Form 3320-000N(1) Facilitation Services - Participant Questionnaire (Rev 2

OMB Number: 3320-0010
Approval Expiry Date:

Facilitation Participant Evaluation
Evaluation of Progress Re: Collaborative Intervention
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution requests your assistance in evaluating this
process. As a part of this evaluation we ask the various participants who have been involved in this
project to provide us with information about their experience. The data compiled will be used to
improve future mediation and facilitation processes. The average estimated reporting burden for this
questionnaire is 12 minutes. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, gathering the
data needed, completing, and reviewing the questionnaire. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to the Institute. The Institute will not report information from this evaluation in a way that
respondents or their organizations can be identified. Moreover, the identity of individual respondents
will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
number that is displayed on the cover is currently valid and authorizes this collection of information.

0
1
Do not agree
at all

2

3

4

5
Moderately
agree

6

7

8

9
10
Completely
agree

1. Using the scale above, please rate the following questions about the participants and resources?
Rating
____

a. The participants, as a group, represented all affected concerns.

____

b. The participants continued to be engaged so long as their involvement was necessary.

____

c. The participants had sufficient authority to make commitments on behalf of their
organizations.

____

d. I had the resources (e.g., time, money) needed to participate effectively in the process.

____

e. I had sufficient access to relevant information I needed in order to participate effectively in
this collaborative process.

___

f.

Relevant information was effectively integrated into the process (e.g., a project web site
was used to share information, spatial analysis and decision support tools were used).

0
1
Do not agree
at all

2

3

4

5
Moderately
agree

6

7

8

9
10
Completely
agree

2. Using the scale above, please rate the following for each facilitator involved in this process:
Please identify each facilitator by placing their initials in the space provided, and then rate each statement for
each facilitator. Please use the margins to rate additional facilitators if needed.

Initials of Facilitator(s)
1. ___

2. ___

3. ___

Facilitator Skills and Practices

Ratings
____

____

____

a. The facilitator kept us on track and helped us find ways to
move forward constructively.

____

____

____

b. The facilitator dealt with all participants in a fair and unbiased
manner, and made sure that no one dominated the process.

____

____

____

c. The facilitator helped us manage technical discussions efficiently.

____

____

____

d. The facilitator helped the participants test the practicality
of the options under discussion.

___

___

___

e. The facilitator was helpful in documenting our work.

3. Using the scale above, please rate the following statements about the process:
Rating
____

a. The process helped you gain a better understanding of the other participants’ views and
perspectives.

____

b. The process helped you identify and focus on the key issues that had to be

addressed.
____

c. The process helped the participants, as a group, to explore options or resolutions that meet
the common needs of all participants.

2

4. Please indicate the extent to which progress was made:
Check only one
Use the space below if you would like
to elaborate on your response:



Progress made on all key issues



Progress made on most key issues



Progress made on some key issues



We ended the process without making
much progress at all.

0
1
Do not agree
at all

2

3

4

5
Moderately
agree

6

7

8

9
10
Completely
agree

5. Using the scale above, please rate the extent to which the participants were able to work
together cooperatively when the process began and as a result of the process.

The participants were able to work together
cooperatively.

Before the
process began
Rating

As a result of
the process
Rating

_____

_____

6. Using the scale above, please rate the following:
Rating
____

I would recommend this type of process to colleagues in a similar situation.

3

7. What is your top suggestion on how this collaborative process could have been improved?
PLEASE WRITE "NONE" IF YOU FEEL THIS PROCESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED .
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

8. From your perspective, what will be the effect (e.g., impacts or benefits) of the progress made?
PLEASE RANK THE MOST IMPORTANT EFFECTS (E.G., 1ST MOST IMPORTANT, 2ND MOST IMPORTANT).
PLEASE ALSO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE EFFECTS.
Rank all
that apply

Briefly describe the effects of the progress made:



Natural resources and
environmental conditions



Historic and cultural
resources



Community and social
conditions



Economic conditions



Recreational uses



Other

4

9. If an assisted collaborative process had not been used, what would have been the most likely
approach for the issues to be addressed or resolved?
Check
only one


a. Unassisted negotiation



b. Judicial settlement conference



c. Litigation



d. Lobbying or working to achieve legislative action



e. Rulemaking



f. Arbitration



g. Administrative proceeding (e.g., agency appeals process, agency order)



h. Wait for a better time to take action.



i. Don't know



j. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) ____________________________

5

10. Overall, what did this collaborative process accomplish?
Check the
Most
Important

Check the
Second
Most
Important





a. A potentially costly or divisive dispute was likely avoided.





b. An impasse (stalemate) was broken.





c. A crisis was likely averted.





d. Conflict didn’t escalate.





e. Costly or protracted litigation was likely avoided.





f. Relationships among parties in this process were improved.





g. The process resulted in timely decisions and outcomes.





h. Nothing was accomplished.





i. The process made the issues or dispute worse.

0
1
Do not agree
at all

2

3

4

5
Moderately
agree

6

7

8

11. Using the scale above, please rate the following final questions:
Rating
____

a. On reflection, this was the right facilitator(s) to guide this process.

____

b. I was involved in selecting the facilitator(s).

6

9
10
Completely
agree

12. Which category best describes the interest or organization you represented in this process?
CHECK THE MOST APPROPRIATE BOX ONLY .


a. Federal Government



b. State Government



c. Local/County/Regional Government



d. Tribal Government



e. Environmental/Conservation



f. Recreational



g. Industrial/Resource Extraction



h. Business/Commercial



i. Community or Private Citizen (e.g., neighborhood association, local resident)



j. Special Advocacy Interests (Please specify): ____________________



k. Other (Please specify): ______________________________________

13. Please use the space below for any additional comments you would like to make.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

7

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
Your assistance in providing this information is very much appreciated.