Workshop Performance Report

Q3 Evaluation Analysis

Capacity-building workshop outcomes across 14 sessions and 83 participant evaluations — April 3 through May 28, 2026.

83 Total Responses
14 Workshop Sessions
Apr 3 – May 28 Date Range
4.83 / 5.0 Avg Rating
Key Performance Indicators
Overall Satisfaction
4.83
Average rating out of 5.0 across all 83 respondents
↑ No scores below 3
Very Satisfied Rate
84%
70 of 83 attendees gave the highest possible rating (5 — Very Satisfied)
70 respondents
Actionability Rate
98.8%
82 of 83 said the session had actionable information they can use
1 non-response
Relevance Rate
97.6%
81 of 83 confirmed the session was relevant to their needs
1 No · 1 Unsure
Satisfaction Distribution & Session Attendance
Rating Breakdown
How participants rated each session overall — no respondent gave a 1 or 2
  • 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%
98.8%
Rated 4 or 5
0%
Negative Ratings
Attendance by Session Date
Number of evaluation responses submitted per workshop date (Apr–May 2026)
Capacity Building Outcomes & Attendee Composition
Capacity Building Skills Developed
Skills participants identified as learned — respondents could select multiple; n=83
Strategy & Planning
57.8%
Collaboration
56.6%
Leadership
54.2%
Sustainability
38.6%
Operations Management
36.1%
Personnel Management
33.7%
Program Management
24.1%
Data Mgmt & Evaluation
19.3%
Financial Management
14.5%
Attendee Positions
Breakdown of participants by organizational role — n=79 (4 did not specify)
  • Executive Leadership4860.8%
  • Management2329.1%
  • Frontline Staff67.6%
  • Volunteer11.3%
  • Board Member11.3%
Funder Audience Composition
Funding Source Representation
Participants self-identified whether their organization is funded by Alachua County and/or The Children's Trust
13
Alachua County only
15.7% of respondents
12
Both funders
14.5% of respondents
17
Children's Trust only
20.5% of respondents
41
Neither identified
49.4% of respondents
Strategy Session Follow-Up Requests
Participants who indicated they want a 1-on-1 strategy session follow-up
19

Follow-Up Requests

22.9% of all respondents (19 of 83) opted in for a strategy session follow-up, representing concrete pipeline for deeper organizational engagement. These individuals provided contact emails and represent high-intent leads for continued capacity-building work.

Note: The follow-up column uses a checkbox field — the 64 blank entries are participants who did not opt in, not missing data. All 19 who checked also provided email addresses.
Analyst Observations
🎯
Ceiling Effect in Ratings
With 84.3% of respondents at the maximum score and zero negative ratings, the data is left-skewed in the best possible way — but it also means the scale may not differentiate between "good" and "exceptional" sessions. The single neutral response warrants follow-up to understand what missed.
👔
Leadership-Heavy Audience
Over 89% of respondents hold management-level or executive roles. This is a meaningful finding: these workshops are successfully reaching decision-makers, not just frontline staff. It also means the curriculum should stay strategically pitched — frontline workers are severely underrepresented at 7.6%.
🔗
Top-3 Skills Are Relational
Strategy & Planning, Collaboration, and Leadership — the three most-cited skill areas — are all inherently relational and cross-functional. Financial Management ranks last at 14.5%, which may reflect either lighter coverage or lower demand. Worth examining if that gap aligns with the sector's actual capacity needs.
📅
Uneven Session Sizes
Session attendance ranged from 1 to 9 respondents, with April 8 and April 25 pulling just single-digit single responses. Whether this reflects low turnout or low survey completion rate is unclear, but the outlier sessions deserve investigation to understand if scheduling, topic, or promotion was the cause.
💰
Majority Not Funder-Affiliated
A striking 49.4% of respondents (41 of 83) claimed no Alachua County or Children's Trust funding. This either means the program successfully draws a broad nonprofit community, or that many participants simply skipped the funding question (both checkboxes optional). Clarifying this with better data collection would strengthen funder reporting.
⚠️
Evaluation Blind Spots
The survey captures sentiment well but has no pre/post knowledge measure, no session-level topic tagging, and no demographic data. It can confirm participants liked the sessions — it cannot prove skill transfer or organizational impact. For grant reporting purposes, a 30-60 day follow-up question would substantially strengthen the evidence base.
Selected Participant Comments

Virginia is a caring, patient, and knowledgeable presenter and facilitator who creates an environment where everyone feels engaged and comfortable participating. She thoughtfully addresses every question and ensures participants feel heard, valued, and supported.

Executive Leadership · May 14
★★★★★

This is probably the most practically helpful session I've attended, leaving with very actionable content that will quickly impact what we're doing.

Attendee · April 21
★★★★★

Angela is a great instructor and facilitator. She encouraged engagement, making the presentation interactive. She is also very knowledgeable and has a versatile background, which makes her relatable to her audience.

Attendee · April 24
★★★★★

The Theory of Change session was a powerful and engaging starting point for advancing our organizational learning. It provided a clear framework to focus our efforts and identify the "wobbly table legs" — areas of vulnerability that could impact our stability.

Attendee · April 21
★★★★★

This was a great 3-part series. It has provided some real actionable items for managing change within our organizations.

Attendee · May 14
★★★★★

The Managing Change Through Communications course was highly valuable, providing practical insights on effectively communicating with staff, the board, and the public. It also reinforced the importance of truly understanding your team to lead change successfully.

Attendee · April 9
★★★★★
⚠️ 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 comes from the same session. Worth monitoring whether session length is a recurring friction point in Q4.