‘ABC’ Government Support Programme – Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The attendance rates, comparing bookings with delegates' actual appearance at the events in the north and west midlands, between October 16th and October 23rd 2006, run at between 82% and 100% (112% in the case of the afternoon session in Leeds, where more delegates arrived than were originally registered).   The attendance rates for other areas of England, held between October 24th and October 31st 2006, mainly run at between 77% and 83%, with the London and Bristol afternoon events running at 90% and the afternoon event at Southampton running at 61%. As the Southampton morning event had an attendance rate of 77%, it seems reasonable to say that this venue as a whole suffered from the poorest conversion from bookings to actual attendances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The general decision as to which cities should host two events and which should host one would appear to be vindicated with the exception of Southampton. In the latter case, bookings had been under 100.

 

Evaluation Forms

 

It should be noted that evaluation forms distributed at the Bristol events have been lost, so these are not referred to in the evaluation of feedback from delegates.

 

As most physical conditions are taken for granted, most positive ratings in the section related to conditions and organisation tend to have a fairly commonplace distribution, with any differences around the centre being a matter of personal taste. This being the case, this section is examined mainly through levels of dissatisfaction, concatenating ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very Dissatisfied’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of what would appear to have been a problem with the morning event in Birmingham, dissatisfaction (as represented by 'Very dissatisfied' and 'Dissatisfied') was less than 11% at all events. Dissatisfaction with marketing has diminished considerably as the launch period has progressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levels of dissatisfaction pertaining to information before the event typically stand between 13% and 23% of those respondents completing evaluation forms. While information at the Leeds afternoon events would appear to have been very satisfactory, the Birmingham morning event again appears to have been problematic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are very low levels of dissatisfaction pertaining to organisation on the day of the event. This seems to discount the possibility of delegates at some events having rather different overall attitudes to the event than others; a fair consideration of each separate attribute appears to be indicated. A high degree of satisfaction should be particularly noted with the organisation of the Birmingham afternoon event, with 38% considering themselves to be 'Very Satisfied'. Once again, there would also appear to be a trend of decreased dissatisfaction as the launch process continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are low levels of dissatisfaction with the venue and facilities for the events. Again, the later events appear to be even less problematic.  In terms of particularly satisfactory venues, 42% of delegates in both the morning and afternoon events were 'Very Satisfied' with the London venue and facilities. That excellence is a matter of taste, however, is suggested by the differences in the proportions of delegates considering themselves 'Very Satisfied' in the mornings and afternoons of various events.  Southampton has a 50% 'Very Satisfied' rate in the afternoon, with 36% in the morning. Birmingham and Leeds are particularly popular amongst morning delegates (respectively 35% and 37%) but less so, particularly in the case of Leeds, in the afternoon (27%, 14%). Nottingham was also highly rated, with 30% of delegates being 'Very Satisfied'.

 

As content and delivery are more likely to have clearer delineation, the full ratings scale is considered here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, a trend towards improved ratings over time can be observed. Generally speaking, however, there are high levels of satisfaction and negligible dissatisfaction. Even in the case of the afternoon Leeds session, only 3 individuals (from 85) considered themselves to be  'Dissatisfied'. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are high levels of satisfaction and low levels of dissatisfaction expressed about the effectiveness of delivery and learning strategies. As usual, levels of dissatisfaction have reduced further as the launch has progressed. The only event with a relatively high level of dissatisfaction is the first to have been held, at Manchester. 2 of the delegates described themselves as 'Very dissatisfied', with a further 7 being 'Dissatisfied'; together, they constitute 22% of the 41 respondents who have completed the evaluation forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are high levels of satisfaction and low levels of dissatisfaction about the event improving delegates' understandings of the main theme. As usual, dissatisfaction decreased further as the launch progressed. Again, the first event, held in Manchester, was more likely to be viewed with some dissatisfaction (2 'Very Dissatisfied', 6 'Dissatisfied', together comprising 20% of the 41 respondents).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As before, there are high levels of satisfaction pertaining to how the events helps reflection on development needs. The effect over time is only seen in the complete absence of expressed dissatisfaction in the later events. The two Southampton events show the signs of being particularly satisfactory in this aspect of the content and delivery: all of the 22 morning delegates were either 'Satisfied' or 'Very Satisfied'; 4 of the 16 afternoon respondents considered themselves to be 'Very Satisfied'. The Manchester event, the first in the series, seems to have been the least satisfactory in this respect. To put this last point into perspective, however, 2 participants were 'Very Dissatisfied', with a further 3 saying they were 'Dissatisfied' (12% of 41 respondents).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As previously, the small level of dissatisfaction found in the earlier stages dissipates to nothing later on. Of the 8 dissatisfied Manchester respondents (20% of 41 evaluation completions), only 1 expresses a high level of dissatisfaction.  Unsurprisingly, there is a strong significant relationship between the responses relating to consultant knowledge and support and respondents perceived ability to reflect on development needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the overall ratings are at least 86% positive. Only the first four events had poorer responses, particularly the first event (Manchester, 16/10/06).  It should be noted, however, that 9 of the 15 events had overall dissatisfaction rates of 10% or more, and that the first 4 events had overall dissatisfaction rates of more than 20% (almost 40% in the case of Manchester).

 

The most representative comments have been collated into categories below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ability to discuss and work with the subject matter is clearly of primary importance, with networking/sharing of practice, workshops and group discussions being seen as the most important useful aspects of the launch period. Acquiring information is also important, as represented by the categories on knowledge/understanding, the development programme, web site knowledge and the overview from the LSC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ability to interact with peers is valued by respondents (networking, workshops, groups), as is input from important others (LSC, QIA and inspectors). Informational sources are also seen as useful (resource pack and web site).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most identified needs are related to external factors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Manchester delegate complained that poor planning and acoustics meant that he/she had learned nothing in the workshops.