Agenda Packet 12-10-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

11 Process EvaluationProcess EvaluationProcess EvaluationProcess Evaluation Recommendations from this working group are only as strong as the process that was used to generate them. Participant evaluation data have been included to that end. At the conclusion of each meeting, participants offered feedback on the process and content of the meeting. At the September meeting this was more informal with people writing what worked and what they would want to see changed on an index card. Adjustments were made to the process based on this initial feedback. Evaluations of subsequent meetings were more formalized and quantifiable. Summaries of all of the evaluations from meetings 2, 3, and 4 have been included in Appendix G: Process Evaluation. Overall, feedback was very positive with participants expressing high levels of satisfaction with the group’s adherence to ground-rules, the facilitator, their ability to share their ideas, and the perception that their ideas were respected. The civil and thoughtful tone was consistently noted as was the diversity of voices represented. Participants appreciated the multiple modes by which they could engage (mixing of large and small group discussions, etc.) and the focused nature of the work. Aside from improvements to dinner offerings, participants’ critique of the process fell into two main themes. First, many wished they had more time to delve more deeply into the options. Several noted the difficulty of tackling an issue with such complexity and technicality with the time allowed. There was a mix of feedback regarding data provided from Strategic Economics and the ideal amount of data/outside expertise that people wanted. While some wished for more information and earlier in the process, others found it difficult to understand. This is unsurprising given the diverse levels of familiarity and expertise represented in the working group. It was indeed challenging for those who are experts in navigating housing affordability (through their lived experiences) to engage on an equal playing field with those who work in the realm of housing policy and economics professionally. Supporting documents were written in accessible language wherever possible and shared with working group members in advance of meetings to help with this. In small groups and outside of the working group meetings, participants helped educate one another regarding what different options meant and their possible impacts. In spite of all of this, more time would have been helpful to collectively deepen the group’s understanding and more thoroughly evaluate all of the many options. While more time may not have significantly changed outcomes, it may have helped the group feel more confident in their list of recommendations. The final common theme in participant feedback, albeit more minor, focused on the working group composition. Some felt that neighborhood association leadership lacked adequate representation while others noted the lack of representation from renters and people of color. Please see the demographics of the City as compared to the demographics of the working group and online feedback in Appendix C: Demographics-Working Group, Voting Members & Online Feedback to make your own assessment of these critiques. Public CommentPublic CommentPublic CommentPublic Comment After each working group meeting, materials were published online (https://www.eugene- or.gov/3960/Housing-Tools-and-Strategies) for public review. Thanks to volunteer videographer Todd Boyle, a video of the full meeting proceedings was also available. Community members were invited to submit feedback via online survey or by emailing HousingTools@eugene-or.gov. In advance of each meeting, the facilitator synthesized public feedback into a document that was included in the Working Group’s next meeting materials. Because of the sheer length of emailed comments, this feedback was also synthesized with full text available for viewing online. December 10, 2018, Work Session - Item 2