Purpose

The mission of University of Nevada Cooperative Extension is “to discover, develop, disseminate, preserve, and use knowledge to strengthen the social, economic and environmental well-being of people.” To that end, Cooperative Extension is charged with developing, implementing and evaluating educational programs that address critical needs and issues in Douglas County. Comprehensive need assessments are used to direct programming efforts.

Not all needs identified in this assessment process may be addressed by education. Some needs may be better addressed through regulation, service, entitlements, etc. Furthermore, some needs may be better addressed by entities other than Cooperative Extension. The results of this study, therefore, should be useful to other organizations.

Knowing which needs are most important to our community is critical to effective planning. If we focus our energies on high priority needs, our chances of improving the quality of life are greatly enhanced. Hopefully, many will see the value of this information and use it to benefit citizens of Douglas County.

Methodology

Three community leaders were asked by the principal investigator to recommend potential participants. The principal investigator used the list of potential participants to select fifty individuals based on their knowledge of living conditions, health and education, public services, business and industry, or human resources. The objective was to select a representative panel of Douglas County citizens in terms of expertise, as well as gender, geographic location and ethnicity. Of the 50 participants, 22 were female and 28 were male; 42 were located in the valley and eight were from the Lake Tahoe basin; one was Latino, two were American Indian and the remainder was Caucasian.

The principal investigator contacted all participants by phone. The study’s process and purpose were described, and prospective participants were asked if they were willing to commit their full participation. All 50 participants expressed interest in being involved. It was also explained that those participating would remain anonymous and strict confidentiality would be practiced.

The Delphi technique was used to assess community needs. This technique is one way of obtaining citizen input for ideas and problem solving. It uses a series of carefully designed questionnaires generated from feedback information from preceding responses. As with all community needs assessment models, there are advantages and disadvantages. The Delphi technique allows participants to remain anonymous and is relatively inexpensive. It is conducive to independent thinking and gradual formulation, and is free of social pressure, personality influences and individual dominance. However, the Delphi technique may be criticized for forcing a middle-of-the-road consensus, producing results from relatively few participants, being dependent on the judgment of a select group of people who may not be representative of the population and requiring substantial time and participant commitment.

The first of two questionnaires was called round one. Participants were asked to list up to four possible endings, in no particular order of importance, to the following question.

What are the most important NEEDS facing you, your family and your community in the next five to 10 years?

A cover letter accompanied the round one questionnaire, which further explained completion directions. Each letter was personally addressed and signed by the study administrator. The cover letter, round one questionnaire, and return envelope were sent out Aug. 28, 2002 and were due back by Sept. 6, 2002. All participants were mailed a reminder postcard on Sept. 3, 2002.

The round two questionnaire was prepared from the round one responses. No attempt was made to place needs into individual, family or community categories. Duplicative responses were combined and wordy statements were paraphrased. Care was taken not to delete or change the meaning of the needs submitted in round one. One hundred fifty-four statements were represented in 11 subject categories in the round two questionnaire.

The objective of this round was to rate the importance of each need statement on a scale of 1 (most important) to 9 (least important). This questionnaire, cover letter, and return envelope were sent to the same 50 participants on Oct. 30, 2002, and were due back on Nov. 8, 2002. All participants were mailed a reminder postcard on Nov. 5, 2002.

Need statements were prioritized based on the importance rating averages. Needs with lowest average values were ranked the highest priority, while those with the highest average value were ranked the lowest in priority. Needs with identical averages were assigned the same priority rank.

Limitations of the Study

The following outlines the limitations of this study

• The principal investigator selected participants he knew in the community based on his knowledge of their expertise, gender, ethnicity, and place of residence. This may have introduced some bias in the responses.
• The intent was to select a panel of participants that mirrored the county demographics, however, no measure was made to validate the representativeness of the sample population.
• No attempt was made to compare the opinions of the non-respondents to that of the respondents. Bias may have been introduced through the missing response of participants representing specific expertise, gender, ethnicity, and place of residence.

Response Rate

Forty responses were received from the round one questionnaire mailing, for an 80 percent response rate; while 37 responses were received from the round two questionnaire mailing, for a 74 percent response rate.

Results

One hundred fifty-four need statements, identified in round one and prioritized in terms of importance in round two, are represented in Table 1. Twenty-six need statements had identical averages and were assigned the same priority rank, thus producing a total of 128 priority ranks. The widest gap or difference between averages was between needs 22 and 23, thus creating a logical break in the data demarking a “top” set of needs. Of the top 22 need statements five were related to the environment, four to growth, four to safety, three to health care, three to citizenship and three to the economy.

Conclusions

It must be recognized that this assessment represents a picture of the perceived needs in Douglas County for the next five to ten years. Care should be taken not to read too much into the results. Certainly some needs have been ranked more important than others but it is not possible to draw a line to separate the most from the least. Where would one draw that line?

These results provide a good starting point from which to embark upon a comprehensive planning process. The results most certainly should not be treated as a total solution to forecasting. It is recommended that others use this information in the following manner:

• First, consider the mission or purpose of your group. Start from the top of the list of prioritized need statements and check the needs you feel are mission related. These are the needs that your organization could positively impact. Write these out on a separate piece of paper.
• Prioritize this list and determine the top three needs. A representative group rather than a single individual should conduct this process. It may also be advantageous to involve members-atlarge or other community citizens to bring a new perspective to the discussion.
• Next, brainstorm to generate ideas how your group could effectively address those specific needs. The Delphi technique could be used at this time to gather ideas.

References

• Anderson, R. 1979. Take a good look at your community. North Dakota State University Cooperative Extension. CRD- 1 (revised).
• Beech, B. 1999. Go the extra mile – use the Delphi technique. Journal of Nursing Management, v7, pp. 281-288.
• Butler, L.M., & Howell, R.E. 1980. Community needs assessment techniques. Washington State University. WREP 44.
• Custer, R.T., Scarcella, J.A., & Stewart, B.R. 1999. The modified Delphi technique – A rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15(2). VT Site.
• Dunham, B.D. 1998. The Delphi technique. University of Wisconsin School of Business, Organizational Behavior. Learn Tech Site.
• Duttweiler, M.W. 2002. Delphi technique. Cornell Cooperative Extension. Cornell Site.

Published by: Lewis, S., 2003, Community Needs Assessment: Douglas County 2002, Extension | University of Nevada, Reno, FS-03-11

An EEO/AA Institution. Copyright © 2024, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension.
A partnership of Nevada counties; University of Nevada, Reno; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture