| |
EVALUATION
120 people attended the forum and 44 responded to the evaluation or 37% of the participants. The evaluation utilized a liechard scale to evaluate the results of the forum, the process, and an opportunity for comments was provided. The following charts summarize the actual number of responses within each question and are followed by the percentage. And then a list of all of the comments.
|
RESULTS
|
Strongly Disagree
|
Disagree
|
No Opinion
|
Agree
|
Strongly Agree
|
|
1. I learned something of value today
|
0
0.00%
|
1
2.33%
|
4
9.30%
|
25
58.14%
|
13
30.23%
|
|
2. I think theconclusions make sense
|
1
2.38%
|
1
2.38%
|
4
9.52%
|
30
71.43%
|
6
14.29%
|
|
3. I think the ideasgenerated can make a difference in thecommunity
|
0
0.00%
|
1
2.27%
|
4
9.09%
|
24
54.55%
|
15
34.09%
|
|
4. The networking opportunity was beneficial
|
0
0.00%
|
2
4.55%
|
2
4.55%
|
29
65.91%
|
11
25.00%
|
|
PROCESS
|
Strongly Disagree
|
Disagree
|
No Opinion
|
Agree
|
Strongly Agree
|
|
1. The process was clear
|
0
0.00%
|
6
13.64%
|
8
18.18%
|
26
59.09%
|
4
9.09%
|
|
2. The process worked well
|
1
2.33%
|
8
18.60%
|
5
11.63%
|
23
53.49%
|
6
13.95%
|
|
3. I am interested in participating in next steps
|
0
0.00%
|
2
4.65%
|
4
9.30%
|
20
46.51%
|
17
39.53%
|
Comments
1. What did you like best about the forum?
Note: The numbers within parentheses represent the identification number of the survey it was taken from.
- (1) The opportunity that we have as a community that was offered us from the forum.
- (3) Location
- (4) Small Group Focus. All types of problems/constituents together so fewer artificial barriers.
- (5) The structure was great. Location.
- (6) Root cause determined.
- (7) Meeting others professional in the health care field
- (8) Facility is terrific. Pat Hayes was great! Great Lunch.
- (9) Opportunity to participate. Goodwill of participants. Sense of commonality. Great data.
- (10) Meeting the people.
- (11) Out of the box approach. Not the same thing again.great opportunities for getting involved. Very impressive process.
- (14) Opening session - informative, thought-provoking. Health Data Packet - very comprehensive.
- (16)The opportunity for several groups to come together to give input in a given condition.
- (17) It's goals and objectives.
- (18) Willingness of groups to work together.
- (19) Networking
- (20) The opportunity to do planning across issue areas.
- (21) Very well organized and kept on schedule. Location.
- (22) Helped provide an overview/framework for community health services.
- (23) Momentum - sessions were timed perfectly apart.
- (24) Networking. Looking at other perspectives. Facilities were great.
- (25) The breakout groups - generate ideas to create change within the health and mental health arena.
- (26) Diversity of participants.
- (27) Being able to work in a group with an issue I was interested in.
- (28) Break out facilitator did an excellent job keeping tings on track. (She was from the United Way; can't remember her name)
- (29) The overview provided by Pat Hayes and Judge Biscoe offered a helpful perspective. The discussions and ideas generated in the small groups were interesting.
- (30) Brainstorming
- (32) Hearing the combination of efforts around behavioral healthcare was the best.
- (33) The opening presentations were very good and provided the right foundations for the work to be done. Unfortunately, there was little mention of the directions in the break out group for Adult Mental Health.
- (34) Leadership of Seton, CAN, & Travis County.
- (35) Networking
- (37) Opportunity to see/experience others ideas.
- (38) The opportunity to network. The flexibility of the topics and open discussion.
- (39) Well Organized.
- (40) A good forum for generating lot of ideas from a large diverse group. I enjoyed lunch as well.
- (41) The gathering of so many people that are there to make a real difference in MH & Substance Abuse - They dance
- (42) The facilitators and presenters. The idea of bringing everyone together.
- (43) Format and Methodology was great for identifying a huge area, the complexity with the issues we broke down in manageable components.
- (44) Opportunity to network with others who have similar concerns.
2. What did not work well for you?
- (3) Too basic. Nothing new
- (4) The 2nd set of break outs did not work in policy. The goal and product were muddy and take aways were very few.
