Transformative Needs Assessment Methodology: A Mixed Approach for Organizations Serving Marginalized Communities

Abstract

Needs assessments (NAs) for marginalized communities would ideally contextualize needs in the sociocultural context, use agency-supportive methods, and result in liberatory action planning. This article develops the Transformative Needs Assessment With Marginalized Communities (TNAMC) using a mixed-methods approach that examines internal and external factors of needs for marginalized communities using liberatory methods to arrive at emancipatory action planning. This nonlinear process includes identifying concerns, checking assumptions, action committee selection, identifying need areas, situating need areas in context, identifying metrics of needs, collecting and analyzing data, prioritizing needs, creating action strategies, and developing an action plan. Each phase is discussed using the examination of anti-recidivism adolescent development needs in a predominately Black juvenile detention facility (N = 87 juveniles) as exemplar. The development of TNAMC is designed to aid NA evaluators in designing assessments that integrate social action as a primary purpose of the NA while empowering marginalized communities throughout research processes.

Keywords

needs assessment marginalized communities sequential mixed-methods transformative paradigm

Introduction

In this article, marginalization is defined as “a process of becoming or being made marginal to centers of power, social standing, or dominant discourses” due to being “members of historically oppressed social groups” which may result in oppressed communities being “subjected to various kinds of punishment such as rejection, invisibility, suppression of basic rights, and even violence” (Edgerton, 2010, p. 557). The current landscape of needs assessments (NAs) is largely inadequate for use with marginalized communities for several reasons.

First, marginalization is a sociopolitically, economically, and culturally situated problem. Although some NAs admit that needs are value-laden (Altschuld & Watkins, 2014), traditional NAs have no systematic way of situating these value-laden needs in their appropriate cultural and sociopolitical context and certainly not redressing power inequities. The sociopolitical and cultural context is the theater for oppression of marginalized populations and thus is an important factor when assessing the needs of these communities (Crenshaw, 1991; Ruiz Castro & Holvino, 2016). Second, due to the top-down process of most traditional NAs, accurately assessing and addressing the target population’s needs is often compromised in favor of the desires and concerns of privileged stakeholders, institutions, and authorities (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995). The target population is most often acted upon rather than brought into the research process as a decision-making stakeholder. Research methodologies that disenfranchise marginalized communities in decision-making processes contribute to hegemonic oppression rather than emancipatory liberation (Mertens, 1999, 2007). Lastly, however, the aim of conducting research with marginalized communities should be to enact social change (Akom, 2011). Unfortunately, most traditional NAs fail to lead to targeted action plans that resolve identified needs (Altschuld & Witkin, 2000) even when that process is formally a component of the NA procedures.

To conduct an NA with marginalized communities in a manner that is socioculturally situated, empowering, and leads to social action, a transformative approach can be useful. Transformativism is a paradigmatic approach to research that requires the use of methodology that elevates the voice of participants using research aims that result in social action (Mertens, 2007; Romm, 2015). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to explore the development of a transformative NAs methodology for marginalized populations by developing the Transformative Needs Assessment With Marginalized Communities (TNAMC). In the following sections, I discuss traditional NAs and argue for the potential of transformative NAs before explaining the eight stages of TNAMC using an exemplar NA study that examines anti-recidivism needs in a predominately Black juvenile detention center. This article concludes with a discussion on the significance, limitations, and implications of TNAMC.

Traditional NAs Models

A NA can be described as a diagnostic process “for examining and framing people-related problems and performance improvement opportunities” (Gupta et al., 2007, p. 1) to respond to a specific problem, opportunity, or ongoing improvements. NAs can be general to many organization types, specific to one type of organization, or specific to a particular role in an organization. For example, if an NA is conducted with school counselors, the needs assessor could select a general NA model designed for all types of organizations (e.g., Altschuld & Watkins, 2014; Gupta et al., 2007; Hsu & Sandford, 2007), an NA model specific to the educational setting (e.g., English & Kaufman, 1975), or an NA model tailored specifically for school counselors (e.g., Hays & Linn, 1977). More general NA types are applicable across settings and populations, while more specific NA types tailor methodologies to the expectations, values, and norms of a particular organization or role. A transformative approach to assessing needs in marginalized communities traverses multiple types of settings; therefore, a general NA model is most appropriate for TNAMC.

General NAs differ in who is centered as the focus of the NA, the intention of the NA, and consequently, the procedures. The Delphi method, created by the Rand Corporation in the 1960s, is often cited as the first systematic and most widely used general NA (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). The Delphi method is focused on building consensus among experts by systematically disseminating questionnaires in an iterative fashion. The main strengths of this method are ease, speed, and inexpensive procedures. For these strengths, the Delphi method sacrifices examining needs in their sociocultural context, incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives, and building relationships between stakeholders for intervention or change initiatives. Moreover, perhaps the most significant limitation is the paternalistic use of experts to speak for the target population. The Delphi method requires that experts be knowledgeable and have the power to influence policy (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). By this definition, the target population would rarely be labeled as experts, especially marginalized populations that lack power. Thus, marginalized communities are silenced and excluded in the Delphi method. Moreover, relying on experts, who are often privileged authority figures, may cause the NA to focus on the desires and concerns of authority figures rather than that of the target population.

The Altschuld and Watkins (2014) method rectifies many of the Delphi method limitations by creating an NA committee of stakeholder representatives of different organization constituencies to provide leadership. This committee of leadership works to identify need areas, determine the context and boundaries of the NA, determine data collection sources and methods, set priorities, analyze the role of service providers and available resources, consider solutions, develop an action plan, and evaluate the NA while examining the environmental context to provide a holistic approach to assessing needs. Moreover, these methods focus on the target population with the intention of creating strategies for action. Although more inclusive than the Delphi method, the Altschuld and Watkins (2014) method is not liberatory for marginalized communities as it continues to rely on disempowering top-down processes that privilege authority figures in directing the NA and the voice of the target population is not substantially used in NA decision making. A transformative approach would seek to provide and alternative that addresses these issues.

Transformative Guidelines to NA

The vast majority of social science research, including NAs, use some form of (post)positivism as the unspoken default paradigm (Creswell, 2007; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). However, use of positivism is antithetical to critical lens research with marginalized populations (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). First, positivist approaches assume that reality can be known, understood, and represented in symbolic form and “definite parameters can be developed to represent what is known, and the unknown can be represented as well” (English & Kaufman, 1975, p. 61). When addressing hegemonic power and oppression, factors cannot always be represented holistically and accurately in symbolic form. This is especially true for structural and institutionalized marginalization, which is so notoriously difficult to conceptualize that it is colloquially referred to as invisible oppression (Cauler, 2014). Moreover, positivist approaches to NAs assume that everything can be measured on a nominal, ordinal, ratio, or interval scale (English & Kaufman, 1975) in a manner that is objective and value-free (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). This limited way of obtaining knowledge about reality fails to capture truth of a phenomenon when that phenomenon is socially constructed in an intangible reality.

Lastly, positivism’s central tenant of conceptualizing theory as falsifiable is problematic for theories of social identities and power structures because the primary objectives of social justice research “are to give voice to marginalized perspectives, to promote the well-being of those who are marginalized, and to understand how inequality, embedded within simultaneous memberships in multiple social categories, shapes our experiences” (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016, p. 158). Marginalized communities should not be subjected to research approaches that seek to falsify their lived experiences. Positivist approaches are appropriate for typical applications of NAs—improving for-profit businesses and employee task functions—but are insufficient for long-term solutions in organizations that must account for structural and institutionalized oppression in service of marginalized communities.

Transformative approaches account for the power-laden, socially constructed reality that oppresses marginalized communities (Biddle & Schafft, 2015). A transformative approach to research methodologies has three central requirements: The methodological procedures must be empowering for, and inclusive of, the marginalized community; research should be conducted within the sociocultural context; and the outcome should be direct social action (Mertens, 2012). These three requirements of a transformative approach stem from decades of decolonization research that seeks to upend traditional methodologies that fail to directly benefit the study participants, leverage the privilege of authority as experts to define and assess the experiences of marginalized communities, and disempower oppressed people throughout research processes (Paris & Winn, 2013; Smith, 1999).

A few approaches in the contemporary field of NAs have challenged traditional NAs and are trending toward participatory and community-based approaches. These developments have largely occurred in the nonprofit public health sector due to a requirement in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) for nonprofit hospitals to conduct community health NAs every 3 years (Becker, 2014; Franz et al., 2017, 2019; Pennel et al., 2015). A limited number of community health NAs have embraced methodologies with a participatory focus, most often through the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR; e.g., Betancourt et al., 2015). CBPR is a methodology that seeks to develop interventions using research methods that increase the voice of study participants. CBPR is guided by eight principles: (1) genuine partnerships and colearning, (2) capacity building of community members in research, (3) balance of research and action to benefit all partners, (4) long-term partnership commitments, (5) recognizing community as a unit of identity, (6) building on community strengths and resources, (7) use of an ecological approach, and (8) disseminating findings to all partners (Wallerstein & Duran, 2010).

There are few studies that focus on developing specialized NAs to serve marginalized communities, and there are even fewer that focus on social justice. In one such study, Jackson et al. (2018) outlined an impactful social justice–oriented NA for marginalized communities. In this work, they demonstrated the need to integrate the community into NA processes, center social justice outcomes, elevate the voice of marginalized populations, and document unequal power dynamics. While previous NA methodologies have promoted research processes that enhance the voice of participants, they cannot be considered liberatory or emancipatory work. These methodologies most often focus on developing action strategies that situate power in institutions and rely on these institutions to deliver interventions. While effective in addressing community-based needs, this is a paternalistic approach to change initiatives and is antithetical to emancipatory liberation that seeks freedom and equality by enacting agency and power in marginalized communities and supporting their self-empowerment. Moreover, these contemporary NAs do not explicitly seek to erode racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and ableist power structures but instead largely focus on seeking action strategy solutions within these systems.

Purpose

A transformative approach is useful when conducting NAs with marginalized communities to (1) sociopolitically situate oppression as a context in the NA, (2) engage in empowering methodological procedures, and (3) prioritize social action as an outcome. Moreover, NA literature can benefit from the inclusion of an NA methodology that has the intention of delivering action strategies that empower marginalized communities toward enacting self-determination rather than the NA serving as a tool that reinforces the power of oppressive institutionalized authority as the source of change. To both explain and demonstrate the usefulness of such a methodology in striving toward these aims, this article develops the TNAMC using as exemplar an NA study on juvenile anti-recidivism needs in a detention facility.

TNAMC

TNAMC uses a mixed-methods approach to seek long-term organizational change that empowers marginalized populations. This is accomplished by centering the marginalized community as experts in their lived experiences, while using multiple forms of iterative data gathering processes to answer evolving questions, for a holistic understanding of the sociopolitically situated need and arrive at action strategizing. Multimethod data collection enhances the NA’s viability, rigor, understand of needs, and recommendations (Bledsoe & Graham, 2005). In this article, I will explain TNAMC’s nonlinear and multiphase process (see Figure 1) using an exemplar study that examines anti-recidivism needs in a predominantly Black and male juvenile detention center (henceforth referred to as Wilson Detention Center). In each phase, I will first provide a general discussion of the objectives of the phase, then I will demonstrate how the objectives can be accomplished in the field using the exemplar study.

Figure 1.

Transformative Needs Assessment With Marginalized Communities phases.

In the exemplar study, methodological rigor in the assessment of anti-recidivism needs was established in multiple ways. Throughout the eight phases, enhanced methodological rigor was prioritized. Only instruments that demonstrated validity in previous studies were selected for use. Cronbach’s alpha was analyzed for each instrument to demonstrate reliability (see Table 1). Interview protocols were examined for validity using an expert review panel of five scholars knowledgeable of the setting, population, or theoretical content. Trustworthiness (Shenton, 2004) was established in multiple ways. Credibility, or the congruence between findings and reality, was established using increased familiarity with the studied organization, iterative questioning, and triangulation. Confirmability, or the reduction of researcher bias, was addressed using triangulation. Transferability, or the application of findings to other settings, was satisfied by providing sufficient contextual information in Phase 4. Lastly, dependability, or repeatability of methods, was established with explanations of design rationale.

Table 1.

Need Areas Measure Descriptives.

Variables	Measurement	Target Mean	Reliability	M/SD	One Sample t Test
Autonomy	Basic needs satisfaction in general (Deci & Ryan, 2000)	Mean of 2.5 or above	α = .83	1.95/0.94	t(86) = −5.46, p < .001
Competence		“ ”	α = .71	1.91/1.71	t(86) = −3.22, p < .001
Relatedness		“ ”	α = .80	2.35/0.52	t(86) = −2.69, p < .01
Performance	Classroom grades	B (80%) or better	α = .92	68.85/8.31	t(86) = −12.51, p < .001
Help-seeking	Computer Science Help-Seeking Scales (adapted; Pajares et al., 2004)	Mean of 4 or above	α = .69	3.72/1.32	t(86) = −1.98, p < .05
Participation	TERF—Behavioral	Mean of 2.5 or above	α = .95	2.34/0.25	t(86) = −2.24, p = .03
Effort	TERF—Cognitive (Hart et al., 2011)	“ ”	α = .88	1.99/0.84	t(86) = −5.66, p < .001
Engagement	Academic behaviors	Total score of 10 or above	α = .81	5.83/2.82	t(86) = −13.79, p < .001
Communication	(FastBridge Learning, 2018)	Total score of 13 or above	α = .74	6.14/1.64	t(86) = −39.02, p < .001
Self-regulation	Early adolescent temperament (Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992)	Mean of 3 or above	α = .91	1.45/0.64	t(86) = −22.59, p < .001
Valuing of school	Attainment Value and Utility Value (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995)	Mean of 4 or above	α = .89	3.21/0.73	t(86) = −10.09, p < .001
Depression	CES-D (Radloff, 1991)	<10 total score	α = .94	12.82/0.14	t(86) = 187.88, p < .001
Personal growth	Well-being (van Dierendonck, 2004)	Mean of 4 or above	α = .90	2.93/0.43	t(86) = −23.21, p < .001
Psych well-being	“ ”	“ ”	α = .78	3.01/0.62	t(86) = −14.89, p < .001
Aggression	Staff report of incidents	0 incidents		16	n/a
Bullying	“ ”	“ ”		4	n/a
Gang activity	“ ”	“ ”		3	n/a
Profanity	“ ”	“ ”		84	n/a
Disrespect	“ ”	“ ”		27	n/a

Note. Reliability is reported as Cronbach’s α. CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; TERF = Teacher Engagement Report Form.

Phase 1: Identify Concerns and Appoint External Needs Assessor

There are a plethora of ways initial concerns are identified. This process can be triggered by a particular event, administrative report, call to action from a stakeholder, change in leadership, or a number of other catalysts. Once a concern is identified and a will to make change is confirmed, an external needs assessor should be contacted to lead the TNAMC. The role of the needs assessor is to (1) manage intersecting and competing perspectives of stakeholders, (2) elevate the voice of the target marginalized population in data-based decision making, (3) offer expertise in theoretical frameworks and research design, and (4) manage and direct the NA considering time line, research priorities, stakeholder emotional investment, and resources. It is recommend to hire an external assessor for skill, fairness, and limited vested interest (Altschuld & Witkin, 2000). This is particularly important for TNAMC because uncommon research methods are often necessary to creatively gather multiple forms of data in a manner that elevates the voice of the marginalized community. Moreover, organizational staff and management servicing marginalized communities are often in positions of privileged authority; this may hinder internal personnel from gathering honest and holistic data from the target population.

Because a transformative approach requires examining a phenomenon within its power-laden and sociopolitical context, the needs assessor should have dispositions of consciousness on oppression, privilege, and power. Moreover, it is good practice for the needs assessor to declare their positionality after engaging in reflexivity. Reflexivity is a privilege-cognizant script used to examine evaluator subjectivities when engaging in evaluations (Hall, 2020), which is particularly important for self-awareness of one’s own culturally based assumptions and biases (Jewiss & Clark-Keefe, 2016). Stating one’s positionality after reflection allows for research findings to be understood within the biases of the needs assessor while also providing transparency that builds trust and mutual respect between the needs assessor and the organization being assessed. While reflexivity and stating one’s positionality is the most common tool, other methods of addressing one’s culturally based assumptions include recognizing one’s strong emotions, advancing values engagement, examining marginalized communities in the larger socioeconomic context, providing opportunities for marginalized populations to express their identity, presenting stories with a personal voice, and establishing supportive relationships with marginalized communities (Hall, 2020).

