Research Archive

Evaluation Summaries Regional Coordination Workshops 2003 & 2004

Prepared by: SAIC & TranSystems Corp.

Draft - March 11, 2005

Evaluation Summaries & Lessons Learned

Overview

Two sets of regional coordination workshops, sponsored by the Joint Program Office (JPO), were held as part of this project.  The first set of workshops was held during 2003.  The four Phase One Workshops were co-hosted by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Regional Administrator and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Regional Director.  The composition of the workshop participants were determined by each region but always included FTA and HHS.  The HHS representatives typically included the Administration on Aging (AoA). Administration for Children and Families (ACF), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). 

The second set of workshops was held during 2004.  The six Phase Two workshops were broadened to include participation from other federal and state agencies besides DOT and HHS.  The other federal agencies represented included Department of Education (DOE), Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Social Security Administration (SSA).  State representatives typically included state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and other state agencies reflecting the makeup of the federal agency participants.  Local and non-governmental representatives sometimes included independent living center (ILC) programs, local transportation service providers, transit associations, humans service agencies, planning agencies, and others.

To some degree, the Phase One Workshops were viewed as a continuation of the regional coordination workshops that were hosted by FTA in 1996, which highlighted significant federal changes with respect to welfare and related transportation initiatives and coordination-related issues.  In 2003, however, the coordination workshops focused on how Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and other technologies could be used as a tool to help further the coordination effort locally and at the state level.  Additionally, it was hoped that the workshops would provide an opportunity for states to begin or continue the development of state action plans to achieve more coordinated transportation services, particularly between public transportation providers and human service transportation providers and purchasers. 

With the introduction of the FTA-based United We Ride initiative in late 2003, the Phase One Workshops were suspended and reworked to better represent the new federal coordination initiative, which included a Presidential Executive Order, which directed the coordination of a variety of federal programs funding transportation for older Americans, individuals with disabilities and persons with lower incomes.  These workshops used the Framework for Action, developed as part of United We Ride, and continued to highlight how ITS and other technologies could be used to enhance coordination efforts at the state and local levels.  Professional meeting facilitators were used to plan and facilitate the Phase Two Workshops.  The planning effort was focused on the regional agency representatives who developed the final agendas in each region.

Evaluation

An evaluation form was distributed to attendee at each regional workshop.  To maintain consistency among regions, the evaluation was designed to have core questions asked at each workshop.  In addition to the core questions, a few questions were specific to the region were asked for the Region VI and Region X evaluations.

The following five-point scale was used to evaluate various elements of the workshops:

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Summaries of the Phase One and Phase Two evaluations are provided below.  Phase One workshops included FTA Regions I, III, VI, and X.  .Phase Two workshops included FTA Regions II, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX.  A detailed evaluation summary for each region al workshop is included in Attachment A (Phase One) and Attachment B (Phase Two).  

Phase One Results

The Phase One workshops focused on three coordination-related efforts: older adult transportation, Medicaid and medical transportation, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.  These presentations, along with the ITS and technology overview, were intended to direct state discussions about coordination and aid in making plans for future coordination efforts.

Overall, the Phase One workshops were evaluated positively with an average overall score of 4.0 indicating that respondents agreed with the evaluation statements (see Figure 1).  The highest level of agreement (4.2) was in response to the comment that the workshops stimulated discussion among the participants.  The exchange of ideas was a critical element of the workshops and attaining a strong rating on that aspect of the workshops was important.  The lowest average scores (3.8) were in response to the TANF presentation and the presentation about next steps following the workshop. 

Welcome/Workshop Overview

Question #1.asked attendees to evaluate the Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation:

Did the presentation clearly describe the workshop's purpose and objectives?  Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.1.

Figure 1: Phase One Workshop Evaluation Responses

Figure 1: Phase One Workshop Evaluation Responses

TANF Transportation Presentation

Question #3 asked attendees to evaluate the content presented in the TANF Transportation presentation and whether it was informative.  Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 3.8. 

Medicaid/Medical Presentation

Question #4.asked attendees to evaluate the content presented in the Medical/Medicaid Transportation presentation and whether it was informative.   Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed gave this presentation an average score of 4.0.  

Older Adults Presentation

Question #5 asked attendees to evaluate the content presented in the Older Adults Transportation presentation and whether it was informative.  Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 3.9.  

Goals & Objectives of the State Round Tables

Question #6.asked attendees on whether the goals and objectives of the state roundtables were clearly presented.  Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.1.  

State Debriefings

Question #7 focused on whether the State debriefings were informative.  Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.1.  

Next Steps Presentation

Question #8.focused on whether the "Next Step" presentation was informative.  Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 3.8.

Whether Format Encouraged Group Discussion

Question #9 focused on whether the workshop format encouraged group discussions.  Averaging the four regional workshops, attendees agreed with the workshop format with an average score of 4.2.

Additional Topics

Additionally, in Region VI two best practice presentations were presented, the New Mexico Client Referral Ridership and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT) system and the Louisiana Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Community Service project.  Both presentations were well received and were found to be quite beneficial to workshop participants.  In Region X, state panels were set up allowing each individual State the opportunity to discuss their current activities with respect to coordination.  The State testimonials were well received by participants in addition to generating a fare amount of discussion among attendees.

Phase Two Results

The Phase Two workshops focused on the United We Ride effort, launched by the Federal Transit Administration in late 2003/early 2004.  The workshops were revamped and in most cases the programmatic presentations - older adults, Medicaid, and TANF were replaced with local examples of innovative coordination programs.  Professional facilitators were added to guide development of the workshop agendas and to provide facilitation on-site.

Overall, the Phase Two workshops were evaluated positively, with an overall score of 4.3 with 5.0 being the highest score possible.  No element scored less than 4.1.  The highest level of agreement (4.7) was in response to the comment that participants were glad that they came.  The discussion aspects of the workshops also were rated higher in the second set of workshops (4.5 in Phase Two vs. 4.2 in Phase One).

