AITO Oct 16 regional meeting page 1 Amnesty International Toronto Organization Oct 16, 2004 Regional Meeting Evaluation Summary (summary of evaluation

AITO Oct 16 regional meeting page 1

Amnesty International Toronto Organization Oct 16, 2004 Regional Meeting Evaluation

Summary

(summary of evaluation forms completed by meeting participants)


In short...

• 68 (48% of 143) participants completed an evaluation

• 60% of respondents were community group members

• Respondents have been AI members an average of 9.7 years, but the single biggest group was <1 to 5 year members

• Most heard of the meeting via the internet (41%) and/or their group (31%)

• Evaluations overall were highly favourable

• 84% thought the price ($25) was right

• 90% of facility ratings were 4 or 5 - the only significant complaint was the plenary room (too large, hard to hear)

• Workshop and plenary session ratings were generally high (4 and 5 scores)

• The other common observation was that we simply packed too much into the day

• Many participants would like to see more regional meetings, possibly annually or every 2 years

Comments throughout are those of the participants who completed evaluation forms


Profile of participants

Community group members 41 60%Youth/Campus 2 3%Action Circle 4 6%Other network 13 19%Co-ordinator 2 3%Staff 3 4%Other 14 21%

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 +

range

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

perc

ent

percent

Years an AI member

groupActivist

Internet/emailAITO

staff

mode

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

pe

rce

nt

mode

How did you hear about the meeting?

Female male split at the meeting was about 80 - 20


Satisfaction with meeting arrangements

1 2 3 4 5

score

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

perc

ent

facilities

food

registration

total

Meeting arrangements


Meeting arrangements - comments/suggestions

• problem hearing in council chamber (esp audience questions)

• more vegetarian and vegan food - possibly hot food

• spread food tables out to avoid lineups, volunteers direct traffic

• tables to eat at, write letters at

• have fruit at breaks

• meeting could have been over 2 days

• lecterns with microphones in the workshop rooms

• cost and timing excluded youth from participation

Overall assessment of meeting arrangements was highly favourable


The fee

7.8%

84.4%

7.8%

percent

too low

just right

too high

Assessment of the fee charged


Plenary sessions - level of satisfaction

1 2 3 4 5

score

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

pe

rce

nt

armed conflict

SVAW panel

Plenary sessions

Scores for ‘informative’, ‘well planned/delivered’ and ‘I will use’ combined(detailed scores are at the end - slide 29)


Stop Violence Against Women - comments

• Information could have been developed more

• Really made me re-think many things

• Discussion was scattered - needed a focal point and action call

• Themes could have been tied together better by moderator

• My least favourite session

• All 3 speakers brought value to the discussion

• Speakers were effective and inspiring - Farrah was moving

• Colourful diversity in an important panel

• Very moving and eloquent

• Definitely an asset for the day - excellent use of first person experiences

• ‘Male bashing’ in one speaker’s jokes got tedious

• Wanted more info on the refugee aspect of the issue

The major point made in comments was that the session was hard to hear and follow


Armed Conflict - comments

• Good session, but I was fatigued by the end of the day

• Extremely difficult question well presented

• Very interesting ideas - lots to think about

• Closing discussion was great

• Good to get participant feedback in open mikes

• Need to get this info to members

• I learned a lot from this

• Alex is an excellent/inspiring speaker

• Good ‘plain language’ discussion

• I will soul search...


What I liked best

• Lots of first rate material - great deal of planning went into the day

• Key note speaker and closing plenary

• Good workshops (comment made by many)

• Very well organized - comfortable venue - good workshop themes

• Excellent to have the opportunity to discuss

• Stayed on schedule - great

• Informative - topical - well organized - variety of topics

• Opportunity to meet with people - networking

• Opportunity to listen to so many people with good ideas

• Friendly atmosphere, great speakers

• Opportunity to get ‘recharged’ - new ‘fire in my belly’

• Variety of fascinating topics


What I liked least

• The large room and poor acoustics for the plenaries

• Too much packed into too little time (common comment)

• Day was too long - try to end by 4PM

• I wish more people had come

• Being inside all day

• Try an ‘icebreaker’ between participants to stimulate interaction

• Had trouble folding the dove - hard to follow the instructions

• Lunch setup - no tables

• Need more networking time - not enough free time

• The guilt I feel when I can’t take on all the causes

• Early start (hard on out of town participants)

• Violence Against Women panel was the weakest moment


Suggestions for improvements

• Hold an annual conference (or at least more frequent) - common comment

• Email lists of activities - area newsletter

• Mini conferences and more inter group activities

• Provide workshop info packages for those who couldn’t attend

• Two day conference

• Have Art team and events/promo team at conference to help groups

• More small discussion groups (7-20 people)

• Improve means of inter group contacts

• Target more young people to attend the conference

Note - suggestions were about improved activism in the GTA, not just the conference


Overall comments

• Thanks everyone who worked so hard to make this happen

• I really enjoyed the conference and got a lot out of it

• Congratulations - thanks - really great…(many such comments)

