Program Performance Report

Q3 Workshop
Evaluation Analysis

83 participant evaluations across 14 capacity-building sessions — April 3 through May 28, 2026. Data sourced directly from post-session survey responses.

— Total Responses
14 Sessions
Apr 3 – May 28 2026
— Avg Rating
Program Health Score
—
/ 100
Grade: A+
Key Performance Indicators
—
out of 5
Avg Satisfaction
Mean rating across all 83 respondents
Zero negative ratings
—
percent
Rated 5-Star
Chose "Very Satisfied" — the maximum score
70 of 83 respondents
—
percent
Actionability
Said session had information they can immediately use
82 of 83 said Yes
—
percent
Relevance Rate
Confirmed session was relevant to their needs
1 No · 1 Unsure only
Satisfaction Distribution & Session Attendance
Rating Breakdown
How participants rated each session — no respondent scored below 3
  • 5 — Very Satisfied
    70 84.3%
  • 4 — Satisfied
    12 14.5%
  • 3 — Neutral
    1 1.2%
  • 2 — Dissatisfied
    0 0%
  • 1 — Very Dissatisfied
    0 0%
—
Rated 4 or 5
—
% Negative Ratings
Attendance by Session Date
Evaluation responses per workshop — Apr 3 through May 28, 2026
Capacity Building Outcomes & Attendee Composition
Capacity Building Skills Developed
Skills participants identified — multiple selections allowed; click to highlight
Strategy & Planning
57.8%48
Collaboration
56.6%47
Leadership
54.2%45
Sustainability
38.6%32
Operations Management
36.1%30
Personnel Management
33.7%28
Program Management
24.1%20
Data Mgmt & Evaluation
19.3%16
Financial Management
14.5%12
Attendee Positions
Role breakdown — n=79 (4 did not specify position)
Executive Leadership
48 60.8%
Management
23 29.1%
Frontline Staff
6 7.6%
Volunteer
1 1.3%
Board Member
1 1.3%
Funder Composition & Engagement Pipeline
Funding Source Representation
Self-identified funder affiliation — both checkboxes were optional, affecting completeness
—
Alachua County Only
15.7%
—
Both Funders
14.5%
—
Children's Trust Only
20.5%
—
Neither Identified
49.4%
Strategy Session Follow-Up Requests
High-intent participants who opted in for a 1-on-1 strategy session follow-up
—
opted in

22.9% Follow-Up Rate

19 of 83 participants requested a strategy session and provided contact emails — representing concrete pipeline for deeper engagement and organizational consulting opportunities.

⚡ All 19 provided email addresses
Analyst Observations
🎯
Ceiling Effect in Ratings
With 84.3% at the maximum score and zero negative ratings, the scale can no longer differentiate between good and exceptional sessions. The single neutral response warrants individual follow-up — it's the only signal of friction in the entire dataset.
👔
Leadership-Heavy Audience
Over 89% of respondents hold management-level or executive roles. The program is successfully reaching decision-makers — but frontline staff are severely underrepresented at 7.6%, which may limit organizational-level impact beyond the leadership layer.
🔗
Top Skills Are Relational
Strategy, Collaboration, and Leadership — the top three — are inherently cross-functional. Financial Management ranked last at 14.5%, worth investigating: does that reflect lighter curriculum coverage, or lower participant demand in an area where many nonprofits are fragile?
📅
Uneven Session Sizes
Response counts ranged from 1 to 9 per session. April 8 and April 25 each returned a single response. Whether this reflects actual low turnout or low survey completion is unclear — but the outlier sessions need investigation before drawing session-level conclusions.
💰
Funder Attribution Gap
Nearly half (49.4%) claimed no funder affiliation. This is either a genuinely diverse community or systematic underreporting via the optional checkbox design. For grant accountability reporting, this ambiguity is a liability — mandatory disclosure fields would resolve it.
⚠️
No Pre/Post Measurement
This survey proves people liked the sessions — it cannot prove skill transfer or organizational change. A 30-60 day follow-up question asking what participants actually implemented would substantially strengthen the evidence base for funder reporting and program improvement.
⚠ Constructive Feedback — May 28
"Could have been shorter/consolidated, but some very good points." — The only substantive improvement-oriented comment in the dataset. The sole neutral rating (3/5) likely originates from this same session. Monitor whether session length becomes a recurring theme in Q4.
Participant Voices