EXF 2023 Professional Development Needs Assessment Report

TRAINING NEEDS

The third section of the survey detailed the training needs identified by the respondents following the same process used to identify challenges, however the respondents were encouraged to select all rather than a limited number of categories. First, respondents were asked to identify all areas of need in broad areas and then to identify specific priorities or subcategories within those categories (Table 15). Categories that ranked in the top three for any of the Land-grant types are summarized in this document. They include community engagement, telling our story, career progression, funding and other resources, supervisory skills, human resources, and professional development. There is greater disparity across groups in this category, emphasizing the need to deliver programming based on the needs of specific institutional types. Also, there are opportunities for professional development groups and associations to serve as partners in helping to meet some of these needs.

Table 15 Training needs categorized by institutional type.

Institutional Rank from Highest to Lowest % Responses All Institutions 1862 1890 1994

Training Needs

3 - 10.19 

Community Engagement

1 - 10.94

1 - 10.99

3 - 10.06

2 - 11.11 

Telling Our Story

2 - 10.77

2 - 10.86

4 - 9.09

Career Progression

3 - 9.94

3 - 9.90

1 - 12.01

7 - 6.48

2 - 11.11 

Funding & Other Resources

4 - 8.92

4 - 8.95

8 - 7.14

Program Development Processes

5 - 8.28

5 - 8.29

6 - 8.44

6 - 7.41

Supervisory Skills

6 - 8.14

6 - 8.05

2 - 10.39

8 - 4.63

3 - 10.19 

Human Resources

7 - 7.45

7 - 7.36

7 - 8.12

Professional Development

8 - 7.36

8 - 7.15

5 - 8.77

1 - 12.04

Interpersonal Skills

9 - 6.94

9 - 7.09

9 - 6.49

9 - 3.70

Strengthening the National Extension Organization

10 - 6.41

10 - 6.38

10 - 6.17

5 - 8.33

Program Specific Topics

11 - 5.85

11 - 5.78

11 - 5.52

4 - 9.26

Core Values

12 - 5.46

12 - 5.56

12 - 4.55

9 - 3.70

Reporting

13 - 2.95

13 - 2.97

13 - 3.25

10 - 1.85

Other (please explain)

14 - 0.61

14 - 0.65 No Responses No Responses

Number of Question Responses

4105

3666

308

108

 Items are tied for second ranking within this group.  Items are tied for third ranking within this group.

As in the previous section, individuals selecting “other” were asked to provide further explanation. There were several responses in this category from the 1862 Land-grant universities. Some responses fit within the subcategories and will be identified there. Other responses related to collaboration, evaluation, work environment, and technology support. In terms of collaboration, the responses relayed need for greater understanding of USDA as a department and the departments within USDA as well as training on how to be involved in policy development processes. The other training needs related to evaluation revolved around economic impact measurement and better understanding about what programming leads to impact. Training related to work environment included how to address a lack of professionalism of employees working on behalf of the university and creating a welcoming environment that gives new employees a sense of belonging in Extension. Finally, related to technology support, a respondent entered “ adaptation/training on new technology/systems. . . reporting systems, contacts systems, HR systems, financial systems, etc. . . . too much too fast! ”

23

Powered by