Once an external needs assessor has been selected, they should begin examining stated concerns by identifying the background (Gupta et al., 2007), objectives (McClelland, 1995), purpose, scope, target population, resources, and level of complexity of the concern (Queeney, 1995) while ensuring that the concern is broadly shared in the target population. Extensive data collection is not necessary at this stage as key informants and document analysis can provide substantial information on most types of concerns. Key informants should be sampled from all stakeholder groups with an emphasis on heightening the perspectives of marginalized communities while striving to represent the diversity within each stakeholder group. Document analysis is primarily used to understand the scope, setting, and background of the concern. Given that documents most often represent the perspectives of the privileged authorities invested with power to produce official documents, the positionality of the document creator should be weighed and considered in the analysis.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

Anti-recidivism support was identified as a concern by Wilson Detention Center administrators. I was selected as a needs assessor, and I verbally declared my positionality and outlined my qualifications to all stakeholders at each introduction. The positionality conversation included information on my relevant subjectivities: identity as a Black woman; current University affiliation; previous record of juvenile incarceration; over 8 years of experience as a qualitative methodologist, mixed-methodologist, and education evaluator; extensive history of social activism surrounding Black, womynist, poverty, and civil liberty issues; and research agenda on topics related to self-determination, adolescents, and educational outcomes. All the above information was disclosed in every positionality conversation; however, it was slightly modified according to the audience I was addressing. For example, when addressing youth, I emphasized my social activism work and often told the story of my first protest for the Jena Six, to build rapport and tacitly communicate that I was not judgmental of their current status as incarcerated youth. Conversely, when speaking with facility management, I emphasized my qualifications in rigorous methodology to ease apprehension, given the facility’s past reprimand by the State for implementing practices that were not evidence-based.

Background information on the facility, staff, and youth was taken from facility documents and the State annual facility reports. Wilson Detention Center incarcerated a predominantly Black (73%) and male (92%) population of approximately 190 youth between the ages of 10 and 17. This population was situated at the intersection of multiple marginalized social identities (i.e., Black, low-socioeconomic status, minors, and incarcerated) that result in suppression of basic rights, othering by society at large, subjected to being silenced, and removed from centers of power. The scope of recidivism for the facility was substantiated using publicly available data. The objectives, purpose, and goals of reducing recidivism were examined using key informant informal interviews. In these informal interviews, I spoke with all levels of facility stakeholders (Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2017) including administration, managers, directors, staff, and youth.

To minimize the influence of staff authority in informal conversations with youth, I intentionally sought conversations with youth in semiprivate moments where conversations could not be overheard. For example, as I toured the facility, I was brought to a dormitory wing. As a security measure, each room in the facility is locked using a double door system, similar to an airlock, where individuals must enter a closet-sized area with two locked doors on each end. Because a physical key is required, and only specific staff have keys, I was afforded the opportunity to wait alone with one incarcerated youth, who I will call Davon, at the entrance of the double door system as we waited for staff with keys to arrive. I sparked conversation with Davon and quickly establish rapport using humor before asking him “Do you see a lot of youth coming back to [Wilson Detention Center]?” I asked for further clarification after he answered in the affirmative, to which he responded, “they steady focused on telling you what not to do, but they don’t know my life and don’t teach me nothing different to do.” I probed further for approximately 10 min on Davon’s perspectives about why recidivism is high.

Field notes from semiprivate informal conversations such as these were analyzed using the constant-comparison method (Glaser, 1965) to examine consistencies and inconsistencies between stakeholder groups. The purpose of these conversations was to understand the broad priorities surrounding anti-recidivism and compare priorities across stakeholder groups. The findings revealed strong consensus among stakeholder groups on (1) an objective of reducing recidivism, (2) a purpose of changing the facility environment to nurture youth anti-recidivism, and (3) the goal of reducing the facility’s elevated recidivism rate to at least national levels.

Phase 2: Check TNAMC Assumptions

Assumptions of TNAMC should be checked to ensure that this methodology is most appropriate for the prospective project. First, addressing the need should be a priority for all stakeholder populations with an expressed immediate readiness for change (Gupta et al., 2007). Although commitment from all stakeholder groups is important, key authority commitment to the process, expressed through access to organizational time and resources, is imperative (Hays & Linn, 1977; Queeney, 1995). The intention of TNAMC is to enact organizational change, which cannot occur without access to the organization and its resources. If key authority commitment is absent, advocacy work is necessary before an NA can take place. Second, the objectives must center the marginalized population’s needs (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995) rather than organizational or service provider needs. Lastly, TNAMC has an emancipatory agenda. This requires action strategizing for the empowerment and agency of marginalized communities, contextualized in both internal and external sociocultural factors, to be an anticipated outcome of the project.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

The juvenile detention NA met all assumptions. All stakeholder groups, including key authority and administrators, expressed commitment to assessing and redressing anti-recidivism needs using empowerment strategies. Wilson Detention Center administrators offered numerous resources: extensive time with employees and youth, cooperation with State administration and facility management, access to facility records, and sustained effort from management in attaining staff buy-in. Action strategizing to develop an anti-recidivism intervention that is empowering and contextualized in the appropriate sociocultural context was accepted as an anticipated outcome of the NA.

Phase 3: Select Action Committee

The role of the action committee is to leverage their collective authority to sustain the NA with resources. For this reason, the action committee should be comprised of authorities at all levels of the organization. Proactive participation in the NA from the organization’s authority figures is a critical success factor (Gupta et al., 2007) to ensure appropriate resources and permissions are given and communication between various authority figures is streamlined. In a transformative approach, it is preferable that representatives of the marginalized community be part of the action committee; however, there are circumstances where this is not feasible. Depending on the degree of authority the organization has over the target marginalized population, an action committee may not reasonably be perceived as a safe space for a representative to voice their honest perspective.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

The juvenile detention anti-recidivism NA created an action committee comprised of all facility supervisors, the facility director, supplementary service providers, and the State juvenile detention oversight administrator. I determined that it was not reasonable to expect the action committee to be a safe space for incarcerated youth representatives to express themselves freely, given the setting.

