Commentaries

Northern Lights Community Charitable Gaming Association

NLCCGA Workshop Evaluations on the 20245 Community Gaming Grant Guidelines from the Dawson Creek Workshop on April 12/25 and the Fort St. John Workshop on May 10/25.

Analysis done by R. Le Gear – 9 out 13 evaluation sheets received from the Dawson Creek Workshop and 6 out 8 evaluation sheets received from the Fort St. John Workshop.

DC refers to Dawson Creek Workshop and FSJ refers to the Fort St. John Workshop

Evaluation Form

What parts of the workshop did you find beneficial for you and your organization?

  1. Good Review of the process (1) (DC)
  2. The New application process changes (1) (DC)
  3. All of the information & expanded explanations (2) (DC)
  4. The surplus calculations & the restricted funds information (1) (DC)
  5. Beneficial sections were the fund requests & financial requirements (2) (DC)
  6. Good breakdown on how you can & can’t spend the grant money (1) (DC)
  7. No reply (1) (DC)
  8. The detailed explanations (1) (FSJ)
  9. Very informative & helpful (2) (FSJ)
  10. Eligibility information & tips on how to get the application through quickly (1) (FSJ)
  11. Program eligibility & expenses (1) (FSJ)
  12. Financial reporting (1) (FSJ)

What parts of the workshop could be omitted?

  1. Open discussion good be less (1) (DC)
  2. None (2) (DC)
  3. No reply (6) (DC)
  4. Less time on how grants are done by the government (1) (FSJ)
  5. all parts helpful (1) (FSJ)
  6. None (4) (FSJ)

What parts of the workshop could have more emphasis, more details or more time?

  1. Applying for multiple programs (1) (DC)
  2. More time for Questions & Answers (1) (DC)
  3. Applying for money if one is not sure of the dates of the events & travel (1) (DC)
  4. Submission of financials & how to get funds for various activities (1) (DC)
  5. None (2) (DC)
  6. No reply (3) (DC)
  7. How to make error free applications for grants (1) (FSJ)
  8. All parts helpful (1) (FSJ)
  9. None (4) (FSJ)

Suggestions for the improvement of the workshop.

  1. Skim threw the administrative parts faster for more time for Questions & answers (1) (DC)
  2. Display of the financial examples
  3. Offer presentation on the guides virtually (it was offered, but no one signed up for it.) (1) (DC)
  4. None (6) (DC)
  5. Need a copy of blank application form (1) ((DC)
  6. Walk through the actual application process (1) (FSJ)
  7. Offer a hybrid presentation online (1) (FSJ)
  8. More time for Questions & Answers (1) (FSJ)
  9. None (3) (FSJ)

Method of Delivery 

Excellent (7) DC; (2) (FSJ).    Good (1) (DC); (4) (FSJ).     Satisfactory (1) (DC; (0) (FSJ).                Fine (0) (DC) (FSJ).                Poor (0) (DC) (FSJ)

Suggestions for Improvement of the delivery of the presentation

  1. None (9) (DC)
  2. None (6) (FSJ)

Rate Workshop – Overall satisfaction.

Excellent (7) (DC); (1) (FSJ).       Good (1) (DC); (5) (FJS).          Satisfactory (1) (DC); (0) (FSJ).            Fine (0) (DC) (FSJ).                     Poor (0) (DC) (FSJ).

Heard about the Workshop via the following:

NLCCGA Member (5) (DC); (0) (FSJ).     Facebook (2) (DC); (4) (FSJ).      Other (2) DC); (2) FSJ)