TRAINING PROVIDED
Home Institution Impactful Training Respondents were asked to identify areas in which their institution provides impactful training. Respondents were able to select all categories that applied. Ranking for training varies based on institutional type as reported in Table 23.
Table 23 Impactful training provided ranked from greatest to least based on percent responses by Land-grant institution type.
Institutional Rank from Highest to Lowest % Responses All Institutions 1862 1890 1994
Category
Core values
1 - 13.69
1 - 14.05
1 - 10.37
3 - 11.76
Reporting
2 - 12.47
2 - 12.89
1 - 10.37
6 - 2.94
Program specific topics
3 - 12.24
7 - 6.29
2 - 9.76
1 - 23.53
Interpersonal skills
4 - 8.69
4 - 9.06
5 - 6.10
6 - 2.94
Telling our story
5 - 7.42
5 - 7.25
2 - 9.76
6 - 2.94
Community engagement
6 - 7.37
6 - 7.00
1 - 10.37
2 - 14.71
Program development processes
7 - 6.46
3 - 12.24
3 - 7.93
5 - 5.88
Supervisory skills
8 - 5.78
8 - 5.94
7 - 3.05
5 - 5.88
Human resources
9 - 5.46
9 - 5.49
6 - 4.27
4 - 8.82
Funding and other resources
10 - 5.41
11 - 5.04
2 - 9.76
6 - 2.94
Professional development
11 - 5.10
12 - 4.93
5 - 6.10
3 - 11.76
Career progression
11 - 5.10
10 - 5.24
6 - 4.27
6 - 2.94
Strengthening the national Extension organization
12 - 3.96
13 - 3.68
4 - 7.32
6 - 2.94
Other (please explain)
13 - 0.86
14 - 0.91
8 - 0.61
No Responses
Number of Question Responses
2198
1986
164
34
Items are tied for first ranking within the specific Land-grant group. Items are tied for second ranking within the specific Land-grant group. Items are tied for third ranking within the specific Land-grant group. Items are tied for fifth ranking within the specific Land-grant group. Items are tied for sixth ranking within the specific Land-grant group. Items are tied for eleventh ranking within the specific Land-grant group.
In order to facilitate networking, all categories are presented in this document and individual institutions that were reported by respondents as providing impactful training are listed specifically in each category. Because this is based on information reported by the respondents, this is based on their perspective within their position. It is possible, especially for institutions with low response rates that some areas of training may be missed or others provided that may exist in one part of the university and not widely recognized throughout the Extension organization. However, these findings still provide a starting place for people or organizations looking for specific types of training. Nineteen respondents provided more detail associated with other responses. Eighteen of these were from 1862 Land-grants and one was from an 1890. Seven of these suggest either there is no or almost no training provided, training is “out of touch and not impactful”, or “We’re on our own in all of the above [categories]”. Another seven respondents indicated they were unable to assess this either because they were not comfortable
34
Powered by FlippingBook