


































35-Manuscript-321-1-11-20200417


Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 2, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Lendel K. Narine, Extension Assistant Professor and Evaluation Specialist, Utah State University 
4900 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 
Lendel.Narine@usu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6962-2770  

2. Cristian Meier, Assistant Professor and Extension Community Resource and Economic Development Specialist, Utah State 
University 
0730 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 8431 
Cris.Meier@usu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6328-4272  

12 

 

Responding in a time of crisis: Assessing Extension efforts 
during COVID-19 

 
L. Narine1, C. Meier2 

 
 

  

Abstract 

Extension was forced to rapidly adjust its efforts and program delivery methods to respond to 
clientele needs during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The pandemic presents a range of unique 
challenges to Extension including revisions to resource allocations and shifts in programmatic focus. 
Guided by a needs assessment framework, this paper assesses the rapid response of Utah State 
University (USU) Extension to meet residents needs during COVID-19. This correlational study 
gathered data from 199 Extension professionals (n = 199) at USU Extension. Findings show Extension 
professionals had good capacity to implement outreach activities related to online education, 
engaging residents, and external partnerships. Further, Extension took rapid actions in several areas 
in response to COVID-19, including providing online learning activities for youth, and conducting 
online classes in place of traditional face-to-face classes. Findings show professionals’ outreach 
capacity was positively related to the total number of actions taken in response to COVID-19. 
Extension professionals addressed COVID-19 topics such as telehealth, temporary homeschooling 
kids, and stress management. This study demonstrates the adaptability of Extension to an 
unpredictable event and provides a framework to assess response. Findings are geared towards 
effective resource allocation to support Extension’s role in meeting residents’ needs during COVID-
19.  
 

Keywords 

Organizational capacity; emergency response; needs assessment  



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   13 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement  
 
Cooperative Extension is an important resource for communities to access evidence-based 
information and programming (Dunifon et al., 2004). Extension typically focuses on three main 
programmatic areas: (a) Family and Consumer Sciences, (b) 4-H and Youth Development, and 
(c) Agriculture and Natural Resources. Some states have expanded their programming focus to 
address emerging issues such as personal health and wellbeing (Walsh et al., 2018). County-
level programs facilitated by Extension professionals are often a trusted source of information 
for community members (Settle et al., 2017). As the landscape of both rural and urban 
communities evolve, Extension has sought to remain relevant and meet the needs of 
communities through periodical needs assessments and timely programmatic adaption. 
However, in February of 2020, the needs of communities rapidly changed due to the 
emergence of a global pandemic.  
 
The novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, has drastically impacted the lives of people 
internationally and locally in the United States (U.S.). COVID-19 is highly infectious and is spread 
from person to person via droplets from sneezes or coughs (Heymann & Shindo, 2020). To slow 
the spread of COVID-19, municipalities, counties, and states have instituted measures to 
improve social distancing, including closing schools and encouraging people to work remotely. 
During this time of uncertainty, Extension can act as an important resource to help people 
adapt to new life circumstances such as home schooling and unemployment. Notably, there has 
not been a global public health event to this scale since the 1918 influenza pandemic, and the 
ability and readiness of Extension to act rapidly in such an event is unknown. Therefore, this 
paper assesses the rapid response of Utah State University (USU) Extension to meet residents 
needs during COVID-19.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework  
 
The framework guiding this study is a needs assessment (Boyle, 1981; Kaufman & English, 1979; 
Kaufman & Guerra-Lopez, 2013; Kaufman et al., 1993; Leigh et al., 2000; Witkin & Altschuld, 
1995). A need is commonly described as the difference or gap between “what is” and “what 
should be” (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995, p. 9). Needs assessments are widely used across fields 
and its use has been well-documented as a starting point for intervention at all levels – macro 
and micro (Baker et al., 2012; Forrest et al., 2004; Loscalzo et al., 2017; Moreland et al., 2009).  
 
