The 12Th Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and Action: Evaluation

The 12th Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and Action: Evaluation and Recommendations

SCRA

Montclair State University

“Realizing Our New Vision:

Values and Principles for Practice, Research and Policy”

June 19-21, 2009

Evaluation Team

Rhonda K. Lewis-Moss

Jamilia Sly

Shani Roberts

Shoshana Wernick

Felecia Lee

Chris Kirk

Wichita State University

12th Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and Action: Evaluation and Recommendations

The 12thBiennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and Action was held in Montclair, New Jersey, June 18-21, 2009. The conference was hosted by Montclair State University, Department of Psychology, and lead by Drs. Milton Fuentes and Sandra Lewis (co-chairs). The theme of the conference was “Realizing Our New Vision: Values and Principles for Practice, Research and Policy.” The goal of the evaluation was to provide feedback to the Society; and help future hosts in planning for the Biennial. This article reports on the results of the 12th Biennial evaluation. For the first time conference evaluations were conducted on-line with the vision of going green by saving paper.

Overview of Evaluation

The evaluation team consisted of researchers from Wichita State University which was lead by Dr. Rhonda K. Lewis-Moss. The evaluation team developed the evaluation survey in collaboration with the Society for Community Research and Action 12th Biennial Conference Co-chairs and the SCRA executive committee.

Method

Procedures

An online survey was developed from past evaluation surveys and a few new questions were added (Woods & Wilson, University of Virginia, 2005). The survey consisted of demographic questions, questions about conference content, logistics and how satisfied conference attendees were with conference activities. In addition, the research team also conducted interviews with conference attendees to gather qualitative information (i.e. roving reporters). In order to save paper the on-line survey was constructed and a few paper copies of the survey were available at the conference registration desk. In each conference packet a sticker was placed on the inside flap of the conference packet directing conference registrants to a website that conference attendees could complete the survey on line. Conference registrants were reminded to complete the evaluation on-line by the conference co-chairs and the evaluation team wore “Its All about the E” buttons to encourage participants to complete the survey. The online-survey was made available two weeks after the conference and reminder emails were sent to encourage people to complete the survey on-line.

Instruments

The evaluation survey was adapted from the instrument used for the 2005 Biennial (Woods and Wilson, University of Virginia, 2005). This survey was used to collect information from the conference registrants.

The survey also collected data on the following areas:

1. Conference arrangements
2. Program content
3. Overall assessment of the 12th Biennial

In addition, the Wichita State University evaluation team developed a list of questions for the roving reporter idea to collect qualitative information from conference registrants. The questions were as follows: How satisfied were you with the conference sessions?; How satisfied were you with the poster sessions, What did you like most about the conference? What did you least like about the conference? and In ways might you improve the conference?

Participants

Forty-six percent (237/514) of the conference attendees completed the evaluation survey. The 46% response was pretty good given the fact that the surveys were online for the first time. There 208 on-line surveys completed and 29 paper surveys completed. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET A COMPARISON OF RESPONSE RATES WITH OTHER RECENT BIENNIALS

Results

The following pages present quantitative and qualitative data on four overarching areas:

1. Demographics of the 12th Biennial Conference
2. Conference arrangements
3. Program content
4. Overall conference assessment
5. Themes from the qualitative “Roving Reporter”

Demographics

There were 514 participants who attended the 12th Biennial Conference. A total of 237 people completed either the on-line or paper survey. Of the 237, 45% identified themselves as students, 44% were from academic institutions, and 5% were from Government/Other Non-profit, or a Community-Based Organization. Four percent of the respondents reported working for a mental health agency, advocacy group or other. The vast majority of respondents were SCRA members (89%) while only 40% reported being APA members. I WOULD LIKE A BREAKDOWN OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE FOR HOW MANY DAYS, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHICS WE HAVE ABOUT THE OVERALL SAMPLE. I WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW HOW MANY DAYS, AND WHICH DAYS, RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY ATTENDED, BUT WE MAY NOT HAVE THI INFORMATION. Nearly 80% of those completing the survey either had their doctorate or master degree WE NEED A BREAKDOWN BY DEGREE, EVEN FOR THE MASTERS, BECAUSE IT’S INTERESTING TO SEE THE RANGE OF DEGREE TYPES WE HAVE. and 18% reported having a Bachelor degree and three reported other.