- (5) Too long - needs to end earlier like 2:30 PM
- (6) "Next Steps" fell short of effectiveness.
- (7) I really felt that the exercise was too abstract. We spent the entire day talking about large nebulous categories like "poverty" and "cultural values" as if there were things one can get a handle on in and of themselves. The facilities felt too kindergarten.
- (9) No time to look at data or focus on and think about talks. Listening to motivational presenters when not enough time to do process work. Complers process requiring more time
- (14) Afternoon breakout was pretty meaningless. It would have been much more effective to reconvene the same breakout groups from the morning and do the work within the specific program areas.
- (17) Would like more diverse group of participants. Stronger outreach to include more groups.
- (18) "Hazy" view of where we are going - vision. Need to build trust among ourselves before public. We can then build policy.
- (19) What I can do personally.
- (20) At the beginning, it would have been helpful to address community strengths. Low turnout.
- (22) Not understanding plan for the day - How topic group discussion in the morning would be carried over to afternoon small group and what to expect outcome would be.
- (24) Need a clearer understanding of what was good.
- (25) Not sure of how well these great ideas will impact or create change i.e. what will be the outcome of these ideas?
- (26) Second breakout didn't distill ideas/prioritize.
- (27) The beginning sessions not easily understandable. I didn't really know what we were suppose to do.
- (28) I would suggest that in future forums, the facilitators emphasize more strongly that the root causes on which the group focuses be those that we, as a local community, can clearly influence. Some of the causes were abstract and societal in scope to a degree that moving to action steps seemed awkward.
- (29) The collapsing of root cause info to smaller group. I am not sure we got to useful active steps. It was too broad and abstract. I don't know how we move from this step.
- (33) We have poor facilitators, they were not knowledgeable about the topic or the purpose/essence of the processes. The outside space, while comfortable, was hard to hear each other and the breeze made handling paper difficult and thus meeting space was the lunch break space.
- (35) I'm not sure what was identified it. What was hoped the group would get to?
- (37) We did not seem to get to real root causes.
- (38) Facilitators were a little rigid but they came around.
- (39) Not sure how it will work in the future. I'm new to this process.
- (40) Some of the breakout sessions got dominated by a few individuals with their agendas - facilitators could have reached out more to those not sharing/participating though this was done well in other sessions.
- (42) Not enough time. Next time it needs more structure.
- (43) Loved being on Patio for workshop. Small microphone would have helped.
- (44) After thinking about it overnight, I am concerned that the final "outcome" or opportunities for focused collaboration will not happen. And it seems that the process of identifying root causes in our group - which showed we were on the same path - may not result in any action - For example the issue of the low cost housing was an unanimous choice for problem that needed solution - But I don't have the sense that as a collaboration we are any closer to solving the problem.
3. Do you have any suggestions for improvement or other comments?
- (4) Clearer what will be done with ultimate product and what impact if directly will have.
- (5) Time frame. Shorter Day
- (7) Exercises aimed at specific goal.
- (8) Not on a Monday.
- (9) More diversity in participants; larger numbers. More time for work, preparation - less time for "speeches." More time o network.
- (10) Enjoyed it all.
- (13) Research existing coalition and intend invites.
- (16) Involve more groups.
- (18) Facilitators (afternoon) could be better trained and focused.
- (19) Knowing what the follow-up process entails.
- (20) Bring some kind of power behind the process.
- (21) To cut the ramblers short and get to the point. Better trained facilitators.
- (22) Need strong small group facilitators who do not let one or two participants monopolize group in speech.
- (24) It would be great to get feedback regarding further attention from results of forum.
- (25) There should be a follow-up conference to see how these ideas have been implemented (i.e. have tangible evidence for efforts here today - not sure how this would be done.)
- (27) To extend the session to the next step not just defining the next step.
- (28) Also, limit VIP speeches so that groups can be active earlier in the program.
- (29) Have individuals complete sentences or stickies to convey ideas better. Examine results of process to see if it is truly useful.
- (33) Better small group facilitation. Train the facilitators on appropriate roles. Too many program providers with narrow scopes of reference.
- (38) Keep it coming. It is an invigorating process. Hope springs eternal.
- (40) It seemed that the last small group facilitators weren't clearly communicating the process at order and the group drifted off purpose.
- (41) To stay in touch with each other. Do not give up and never forget to bring God and others together. This worked when all else fails.
- (43) Invite more consumers.
Health Forum Report Home Page
|
