Participant Feedback. Shelter Providers must establish a participant feedback policy and develop a feedback process that provides for ongoing opportunities for participants to voice opinions and provide feedback confidentially to the person in charge of the shelter operations on program operations and programming, including participant guidelines. Methods for receiving participant feedback can include exit interviews, surveys, focus groups and program meetings. Shelter Providers must solicit participant feedback annually and utilize the feedback to assess program operation changes to better support and meet the needs of the participants. A report must be created which summarizes feedback and any changes being implemented based on feedback.
Participant Feedback. Each supervisor will solicit feedback from all participants in their particular activity. The Activities Director can provide forms for this feedback gathering, or the supervisor can create an original instrument. The supervisor must provide all assistants with a consistent form to be used for their activity. These evaluations are the sole property of the supervisor or assistants, will not be revealed to the Activities Director, and are solely for the purpose of self-evaluation and self- improvement. These evaluations should take place at the last formal meeting of any activity. Name Date
Participant Feedback. Employees who telecommute are required to participate in all studies, inquiries, reports, or analyses relating to the City's telecommuting program. While the employee's individual responses shall remain anonymous to the public, the data may be compiled and made available to the public without identification of the employee's responses. The above agreement has been fully reviewed and discussed. It is understood that this agreement must be in effect at all times for the telecommuting assignment to continue. Attachments "A", “B”, and “C” of this document have been fully completed and will be updated at least once per year to reflect any changes, including but not limited to work location, work schedule, LFUCG‐issued equipment, workplan and productivity measurement. Employee Name Employee Number Employee Signature Date Supervisor Signature Date Director Signature Date Send or email a copy of the approved Telecommuting Program Agreement Form and Attachments, including any updated attachments, to Human Resources. Commissioner Signature Date Employee Name: Employee Number: Job Title: Division:
Participant Feedback. For the DITO’s project, gathering feedback is essential, as it will enable improvement of event planning and delivery processes and methodologies.
1). Through events carried out in phase 1 new ideas have proposed by the partners and these will be explored in phase 2 together with the WP5 team to improve formative evaluation. Here it is a comprehensive list of the methods that have been traditionally implemented by the partners to gather opinions and suggestions from participants: ● Personal communications with participants: ○ Direct conversation and comment gathering during and after the event ○ Comparison of their expectations before and after the event ● Evaluation forms: ○ Surveys of visitors ○ Personalised evaluation forms ○ WP5 standard evaluation forms ○ Meetup rating system ○ Comments collected from event website ● New ideas: ○ Money box using play money: ‘How much would you pay for an event like this?’ to determine financial sustainability of an event after the end of the project
Participant Feedback. In consultation with the DSHS Program Manager, Contractor shall develop and implement a method for obtaining feedback from participants in the parenting and healthy relationship skills pilots. Deliverable: Feedback shall be gathered from participants in the parenting and healthy relationship skills pilots. Deliverable: Contractor shall provide a summary of participant feedback in the final quarterly report to be submitted to DSHS (Exhibit B, Program Requirements, #9 Reporting and Record Keeping).
Participant Feedback. Participant responses to a number of statements included in the questionnaire showed no significant difference between each interface, perhaps to be expected as many of the design features, tasks performed and images displayed are constant throughout the experiment. However, differences between the interfaces emerged in participants’ scores when considering performance and physical effort (figure 3.10).
Participant Feedback. Specialty Crop Growers: Four of six of the market’s growers participated in the program. One of the market’s growers who chose not to participate grows primarily garlic which he believed required too much labor for chefs and restaurant cooks to warrant their ordering. The other grower who chose not to participate did not respond to inquiries. The remaining four growers who participated in the Farm-to-Restaurant program expressed interest in not having to market their products directly to restaurants while still expanding their wholesale reach. Further, their prior experiences working with area restaurants had resulted in the growers not always being paid on time. In the end, some pulled their wholesale offerings or did not offer steep wholesale discounts, simply because the demand from the consumers at the market was so high that they could not satisfy both wholesale and retail markets. • Restaurant owners: Restaurant owners felt that the wholesale prices offered by the growers at the market were too high, especially in comparison to non-organic produce offered by large wholesale distributors. Further, as the season progressed, restaurant owners and chefs felt too overwhelmed by the increase in business during the peak of Crested Butte’s summer tourism season to sit down and order through the market, since ordering through a single source distributor was much easier, less expensive, and the process with which they had the greatest experience. As a result, however, some restaurants began to work directly with growers • Market Shoppers: Shoppers enjoyed the program. The CBFM chalkboard at the entrance to the farmers’ market alerted them to participating restaurants, as did the cards passed out at each market. Tourists used the cards as a guideline for choosing restaurants during their stay in Crested Butte. Overall, the Farm-to-Restaurant program proved challenging to implement and maintain. Though local restaurant owners initially approached the Crested Butte Farmers’ Market about implementing this program, higher prices for local foods and limited time during the height of the tourist season meant that restaurants did not order as much food through this program as initially predicted. Further, collecting payment from restaurants proved challenging since many restaurants would delay payment which was difficult for the both the market’s and the growers’ cash flow situations. For the purposes of this initiative, the Crested Butte Farmers Market defined the su...
Participant Feedback. Specialty Crop Growers: The market’s growers appreciated the booklet featuring their farm and the seasonal recipes. Further, as all of the Crested Butte Farmers’ Market growers adhere to organic or certified naturally grown standards, the pages in the booklet addressing growing methods proved to be a powerful educational tool for farmers working with new customers. After a chef’s demonstration, many growers expressed that they experienced an increase in sales – particularly of the items showcased in the demonstration.
Participant Feedback. The Contractor shall have a process for soliciting and incorporating participant feedback into the project for the purposes of improving participant experience and outcomes.
Participant Feedback. You agree to provide reasonable feedback to Digie Inc., about your experiences using Digie and the Technology Preview Materials, and information about connectivity and usability of the Technology Preview Materials. All of your feedback shall be the property of Digie Inc. and may be used by Digie Inc. for any purpose it sees fit.