Table 1 provides a summary of the conference attendees that completed the evaluation survey. The majority of individuals that completed the survey were women (63%) compared to 36% who were men. Approximately 72% of the people surveyed were Caucasian, 10% were African American/Black, 5% were Asian, 3% were Latino, 1% Biracial, 2% reported other, 2% reported being International ARE WE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN, FOR EXAMPLE, AMERICAN ASIAN AND INTERNATIONAL ASIAN? MIGHT INTERNTATIONAL HAVE BEEN USED AS A KIND OF “OTHER” FOR PEOPLE NOT FROM THE U.S.? and 1% Native American. Approximately 33 people refused to self-identify AGAIN, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW REPRESENTATIVE ANY OF THIS IS WITH THE OVERALL ATTENDEE POPULATION..

A total of 229 of the 237 respondents provided information on previous Biennial attendance. For 42% of registrants this was their first biennial. Forty-Three percent reported attending the last biennial in Pasadena. AMONG OTHER THINGS, BREAKING DOWN DATA BY FIRST/NOT FIRST BIENNIAL WOULD BE ILLUMINATING, I WOULD THINK.

Conference Arrangements

Forty-one percent reported staying in campus housing, 47% stayed in a hotel, 7% stayed with family or friends and about 12 people commuted from home, New York city or stayed in another hotel. Table 2 shows the mean scores for the list of conference arrangements. The likert scale ranted from 1-6, 1-being very negative to 6-being not applicable. The highest mean score was a 4.86 for conference conversations. Overall the means were fairly high and none fell below a 3.00. This suggests that people were positive about the conference arrangements. When registrants were asked about their travel from airport to hotel/campus housing had a mixed response. The mean score was 3.68 of a range of scores from 1-very difficult to 6- not applicable. Registrants were asked about travel from campus to conference site. The mean score showed that the mean score was 3.57. This suggest another mixed review. Registrants who reported didn’t find travel from the airport very difficult but they also didn’t find getting from the airport to the conference very easy.

Program Content

Participants were asked about reasons for coming to the biennial (i.e., acquire new ideas/theories, learn new developments in the field). The scale used a 5 point likert scale (5=very important, 1= not very important). The top three reasons people came to the conference were to lean about new developments in the field, acquire new ideas/theories and meet new people. Table 3 gives the number of respondents, the mean score and the range of responses. The mean scores closest to strongly agree were overall quality of the program was high, reflected the values of our field and reflected the scope of our field. Table 3 outlines why people come to the conference. The main reason people was to learn about new developments in the field (4.35) followed closely by acquire new ideas and theories (4.20)

Conference Content

Registrants were asked about the conference content. Table 4, shows that lower scores indicate registrant’s agreeing with the items. The scale ranged from a 1-strongly agree to 5 strongly disagree. The item with the highest content approval was that the overall quality of content was high. The mean score with the seconded highest mean score was the item “reflected the values of our field.”

Overall Conference Assessment

Overall registrants rated the value of the conference on a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, the mean score was 7.43. When asked how likely it would be for them to attend the next Biennial? Registrants reported out of a 10 point scale (1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest) the mean score was 8.24. Table 5 shows satisfaction surveys for each of the plenary. The closing symposium received the largest score of 5.09 out of a 1-6 point scale, 1-being very dissatisfied and 6-being not applicable. The not applicable category may have contributed to this extreme score given that there were a number of people who probably did not attend the closing symposium. So maybe we need to analyze the data with the 6’s removed. Registrants responded that Beth Shinn (4.76) and Kevin Cathcart (4.73) were their favorite sessions.

Roving Reporter Themes

Roving Reporter Report

There were approximately five overall conference themes that emerged. They included: overall comments about the conference, transportation and lodging, the location (Montclair State University), Food, Programming issues, and suggestions. We need some information about the Roving Reporters- how many were there, and how many registrants did they each speak to, so we know where the information derives from.