Phase 4: Contextualize in Environment and Theoretical Approach

Needs, especially those of marginalized groups, are laden with sociocultural and political power dynamics. Thus, in order to holistically understand and assess needs, they must be examined in the context of the environment in which the needs exist. This requires investigating both the internal (e.g., organizational processes, structures, and culture) and the external (e.g., neighborhood, sociohistorical, and political factors) environment. Once the need is contextualized in its internal and external environment, a review of literature can be used to select a theoretical approach to define, interpret, assess, and strategize an action plan for the need.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

I examined the external environment surrounding Wilson Detention Center by collecting relevant Census data, policy documents, newspaper articles, and school report cards for the top four counties that comprised most incarcerated youth hometowns. Each county was small to moderately sized (populations ranged between approximately 34,000 and 190,000). The three largest counties were predominantly White (ranging from approximately 60%–75% White); youth intake into the criminal corrections system was predominantly Black (approximately 54% of youth in the correctional system were Black in this State in 2019).

The internal environment was examined by collecting all current Wilson Detention policy documents, newspaper articles from the last two decades related to Wilson Detention, and key informant interviews. The findings revealed an internal environment amid transition. The facility’s internal environment transition was prompted by a mid-2000’s Court mandate to rectify abusive practices against youth. These abusive practices included military-style harsh punishments, inhumane treatment, and lack of services. The facility removed abusive practices and implemented services (e.g., dental, health, mental health, rehabilitation, special education) and is now in compliance with the Court mandate. However, the intended cultural change from juvenile corrections to youth development was lagging, thus these findings suggested that the facility required an anti-recidivism intervention program based in an adolescent development theoretical approach.

The internal environment assessment also uncovered several barriers to change from corrections to development in the facility. The first barrier was staff training. It lacked education on adolescent development and heavily focused on control, behavior reinforcements, and authoritative means of security. While administrators had the intention to focus on adolescent development, as evidenced by mission and purpose statement revisions that emphasized a developmental approach, they lacked evidence-based knowledge to enact such change. Also, many staff lacked buy-in for a developmental approach, largely due to perceptions that incarcerated adolescents required strict, and sometimes physical, punishment and control to reduce undesirable behavior. Based on these findings, this facility required a TNAMC that examined anti-recidivism needs in the context of staff training to foster adolescent development.

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theoretical approach to affecting the environment to foster adolescent development. SDT proposes that the three basic needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence are universal inner resources necessary for positive functioning (Grolnick et al., 1991). Autonomy is the perception of volition or being the author of one’s behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Reeve et al., 2003). Environmental external controls such as rewards, punishments, pressures, and evaluations can lead to a loss of perceived autonomy because such conditions alter an individual’s perception of the locus of causality for their behavior to be external rather than internal (Deci & Moller, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Competence is defined as the perception of being effective and exercising one’s capacities in a specific environment, while relatedness is a sense of being cared for, supported, and connected to others (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Environments that fulfill these three basic needs foster well-being, development, and positive functioning for adolescents (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2017). A controlling environment thwarts basic needs and leads to maladaptive behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). I selected SDT as a theoretical approach for this NA because SDT has the most abundant empirical evidence in environmental changes to support adolescent development.

Phase 5: Identify/Revise Need Areas

To identify need areas, information regarding major concerns is synthesized by the needs assessor (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). The TNAMC centers the voice of the marginalized population; therefore, need area identification should be a data-driven process where data are the expressed lived experiences of the marginalized population.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

Key informant interviews with 11 randomly selected incarcerated youth were used to determine need areas. The interview protocol format was open-ended questions to maximize the voice of the marginalized population with limited researcher bias in the questioning. One-hour interviews were conducted by two Black male undergraduate students trained in ethnographic interviewing skills. The open-ended questions asked about current conditions of the facility’s environment, perceived support from the facility for their personal development, and what the facility could do to support their successful transition home. Data were analyzed using the constant-comparison method (Glaser, 1965). The following need areas were thematic findings: reducing aggressive behaviors among youth and between youth and staff (profanity, illegal activity, bullying, disrespect, and aggression), academic preparation for return to neighborhood school (academic performance, engagement, effort, help-seeking, communication in the classroom, and participation), and youth attitudinal and socioemotional factors (self-regulation, valuing of school, academic competence, psychological well-being, depressive symptoms, motivation, and personal growth).

Phase 6: Identify Metrics of Need Areas

The next phase identifies metrics to measure need areas. The target marginalized population may have perceptions of need areas; however an NA must ensure that each need area has a measurable discrepancy between current and desired conditions.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

Given that the facility’s supervisors, directors, and administrators held the power of granting access to facility documents and the population, a focus group of the action committee was convened to negotiate approval for collecting data on each need area. The focus group discussed metrics of each need area until consensus was reached that the following data would be collected: facility behavior reports (to measure illegal activity, bullying, disrespect, and aggression), teacher observations (to measure academic performance, engagement, effort, help-seeking, communication in the classroom, and participation), staff observation (to measure profanity use), and youth surveys (to measure valuing of school, academic competence, psychological well-being, depressive symptoms, self-regulation, and personal growth; see Table 1 for measurement descriptives). At the end of the focus group, the action committee reaffirmed their commitment to the process and discussed available resources each authority figure would provide to the NA process.

Phase 7: Data Collection, Need Prioritization, and Action Strategizing

The TNAMC is an iterative and nonlinear process that requires cycles of data collection and analysis to gain knowledge on evolving questions until the need is holistically understood and assessed, primarily using the voice of the marginalized population. Data collection techniques that maximize the voice of marginalized communities while protecting privacy and confidentiality is a delicate balance. As risk to marginalized participants increases, the emphasis on data collection tools and techniques that protect participants should proportionately increase. Conversely, less risky circumstances should call for data collection and analysis techniques that optimize participatory approaches.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

Due to the multiple high-risk factors for incarcerated youth in long-term residential facilities, data collection and analysis strategies that protected privacy and confidentiality (e.g., computer-assisted surveying and individual interviews) were prioritized over techniques that could have maximized participatory approaches (e.g., photoethnography and role play methods). Three iterations, or cycles of data collection and analysis, were used to answer evolving questions and holistically understand the socioculturally contextualized need of environmental changes to support adolescent development for anti-recidivism.

