Laserfiche WebLink
76 <br /> <br />Participant Evaluation from 11/14/18Participant Evaluation from 11/14/18Participant Evaluation from 11/14/18Participant Evaluation from 11/14/18 MeetingMeetingMeetingMeeting <br />At the conclusion of the Working Group meeting on November 14, 2018, participants completed a brief <br />written evaluation. Their feedback has been synthesized here. <br />Quantitative Evaluation Data Regarding the Process <br />For each of the following process evaluation questions, participants marked a score of 1 (strongly <br />disagree) to 5 (strongly agreed). Scores below are the averages for each question. <br />1. The Working Group followed the Ground Rules 4.53 <br />2. The large group facilitator remained impartial. 4.87 <br />3. The information presented (Strategic Economic and PPT) was understandable and useful to me. <br />4.33 <br />4. The information in the handouts was understandable and useful to me. 4.07 <br />5. I was able to share my ideas in the small group: 4.73 <br />6. I felt like my ideas were respected in the small group 4.73 <br />7. The small group facilitator remained impartial: 4.87 <br />Qualitative Evaluation Data <br />In addition to the quantitative data, participants shared comments, questions or suggestions. The <br />numbers that follow some points indicate that multiple people had similar ideas. <br /> <br />Kudos <br />• Open discussion in small groups (5). <br />• Small group facilitation <br />• Economic presentation- could use more of <br />this. <br />• Format <br />• Making decisions <br />• Grounding <br />• Chips <br />• Everything <br />Suggestions for Improvement <br />• More time, too fast/rushed for <br />comprehensive discussion of such a <br />complex topic (5) <br />• More movement throughout. <br />• Too much paper- people printed at home <br />and then got content again in the packet. <br />Content Suggestions <br />In addition to process related feedback, participants offered suggestions and posed questions regarding <br />the content of this and future meetings. <br />• More information about funding options (CET, bond, etc.). <br />• Scope of money needed to make improvements- how much money each of the options might <br />provide. <br />• Lack of acknowledgement of history will eventually become a problem. <br />• How the * ideas (options that work well as a comprehensive approach) could be modeled to <br />work more effectively. <br />• More discussion of hep for renters. <br />• Great work! <br /> <br />December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2