Overall, the conference comments were positive and registrants reported liking the sessions, the people and connecting and networking with colleagues. In regards to their favorite sessions registrants reported liking the World Café, Beth Shinn’s presentation, the session on methodology, the mentoring sessions, and Kevin Cathcart. Registrants also appreciated having the conference in one building.

Transportation and lodging

The reports from registrants were mixed. Several people reported having an easy time with getting back and forth from the airport and the hotels and others reported that transportation was difficult and expensive.

Location

There were a number of comments about Montclair State University being confusing to get around. In addition, people were upset about the lack of information about getting access to food/restaurants in the area. The registrants felt that the lodging was too far from the conference.

Food

Registrants made several comments about the food. Again there were mixed results. Some registrants thought the food was good and healthy choices were available. Registrants particularly commented on the snacks (healthy) and the brownies during snack time. On the other hand, several registrants commented on the crabs available in the morning and the lack of vegetarian options. Registrants also wanted to see more food available and coffee.

Suggestions

A number of registrants felt that the conference was packed with wonderful sessions however they were all at the same time and this was frustrating. Recommendation- have fewer sessions at the same time.

Have more recycling available.
Have computer interact access in the dorms.

Program was difficult to read at a glance.

Student mixer should be at the beginning of the conference

We need to have more information on getting around Montclair

Time should be allocated for the session which would allow more time for discussion. DOES THIS MEAN LONGER SESSIONS OR THAT SOME RULE BE IN PLACE TO ENSURE MORE DISCUSSION TIME WITHIN SESSIONS… REGARDLESS, THE POINT IS CLEAR FOR THE NEXT BIENNIAL ORGANIZERS… MORE DISCUSSION TIME!!!

Table 1

Table of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Group

N / Percentage
Male / 82 / 36%
Female / 141 / 63%
No response / 14
African American / 21 / 10%
Caucasian / 147 / 72%
Latino / 7 / 3%
American Indian / 3 / 1%
Asian / 11 / 5%
Biracial / 4 / 1%
Other (Asian/Caucasian, Latina/White, Middle Eastern, Pan-Ethnic, White/Native American / 6 / 2%
International (Scottish/Irish British, South Asia, Indian, White African) / 5 / 2%
No response / 33 / 14%
Total / 237

Table 2- outlines how participants felt about the conference arrangements.

Tell us how you felt about the conference arrangements / N / Mean / Range
Online registration / 231 / 4.52 / 1-6
On-line abstract / 230 / 4.48 / 1-6
Housing Arrangements / 231 / 3.38 / 1-6
Dining arrangements / 230 / 3.22 / 1-6
Conference meeting rooms / 231 / 4.23 / 1-6
Scheduled social events / 229 / 3.95 / 1-6
Informal social opportunities / 232 / 3.95 / 1-6
Opportunities for interest group meetings / 228 / 4.00 / 1-6
Assistance from conference volunteers / 228 / 4.22 / 1-6
Community Conversations / 229 / 4.86 / 1-6
Overall Site Quality / 228 / 3.73 / 1-6

Range of responses (1=very negative, 2=negative, 3=neutral, 4=positive, 5=very positive, 6=not applicable)

IF THE 6’S WERE INCLUDED IN THESE DATA ANALYSES, THEN EVERYTHING WILL HAVE TO BE REDONE WITH THE 6’S REMOVED… EVEN THOUGH IT HELPS INFLATE THE WONDERFULNESS OF THE CONFERENCE!!!

Table 3 Why did you come to this Biennial Conference?

Question / N / Mean / Range
Acquire new ideas/theories / 231 / 4.30 / 1-5
Learn about new developments in the field / 230 / 4.35 / 1-5
Concern about the overall state of SCRA and CP field / 228 / 3.68 / 1-5
Acquire new factual information / 229 / 3.92 / 1-5
Meet new people / 229 / 4.20 / 1-5
Receive mentoring from knowledgeable professionals / 228 / 3.49 / 1-5
Learn more about community psychology / 230 / 3.56 / 1-5
Present my own work / 230 / 4.17 / 1-5
See old friends/colleagues / 229 / 3.73 / 1-5
Take a break/vacation / 228 / 2.68 / 1-5
Connect with special interest group / 229 / 3.00 / 1-5
Learn about community practice / 230 / 3.62 / 1-5
Learn about career paths using community psychology / 230 / 3.18 / 1-5
Other reason / 128 / 3.09 / 1-5

