Meeting Evaluation Summary

EPA's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) sponsored the first grantees meeting to discuss the new grants program called the Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability (CNS). As most of the grantees have just started their projects, one purpose of the meeting was to introduce their work to each other, to EPA, and to all interested stakeholders. The other purpose of the meeting was to present and discuss EPA information and resources that can support CNS and similar projects. More detailed meetings on the individual projects were held on the second day.

An evaluation of the workshop was conducted to elicit information from attendees regarding the organization and logistics for the workshop, the information presented, and potential improvements in future workshops. A total of five questions were developed for the evaluation form (see Appendix A). Of the five questions, four were statements that attendees were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Attendees could also provide additional comments regarding each of these questions. One open-ended question allowed attendees the opportunity to provide any other comments for suggestions for future workshops. A summary of the evaluation findings is provided below.

Summary of Findings

1. Of the 51 meeting participants, 11 completed the evaluation questionnaire, for an overall response rate of 22%.
2. The attendees indicated that the meeting was informative. Of the 11 respondents, 5 provided a rating of 5 (45.5%), 5 provided a rating of 4 (45.5%), and 1 provided a rating of 3 (9%) for an average rating of 4.36.
3. The attendees indicated that the format of the meeting was appropriate. Of the 11 respondents, 4 provided a rating of 5 (36.4%), 4 provided a rating of 4 (36.4%), and 3 provided a rating of 3 (27.2%) for an average rating of 4.09.
4. The attendees indicated that the general discussions were useful. Of the 10 respondents, 2 provided a rating of 5 (20%), 7 provided a rating of 4 (70%), and 1 provided a rating of 3 (10%) for an average rating of 4.10.
5. The attendees indicated that the meeting facility was appropriate. Of the 11 respondents, 3 provided a rating of 5 (27.3%), 6 provided a rating of 4 (54.5%), and 2 provided a rating of 3 (18.2%) for an average rating of 4.09.
6. Of the 11 respondents, a total of 8 (73%) provided recommendations for improving future meetings.

Question 1: The meeting was informative.

Rating:
Number of Responses: 11
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 3
Average Rating: 4.36

Question 2: The format of the meeting was appropriate.

Rating:
Number of Responses: 11
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 3
Average Rating: 4.09

Question 3: The general discussions were useful.

Rating:
Number of Responses: 10
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 3
Average Rating: 4.10

Question 4: The meeting facility was appropriate.

Rating:
Number of Responses: 11
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 3
Average Rating: 4.09

Recommendations for Improving Future Meetings

• Ten-minute schedule constricting for most speakers.
• Instead of ten minute presentations, suggest going around room and asking for informal input.
• A little more time, both for presentations and for Q&A.
• A forum for more informal discussion (longer breaks - organized meals).
• Need to assure structure in breakouts. Smart growth was sort of a free-for-all dominated by someone who needed topics for an eco meeting and a Fellow from Portland. Future Scenarios was well done.
• The set up of the room made it too informal - a 'roundtable' style would help. Room was too skinny-not conducive to discussions and too warm. More introductions of people speaking-their jobs and background-and people in the audience too-at the beginning of the meeting would have helped 'loosen up' the group for better discussions.
• Better than I thought it would be! A more informal main room would be helpful.
• More discussion/question period needed.

Top of page