• Not happy about the initiative to purchase a building

• Well organized - very informative

• I’d like to see this conference grow

• Make it annual or bi-annual

• Only about 20-25 men in the entire group

• Great chance to meet other AI members

• First AI meeting - I can’t wait to attend more

• Short bios and contact info for the speakers for later contact

Extraordinarily positive reactions overall


Overall satisfaction with workshops

Workshop summary scoreslow med high score1 2 3 4 5 count

ESC Rights 0% 1% 4% 25% 69% 75Death Penalty 2% 2% 8% 39% 49% 49Security Certificates 0% 0% 4% 14% 81% 70Art 0% 0% 10% 3% 87% 31AI in 100 seconds 0% 2% 14% 37% 47% 111Fundraising 0% 3% 15% 33% 48% 33FTA 0% 0% 5% 17% 79% 66Landmines 0% 9% 9% 39% 43% 23Cdn Resource Sector 0% 1% 6% 12% 82% 104

Total of 9 workshops 0% 1% 8% 24% 67% 562Scores for ‘informative’, ‘well planned/delivered’ and ‘I will use’ combined

(detailed scores are at the end - slides 26, 27, 28)


Workshop assessment - graphically

1 2 3 4 5

score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

perc

ent

ESC

DP

Sec Cert

Art

100 sec

fund

FTA

Lndmines

Res sctr

Workshop Summary Scores


You can judge intensity of response by the number of comments for each workshop...

• ESC Rights 16

• Death Penalty 5

• Security Certificates 10

• Art in Action 4

• AI in 100 seconds 17

• Fundraising 5

• FTA impact on women 12

• Landmines 3

• Canada’s resource sector abroad 23

• Total number of workshop comments 95Overwhelming majority of workshop comments were positive


ESC workshop comments

• Fledgling issue needs more in depth discussion and attention

• Very stimulating and well presented

• We need a full day/more time on this topic (common comment)

• Food for thought

• Needed more time - brainstorming was fantastic but rushed

• In depth case studies would be helpful - handout was helpful

• Exactly what I needed to get my head around ESC rights

• Wonderful to hear about this new work

• AI’s way of the future - glad to be part of it

• Very good session - excellent job of preparing

• Very useful

• Best leave Q&As to the end and clock the presentation ahead of time

• A great intro which is what I was looking for


Death penalty workshop comments

• Very informative - Q&A especially interesting

• Speakers made a high impact on understanding

• Useful in defending AI’s position

• Moderator didn’t use speakers as effectively as she could have

• Margaret - great insight...Tracey - informative as well

• Iris organised and ran it in her usual masterly fashion


Security certificates workshop comments

• Helpful in understanding AI refugee work

• Speaker was very good and session was informative

• Very interesting presentation

• First speaker did not stand - people at back had trouble hearing her

• Good handouts, used Q&A effectively

• Highly technical, facilitator did a good job breaking it down

• Real eye opener - is it possible to have articles in the Activist?

• Great speaker, informative and potent

• Speaker presumed more knowledge in audience than some had


Art workshop comments

• Info should be on the web site

• I loved this workshop

• Dynamite session and I am not even an artist

• Fabulous - offer this at the AGM


AI in 100 seconds workshop comments

• Dealing with ignorance, hostility and cynicism a challenging topic

• Brought up important questions and supplied informative answers

• Michael led an excellent workshop

• Tips appreciated, and group discussions even more valuable

• Helped crystallize thoughts and ability to communicate

• We needed more time - common comment

• Interactive activity very useful (need more) - common comment

• Break-out session did not work too well with eight people

• I would have preferred a session addressing a specific topic

• Concise and to the point

• Would like more such sessions in the future

• Less informative than other sessions


Fundraising workshop comments

• Information laden handouts requested - speaker was hard to follow

• Group has poor fundraising skills - this was quite useful

• More sharing of ideas would have made session better

• Handouts were excellent

• Excellent work - very informative


FTA workshop comments

• Topic has enormous implications - very effectively addressed

• Real eye opener - want to know more

• Extremely interesting - use of videos, stories, questions - learned a lot

• Loved this workshop - videos very useful

• Very interesting, involving - bravo

• I would have loved to hear more

• Wonderful - absolutely revealing and educational

• Thought provoking, interesting workshop

• Excellent - could have used more detail on women in particular

• Really useful and will be helpful in the future

• Good discussion


Landmines workshop comments

• Second speaker was much better than first

• Good handouts

• Great use of an external org for an AI relevant topic


Canadian resource sector workshop comments

• Leslie should speak again at the AGM

• Unnecessarily confrontational, not co-operative

• Interesting to have speakers from opposite sides of the debate

• Very inspiring - absolutely an invaluable session

• Well informed articulate speakers, brisk, concise pace

• Leslie’s knowledge of Colombia could have been better

• Guests from the same industry would be the only improvement

• Good handouts

• Very informative - I learned so much

• Great dialogue between 2 different sectors and perspectives

• Industry rep was weak - had hoped presentation to be more substantive

• Thought provoking

• Superb facilitation - provocative, interesting

• Is industry web site a cover?