Welcome/Workshop Overview

Question #1.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement: "The Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly described the workshop's purpose and objectives."   Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.3. 

Technical Assistance Overview

Question #2.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement: "The technical assistance overview clearly described the resources available to help with coordination."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.1.

Figure 2: Phase Two Workshop Evaluation Responses

Figure 2: Phase Two Workshop Evaluation Responses

Technology Overview

Question #3.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement: "The presentation on technology and other tools clearly described ITS as an instrument that can support transportation coordination efforts."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.1.

State Action Planning Goals and Objectives

Question #4.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement: "The goals and objectives of the state action planning session were clearly presented."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.1.

Future Steps for State Coordination Planning

Question #5.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement "The state action planning sessions encouraged or resulted in future steps for state coordination planning."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.3.

Best Practices Presentations

Question #6.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement "The presentations on Innovative/Best Practices in coordination included appropriate models of coordination."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.1.

Group Discussion and Participation

Question #7.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement "The workshop format encouraged group discussion and participation."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.5.

Workshop Materials

Question #8.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement "The workshop materials that were distributed appear to be helpful."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.2.

Facilitators were Effective

Question #9.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement "The facilitators were effective at focusing and directing the discussions."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.2.

Glad I Came

Question #10.asked attendees to rate their level of agreement with the following statement "I'm glad I came to the workshop."  Averaging the six regional workshops, attendees agreed with an average score of 4.7.

Lessons Learned

Based on a review of the evaluation results and comments from participants (see Attachments A and B), the workshops were well-liked by most participants.  In general, comments suggested that the longer workshops - 1-1/2 days - were more effective than the 1-day workshops.  The longer workshops allowed for more time to discuss the state concerns and to work on the state action plans.  Detailed comments are provided in Attachments A and B.  Highlights of comments are provided below. 

  • Although most participants appeared to enjoy the workshops, some participants felt that there was not enough new information.
  • The comments also suggested that "best practices" presentations were beneficial and created good discussion opportunities among participants.
  • The networking opportunity with other states and agencies was a highlight for many participants. It also was noted that in some regions, not every state or agency was represented (often because of travel restrictions), which limited participation.
  • Although some participants liked the ITS/technology solutions offered, others were concerned that technology would be too expensive or too far in the future for them to consider.It was stressed that commitment and communication about coordination came first, then technology solutions.
  • Some attendees suggested that it would be beneficial to pool transportation funding resources at the federal level.
  • It was mentioned several times that follow-up at the regional level was critical to the success of the state planning efforts. There also was some concern that follow-up on the state action plans was left up to the states and that the process for planned follow-up concentrated more on technical assistance than continued activity on the state plans.
  • It was felt that state support also was critical for the success of local coordination initiatives.

Attachment A
Phase One Workshops
Held During 2003

DOT/HHS Regional Coordination Workshop

Evaluation

FTA Region:  I
Location:  Boston, Massachusetts
Date: March 20, 2003

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 27

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. Did the Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly describe the workshops purpose and objectives? 


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

15

11

Average 4.3

Comments:

  • Too Long!
  • The agenda could not be followed as time ran over

2. Did the ITS Overview presentation clearly describe ITS as a technology tool that could improve transportation program performance?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

3

17

6

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • It was presented so rookies could understand - "Good job"
  • Great opportunity to network
  • Though the focus was Technology, it got caught in lots of other problems that RTAs faced
  • Too much information to absorb effectively, thus the low rating is due to "clearly describe"
  • Could have been more succinct and clear
  • For my state it is not an option at this time so the timing so the time could have been folded into the discussion area
  • Too much detail, an overview, i.e. on slide per example would have been less overwhelming

3. Was the content presented in the "TANF Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

5

17

5

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • Not enough time for meaningful information and discussion
  • Good humor
  • Not enough time
  • More information on VT model
  • Presentation was very basic nothing new
  • Very informative

4. Was the content presented in the "Medical/Medicaid Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

4

18

3

Average 3.8

Comments:

  • Not enough time for meaningful information and discussions
  • Presentation was very basic nothing new
  • Wasn't clear what the speaker was trying to convey to us
  • More time needed to further explore NEMT issues.
  • Very informative

5. Was the content presented in the "Older Adults Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

4

16

7

Average 4.1

Comments:

  • Not enough time for meaningful information and discussions
  • Not enough time
  • Presentation was very basic nothing new
  • Very Informative
  • Less information is available on this subject. The presentation was all new to me.

6. Were the goals and objectives of the State roundtable clearly presented?

                                                 Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

3

13

11

Average 4.3

Comments:

  • Need to separate states at round tables. The 2 states in our group were at very different places
  • Could have used more time
  • Would have like to heart what various states are currently doing as well as next steps
  • It was supposed to focus on technology but drifted to other problems facing RTAs
  • Technology focus too narrow???
  • The session could have had more structure
  • Combining 2 states had both good and bad points (one state dominated session time)
  • Could have used more time as there were 2 different states combined together

7. Were the debriefings from each State informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

5

14

6

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • Did not cover all major issues discussed
  • Not as much as one might expect
  • Only Maine focused on ITS, other looked at overall problems - which is good
  • This is interesting to hear what is going on with our neighbors and what they feel are important issues

8. Was the "Next Steps" presentation clearly informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

5

11

7

Average 4.1


Comments:

  • Suggest FTA and HHS ask each state to circulate copies of their plan as they are developed (Keep pressure on state officials to do this)
  • Wow, great sounding

9. Did the workshop format encourage group discussions?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

1

0

1

12

13

Average 4.3

Comments:

  • General comment- table in main presentation room would have been very helpful - we juggled a lot of stuff on our laps.
  • Tell people to turn off their cell phones!
  • Could have had less time on presentation particularly ITS, and more discussion on how to address issues
  • Need more time
  • Please go forward at state level to mandate coordination
  • Separate Discussion that should include vendors
  • Good to solicit some input during the course of presentation, and not waiting until the end or making this all lectures
  • Bryna was quite "energetic"
  • Though chairs were comfortable, configuration of the room posed a serious flaw to facilitating and ease of information sharing
  • Classroom style configuration would have been better
  • When comments were made by state reps. of the reps from the audience would follow up with the person on break?
  • Lunch wasn't long enough
  • Felt rushed through some of the areas and not enough time to make comments
  • Like this FTA format better than the lecture style ones I've attend
  • Important to get representation from both HHS and DOT at state level

DOT/HHS Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation results
FTA Region: III
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Date:  June 25, 2003

Number of evaluation responses: 32 

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. Did the Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly describe the workshops purpose and objectives?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

2

22

5

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • It was OK.
  • So, transportation funding is being dramatically cut (PA TANF grants cut 50%) but we're going to spend millions on coordinating ITS systems. There was no new information gleamed from this presentation.
  • Coordination needs to be mandated at the federal level.

2. Did the ITS Overview presentation clearly describe ITS as a technology tool that could improve transportation program performance?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

1

4

3

17

5

Average 3.7

Comments:

  • Little short on time, could have used another 15 minutes
  • Presentation was geared to rural services however, most participants today are from suburban and urban areas in Region III
  • Presentation did not touch upon key issues such as capital cost to implement ITS. Too simple of a presentation where "cost "was quoted as "small" and define as just being a handshake. Needs to be over hauled to "get with 21st century issues.too simple".
  •   "Lost me early"
  • Presentation was rushed because of time, (especially potential funding) Presenter could have drawn his own circle, would have been more effective.
  • ITS is not the solution to these problems. We need to do things now.not look at a solution that is expensive and training extensive. The funding available for implementation is too low!
  • Yehuda Gross was good
  • William Wiggins needs a more realistic simple example.
  • Need to have communication and commitment to cooperate in place before implementing ITS. Need to demonstrate coordination first and then apply ITS to enhance and support. Presentation was out of context.
  • Confidentiality issues need to be relaxed to allow for a single point of contact for intake activities.

3. Was the content presented in the "TANF Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

3

7

16

51

Average 3.7

Comments:

  • "Plenty of Money" misrepresents the state position, TANF $ are allocated for specific purposes in the states- so have to take some $ out of one funded activity to put in another such as transportation
  • Good job!
  • We know this .what can we do about it!
  • The federal government needs to coordinate its transportation funding more closely. For example CMAQ funding works to increase transit use, improve air quality through sprawl reduction but then TANF funding helps to purchase cars or put unrealistic cost per passenger unit on rural/suburban transit.

4. Was the content presented in the "Older Adults Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

2

20

8

Average 4.1


Comments:

  • Scary concepts presented.2030 elderly population, 80% who don't drive, do not use public transit
  • Bob O'Connell a good overview
  • Bill Davis - excellent presentation by a knowledgeable provider
  • The information was Ok, but I expected there would be more on how the older adults funding can be better coordinated with other funding streams
  • Good job!
  • When are we going to stop planning and start doing something about it!
  • The population is aging and growing rapidly. With 1.3 billion how are you going to accomplish these goals/objectives?

5. Was the content presented in the "Medical/Medicaid Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

5

16

9

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • Some good ideas to monitor our Broker
  • Tamara McCoy - good overview
  • Rex Knowlton knowledgeable, thorough and amusing
  • Intro presentation OK. Wheels presentation "case study" very interesting and is applied to systems in our organization. Already met with wheels people.helps to see what elements we may have missed that needs to addressed as well as funding needs
  • The information was Ok, but I expected there would be more on how the older adults funding can be better coordinated with other funding streams
  • Since each State's MA program covers different services that fact should be noted on pages 6-11 and 6-12.
  • Good job!
  • Rex was very good.
  • If Medicaid transportation funding was transferred to transportation agencies - Medicaid would save $ .what would happen to transportation funding would there be any increase transportation funding or would it stay the same?
  • I did not see a relationship to the theme of coordination

 

6. Were the goals and objectives of the State roundtable clearly presented?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

2

19

6

Average 3.8

Comments:

  • Breakout discussions were very helpful
  • Our facilitator was excellent.
  • We seemed to focus on technology and often the theme or connection to coordination.
  • This is an exciting endeavor that has real promise of becoming a reality.

 

7. Were the debriefings from each State informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

21

5

Average 3.7

Comments:

  • The myriad of problems and different solutions were very informative
  • Very informative
  • Yes!!
  • On the whole, we did obtain some good ideas to apply in our state

8. Was the "Next Steps" presentation clearly informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

4

19

1

Average 3.1

Comments:

  • Each state has to go forward, as best as they can
  • Plan follow up.left up to the states. Process for planned follow up only concentrated on technical assistance. Regional follow up and support is essential.

9. Did the workshop format encourage group discussions?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

0

17

10

Average 3.9

Comments:

  • Not until the afternoon
  • General comments:
  • Would have been helpful to have several copies of the "State Action Plan" template be a full size handout so that all plans could have been copied. Perhaps at the completion of the nation wide conference a synopsis of the various meetings could be shared with all attendees.
  • Would be helpful that we get a reminder and results of national survey
  • Future conference should deal with more specific topics
  • While today's workshop was useful, there was not much new information from the federal agencies. The "push" from the federal level is critical to support our efforts at the state level, and we look forward to greater emphasis on this in future.
  • The workshop was excellent in bringing the issues out for the entire region
  • To many "talking heads". No questions form the audience in the morning
  • Agenda was tight. Presentations somewhat rushed in the beginning
  • Facility was very nice as was the location
  • Dividers should have had tabs to easily identify presentations
  • Put a pen in the binder and few sheets of paper for writing.
  • A longer meeting would be even better. Not enough time for talking with other states.
  • Need a meeting for Medicaid transportation only sometime!
  • I was disappointed in the overall workshop. Most of the morning merely confirmed information the audience already knew.
  • People form PA who attended this meeting could not determine a coordination plan for the Commonwealth.
  • I think most of the audience agreed with/ supported coordination the presentations seemed to be "selling coordination" which was not necessary given the audience.
  • I expected more concrete information discussions. I would have like documentation on the Texas action on coordination, for example.

DOT/HHS Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation Results
FTA Region: VI
Location: Dallas, Texas

Date: June 18-19, 2003

Number of evaluation responses: 21 (~ 21% of participants)

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. Did the Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly describe the workshops purpose and objectives?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

16

5

Average 4.2

Comments:

  • Enjoyed levity and humor - Great to start off with.

2. Did the ITS Overview presentation clearly describe ITS as a technology tool that could improve transportation program performance?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

14

15

Average 4.1

Comments:

  • This is going to be very helpful with our transportation projects

3. Was the content presented in the "Welfare-to Work Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

0

15

4

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • It was information we already knew

4. Was the content presented in the "Medical/Medicaid Transportation" presentation informative?

 

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         Neither Agreenor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

10

6

Average 4.3

Comments:

  • Gary'spresentation was great and very informative

5. Was the content presented in the "Older Adults Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

14

6

Average 4.2

Comments:

  • For all of these presentations - great idea to include the resources and how to get hold of them! Thanks for including those.

6. Were the facilitated discussions on coordination within all topical areas useful and informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

0

12

7

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • Not really a facilitated discussion so much as "yell out topics" . no follow up
  • No opportunity was given to address the topics that came up
  • Very Good.should help improve our working relationships

7.  Was the CRRAFT "best practice" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

8

10

Average 4.5

Comments:

  • Would like to know price & time line.
  • Good Job!
  • This session and the one from LA were very exciting. This is what we need to do!

8. Was the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Community Service presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

8

11

Average 4.3

Comments:

  • Great Job!
  • Excellent program to use as a model
  • Unfortunate about the video presentation
  • Presentation was very exciting

9. Were the goals and objectives of the State and Tribal roundtables clearly presented?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

3

10

7

Average 4.3

Comments:

  • The leader was fair and involved w/ each members perception and involvement
  • The state meeting was really good a lot of active sharing and discussions

10. Were the debriefings from each State informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

14

7

Average 4.3

Comments:

  • Allow a bit more time .and emphasis - for discussion of state plans
  • Make copies of state plans for all participants
  • Would have been easier to follow if I had an overview of the process

11. Was the "Next Steps" presentation clearly informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

15

4

Average 4.2

Comments:

  • Very good information and tips

12. Did the workshop format encourage group discussions?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

9

11

Average 4.8

Comments:

  • Wanted more information on how to blend various pots of federal money - CMS, TANF, USDA, AoA, JARC, etc.
  • Would like to see more DHS and other organizations that pay for transportation at these meetings. Also would like more information on how to get involve with these organizations.
  • Needs more transit providers to participate at these meetings.
  • Overall yes.it was a small enough group to allow for some discussion

 

DOT/HHS Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation
FTA Region: X
Location:   Seattle, Washington

Date: September 11, 2003

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 26

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

 

1. Did the Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly describe the workshops purpose and objectives?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

3

2

12

4

Average 3.8

Comments:

  • No, I am still not sure what the desired outcome of the workshop is. The afternoon and morning sessions did not fit together well.
  • Ok but vague
  • Prompt start -- icebreakers are important.
  • The invitation and agenda did not mention the emphasis on technology that came up during the conference.
  • Unfortunately we were late enough to miss the opening remarks. Sorry!
  • We arrived late ?? the agenda we used to time our travel -- the agenda we were sent had the start time @ 9AM not @ 8AM.
  • Went over their time.

 

2. Did the ITS Overview presentation clearly describe ITS as a technology tool that could improve transportation program performance?

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

2

14

4

Average 4.0

Comments:

  • But speaker rushed due to time shortage.
  • More detail.
  • More time from William Wiggins would have been helpful.
  • Testimonials would be effective.
  • The presentation was too basic and general for this audience. There was nothing new introduced.
  • Vague - potential was discussed but not engaging
  • Very informative -- comfortable speaker.
  • Would have liked to hear more

3. Was the content presented in the "TANF Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

7

13

2

Average 3.6

Comments:

  • Again the information was not tied to the audience. Information was too general to be useful.
  • Excellent!
  • More detail.
  • Some preparation in speaking. This is a very vital issue and the need to present with confidence and strength could improve reception.
  • Too short
  • Very minimal and beginner
  • Would have preferred to skip federal level presentation and spent more time on state panels. Federal presentation too general and high level to be helpful.

4. Was the content presented in the "Older Adults Transportation" presentation informative?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

3

3

7

9

4

Average 3.3

Comments:

  • Entertaining speaker. Too many slides -- slides not followed. Reference to AK is real -- as are needs In Pacific NW states. AK references do not equate to needs of other states.
  • Excellent overview
  • In aging field.
  • Interesting statistics but little information that transfers well.
  • Our dreams grow proportionately to our ability to articulate them -- wonderful articulation of "client" and "need"
  • Pretty useless, actually. General information that probably everyone in the room knows.
  • Too detailed but comprehensive

 

5. Was the content presented in the "Medical/Medicaid Transportation" presentation informative?

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

3

6

14

3

Average 3.7

 

Comments:

  • Hey where are the rest of the slides from Washington -- Great info but I am "young old" -- memory shot.
  • Missing slides detracted from the presentation
  • Not particularly. This was background information that most already know.
  • Ok, but I knew it already
  • Typical of Medicaid spend billions on transportation, but give it little importance.
  • Useful

 

6. Were the State Panels beneficial?

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

1

0

1

10

14

Average 3.8

Comments:

  • Find it interesting that fed bureaucrats are able to go over their time quite a bit; they were sure to give state presentation limited time.
  • Idaho really needs to wake up to transport needs -- Wake up Dirk!!!
  • Many options to consider were shared. Each presentation was rushed. More time for these presentations would have proven useful.
  • More time would have been good -- perhaps a total of 1.5 days rather than just one day.
  • Need more time form states and other ideas - less federal time.
  • There was good interaction here - just much too short a time to discuss.
  • Too short a time.
  • Very interesting and useful
  • WA group time very useful but would have been more so if facilitator had not emphasized technology as the solution to coordination problems. The group had other ideas that we did not have time to fully develop.
  • Washington was very good
  • Yes. This section could have been longer. It was thought provoking.

7. Were the goals and objectives of the State roundtable clearly presented?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

4

11

8

Average 4.1

 

Comments:

  • Agenda time constraints limited these presentations. Written summaries for each presentation would have been helpful.
  • It seemed to be about technology but I am not sure what we were expected to take from this -- introductions took forever. Facilitator tried to lead discussion in directions the group showed little interest in. No Focus.
  • Roundtable set up bad perhaps could have been better for accommodations/sound.
  • Small group able to work well with each other.
  • Very positive, but focused at the wrong area
  • Would like to have heard more details.

 

8. Were the debriefings from each State informative?

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

12

8

Average 4.3

 

Comments:

  • Some good ideas shared.
  • Yes. Good ideas were presented.

 

9. Was the "Next Steps" presentation clearly informative?

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

4

13

4

Average 3.9

 

Comments:

  • (none)

10. Did the workshop format encourage group discussions?

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

1

12

7

Average 4.2

 

Comments:

  • Awfully full agenda -- not much time for maximum discussion.
  • Little time for this after extensive introductions were finished.
  • Some of the morning presentations were too rushed. Need more state best practices.
  • State groups did but not large group.
  • Thanks! This was a good opportunity. We need to do more of this.
  • The list of resources presented by CTAA was greatly appreciated.
  • Workshop was too slanted toward transit issues; should have had more balance between FTA/HHS issues. Was pretty much a waste of time for social service agencies. Very disappointing!
  • Would have liked more MUTUAL discussion. Content probably required 2-days! Maybe should have left the lunchtime free for "discussion" and show the firm elsewhere.

 

Attachment B
Phase Two Workshops
Held During 2004

United We Ride Logo

Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation
FTA Region: II
Location: New York City, New York

Date:  October 28, 2004

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 36

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. The Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly described the workshop's purpose and objectives. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

17

17

Average 4.4

2. The technical assistance overview clearly described the resources available to help with coordination. Please circle one.

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

3

25

8

Average 4.1

3. The presentation on technology and other tools clearly described ITS as an instrument that can support transportation coordination efforts. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

4

21

9

Average 4.0

4. The goals and objectives of the state action planning session were clearly presented. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

21

12

Average 4.3

5. The state action planning sessions encouraged or resulted in future steps for state coordination planning. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

17

16

Average 4.4

6. The presentations on Innovative/Best Practices in coordination included appropriate models of coordination. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

7

17

7

Average 3.9

7. The workshop format encouraged group discussion and participation. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

0

15

19

Average 4.5

8. The workshop materials that were distributed appear to be helpful. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

20

13

Average 4.3

9. The facilitators were effective at focusing and directing the discussions. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

8

24

Average 4.7


10. I'm glad I came to the workshop. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

1

16

18

Average 4.5

 

11. Please feel free to add any additional comments regarding the workshop format and content.

 

  • Excellent job, nicely done/presented.
  • Could have used more of the state examples of coordination.
  • Sharing what other states are developing is very important. Look forward to future involvement in United We Ride.
  • Q9 - Well done Bill! The workshop was very valuable for numerous reasons. Primarily, questions regarding the UWR initiative and Grant funding were answered and participants were given clear guidance to take back to their respective states. Additionally, having the opportunity to hear and see, first hand, what other jurisdictions' experiences in HST coordination efforts already taken - and the negatives and positives of such - was invaluable. Finally, interacting/networking with our peers was very useful and will prove fruitful in the future.
  • Q6 - It was coordinated within the agency/county, but failed to encompass the total transportation process. General comments - UWR brochure on technical assistance: there are 8 separate TA services many of which sound the same. Is there some room for coordination at the federal level? Good first step. Thanks for having us, worthwhile.
  • Would have liked to see a list/grid describing best practices (per state/county).
  • Could have used more of a basic intro at the beginning: why is coordination of HST important? What is UWR trying to achieve? Who are the populations that we serve? How does this work dovetail (or not) with other transportation services?

 

United We Ride Logo

Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation
FTA Region: IV
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Date: October 14-15, 2004

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 26

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. The Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly described the workshop's purpose and objectives. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

11

14

Average 4.6

2. The technical assistance overview clearly described the resources available to help with coordination. Please circle one.

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

14

12

Average 4.46

3. The presentation on technology and other tools clearly described ITS as an instrument that can support transportation coordination efforts. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

16

9

Average 4.3

4. The goals and objectives of the state action planning session were clearly presented. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

0

12

12

Average 4.4

5. The state action planning sessions encouraged or resulted in future steps for state coordination planning. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

0

10

15

Average 4.5

6. The presentations on Innovative/Best Practices in coordination included appropriate models of coordination. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

10

13

Average 4.5

7. The workshop format encouraged group discussion and participation. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

6

20

Average 4.8

8. The workshop materials that were distributed appear to be helpful. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

11

14

Average 4.7

9. The facilitators were effective at focusing and directing the discussions. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

7

17

Average 4.6


10. I'm glad I came to the workshop. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

10

16

Average 4.6

11. Please feel free to add any additional comments regarding the workshop format and content.

  • Thanks, it was great
  • It's a difficult but worthwhile process - Coordination is the right thing to do, cost effective, and efficient. Good workshop
  • Very informative workshop. Assisted with each state's coordination of transportation.
  • Spend a little more time up-front explaining federal DOT funding in transportation pipelines: match rates, etc.as foundation for how states can step off from that to a coordinated model.
  • The session/workshop which focused on attendee interaction was very effective, informative, and well-presented.
  • Would like to see focus on Head Start transportation integration also.
  • I learned so much in this day and a half program. I wish it could have been 2 full days to allow for more state-to-state interaction. Hearing what others are working on has been very helpful.
  • Keep these working groups allive?? Maybe once a year get back together regionally to discuss and present issues.
  • The most important benefit that I received as a result of attending this meeting was to have the opportunity to meet with and collaborate with the Federal CMS people. It is wonderful to see that CMS is taking an interest in improving and expanding Medicaid transportation services through coordination. Hopefully, CMS will reduce/eliminate the barriers that currently exist when states try to coordinate Medicaid transportation services
  • Bring senior transportation officials to the table and cough up the money and ideas.
  • It would be extremely convenient to coordinate with a hotel. This coordination would be easier for attendees in booking the most convenient location and assist in cost. If the meeting is held in that hotel, it will be greatly appreciated.
United We Ride Logo


Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation
FTA Region: V
Location: Chicago                                                     

Date:  November 15, 2004

 

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 35

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. The Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly described the workshop's purpose and objectives. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

3

23

8

Average 4.1

2. The technical assistance overview clearly described the resources available to help with coordination. Please circle one.

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

3

24

6

Average 4.0

3. The presentation on technology and other tools clearly described ITS as an instrument that can support transportation coordination efforts. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

6

23

3

Average 3.8

4. The goals and objectives of the state action planning session were clearly presented. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

5

25

2

Average 3.8

5. The state action planning sessions encouraged or resulted in future steps for state coordination planning. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

2

23

9

Average 4.1

6. The presentations on Innovative/Best Practices in coordination included appropriate models of coordination. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

3

2

18

8

Average 4.0

7. The workshop format encouraged group discussion and participation. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

19

14

Average 4.4

8. The workshop materials that were distributed appear to be helpful. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

23

9

Average 4.2

9. The facilitators were effective at focusing and directing the discussions. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

0

18

14

Average 4.3


10. I'm glad I came to the workshop. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

22

11

Average 4.3

11. Please feel free to add any additional comments regarding the workshop format and content.

  • Peer panel was great.
  • Workshops should be conducted more often on a regional basis. It was an excellent get-together to share ideas and learn from other state's activities and programs.
  • Q8 - CD is especially helpful.
  • Not enough information for local groups. We were out of sync with state efforts.
  • Bill Potapchuk was a terrific facilitator.
  • A morning break would have been appreciated.
  • Would have been helpful if more IN attendees were present. The main facilitator was wonderful and effective. Lunch facilitator was not extremely effective at moving discussion along. Safety Net Systems, such as Primary Health Care Associations, should be at the table. National Association of Community Health Centers would be a good organization to contact. Conference and information was good, but would have been more useful if IN had other partners attending.
  • Excellent facilitator. Morning session was too long - good info, but needed a break.
  • Urban areas were missing.
  • More focus/examples from urban areas.
  • Best practices needed urban representation
  • Excellent opportunity to network with other states; Access to FTA, DHS, AoA, PA and TANF; reaffirmed reasons for coordination.
United We Ride Logo

Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation
FTA Region: VII
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

Date:  December 1-2, 2004

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 48

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. The Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly described the workshop's purpose and objectives. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

5

35

8

Average 4.1

2. The technical assistance overview clearly described the resources available to help with coordination. Please circle one.

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

3

8

24

11

Average 3.9

3. The presentation on technology and other tools clearly described ITS as an instrument that can support transportation coordination efforts. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

4

4

22

16

Average 4.1

4. The goals and objectives of the state action planning session were clearly presented. Please circle one.

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

5

12

21

9

Average 3.7

5. The state action planning sessions encouraged or resulted in future steps for state coordination planning. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

3

7

27

10

Average 3.9

6. The presentations on Innovative/Best Practices in coordination included appropriate models of coordination. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

12

26

5

Average 3.7

7. The workshop format encouraged group discussion and participation. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

3

29

16

Average 4.3

8. The workshop materials that were distributed appear to be helpful. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

8

32

7

Average 3.9

9. The facilitators were effective at focusing and directing the discussions. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

6

25

14

Average 4.0

10. I'm glad I came to the workshop. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

3

24

20

Average 4.3

11. Please feel free to add any additional comments regarding the workshop format and content.

  • I would like to see specific info on the best practices programs presented - even in hand out form.
  • Nice job!
  • Facility was great locale & conductive for the purposes of the workshop.
  • Q1 - more emphasis on the potential benefits for participants - address skepticism that this is an FTA project that will go away.
    • Q2 - it would be helpful to provide a stronger TA handout with specific names, phone numbers and e-mail; the resources listed are strictly on the transportation side - no human services resources. We'll be working on one for the region now. Maybe customize one for the region in your next workshop.
    • Q3 - Needed more specific examples of use of technology within and between human service agencies, e.g. interface with case manager.
    • Q5 - Consider more creative use of the "best practice" folks. The presentations they made were useful but I would have liked to see more of them over the course of the two days. They represent a large body of knowledge for the individual groups to tap into. Perhaps use them as 'rovers' so that each group could ask questions as they develop action steps.
    • General - Excellent starting effort - now the challenge is to keep the momentum going.
  • I wish the folks from Washington could come down from their lofty towers and much around in the mud with the rest of us. When Gross said ITS was inexpensive, he shows he has no clue how precarious the financial resources of rural systems are. Get real! Also, why should we coordinate when FTA, FHWA, FAA and federal motor carriers can't come up with one substance abuse testing program?
  • Good facility, good sharing of ideas, facilitator could have been better prepared (didn't know much about region, seemed to have little direction to offer the group in leading discussion).
  • Panel presentation was misleading - 2 of the 3 presenters represented brokerage models.
  • Great breakout sessions! The facility was very good. The hotel accommodations were great. Thank you for a great workshop.
  • State facilitators for MO group pushed own experiences and perceptions. Missed target in a big way. Not an effective experience. She didn't listen to some of the info given, i.e. vision - didn't write down suggestions. Disregarded some entirely. Some of the people who were here and registered early weren't on the group lists.
  • Was very good, maybe could have had a full day the first day so we could have more discussion time in the break-outs. Hotel was wonderful and training facility was great. Suggestion - try a soup and salad lunch sometime. Lunch was ok, but not impressed. Breaks were good.
  • It might have been more productive if agencies had been directed on "the most appropriate person" to send. Some attendees were focused on local issues and could not focus on the bigger picture.
  • Excellent facilities and accommodations. We had very good discussions in our groups and I learned a lot about what other folks are doing and some of them were experiencing the same barriers to success that my organization is experiencing.
  • Jane Hardin did a great job [in breakouts] of keeping us focused. Great job, great facility. Only comment is that we really could have used more time in the breakouts; however, it really is our responsibility to use this as a place to start. Our group was heavy in transit (necessary) but we need to encourage other agencies to attend to truly work towards collaboration. Fortunately, we did have other (some) representation in our group. Otherwise, it will be the same old thing.
  • Each breakout session could have been a half-day session. Two suggestions for your consideration: have two instead of three breakout sessions - either two 90-minute or one 1-hour and 2-hour sessions. Reduce the number of steps/actions to be achieved in each breakout session.
  • Wonderful presentation on how technology can help make transportation more available to consumers. It can save $$ in the long run.
  • Because the governor of NE has already created a transportation access work group with director, and because only four of the nine appointees were present, the full benefit of this workshop was not realized.
  • Facilitator did a good job adjusting to a group that was not prepared to take on the task given (MO). In future, spend more preparation time to make sure the group has a common goal or vision. The size was slightly too large, or we didn't have the right people there; a few dominated conversation, while others never talked. If a state has a plan, everyone needs to at least get it to read before such a session.
  • It would have been nice to interact with other states in the sharing of ideas and information.
  • Conference was fine for HHS employees. However, was weak and nothing new for anyone who has been involved in transportation for 20 years. I for one did not get anything out of this conference. It was all more of the same. I don't see anything changing until the different federal agencies involved in transportation do away with conflicting rules and regulations. Frankly, I don't see that happening. Coordination has come and gone over the years and this new effort will also pass.
  • All same old info. Want to see end results.
  • I felt that during our group discussions we often detoured to areas that were not necessarily productive. I'm not sure all those here understood the areas of ITS - maybe have a handout in the packet.
  • The goals and objectives for the state action planning were clearly presented. However, the MO players realized that we have many barriers in this state to overcome. I commend the facilitator for pulling the thoughts and comments of the group together and helping us to identify the next steps to follow.
  • We needed to have the key players at the table (state human services and transportation leaders). We are learning a lot. But we did not develop a next step. Sessions should address coordination at state and local level.
  • I am still not clear about what FTA and other federal agencies will do with the information generated at this workshop.
  • Q3 - The financials of it is an issue for small providers across the board.
    • Q5 - We struggled but we have a direction.
United We Ride Logo

Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation
FTA Region: VIII
Location: Denver, Colorado 

  Date: December 9-10, 2004

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 30

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. The Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly described the workshop's purpose and objectives. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

21

8

Average 4.2

2. The technical assistance overview clearly described the resources available to help with coordination. Please circle one.

 

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

8

14

9

Average 4.0

3. The presentation on technology and other tools clearly described ITS as an instrument that can support transportation coordination efforts. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

2

17

10

Average 4.18

4. The goals and objectives of the state action planning session were clearly presented. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

5

15

9

Average 4.1

5. The state action planning sessions encouraged or resulted in future steps for state coordination planning. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

13

15

Average 4.5

6. The presentations on Innovative/Best Practices in coordination included appropriate models of coordination. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

5

15

7

Average 4.02

7. The workshop format encouraged group discussion and participation. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

15

11

Average 4.3

8. The workshop materials that were distributed appear to be helpful. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

0

20

10

Average 4.3

9. The facilitators were effective at focusing and directing the discussions. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