Witkin and Altschuld (1995) defined three levels of a need that exist either within a system or 
external to a system. At Level 1, needs of the service receivers or primary end-users are of 
focus. In Extension, a Level 1 needs assessment examines the needs of clientele. Level 2 focuses 
on needs of service providers and administrators. At a secondary level, it considers the ability of 
service providers to perform functions related to serving primary end-users. In Extension, a 
Level 2 needs assessment may focus on the needs of Extension educators. A Level 3 needs 
assessment considers organizational resources and conditions such as technology infrastructure 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   14 
 

and facilities. A Level 3 needs assessment in Extension might focus on gaps in education and 
information technology for program delivery.  
 
Based on Witkin and Altschuld’s description of levels of needs, we focus on Level 2 needs by 
assessing the capacity of Extension professionals to serve clientele during COVID-19 pandemic 
of 2020. As a Level 2 assessment, findings provide information to identify and prioritize 
professional development needs. This framework is a systematic approach to assessing the 
needs of an organization to inform priorities, decision making, and improvement of allocation 
of resources at an organizational or system-wide level (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995).  
 
Needs assessment is a common starting point for organizations to make data-informed 
decisions to prioritize problems and identify unmet needs (Leigh et al., 2000). A comprehensive 
needs assessment is conceptualized as a three-phase process (a) pre-assessment, (b) 
assessment, and (c) post-assessment (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). During the pre-assessment 
phase, areas of concern are identified often using secondary data. This helps delineate the 
purpose of the needs assessment. In the assessment phase, primary data is gathered and 
analyzed to reveal priorities. Finally, during the post-assessment actions plans are formulated 
based on findings from the assessment phase. In the current study we utilized the three phases 
to assess organizational response to COVID-19 and provide recommendations to improve or 
sustain existing efforts.  
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to assess USU Extension’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic of 
2020. To accomplish this purpose, four research objectives guided this study:  
1. Assess Extension professionals’ capacity to implement outreach activities during COVID-19.  
2. Describe changes in outreach actions taken by Extension in response to COVID-19.  
3. Determine the relationship between professional capacity and overall outreach actions 

taken at the beginning of COVID-19.  
4. Describe Extension professionals’ access to knowledge resources on topics directly related 

to COVID-19.  
 
 

Methods 
 
This correlational study gathered data from Extension professionals at USU Extension. The 
study was deemed exempt by the IRB at USU. The target population was all university 
professionals with an active Extension appointment (FY 2020), including specialists, program 
coordinators, program leaders, county faculty, and SNAP-Ed employees (N = 275). A census was 
attempted using an internal sampling frame of Extension employees. With a response rate of 
72%, the final sample size was 199 faculty (n = 199). Data were collected in March of 2020 using 
a researcher-developed questionnaire administered through Qualtrics. A limitation of the 
methodology is the use of cross-sectional data since COVID-19 is evolving at a rapid rate. 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   15 
 

However, our findings provide a snapshot of Extension’s immediate response during the early 
stages of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.   
 
Instrumentation 
Questionnaire development followed Dillman et al. (2014) tailored design approach with 
respect to crafting close-ended questions. Two Extension Specialists, three Extension Directors, 
and the Associate Vice President for Extension reviewed the questionnaire for validity. Further, 
a post-assessment of reliability was assessed through the Cronbach’s Alpha. The final 
questionnaire consisted of three sections: (a) Individual Capacity – Extension professionals’ 
perception towards their capacity to meet residents’ needs, (b) Actions – outreach actions in 
response to COVID-19, and (c) Knowledge Resources – professionals’ access to knowledge 
resources on COVID-19 topics.  
 