The first iteration sought evidence of the need areas by assessing discrepancies between current and desired metrics, then prioritized need areas. First, youth computer-assisted surveys were conducted with 83% of the facility’s youth. Second, teachers completed surveys at the conclusion of one teaching day to report academic performance and academic behaviors for each youth. Lastly, incident reports from staff observations were collected from the previous 3 months. One sample t tests determined that current need area means were statistically different than each need area’s desired mean, thus demonstrating need discrepancies (see Table 1).

Next, youth interview data collected in a previous phase were reanalyzed to prioritize need areas using the grounded method (Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg, 2006), which involved a deductive process of coding, memoing, and sorting data. The memoing and sorting processes were used to prioritize need areas as high, medium, or low priority. Low priorities (i.e., profanity use, bullying, disrespect, help-seeking, valuing of school, participation, and communication in classroom) were discarded as need areas while high priorities (i.e., academic competence, effort, engagement, self-regulation, psychological well-being, depressive symptoms, personal growth, verbal and physical aggression) were retained. No need areas were classified as medium priority.

A second iteration was necessary to determine whether SDT variables (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) predicted high priority needs and to select evidence-based SDT action strategies. SDT variables from the previous iteration’s survey were taken to conduct a series of multiple linear regressions. The results were as expected; self-determination significantly predicted the need areas with autonomy, belonging, and competence having differing impacts on each need (see Table 2). These analyses confirmed that an SDT approach to intervention was likely to affect the high priority need areas. Next, the needs assessor examined SDT literature to select evidence-based strategies that demonstrated an ability to affect the identified needs. Three selected SDT strategies—autonomy-supportive environment (Gagné, 2003; Reeve, 2006), motivational interviewing (Markland et al., 2005), and restorative justice (Bouffard et al., 2017; Hopkins, 2003; Jeong et al., 2012)—were selected based on evidence of success in affecting the identified high priority needs in adolescents. Moreover, each strategy fostered adolescent development through environmental change, improving adult–youth relations, and staff training, which was a particular requirement previously discovered in the phase four environment assessment of Wilson Detention facility. Therefore, these three strategies were combined to create the Self-Determination Intervention to Reduce Recidivism (SIRE²).

Table 2.

Multiple Linear Regression of Anti-Recidivism Need Areas on SDT Variables.

Need Areas	Predictor Variable	β	SE	t	p	Regression Equation
Aggression	Autonomy	−.92	.24	−3.85	<.001	F(3,45) = 6.82, p < .001
	Competence	−.48	.24	−1.97	.05
	Relatedness	−.63	.26	−2.37	.02
Self-regulation	Autonomy	.44	.24	1.84	.07	F(3,45) = 7.10, p < .001
	Competence	.55	.26	2.25	.03
	Relatedness	.10	.24	.36	.72
Engagement	Autonomy	.58	.27	2.14	.04	F(3,45) = 2.79, p < .05
	Competence	.36	.28	1.29	.20
	Relatedness	.33	.30	1.10	.28
Effort	Autonomy	−.08	.25	−.31	.76	F(3,45) = 6.35, p < .001
	Competence	.61	.26	2.38	.02
	Relatedness	.45	.28	1.62	.11
Depression	Autonomy	−.16	.09	−1.78	.08	F(3,45) = 6.17, p < .001
	Competence	−.28	.09	−2.99	.004
	Relatedness	−.11	.10	−1.04	.30
Personal growth	Autonomy	.37	.15	2.41	.02	F(3,45) = 11.16, p < .001
	Competence	.63	.16	4.05	<.001
	Relatedness	−.25	.17	−1.47	.15
Well-being	Autonomy	.38	.28	1.38	.18	F(3,45) = 7.78, p < .001
	Competence	.62	.28	2.22	.03
	Relatedness	.32	.31	1.04	.31

A final iteration was needed to resituate the SIRE² strategies in the sociopolitical environment. Data were collected from school district report cards, current and previously incarcerated youth’s social media, and policy documents from the top three hometown counties of Wilson Detention Center population. Document analysis (Bowen, 2009) findings revealed the following themes: (1) two of the three top counties recently enacted policies directed at increasing policing, curfews, or surveillance measures targeting teenagers, especially in predominantly Black neighborhoods; (2) all three counties suffered from higher dropout rates and lower standardized test scores than the State average, and (3) Black male youth in all three counties documented home dysfunction as personal hardship on their social media and some referred to gangs as “family.” These socioeconomic and racism contextual factors of structural and institutional oppressions partially explained youth self-determination needs; the environment of excessive control, attending poor performing schools, and lack of family belongingness likely contributed to some youth failing to perceive a sense of autonomy, academic competence, and relatedness.

Phase 8: Preparation for Action

The final step in TNAMC is to develop an action plan. Development of an action plan includes determining available resources, arranging implementation steps, and creating an evaluation plan (Altschuld & Witkin, 2000; Queeney, 1995). Moreover, because TNAMC is focused on enacting social change, authority figures should unpack their knapsack (McIntosh, 1990) to recognize their unearned societal privilege, particularly in relation to the marginalized community they serve. Doing the work of recognizing one’s own privilege personalizes social inequities and makes privileged individuals personally accountable for systems of oppression.

Application to juvenile anti-recidivism NA

In Wilson Detention facility, key informant interviews were used to obtain youth feedback on SIRE² strategies and I revised SIRE² accordingly. Youth (n = 10) were selected for these interviews based on previous observations of the most conscientious and diverse youth in the population. In these interviews, youth were verbally given a brief summary of each strategy and asked how they felt about it, if they thought it would work in Wilson, and if they thought it would help them personally. Next, the action committee convened to negotiate a SIRE² implementation protocol that included logistical planning for intervention phases, budget, nonmonetary resources, institutional policy amendments, communication procedures, evaluation procedures, and a detailed time line. Moreover, staff buy-in was fostered with a group workshop that affirmed the importance of anti-recidivism and self-determination, allowed staff input on the implementation of SIRE² to foster perceived ownership of the intervention, and engagement in an activity that personalized interlocking systems of privilege and oppression to foster understanding of how inequality manifested in their lives and the lives of the youth they cared for. These interactive activities required staff to tell stories of times they had been in both positions of privilege and oppression in their lives before turning to describing their positions of privilege and oppression in their current role at Wilson Detention Center.

