Extension Division provides a primer on five types of needs
assessments: existing data sources, attitude survey approaches, key informant approaches, community
forums, and focus groups.

http:/ /ctb.ku.edu/tools/scction_l 042.htm
The Community Tool Box is a service of the Work Groups for Community Health and Development at
the University of Kansas. This comprehensive Web site presents information on numerous evaluation
methods for use in the community, with needs assessments being only one.

162 PART 11 • Q uANTITATIVE A PPROACH ES: TYPES Of STUDIES

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

1. Whal are the disadvantages and advantages of quantitative as compared to qualitative needs
assessment methods?

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of asking key informants about the needs of an iden-
tified population versus speaking to those affected by the problem themselves?

3. Compare community forums and focus groups. For what purposes might one be preferred over the
other?

4. Discuss the concepts of “needs” and “wants.” How can those developing needs assessment ensure
that the needs that are being identified are necessary and important?

5. What are the best strategies to ensure that needs assessment recommendations are implemented?