To assess capacity in Section 1, respondents were presented with a brief description of 
organizational capacity: Capacity relates to existing human, financial, technological, and 
administrative resources (Cox et al., 2018). After, they were asked to rate their own capacity to 
perform 10 action items (e.g., conduct effective online classes, and partner with other 
governmental organizations to coordinate efforts) on a five-point scale: 1 = Terrible, 2 = Poor, 3 
= Average, 4 = Good, and 5 = Excellent. In Section 2, respondents were asked to indicate if they 
implemented 10 outreach activities aligned to capacity items in section one during COVID-19 on 
a three-point scale; 1 = I do not plan to, 2 = I plan to, and 3 = Yes. They were also asked if they 
implemented these strategies before COVID-19 using a three-point scale as follows: 1 = No, 2 = 
Sometimes, 3 = Yes. In Section 3, Extension professionals were asked if they had the knowledge 
resources needed to address 20 educational topics (e.g., remote work, mental health, self-
distancing) related to COVID-19 (1 = No, 2 = Yes). Knowledge resources referred to credible 
educational material on the topic for use in Extension programming. In addition, respondents 
were asked if they were currently addressing the topic in their programming (1 = I do not plan 
to, 2 = I plan to, 3 = Yes, 0 = Not Applicable).  
 
Data Analysis 
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and 
bivariate correlations. First, the list of items for outreach capacity was reduced into orthogonal 
constructs using a PCA. Items were organized and presented by construct in the results. For 
Objective 1, descriptive analysis was used to measure professionals’ capacity to implement 
outreach actions. A Point-Score (PS) was calculated from each item’s frequency distribution to 
allow inter-item rankings. PS was calculated as follows: PS = [(1 * % Terrible) + (2 * % Poor) + (3 
* % Average) + (4 * % Good) + (5 * % Excellent)]. The PS was standardized between 0 and 1, 
with values approaching 1 signaling higher capacity to implement an outreach action. 
Interpretation of the PS were based on an even distribution of the original five-point scale; 0 – 
0.20 = Terrible; 0.21 – 0.40 = Poor; 0.41 – 0.60 = Average; 0.61 – 0.80 = Good; 0.81 – 1 = 
Excellent.  
 
For Objective 2, the net change in outreach actions was calculated as a percentage change in 
implementation before and during COVID-19. Spearman’s rho was used to determine exiting 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   16 
 

relationships between capacity areas and overall outreach actions for Objective 3. The null 
hypothesis for the Spearman’s test was rejected at p < 0.05*. Objective 4 was addressed using 
descriptive statistics. Further, a Sharing Gap percentage score was calculated to show the 
difference in knowledge resources for respondents who were already addressing COVID-19 
topics (A) and those who planned to address (P) these topics in future programming (Sharing 
Gap = P – A).   
 
 

Findings 
 
A descriptive analysis of the sample revealed respondents mostly identified as county faculty 
(45%, n = 90). Others were specialists (23%, n = 46), staff, which includes SNAP-Ed employees, 
program coordinators (21%, n = 42), and program leaders (11%, n = 21). About 36% of 
respondents indicated their major programming area was Agriculture and Natural resources, 
20% stated 4-H and Youth Development, 19% indicated Family and Consumer Sciences, and 
25% of respondents selected “Other” for their primary programming area. An assessment of 
the open-ended text response to “Other” indicated many respondents split their times across 
the three major programmatic areas. Further, internal data indicated approximately 80% of 
Extension-funded employees at USU perform some level of programming related to 4-H and 
Youth Development.  
 
Objective 1: Capacity for Outreach During COVID-19 
A PCA was used to reduce 10 outreach capacity items into latent constructs. Using an 
orthogonal rotation, three factors had eigen values greater than one, and the scree plot 
confirmed all three factors explained enough variance for extraction. The PCA was valid since 
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) was 0.83 and the Bartlett’s Test 
of Sphericity was significant (X2 = 950.76, p < 0.001**). Together, the three factors explained 
72% of variance in the original list of capacity items. The extracted factors were referred to as 
Factors of Outreach Capacity and described as follows; (a) Online Education, (b) Engaging 
Residents, and (c) External Partnerships. As shown in Table 1, all Factors of Outreach Capacity 
had acceptable internal consistency based on the Cronbach’s Alpha (α). Online Education refers 
to actions taken to create online learning courses in Extension. Engaging Residents relate to 
delivering educational content to Extension audiences. External Partnerships refer to working 
with non-Extension agencies for information delivery and coordinating efforts.  
 
