The intention of the conference was to promote a strong climate for evaluation within social service agencies in the London and the surrounding region and to provide specific information and training about practices and procedures that "work" and can be implemented immediately.

Individual streams extending over both days provided an opportunity for the Supported Employment Outcomes Project  (SEOP) to address the specifics of Step I, II and III of the model for evaluation including Data Collection and "Roll-Up", the Satisfaction Survey and Peer Support. The "Are We Doing…" Project provided information and training with regard to key principles and skills as well as qualitative interviewing techniques. The session format allowed for a range of objectives to be accomplished from overview to "hands on" training.

The opening session addressed evaluation issues from an organizational perspective. It was aimed at a broad cross section of agency personnel including Board members, Executive Directors and Managers. Peter Stechenreiter, MCSS, addressed the climate of accountability within the funders group while consultants John Lord and Brian Rush focused on creating a culture for evaluation, the need for commitment from all levels of staff, the use of information for decision making, and the importance of the service recipient’s perspective with regard to "quality of life" issues.

Dan Corbett, CEO of the National Quality Institute, a provincially and nationally recognized evaluation group, provided an opportunity for participants to discover the unique features underlying the "Quality Fitness Test" as well as discover the principles that are common to all evaluation efforts.

The first day concluded with an open discussion on the opportunities, expectations and challenges of the current Ontario Disabilities Support Plan (ODSP) regulations. The second day completed the SEOP and the "Are We Doing…" streams.

FEEDBACK

Participants were asked to provide feedback by means of an evaluation form on three dimensions of the conference: Presentations, Organization and Location.

Comments with regard to the Presentations were, for the most part, very positive. Participants said the following: "Good information, timely theme, speakers were clear, concise, excellent!, great opportunity for information sharing and networking, appreciated small group discussions and interactions, excellent handouts, when is the next conference?".

A few indicated that "they would liked to have seen more handouts, more use of power-point, larger fonts, more depth to the discussions, more sessions aimed at the ‘working level’, a rap-session at the end of the day and a shorter lunch break". One person noted the over-balance of male speakers during International Women’s Day.

Comments with regard to Organization were also very positive. "Well done, good job, simple registration procedure, friendly staff, liked the handouts available at registration, rooms were appropriate". Other comments included, "faster registration, a map on the brochure, more promotional information in advance and more lead time". The missing microphone was mentioned a couple of times.

Comments with regard to the Location ranged from "No problem, good food (numerous times), nice, easy to get to, liked the Somerset and break-out rooms, pleasant and comfortable, enjoyed the location". On the converse side, there were comments like "break-out rooms not attractive, room temperature cool, noisy clean-up, noisy two-way radio, more variety in the meals needed, hot water and/or tea bags sometimes not available, air quality was ‘stale’, chairs were not comfortable, did not like round tables, did not like the lighting".

The "Are We Doing…" stream collected responses separately from the conference form. In general, feedback was very positive, although some participants wanted to go even deeper into specifics.

Those who provided feedback on the SEOP stream (less than on the conference itself), had similar comments to those mentioned above – "great presentations and information", to "more handouts needed", etc.

ATTENDANCE

Approximately seventy people were in attendance on the first day with somewhere between fifty and sixty on the second. This includes speakers and guests. Past conferences have drawn larger numbers, but the mix of people and the vitality of the presentations and discussions was undiminished from other events.

In summary, comments about the conference were much more frequently on the positive side with less feedback offered on the things that may have displeased. Most enjoyed the opportunity and the setting. In particular, participants were very complimentary about the quality of the speakers and the content of the presentations which were well received and valued. This would seem to indicate that the conference objectives were achieved.

[ Home ] [ What's New! ] [ Q&A Forum ] [ CIC News ] [ Events ] [ Meetings ] [ CIC Resources ] [ CIC Membership ] [ CIC Links ] [ Listen Hear ] [ SE Showcase ] [ Contact Us ]

Copyright © 2007 by the Community Involvement Council. All rights reserved.
Questions or comments about this web site?  Contact the Webmaster.
Revised: 03/17/08 03:37 PM -0500.