EU'GO final evaluation report 2013 by CEMEA CEMEA

EVALUATION REPORT

2 01 3

Page | 2

INDEX This document contains: A general introduction to the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO project evaluation system (aim, actors and missions)

A description of the on line evaluation system for EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO project

Impact of the experimentation phase

Experimentation leaders report

Experimentation staff report

E-Learning testing phase report

Impact of the management meetings

E-Learning meeting Barcelona abstract

Final Evaluation Meeting Berlin abstract

Recommendations of the external evaluator

Analysis after Feedback questionnaire 2

Analysis after Feedback questionnaire 3

Conclusive Analysis of the external evaluator

WP 9 auto-evaluation for the 2 year

Conclusions

ANNEXE 1: Experimentation graphics

ANNEXE 2: Management meetings graphics

112

INTRODUCTION TO EU’GO EVALUATION SYSTEM Page | 3 In order to focus step by step on the work done on at the evaluation level within EU’GO Grundtvig Multilateral Project, we have to start from what foreseen in the application form, where it was defined and planned the work package 9: CEMEA del Mezzogiorno will take care of the follow-up of EU’GO and monitor the coordinator’s work by using one online tool, where the partners will upload their reports. The project manager ensures good communication between the WP coordinators and the partners. Each partner will be the recipient of a yearly evaluation report written by the evaluation team, from which will be presented recommendations in order to increase the quality of work. The objectives will be analysed in terms of progress in their achievement. The evaluators won’t work separately, but as a team, involved in every step of the project, from the beginning. Among the internal evaluators, we will find the Italian partner as coordinator, the French partner as general coordinator and the German partner, as well as beneficiaries from each partner. So, they will be really working for the project, its development, and become “learners-teachers”. They will benefit from the skills and knowledge of the external evaluator, who will also have to be sure that this work is objective. This integrated and shared approach has already been the subject of tangible results (UNEC best practice model 2006) for its working group part. Four large fields will be evaluated: a. Success of the transnational/national work, effectiveness of the contribution of each partner/use/utility of the resources of the project b. Functionality of the partnership – general management, team work, partnership administration and possibility of a long term collaboration c. Dissemination/highlighting: if the already tested experiences of the project and the results reached a large public and possibly created a gearing down chain d. Quality of the results (trainings and method), importance of the contents and appropriateness between the needs and the feasibility, between the tools and the backgrounds of the participants/beneficiaries, between the project and the labour market. The evaluation group (Cemea del Mezzogiorno, Pistes Solidaires and Inwole), with the intention to better define the content of the public tender for the external evaluator, contributes to fix aim and purposes of the internal evaluation differently from the ones of the external evaluation. Internal evaluation The Italian organisation Cemea del Mezzogiorno is responsible for the open tender for the selection of an external evaluator service. As coordinator of the

evaluation working package 9, Cemea is responsible for four evaluation areas that have been identified as main fields of investigation (cfr. previous section). Inside the consortium Cemea will concretely be responsible for:  Creating evaluation tools to be used before during and after the different activities and actions of the EU’GO project  Evaluate the productivity and the quality of the international meetings and visits  Elaborate information and results of the internal evaluation in a feed back towards the consortium  Lead the Mid Term Meeting foreseen in Rome  Analyse the results of the project in terms of team working, national and transnational cooperation, dissemination, production of the tools, project promotion, products’ quality, initial goals and objectives of EU’GO for the final report External evaluation In order to ensure objectivity in the part of the evaluation concerning the process of interaction between partners and the final impact on beneficiaries, an external evaluator has been foreseen for the following tasks:  Evaluate and stimulate the partnership in terms of - Roles and tasks division within the project - Level of engagement, contribution and mutual support of each partner in the different phases of it - Quality and coherence of the implementation of the actions foreseen in the project - Effectiveness of the communication and decision making process inside the consortium - Working methods and conflict management within the consortium  -

Evaluate the real impact on beneficiaries in terms of Concrete results in relation to the aims of the project Local impact of practices experimented Real commitment of the beneficiaries towards the project phases

 -

Evaluate the success of the transnational cooperation throughout the Assessment of the effectiveness of the project against its objectives Real achievements of the international project Dimension of results reached at national level by the project Usefulness of the resources provided by the project

 Contribute to the final report In order to accomplish his/her mission, the external evaluator is requested to participate for all the duration of the mid-term meeting and of the final evaluation meeting. The participation to at least one study visit is very welcomed. Reactions by e-mail or Skype within the 72 hours after a direct request of advice from the members of the consortium are requested to the external evaluator.

Page | 4

External evaluator: approach and method proposed The approach proposed by the provider REPLAY NETWORK, chosen for this role, for the external evaluation of the project EU’GO is based on the method of “educational evaluation”: evaluation as an inherent part of the learning process and at the service of the achievements of beneficiaries and staff members. There are other possible approaches to evaluation: as part of the decision-making processes, from the point of view of project management, income-outcome oriented evaluations, etc. The approach chosen for EU’GO does not necessarily contradict any other approach to evaluation. It is simply different. The focus will remain on (nonformal) learning.

Educational evaluation is a systematic and ongoing process which includes: 

Researching and collecting information, from different sources, about the learning process, the content, the methods, the context, the outcomes of an activity



The organisation and analysis of that information



The establishment of certain criteria (evaluation criteria)



The discernment and judgement of the analysed information (according to the set evaluation criteria and at the light of the learning objectives)



Drawing conclusions and recommendations that allow the re-orientation and eventual improvement of the project activities

It is relevant and necessary to distinguish educational evaluation from the process of collecting and obtaining certain kind of information. The collection of information is something punctual, and it is done in the evaluation process at certain moments. But educational evaluation is an ongoing process. It implies judgement (good, bad, acceptable, ok, advantageous, disadvantageous, of high quality, of low quality, etc.). The educational evaluation implies measurement. But it also goes beyond the mere measurement: it provides explanations and conclusions. Before embarking on any evaluation, the evaluator and the group should address two fundamental questions: 1.