Table 1 shows a descriptive summary of respondents’ self-assessed capacity to implement 
outreach actions grouped by Factors of Outreach Capacity. Results indicated Extension 
professionals had good capacity to implement tasks related to Online Education (PS = 0.63). 
Descriptive frequencies indicated about 20% of respondents had excellent capacity to conduct 
effective online classes, and 15% had excellent capacity to convert face-to-face classes to online 
classes. Extension professionals also had good capacity to implement task related to engaging 
residents (PS = 0.69). About 42% of respondents had excellent capacity to provide residents 
with updates via email, text, or other methods, and 33% had excellent capacity to connect 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   17 
 

frequently with residents through social media. Finally, results indicated professionals had good 
capacity to perform tasks for External Partnerships (PS = 0.70). Descriptive results indicated 
33% of respondents had excellent capacity to partner with other governmental organizations to 
coordinate efforts, and 29% had excellent capacity to communicate with local leaders about 
addressing the needs of residents.  
 
Table 1 
Professionals’ Capacity to Implement Factors of Outreach Capacity 

Task 
% (n = 199)* 

PS^ T P A G E 
Online Education (α = .92)      0.63 

Conduct effective online classes 1 11 32 36 20 0.66 
Convert traditional face-to-face classes to online classes 2 10 39 35 15 0.64 
Creating new online classes 2 15 37 29 17 0.61 

Engaging Residents (α = .74)      0.69 
Contact residents to provide updates (via email, text, or other 

methods) 2 4 12 40 42 0.79 

Connect frequently with residents through social media 6 11 24 27 33 0.68 
Provide online learning activities for youth 5 18 33 26 18 0.59 

External Partnerships (α = .71)      0.70 
Partner with other governmental organizations to coordinate 

efforts 2 4 24 37 33 0.74 

Communicate with local leaders about how your office/team 
can support or address the needs of residents 1 3 29 37 29 0.72 

Partner with nongovernmental emergency response 
organizations 3 10 27 35 26 0.69 

Provide information to news and media outlets 2 10 33 32 23 0.66 
*Note. T = Terrible, P = Poor, A = Average, G = Good, E = Excellent 
 
Objective 2: Rapid Actions in Extension during COVID-19 
Table 2 provides a description of rapid actions taken by Extension within the first two weeks of 
COVID-19 in Utah. Retrospective before-and-after comparisons were made to highlight changes 
in actions before and during COVID-19. The net change in actions represents the 
responsiveness of Extension to the initial pandemic outbreak in Utah. Results indicated 
substantial changes to youth programming; 29% of professionals provided online learning 
activities for youth during COVID-19 compared to only 9% of respondents before COVID-19. 
This signals a 222% increase in online learning activities for youth before and during COVID-19. 
In addition, substantial changes were recorded for conducting online classes in place of 
traditional face-to-face classes (207% increase) and learning how to conduct online classes 
(125% increase).  
 
 
 
 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   18 
 

Table 2 
Main Actions Taken by Extension in Response to COVID-19 

Action 
% (n = 199) 

% Net 
Change* Yes – 

Before 
Yes – 

During 
Providing online learning activities for youth 9 29 222 
Conducting online classes in place of traditional face-to-face 
classes 14 43 207 

Learning how to conduct online classes 24 54 125 
Connecting frequently with residents through social media 45 56 24 
Creating new online classes 22 26 18 
Partnering with non-governmental emergency response 
organizations 22 26 18 

Contacting residents to provide updates (via email, text, or 
other methods) 58 58 0 

Communicating with local leaders about how your 
office/team can support or address the needs of residents 51 48 -6 

Providing information to news and media outlets 31 28 -10 
Partnering with other governmental organizations to 
coordinate efforts 52 47 -10 

*Note. Net Change is the percentage change in activities before and during COVID 19 
 
While results indicated substantial changes in most items, there were minor changes in some 
areas such as the creation of new online classes and partnerships with non-governmental 
emergency response organizations. Further, compared to before COVID-19, there were 
decreases in communicating with local leaders about supporting or addressing the needs of 
residents (-6%), providing information to news and media outlets (-10%), and partnering with 
other governmental organizations to coordinate efforts (-10%) during COVID-19.  
 
Objective 3: Role of Factors of Outreach Capacity on Rapid Actions  
Bivariate correlations between Factors of Outreach Capacity and rapid actions were assessed 
using the Spearman’s rho coefficient (ρ). This analysis indicated how changes in Factors of 
Outreach Capacity (i = 3) corelated to the total number of rapid actions (i = 10) taken by 
Extension in response to COVID-19. Results indicated online education was weakly, but 
significantly correlated to the total number of actions taken by Extension (ρ = .35, p < 0.001**). 
Also, there were moderate and significant correlations between the total number of actions 
taken, engaging residents (ρ = .45, p < 0.001**), and external partnerships (ρ = .49**, p < 
0.001**). Based on the correlation coefficients, all Factors of Outreach Capacity were positively 
related to the total number of rapid actions taken by Extension. This indicates as Extension 
professionals’ capacity to conduct online education, engage with residents, and form external 
partnerships increased, there was an increase in the total number of actions taken by Extension 
during COVID-19 in March of 2020.  
 
 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   19 
 

Objective 4: Knowledge Resources 
Table 3 provides a descriptive summary of the availability of knowledge resources to address 
topics directly related to COVID-19. Results indicated all respondents (100%) who were already 
addressing mental health, grocery shopping during COVID-19, self-distancing, sheltering in 
place, self-quarantine, disinfecting surfaces, emergency preparedness, 72-hour kits and finding 
reliable information on COVID-19 in their programming had access to the necessary knowledge 
resources. Overall, findings in Table 3 demonstrates most respondents (> 94%) who were 
already addressing COVID-19 topics in their programming had access to the necessary 
knowledge resources on the topics. 
 
In contrast, there were less knowledge resources among professionals who planned to address 
COVID-19 topics in their Extension programming. For example, while 96% of respondents who 
were already addressing telehealth had access to the necessary knowledge resources on the 
topic, only 68% of those who planned to address it had access to the knowledge resource. 
Similarly, 94% of those already addressing temporary homeschooling had access to the 
knowledge resources, but only 70% of respondents who planned to address the topic had 
access the knowledge resource for the topic. This highlights a gap in knowledge resources; the 
Sharing Gap in Table 3 shows a discrepancy in knowledge resources between those who were 
already addressing COVID-19 topics (A) and those who planned to address the topic (P). While 
this gap existed for most topic areas, the widest discrepancies were telehealth (-28%), 
temporary homeschooling kids (-24%), stress management (-15%), and remote work (-15%). 
 
  



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   20 
 

Table 3 
Knowledge Resources for COVID-19 Educational Programming 

Topic 
Knowledge Resources [%, (n)] Sharing 

Gap 
(P – A) 

Already 
addressing (A) 

Plan to Address 
(P) 

Telehealth 96 (26) 68 (15) -28 
Temporary homeschooling kids 94 (31) 70 (19) -24 
Stress management 98 (55) 83 (35) -15 
Remote work 98 (77) 83 (20) -15 
Mental health 100 (53) 88 (29) -12 
Grocery shopping during COVID-19 100 (29) 89 (23) -11 
Financial management during COVID-19 96 (25) 86 (25) -10 
Self-distancing 100 (86) 91 (19) -9 
Sheltering in place 100 (52) 92 (35) -8 
Steps to slow infections  99 (64) 93 (26) -6 
Self-quarantine 100 (56) 94 (31) -6 
Spread of COVID-19 97 (60) 92 (22) -5 
Disinfecting surfaces 100 (67) 96 (24) -4 
Handwashing 99 (77) 96 (24) -3 
Personal hygiene 99 (69) 96 (25) -3 
Emergency preparedness 100 (37) 97 (36) -3 
72-hour kits 100 (22) 97 (32) -3 
Looking for online learning opportunities 99 (81) 97 (38) -2 
Finding reliable information on COVID-19 100 (49) 100 (35) 0 

