Evaluation

CHOICES transnational partnershipHelsinki 22-23 May 2006

Participation in the 2. evaluation round

All partners handed in questionnaires after the meeting in Spain. 8 questionnaires were handed in – all of them with respect to the deadline.

Prior to this meeting new questions were send out, all partners – except for Finland – handed in answers.

Thank you very much – your cooperation is much appreciated!

Evaluation of SG-meeting in Spain

Did the meeting achieve it’s goal?

3 says YES!

5 says TO A GREAT EXTENT!

Was the meeting well prepared?

5 says YES!

3 says TO A GREAT EXTENT!

Was the structure of the meeting appropriate?

4 says YES!

4 says TO A GREAT EXTENT!

Did the meeting provide new information or insights?

4 says YES!

4 says TO A GREAT EXTENT!

Was the focus of the agenda chosen appropriately?

3 says YES!

5 says TO A GREAT EXTENT!

Project Evaluation (1)

Transnational website 1 2 3 4

1 Your overall impression of the website - 4 4 -

2 How do you assess the user-friendliness of the website? 2 3 3 -

3 How do you think the website will work as an internal project tool? 2 1 5 -

4 How do you think the site will work as a source of information for your national DPs?

2 3 3 -

Teamwork

6 The communication between project partners concerning different fields of expertise

- 3 5 -

7 The degree of mutual trust and teamwork among the project partners - 3 5 -

Work plan and outcomes

9 The quality of the outlined activities - 1 7 -

10 The quality of the work plan - - 5 3

1 = Poor 2 = Saticfactory 3 = Good 4 = Excellent

Project Evaluation (2)Communication and understanding 1 2 3 4

1 The extend to which there is a clear understanding about the shared roles and responsibilities of the partners in the project

2 (2) 3 (7) 1

2 The effectiveness and quality of communication between the project partners

4 (6) 2 (3)

3 The efficiency and quality of the communication with the project secretariat (Finland)

3 (2) 1 (2) 2 (4)

4 The Clarity about the overall objective of the transnational partnership 1 (6) 3 (2) 2 (1)

5 The clarity of the ongoing activities 1 (0) 3 (2) 2 (6) (1)

Teamwork

6 The communication between project partners concerning different fields of expertise

4 (3) 2 (5)

7 The degree of mutual trust and teamwork among the project partners 4 (3) 2 (5)

8 Overall assessment of the Choices teamwork 4 2

Website

9 How do you assess the user-friendliness of the website? 1 (2) 2 (3) 3 (3)

10 How do you think the website will work as an internal project tool? 1 (2) 2 (1) 3 (5)

Important issues to clarify at this meeting:

Activity planning – time table updateHow are thing progressing?

Are we being realistic or too ambitious?

Research activitiesBringing the researchers togetherDiscussing methological issues, data collection, and possibilities of comparison between countries

Good Practice bookletsDebate on the contents and formats

Indicators have been developed for all activities

Since last meeting:

Good work!

Indicators: Research

Activity Qualitative indicators Quantitative

indicators

Research 1. The fluency end efficiency of the cooperation between researchers

2. The novelty value of the results seen from both national and European Perspectives

3. Evaluating the potential in terms of setting up a new large scale research project

X articles published

Indicators: GP on Guidance

Activity Qualitative indicators

Quantitative

indicators

Good Practice Booklet on Culture- and gender-sensitive guidance and counselling

1. Correspondence to EU policy guidelines in the field

2. Dissemination potential

1. Number of downloads

2. Number of contacts by interested persons

Indicators: GP on Gender Mainstreaming

Activity Qualitative indicators

Quantitative

indicators

Good Practice Booklet ”Gender Mainstreaming”

1. Correspondence to EU policy guidelines in the field (which field?)

2. Dissemination potential (target group?)

1. Number of downloads

2. Number of contacts by interested persons

Indicators: World Cafe

Activity Qualitative indicators

Quantitative

indicators

World Café – a transnational workshop

1. Intensive debate in café groups

2. A clear summing up on different perspectives on equal treatment and AT

1. Minimum 4 participants from each country

2. Positive response from 75%

Indicators: Exchange of experts

Activity Qualitative indicators Quantitative

indicators

World Café – a transnational workshop

1. The fluency end efficiency of the cooperation between researchers.

2. The novelty value of the results seen from both national and European Perspectives

3. Evaluating the potential in terms of setting up a new large scale research project

X articles published

Indicators: website

Activity Qualitative indicators Quantitative

indicators

CHOICES website

1.User friendliness

2. Relevance and applicability of the materials available on the site

3. Ability to facilitate and improving cooperation

1. Number of opened/downloaded CHOICES-products

2. Number of materials available on the site for public use

Indicators: Newsletter

Activity Qualitative indicators Quantitative

indicators

CHOICES Newsletters

1. Relevance of contents

2. Level of satisfaction of destinataries

3. Impact on national and transnational activities

1. Number of newsletters printed

2. Number of newsletters distributed

3. Number of events advertised

4. Number of entities interested in the project after reading the newsletters

Indicators: Evaluation Report

Activity Qualitative indicators Quantitative

indicators

Final evaluation report

The report covers the transnational cooperation in a loyal and thorough manner

1. Transnational products to be covered by the report: All known by now

2. Transnational activities to be covered by the report: All known by now

3. All partners contribute

Next step in the evaluation

Evaluation of workshop activity Adjustment of indicators Preparation of evaluation of world Café

activity