by Quentin Wodon
For the past three years, Rotary district 7620 has conducted evaluations of its annual district conferences using web surveys. As mentioned in the first post in this series, conducting such evaluations is important. Millions of hours and tens of millions of dollars are invested every year by Rotarians in attending district conferences, yet these conferences are rarely evaluated thoroughly.
This post shows how such evaluations can be useful by summarizing results for the (highly successful) 2014 conference (the report for all three conferences combined is entitled Evaluating Rotary District Conferences: Lessons from District 7620). The third post will provide lessons learned on what Rotarians would like to see in future conferences. While the analysis is specific to district 7620, it probably has broader relevance as well.
Success of the Conference
The evaluations of the previous two conferences of the district (in 2012 and 2013) suggested that while participants enjoyed these conferences, they could have been shorter and less expensive with more engaging speakers and more learning opportunities. Conferences should also be fun.
Did the district succeed in organizing a great conference in 2014? To a large extent, the answer is yes. The conference was shorter, and had lots of fun, but its cost for participants remained relatively high. The conference was better attended than in previous years. Most participants were seasoned Rotarians, but many Interactors and Rotaractors participated as well, thanks in part to an Interact Leadership Conference organized as a smaller sub-conference within the main conference.
Almost 60 percent of participants rated the conference as better than previous conferences, which is a major achievement (in the previous two years most respondents rated the conference as on par with previous conferences). A total of 100 Interactors, Rotaractors, and Rotarians responded to the web-based evaluation survey for the conference, which makes its results reliable.
Evaluation by Category and Session
Data on satisfaction rates with the facilities and various aspects of the conference were obtained and are shown in the Figure below. Most of the ratings look great with large shares of respondents rating various aspects as very good or good. The hotel rooms as well as the conference and hotel facilities and the convenience of the location ranked at the top. The organization of the conference and the opportunities for fellowship were also well rated. Even the category on learning about Rotary was well rated, but as in previous years only one in five participants said that they had learned a lot of new information that is likely to be useful to them as Rotarians. Apart from the issue with the quality of the food served by the hotel, the cost of the conference was the category with the lowest ratings. This is in fact an issue that has been identified for three years in a row.
The evaluation provided feedback on all conference sessions. For 26 sessions the sample size was large enough to tabulate responses (a minimum of 10 respondents per session was required to assess a session individually). The conference was focused on youth (on Friday and Saturday) and Wounded Warriors (for the Sunday brunch). Nine of the 26 sessions got 60 or more “very good” ratings.
By and large these were the sessions on youth, including the traditional Four Way Test competition for high school students, a See Something Say Something theater performance on bullying by Interactors from North Carolina, a speech by Jack Andraka – the winner of the prestigious Intel high school competition, and a speech by Teresa Scanlan – a recent Miss America and founder of an orphanage in Haiti. Also highly rated were the Interact Leadership Conference and the Mother’s Day brunch with wounded warriors on Sunday. Hospitality suites as always also fared very well.
What Worked, What Could be Improved
For those who did not attend this specific conference, all this may seem a bit abstract. But these data and results are provided to make the point that by evaluating conferences through simple web surveys, you can know exactly which sessions were great, and which ones not so great. This obviously can be useful for preparing future conferences. In addition, for the 2014 conference, it was clear that the focus on youth and wounded warriors was a hit, something to keep in mind.
The evaluation – including feedback from open-ended qualitative questions included in the web survey, also suggested areas for improvement, together with data on preferences regarding the type of speakers to invite, the length and cost of these conferences, and some of their other features. All of this will be discussed in the third and last post on this topic.
Note: Part of the analysis in this post is updated from a section in a book published by the author entitled Membership in Service Clubs: Rotary’s Experience (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).