 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
COVID-19 is actively affecting residents across the nation. Extension’s response to the ever-
evolving situation is dependent on its ability to rapidly adapt to meet residents’ needs. While it 
is unclear how other land grant institutions are responding to COVID-19, this paper provides a 
snapshot of the actions taken by USU Extension to meet residents needs during the COVID-19 
pandemic. Guided by the three-phase needs assessment framework (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995), 
we examined USU Extension’s capacity, actions, and knowledge resources in response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic. These priority areas were defined by organization leadership during the 
pre-assessment phase. Overall, results found in the assessment phase showed Extension 
professionals in Utah had good outreach capacity, they rapidly implemented several actions in 
response to COVID-19, and their self-assessed outreach capacity was positively related to total 
number of rapid actions taken. Further, findings highlighted a gap in knowledge resources 
between professionals who were actively engaged in COVID-19 related programming and those 
who planned to implement such programming.  
 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   21 
 

The assessment results provide actionable steps that could be taken by USU Extension during 
the post-assessment phase (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995) and describes implications for the larger 
Cooperative Extension system’s response to COVID-19. First, Extension’s capacity to act in the 
time of crisis or during an emergency is dependent on its existing employees and their 
willingness to adapt to changing situations. In this study, we found that Extension professionals 
reported adequate capacity to create online education, engage and communicate with 
residents, and work with external partnerships to coordinate efforts and disseminate 
information in response to COVID-19. Capacity is important to helping organizations achieve 
their mission (Connolly & Lukas, 2002), and increasing capacity can help organizations improve 
the work they already do, contribute to expansion efforts, and to meet the changing needs of 
residents (Letts et al., 1999). While self-assessed capacity was generally good, we suggest USU 
Extension use the results of our study to develop a professional development plan to further 
improve Extension professional capacity to respond and adapt programming during a crisis. 
Other Extension institutions could utilize a similar factor analysis (Abdi & Williams, 2010) 
process to identify key capacity areas and utilize Point Scores to inform and prioritize 
professional development opportunities to quickly build Extension professional capacity to 
improve response to COVID-19.  
 
As Extension faculty work to adapt to meet the local needs of community members, having the 
knowledge necessary to address these needs is vital for rapid response. In our study we found 
that there was a sharing gap; most Extension professionals who were already addressing a topic 
had enough knowledge resources on the topic, while far fewer Extension professionals that 
planned to address to topic had the knowledge resources. This sharing gap was most prominent 
in two topic areas, telehealth and temporary homeschooling kids. To facilitate resource sharing, 
we recommend that Extension leadership encourage internal and external sharing and access 
to knowledge resources especially in topic areas where a sharing gap is found. A cloud-based 
knowledge resource depository could be developed to streamline information sharing while 
improving Extension professional competencies to address priority topics (Demidova et al., 
2007). By taking active steps to improve knowledge resource sharing, Extension could improve 
rapid response to the current crisis, while also be prepared for future emergency situations. 
 
Extension’s mission to provide evidence-based information and programming that meet the 
needs of communities suggests that Extension can plan a role in helping community members 
adapt daily living to follow the local, county, and state directives (e.g., social distancing) and 
orders (e.g., stay home) they are presented with in a time of crisis. At the state level, the results 
of this study can be used to improve coordinated state response and inform professional 
development opportunities needed to help Extension professionals effectively respond and 
adapt to residents’ needs. Extension institutions across the U.S. can use these results to guide 
future actions to tackle gaps in emergency response and inform strategies for educational 
outreach actions during crisis situations. We suggest Extension institutions conduct their own 
COVID-19 response assessment to inform their delivery efforts and future responses to crisis 
and emergency situations. 
 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   22 
 

References  
 
Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: 

Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433-459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101 
 
Baker, C. J., Sinha, R., & Sullivan, M. E. (2012). Development of a cardiac surgery simulation 

curriculum: from needs assessment results to practical implementation. Journal of 
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 144(1), 7-16. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.03.026 

 
Boyle, P. G. (1981). Planning better programs. McGraw-Hill. 
 