Lastly, the action committee approved, and committed resources for, a year of piloting SIRE² to evaluate its rigor. The planned evaluation process was expected to use a mixed-methods approach of comparing pre- and postmetrics of all high priority needs using surveys developed in Phase 7, interviewing 10 youth to examine program strengths and weaknesses, and conducting focus groups of staff to examine program fidelity. These data were planned to be collected monthly with different random samples. At the end of each month, data were planned to be used to assess SIRE² rigor (i.e., content and construct validity, reliability, and trustworthiness), evaluate SIRE², revise SIRE², and reeducate staff as necessary.

Conclusion

TNAMC is an iterative NA based in the three elements of transformative research: (1) situating research in the appropriate sociocultural, historical, and political context of power inequities; (2) use of methodologies that empower oppressed communities by elevating their voice; and (3) conducting research that leads to direct action (Mertens, 2012). A transformative approach is useful when conducting NAs with marginalized communities for several reasons. First, while the outcome of traditional NAs is often meant to make positive change, the NA process itself can be disempowering and paternalistic when the marginalized community is acted upon by authority figures who have the power to determine what needs are worthy of assessment, how those needs are assessed, and the solutions to remedy needs. Instead, in TNAMC, the marginalized community has an empowered collective voice that is transmuted into data that are used in identifying, defining, situating, prioritizing, and assessing needs. Moreover, TNAMC takes the next step of seeking to equalize power dynamics rather than simply noting and accounting for power inequities. An example of this is provided in the development of SIRE².

SIRE² was designed to begin equalizing power dynamics in a juvenile detention facility by (1) enacting a restorative justice program where all members of the facility could be held accountable, including youth having a mechanism to hold staff accountable for their actions; (2) replacing punishment with youth development, thus somewhat withdrawing the power of punishment, or threat of punishment, held by staff; and (3) implementing counseling strategies that support motivating youth toward their own goals, thereby replacing a traditional corrections approach of imposing staff-derived goals on youth. The intention of traditional NAs is largely to accept that institutional authority retains power and NA data are used to appeal to that authority and request for it to use its power to deliver outcomes to a target population. Instead, TNAMC has the intention of delivering action strategy outcomes that disrupt inequitable power dynamics between organizational authority and the marginalized community, and promote the marginalized community’s agency, while addressing the need.

Limitations and Future Directions

TNAMC has several limitations. First, TNAMC is a lengthy process that may require compromises in how data are collected to increase feasibility and protect the privacy of participants. For example, in this article’s exemplar study, data collection methods that allowed for collective discussion among youth would have been more empowering and effective in elevating the voice of youth in comparison to survey methods; however, facility security protocol dictated that youth must be actively watched at all times by staff, which would hinder youth from safely having honest conversations. Also, with more time, additional methods of data collection that allowed youth participation on the action committee may have been feasibly devised. For example, it may have been possible to collect anonymous online surveys of youth perspectives on action committee agenda items before each committee meeting. This limitation of lacking direct marginalized community representation on the action committee was expected, so TNAMC has a design feature to account for it. Since direct marginalized community representation on action committees is likely to be a common sacrifice in protection of the representatives, TNAMC is designed to largely limit the role of action committee work. The action committee is a collection of authority figures responsible for allocating resources for the NA, providing necessary permissions to access documents, providing access to stakeholder groups, and converging all authority figures of power for streamlined communication to enact the action plan.

Another limitation is the delicate balance between gathering comprehensive data, which is a lengthy process, and continuing forward movement of the NA to prevent project stalling. Given that enacting social change is the intention of TNAMC, significant loss of momentum can be fatal and render the NA useless if research fatigue prevents stakeholders from persisting in the process; however, failing to obtain comprehensive data may lead to enacting a less effective intervention. In the exemplar study, data collection procedures for additional member-checking after the third iteration of data collection were excluded as a sacrifice to preventing project stagnation. This was done with the understanding that marginalized stakeholders would have further opportunity to shape SIRE² in the beginning of the next process at Wilson Detention Center—piloting and program evaluation to assess SIRE² rigor.

Implications and Significance

The implications and significance of TNAMC far outweigh the limitations. First, combining need assessing and strategic planning increase the likelihood of action (Altschuld & Witkin, 2000). Second, TNAMC elevates and centers the voice of marginalized target populations while protecting their privacy and confidentiality. Traditionally, data are collected about the target population—oftentimes without their input or voice—then authority figures reference those data to make actionable decisions. This process excludes the marginalized population, further contributing to their marginalization. Conversely, TNAMC elevates the marginalized populations’ voice as data throughout all phases, contextualizes those data in the power-laden environment to holistically understand the population’s perspective, then action strategizes using data that are primarily the voice of the marginalized population. Lastly, TNAMC has significant implications for social justice–oriented NA research that strives to redress power inequities and design/enact action strategies that meet needs while fostering the development of a more equitable organization. While observing, documenting, and accounting for power inequities is important and necessary work, TNAMC advances to the next stage of providing an NA approach to enacting strategies that diminish power inequities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nicole Sankofa

References

Akom

A. A. A.

(2011). Black emancipatory action research: Integrating a theory of structural racialisation into ethnographic and participatory action research methods. Ethnography and Education, 6(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2011.553083

Altschuld

J. W.

Watkins

(2014). A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 2014(144), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20099

Altschuld

J. W.

Witkin

B. R.

(2000). From needs assessment to action: Transforming needs into solution strategies. Sage.