(1-Not Very Important; 2=Not Important,3 Neutral, 4 Important, 5=Very Important)

Table 4 -Content of the Conference

Question / N / Mean / Range
Reflected the scope of the field / 231 / 2.14 / 1-5
Reflected the values of the field / 230 / 2.08 / 1-5
Gave sufficient emphasis to research that contributes to theory / 228 / 2.23 / 1-5
Represented social policy issues sufficiently / 227 / 2.50 / 1-5
Gave sufficient emphasis to research that contributes to action / 228 / 2.34 / 1-5
Represented applied settings sufficiently / 227 / 2.41 / 1-5
Overall quality of content was high / 230 / 2.05 / 1-5

(1=Strongly Agree; 2=Agree, 3=Neutral, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree)

Table 5- How satisfied were you with the various sessions at the Biennial?

Question / N / Mean / Range
How satisfied were you with the opening plenary? / 230 / 4.67 / 1-6
How satisfied were you with the opening plenary Keynote Speaker Kevin Cathcart / 228 / 4.76 / 1-6
How satisfied were you with the Community Practice Award Session’s speaker Beth Shinn / 227 / 4.39 / 0-6
How satisfied were you with the Cocktail reception? / 231 / 4.68 / 2-6
How satisfied were you with the poster sessions? / 231 / 4.19 / 1-6
How satisfied were you with the Legacy Award Ceremony? / 226 / 4.60 / 0-6
How satisfied were you with the Closing plenary? / 223 / 5.09 / 0-6
How satisfied were you with the roundtable of roundtables format? / 227 / 4.73 / 0-6
How satisfied were you with the local Montclair Red Hawk Programming? / 220 / 4.58 / 0-6

(1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Dissatisfied, 3 No Opinion, 4=Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied, 6 Not Applicable) AGAIN, WE HAVE TO GET THE 6’S OUT. I WAS AT THE CLOSING PLENARY AND EVEN I WOULD NOT GIVE IT A 5.09!!!!

APPENDIX

Do you have any other comments about the conference arrangements?

1) Sessions that were similar in content were all scheduled at the same time, making it difficult to attend all presentations of primary interest to me. 2) Two of my presentations were scheduled at the same time, making it difficult to give attention to all individuals' questions. I did notify the conference organizer and received little assistance in resolving the issue. 3) Additionally, the student housing at Little Falls was horrible--dirty, no lights in some rooms, keys were not make available, shower flooded the bathroom floor. Not recommended as a conference venue again.
A little more food would have been nice
Airport shuttle would have been helpful and financially beneficial to the SCRA. A cab cost 70 dollars per trip. Don’t run out of veggie foods More snacks throughout the conference and reusable water bottles!
airport connections were not well explained or evident (train schedules and transfers, taxi fare estimates, etc.)
alot of the details regarding presentation and even detail agenda was not provided in a timely manner. parking - obtaining passes was a problem as personal was mainly only available at session times.
Although I did not use the shuttle service, I heard many stories of problems and I helped out a few people who were left stranded by giving them a ride. The limited availability of shuttles to/from hotels was a major factor in my decision to have a car at the conference. I was glad that all sessions (besides posters) were in one building so we didn't have to navigate around the campus. However, the hallway on the second floor was over crowded. It would have been nice to have used rooms on the adjoining hallway as well so there was more space and less noise in the hall during sessions. There were not enough good spaces for informal networking. A prime draw of the biennial is the opportunity to network, but this is best facilitated when there are ample places to converse and ideally when there are coffee houses, bars or small restaurants nearby. Having one main conference hotel also helps with networking rather than having to juggle how to meet up with people who are staying at other hotels.
Although Montclair State University has a beautiful campus, the cost and the difficulty involved with transportation to and from the airport to the hotels and conference site made the experience rather negative. For example, cab fare was extremely expensive and some of us are not used to catching multiple buses and trains to get to our destination. Fortunately, we rented a car, but the location of the conference, overall, was inconvenient.