Connolly, P., & Lukas, C. A. (2002). Strengthening nonprofit performance: A funder's guide to 

capacity building. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 
 
Cox, K., Jolly, S., Van Der Staai, S., & Van Stolk, C. (2018). Understanding the drivers of 

organization capacity. RAND Europe. 
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2100/RR2189/RAN
D_RR2189.pdf 

 
Demidova, E., Karger, P., Olmedilla, D., Ternier, S., Duval, E., Dicerto, M., Mendez, C., & 

Stefanov, K. (2007). Services for knowledge resource sharing & management in an open 
source infrastructure for lifelong competence development. International Conference on 
Advanced Learning Technologies, 2007, 691-693. 
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4281128 

 
Dunifon, R., Duttweiler, M., Pillemer, K., Tobias, D., & Trochim, W. M. (2004). Evidence-based 

Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(2) Article 
2FEA2. https://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a2.php 

 
Forrest, S., Strange, V., Oakley, A., & RIPPLE Study Team. (2004). What do young people want 

from sex education? The results of a needs assessment from a peer-led sex education 
programme. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6(4), 337-354. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050310001645050 

 
Heymann, D. L., & Shindo, N. (2020). COVID-19: What is next for public health? The 

Lancet, 395(10224), 542-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30374-3 
 
Kaufman, R. A., & English, F. W. (1979). Needs assessment: Concept and application. 

Educational Technology. 
 
Kaufman, R., & Guerra-Lopez, I. (2013). Needs assessment for organizational success. American 

Society for Training and Development. 



Narine and Meier  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35   23 
 

 
Kaufman, R. A., Rojas, A. M., & Mayer, H. (1993). Needs assessment: A user's guide. Educational 

Technology. 
 
Leigh, D., Watkins, R., Platt, W. A., & Kaufman, R. (2000). Alternate models of needs 

assessment: Selecting the right one for your organization. Human Resource 
Development Quarterly, 11(1), 87-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-
1096(200021)11:1<87::AID-HRDQ7>3.0.CO;2-A 

 
Letts, C. W., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit organizations: 

Managing upstream for greater impact. John Wiley & Sons 
 
Loscalzo, E., Sterling, R. C., Weinstein, S. P., & Salzman, B. (2017). Alcohol and other drug use in 

older adults: Results from a community needs assessment. Aging Clinical and 
Experimental Research, 29(6), 1149-1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0718-z 

 
Moreland, J. D., DePaul, V. G., DeHueck, A. L., Pagliuso, S. A., Yip, D. W., Pollock, B. J., & Wilkins, 

S. (2009). Needs assessment of individuals with stroke after discharge from hospital 
stratified by acute Functional Independence Measure score. Disability and 
Rehabilitation, 31(26), 2185-2195. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280902951846 

 
Settle, Q., Rumble, J. N., McCarty, K., & Ruth, T. K. (2017). Public knowledge and trust of 

agricultural and natural resources organizations. Journal of Applied Communications, 
101(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1007  

Walsh, M., John, D., Peritore, N., Morris, A., Bird, C., Ceraso, M., Eichberger, S., Novotny, R., 
Stephenson, L., Stluka, S., & Riportella, R. (2018). Health in all policies: Working across 
sectors in Cooperative Extension to promote health for all. Journal of Human Sciences 
and Extension, 6(2), 37-56. https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/718/620 

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

guide. Sage. 
 

 
© 2020 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