Morning workshop assessment scoresWorkshop ESC rights

low med high1 2 3 4 5

Informative 0 1 7 17 250.0% 4.0% 28.0% 68.0%

Well planned 1 1 5 18 254.0% 4.0% 20.0% 72.0%

I will use 0 0 1 7 17 250.0% 0.0% 4.0% 28.0% 68.0%

totals 0 1 3 19 52 750.0% 1.3% 4.0% 25.3% 69.3%

Workshop Death penalty

Informative 0 1 6 9 160.0% 6.3% 37.5% 56.3%

Well planned 1 0 1 9 6 175.9% 0.0% 5.9% 52.9% 35.3%

I will use 0 1 2 4 9 160.0% 6.3% 12.5% 25.0% 56.3%

totals 1 1 4 19 24 492.0% 2.0% 8.2% 38.8% 49.0%

Workshop Security Certificates

Informative 0 0 1 23 240.0% 0.0% 4.2% 95.8%

Well planned 0 0 1 3 20 240.0% 0.0% 4.2% 12.5% 83.3%

I will use 0 0 2 6 14 220.0% 0.0% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6%

totals 0 0 3 10 57 700.0% 0.0% 4.3% 14.3% 81.4%


Afternoon workshop assessment scoresWorkshop Creative Art


Informative 0 1 1 8 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 80.0%

Well planned 0 0 1 0 9 100.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 90.0%

I will use 0 0 1 0 10 110.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 90.9%

totals 0 0 3 1 27 310.0% 0.0% 9.7% 3.2% 87.1%

Workshop AI in 100 seconds

Informative 1 4 18 14 372.7% 10.8% 48.6% 37.8%

Well planned 0 0 7 14 16 370.0% 0.0% 18.9% 37.8% 43.2%

I will use 0 1 5 9 22 370.0% 2.7% 13.5% 24.3% 59.5%

totals 0 2 16 41 52 1110.0% 1.8% 14.4% 36.9% 46.8%

Workshop Fundraising

Informative 0 3 3 5 110.0% 27.3% 27.3% 45.5%

Well planned 0 1 1 3 6 110.0% 9.1% 9.1% 27.3% 54.5%

I will use 0 0 1 5 5 110.0% 0.0% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5%

totals 0 1 5 11 16 330.0% 3.0% 15.2% 33.3% 48.5%

1 2 3 4 5

score

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

pe

rce

nt

art

100 seconds

fundraising

Afternoon workshops - 1:30PM

groupActivist

Internet/emailAITO

staff

mode

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

pe

rce

nt

mode

How did you hear about the meeting?


Afternoon workshop assessment scoresWorkshop FTA impact on women


Informative 0 1 5 16 220.0% 4.5% 22.7% 72.7%

Well planned 0 0 0 3 19 220.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.6% 86.4%

I will use 0 0 2 3 17 220.0% 0.0% 9.1% 13.6% 77.3%

totals 0 0 3 11 52 660.0% 0.0% 4.5% 16.7% 78.8%

Workshop Landmines

Informative 0 1 3 4 80.0% 12.5% 37.5% 50.0%

Well planned 0 1 0 3 4 80.0% 12.5% 0.0% 37.5% 50.0%

I will use 0 1 1 3 2 70.0% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 28.6%

totals 0 2 2 9 10 230.0% 8.7% 8.7% 39.1% 43.5%

Workshop Cdn resource sector

Informative 0 1 4 30 350.0% 2.9% 11.4% 85.7%

Well planned 0 0 1 4 30 350.0% 0.0% 2.9% 11.4% 85.7%

I will use 0 1 4 4 25 340.0% 2.9% 11.8% 11.8% 73.5%

totals 0 1 6 12 85 1040.0% 1.0% 5.8% 11.5% 81.7%


Plenary session scores

Section 3 - SVAW panellow med high1 2 3 4 5

Informative 1 22 20 22 651.5% 33.8% 30.8% 33.8%

Well planned 2 19 20 22 633.2% 30.2% 31.7% 34.9%

I will use 2 3 23 13 21 623.2% 4.8% 37.1% 21.0% 33.9%

totals 2 6 64 53 65 1901.1% 3.2% 33.7% 27.9% 34.2%

Section 4 - Armed Conflict Plenarylow med high1 2 3 4 5

Informative 0 3 15 35 530.0% 5.7% 28.3% 66.0%

Well planned 0 4 17 33 540.0% 7.4% 31.5% 61.1%

I will use 0 2 3 17 31 530.0% 3.8% 5.7% 32.1% 58.5%

totals 0 2 10 49 99 1600.0% 1.3% 6.3% 30.6% 61.9%

1 2 3 4 5

score

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

pe

rce

nt

will use

well planned

informative

total

Stop Violencce Against Women Panel

Documents

AITO Oct 16 regional meeting page 1 Amnesty International Toronto Organization Oct 16, 2004 Regional Meeting Evaluation Summary (summary of evaluation