Becker

K. L.

(2014). Conducting community health needs assessments in rural communities: Lessons learned. Health Promotion Practice, 16(1), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839914555887

Betancourt

T. S.

Frounfelker

Mishra

Hussein

Falzarano

(2015). Addressing health disparities in the mental health of refugee children and adolescents through community-based participatory research: A study in 2 communities. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 475–482. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302504

Biddle

Schafft

K. A.

(2015). Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: Pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(4), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814533157

Bledsoe

K. L.

Graham

J. A.

(2005). The use of multiple evaluation approaches in program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005278749

Bouffard

Cooper

Bergseth

(2017). The effectiveness of various restorative justice interventions on recidivism outcomes among juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016647428

Bowen

G. A.

(2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

10.

Capaldi

D. M.

Rothbart

M. K.

(1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431692012002002

11.

Cauler

H. E.

(2014, July 30). Invisible oppression: The hidden destruction of minority groups [Medium]. https://medium.com/@harriscauler/invisible-oppression-the-hidden-destruction-of-minority-groups-f2b914576b38

12.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

13.

Creswell

(2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

14.

Deci

E. L.

Moller

(2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In Elliot

Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 579–597). Guilford Press.

15.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M

. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–36). University of Rochester Press.

18.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003

19.

Edgerton

S. H.

(2010). Marginalization. In Kridel

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 557–557). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412958806.n302

20.

Else-Quest

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: Theoretical and epistemological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316629797

21.

English

F. W.

Kaufman

R. A.

(1975). Needs assessment: A focus for curriculum development. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

22.

FastBridge Learning. (2018). SAEBRS: Teacher Rating Scale. http://www.stisd.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6077198/File/Sped%20Forms/Teacher%20Rating%20Scale%20Soc%20Aca%20Emo%20Beh%20Risk%20Screen.pdf

23.

Franz

Cronin

Singh

(2019). Are nonprofit hospitals addressing the most critical community health needs that they identify in their community health needs assessments? Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001034

24.

Franz

Skinner

Murphy

J. W.

(2017). Defining “community” in community health evaluation: Perspectives from a sample of nonprofit Appalachian hospitals. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017722857

25.

Gagné

(2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869

26.

Glaser

B. G.

(1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

27.

Greckhamer

Koro-Ljungberg

(2006). The erosion of a method: Examples from grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 18(6), 729–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390500298204

28.

Grolnick

W. S.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508–517.

29.

Gupta

Sleezer

C. M.

Russ-Eft

D. F.

(2007). A practical guide to needs assessment (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer.

30.

Hall

J. N.

(2020). The other side of inequality: Using standpoint theories to examine the privilege of the evaluation profession and individual evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214019828485

31.

Hart

S. R.

Stewart

Jimerson

S. R.

(2011). The Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form-New (TERF-N): Examining the preliminary evidence. Contemporary School Psychology, 15(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340964

32.

Hays

D. G.

Linn

J. K.

(1977). Needs assessment: Who needs it? ( Walz

G. R.

Benjamin

, Eds.). ERIC Counseling and Personnel Services Clearinghouse. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED137713

33.

Hopkins

(2003). Restorative justice in schools. Support for Learning, 17(3), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00254

34.

Hsu

C.-C.

Sandford

B. A.

(2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.

35.

Jackson

K. M.

Pukys

Castro

Hermosura

Mendez

Vohra-Gupta

Padilla

Morales

(2018). Using the transformative paradigm to conduct a mixed methods needs assessment of a marginalized community: Methodological lessons and implications. Evaluation and Program Planning, 66, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.09.010

36.

Jeong

McGarrell

E. F.

Hipple

N. K.

(2012). Long-term impact of family group conferences on re-offending: The Indianapolis restorative justice experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9158-8

37.

Jewiss

Clark-Keefe

(2016). On a personal note: Practical pedagogical activities to foster the development of “reflective practitioners.” American Journal of Evaluation, 28(3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007304130

38.

Markland

Ryan

R. M.

Tobin

V. J.

Rollnick

(2005). Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(6), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.811

39.

McClelland

S. B.

(1995). Organizational needs assessments: Design, facilitation, and analysis. Quorum Books.

40.

McIntosh

(1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School, 49(2), 31–36.

41.

Mertens

D. M.

(1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(99)80105-2

42.

Mertens

D. M.

(2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811

43.

Mertens

D. M.

(2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 802–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433797

44.

Pajares

Cheong

Y. F.

Oberman

(2004). Psychometric analysis of computer science help-seeking scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 496–513.

45.

Paris

Winn

M. T.

(2013). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Sage.

46.

Pennel

C. L.

McLeroy

K. R.

Burdine

J. N.

Matarrita-Cascante

(2015). Nonprofit hospitals’ approach to community health needs assessment. American Journal of Public Health, 105(3), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302286

47.

Phillippi

Lauderdale

(2017). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102

48.

Queeney

D. S.

(1995). Assessing needs in continuing education: An essential tool for quality improvement. Jossey-Bass.

49.

Radloff

L. S.

(1991). The use of the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537606

50.

Reeve

(2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their youth benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236.

51.

Reeve

Nix

Hamm

(2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375–392.

52.

Romm

N. R. A.

(2015). Reviewing the transformative paradigm: A critical systemic and relational (Indigenous) lens. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(5), 411–427. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9344-5

53.

Ruiz Castro

Holvino

(2016). Applying intersectionality in organizations: Inequality markers, cultural scripts and advancement practices in a professional service firm. Gender, Work and Organization, 23, 328–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12129

54.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

55.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

56.

Smith

L. T.

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

57.

van Dierendonck

(2004). The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being and its extension with spiritual well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00122-3

58.

Wallerstein

Duran

(2010). Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036

59.

Witkin

B. R.

Altschuld

J. W.

(1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Sage.