11

16

Average 4.5


10. I'm glad I came to the workshop. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

13

16

Average 4.5

11. Please feel free to add any additional comments regarding the workshop format and content.

  • Overall, nice job. Good representation from agencies in each state.
  • Q1 - the objectives presumed how this should work.
    • Q5 - This depends on which state you are from.
    • Q9 - Some [facilitators] seemed to have their own agendas.
  • Very unfortunate to not have microphone. Difficult to hear well. Not sure why all the presentations were the first afternoon - lasted too long. Needed more time for state discussions.
  • The best practices has some of an area that was rural but in a region that is largely rural, we need something that will work in a rural area, where there are no transport providers or brokers available. Wondered what kind of backing we will have from Federal level or how to get those who can get action implemented like governors and department heads involved to support our goals. We here at this conference are overall not in positions to make something happen.
  • Q2 - Examples of how TA is applied or used would be helpful. Peer-to-peer has gone to states in this region.
    • Q3 - ITS [presentation] needed to be more specific to community/state coordination.
    • General - Please inform state participants who all is attending [in advance] - who is represented. Surprises not effective.
  • Q3 - Technology presentation great. Other tools presented poorly - disjointed presentation.
    • Q8 - didn't use workshop materials.
  • Pam and Diane - Thank you! You both did a wonderful job. Overall, great day and a half. There was not really any time for the participants from the 6 different states to socialize/network/have larger group discussions.
  • Rosemary was great.
  • Very nice conference. Planning was good to ensure food and assistance was available. Great to meet and work with our facilitator and note taker - collaboration started here.
  • More American Indian members should be involved. WY was the only state that had American Indian delegation present. CO, MT, SD, ND and UT also have a substantial number of American Indian citizens.
  • Q6 - The Medicaid transportation [presentation] was not about coordination. The gentlemen had a program problem (abuse); they fixed by changing the program. They ended up giving fewer rides for about the same money. Hardly a great accomplishment.
  • Thanks - well organized and productive, plus informative.
  • First class program and great conference.
  • Q9 - Hope so, ND is a great group to work with.
    • General - "Kudos" to Pam and Diane for a superb job of 'herding'. No doubt, many successful state transportation plans/projects will result from your leadership. It was a pleasure being on your team as a facilitator. Call on me again, any time.
United We Ride Logo

Regional Coordination Workshop
Evaluation
FTA Region: IX

Location: San Francisco, California

  Date:  November 8-9, 2004

Number of evaluation responses: ~ 34

Point scale:

Strongly Disagree:                     1 point

Disagree:                                  2 points

Neither Agree nor Disagree      3 points

Agree                                       4 points

Strongly Agree             5 points

1. The Welcome/Workshop Overview presentation clearly described the workshop's purpose and objectives. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

1

2

17

14

Average 4.3

2. The technical assistance overview clearly described the resources available to help with coordination. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

8

16

7

Average 3.8

3. The presentation on technology and other tools clearly described ITS as an instrument that can support transportation coordination efforts. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

6

17

8

Average 3.9

4. The goals and objectives of the state action planning session were clearly presented. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

4

16

12

Average 4.3

5. The state action planning sessions encouraged or resulted in future steps for state coordination planning. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

16

14

Average 4.4

6. The presentations on Innovative/Best Practices in coordination included appropriate models of coordination. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

3

19

11

Average 4.2

7. The workshop format encouraged group discussion and participation. Please circle one.

Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

3

16

15

Average 4.4

8. The workshop materials that were distributed appear to be helpful. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

2

5

18

9

Average 4.0

9. The facilitators were effective at focusing and directing the discussions. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

1

13

20

Average 4.6


10. I'm glad I came to the workshop. Please circle one.


Neither Agree

Strongly Disagree      Disagree         nor Disagree                         Agree              Strongly Agree

0

0

2

10

22

Average 4.6

11. Please feel free to add any additional comments regarding the workshop format and content.

  • Welcome could have been much shorter; Technical assistance time slot was tough (did not have to be long); Could have used more time in action planning session, but we would never have had the right people in the room without this workshop; Room layout hurt, but the format was good. Good job by facilitators; Some handouts useless (have to take a look at CD); Better than I thought it would be; First day could have started/ended earlier (5:30 p.m. was very late). In some respects, went beyond coordination to overall improved mobility, which is ok. Still need hard data (cost savings, increased program participation by customers, improved quality of life) to show benefits of coordination. Should have suggested one central hotel.
  • Q1 - Lousy acoustics, lousy slides, seriously over-simplistic; Q2 - describing web sites without giving address is silly; Q3 - lousy slides, demeaning language and examples; Q5 - All we need is for state leadership to pay attention; Q9 - Facilitators mediocre; General - Glossy color thing entitled "Help Along the Way" needs actual info like web links or phone numbers, not just a list; Most of federal presentations were over-simplistic and only "in the moment" - needed more understanding of what has gone before; Yehuda's reference to "Joe Standard" compared to "person who needs special services" was completely inappropriate. Except for Maureen, slide quality was much too busy and small print for the size of the room.
  • Good facilitator; Facility was not conducive to holding this type of meeting; sound system needs updating; Seating did not allow good viewing of all participants; Since we all have too much work to do back at the office, conferences like this (out of the office) allow us to concentrate on this very important topic - so keep having them and maybe we can accomplish our goals. Spend more time on goals/action plans - less on general overview, etc.
  • Though provoking - hopefully Federal guidelines will become less stringent and more flexible if this type of coordination is to really work. Local, state entities must all be encouraged from the highest level of government to participate.
  • Q8 - haven't viewed all materials yet (especially CD). Re: Zoomerang survey, our survey (AZ) had comments from California (comments that were shown with #1 were CA, those shown as #2 were AZ. Not sure how this affected aggregate response. Overall, very interesting conference - good opportunity to network and gain exposure to new ideas.
  • There was definite value-added in holding this workshop and getting input and information shared. The need is to sustain momentum through the federal to the state and local levels.
  • li>I strongly believe that the DOT's Office of Civil Rights should play a more significant role in the development and implementation of the UWR program.
  • Need to have a greater vision for transportation for all people in CA led by the CA DOT instead of working in silos, i.e. transportation needs for Medicaid recipients or Cal-works recipients or people with disabilities or the aging population. How about a vision for transportation / Mass transit for all Californians? If this is addressed, these special populations needs will automatically be taken care of.
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE • Washington, DC 20590 • 800.853.1351 • E-mail OST-R

Accessibility | Disclaimer | Fast Lane | FedStats | Freedom of Information Act | No FEAR Act | OIG Hotline | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House


OST-R's privacy policies and procedures do not necessarily apply to external web sites. We suggest contacting these sites directly for information on their data collection and distribution policies.