Partnership 2000

1997 (November) Conference Evaluation

This is a brief summary of the information provided by the participants on the conference evaluation form. The original forms are forwarded with this summary.

Sixty-five evaluation forms were received out of 120 participants. A few of the participants did not rate portions of question 3 a-f. Therefore, a total of sixty-five responses may not be reflected for each category. The summary of 3 a-f has been rated as shown based upon how responses were generally phrased. I believe this is representative of the basic intent of the participants.

How would you rate the Asilomar conference facility overall?
Excellent – 51   Above Average – 14   Average – 0   Poor – 0

How would you rate the overall conference program?
Excellent – 35   Above Average – 28   Average – 2   Poor – 0

Please comment on the effectiveness of each of the following presentations/sessions.

Did you feel that the conference agenda was helpful in clarifying and perpetuating the Partnership 2000 effort?
Excellent – 42   Above Average – 22   Average – 1   Poor – 0

If there were another annual conference, what topics and speakers would you like to see on the agenda?  

Responses varied widely. The most repeated comments were:

What locations would you recommend for another annual conference?
Asilomar – 41                 Granlibakken/Tahoe – 7

• Other locations mentioned one to three times:
  San Diego, Lake Arrowhead, Palm Springs, Solvang, Santa Barbara, Yosemite, Sacramento, Fresno, San Luis Obispo, Mendocino, Bay Area, Napa.
• Two to three people mentioned the fairness of alternating the event each year between northern and southern California.
• Overwhelmingly, the majority of the participants advocated or acknowledged that Asilomar was hard to beat and that a return to Asilomar was highly desirable.  

Last updated: November 01, 2007