What do you want to know?

Who will use that information, and how?

Identifying evaluation purposes and users generate questions that will then shape the evaluation methods. This sequence is extremely important, since methods should not be chosen without a clear purpose and the audience in mind. The participation of the external evaluator to one of the study visits and to the mid-term and final evaluation meetings will nourish the effectiveness of the support offered to beneficiaries and staff members, finally the target of the project.

Page | 5

In terms of purposes, the evaluation is undertaken to serve one or more of the following three general purposes: 1. Accountability: to measure the results of programs and account for use of foundation resources 2. Knowledge generation: to create new understanding about what works and what does not 3. Program planning or improvement: to support clear, well-designed, feasible, and measurable grant making programs and to support ongoing program planning, implementation, and overall organizational effectiveness WHY TO EVALUATE To learn The first and most basic aim of evaluation is to learn. The aim is the learning of all actors involved: their access to additional knowledge and to a new learning opportunity. While evaluating, the actors involved learn to understand, to give a value and to draw conclusions on their own learning experiences. Through educational evaluation we learn from experience. All the actors involved in evaluation learn to express their knowledge: knowledge not of “topics” but of the relevance of their educational experience to their own lives. Participants also learn while sharing and confronting their judgements with those of their colleagues. During the evaluation process, different interpretations, meanings and interrelations are raised and debated. Very often actors involved in evaluation ask themselves: What does it mean? How should I interpret this or that result? What are the implications? The doubt implied by the diversity of answers that one might get to these questions can be considered as a matter of competence. The different actors need to have a certain “tolerance of ambiguity”, the ability to live with several different possible outcomes, not all of which fit easily together or with one’s personal, professional or organisational values, to be able to accept that the outcomes of the evaluation may not be to their liking. Where this competence is present, evaluation can be a motor of curiosity, a source of learning and an impulse to continue learning. When evaluation and learning take place at the same time, the actors involved create, discern, imagine, analyse, contrast, elaborate answers, formulate questions, come up with doubts, search for other sources. To motivate The evaluation process should lead to improvements and change. Change, improvement, evolution and further development are factors of motivation for all the actors involved in the educational process. That is the reason why a constructively carried out educational evaluation contributes to maintaining a challenge and to fostering motivation within a project. An evaluation whose results or process de-motivates becomes limited and incomplete because it cannot maintain the participation of all actors. Some participants might have negative and discouraging perceptions of evaluation. This can be a result of the fact that at times in formal education, evaluation (or more precisely put student assessment) is used as a mechanism to “select” or “exclude”.

Page | 6

However, achieving the objective of motivating while evaluating does not only depend on “recognising the achievements as well as shortcomings” of what is being evaluated. It also depends a lot on the attitude adopted by those involved, the atmosphere in which the evaluation takes place and on the imagination of the actors about what will happen after the evaluation results have been made public. To participate Evaluation is an opportunity both to promote the values of participation and to practice it. This participative dimension goes beyond the “democratic legitimacy” of changes to the educational process. To change and improve As we have seen in its definition, change and improvement are integral to the process of evaluation. This idea of change is generally assumed in an “operational” way: change of tools, formats, methods, places, targets. Change as a consequence of the accelerated changes taking place in our societies. In evaluation the changes also happen at the personal level: change of attitudes, of values, of ways of understanding. This “personal” dimension of change is often less visible than the “operational” one. But, both are equally important: evaluation requires openness to changing our ways of doing things as well as our way of thinking. Resistance to evaluation is often rooted in resistance to “internal” and “external” changes that might be required of an individual or of a group as a result of the outcomes.

WHAT IS EVALUATION FOR It is possible to identify some “operational objectives” or uses of evaluation. The following objectives are linked to the implementation and practice of evaluation and, to the uses of its outcomes at different moments of the process. The following list is certainly not exhaustive. Evaluation has a lot of potential and uses, but among others, the following: To plan better Evaluation can help to change things and to plan “different things”, but it can also help us to plan things better, in order to prevent negative consequences and to compensate for possible shortcomings. To take stock of achievements It is important to recognise, name and give value to the achievements of the process so that they do not get lost or not sufficiently used. To consolidate results Identified results can be consolidated by making them explicit at the end of the evaluation process. The description, sharing and further use of results are natural follow-up steps of educational evaluation. To check if we met the interests of the funding institutions When funding institutions support a certain educational project, they do it according to certain criteria: the nature of the project, its objectives, their priorities. Funding institutions usually ask to receive a descriptive and evaluative report at the end of the project.

Page | 7

To reinforce co-operation with partners If partners are involved in the educational project, they will be involved in its evaluation. A constructive and participative evaluation will naturally reinforce cooperation. But, even if your partners are not directly involved, the results of the evaluation can be of interest to them. You might share new ideas for common projects, other fields of common interest and ways of co-operating, new partners and networks with them. WHAT TO EVALUATE After having analyzed the project and its needs, the CIPP model seems to be the most appropriate for the EU’GO evaluation process. CIPP model Four fields: 1. Context evaluation – Are the chosen goals the right ones for this activity? 2. Input evaluation – Is the programme well planned? Are there enough resources to implement the activity? 3. Process evaluation – How was the flow of the activity/project? What feedback was received from the participants/organisations? 4. Product (outcome) evaluation – Were the objectives reached? Process assessment tells when a project reaches certain milestones during an assignment or a task. The method proposed is characterised by its global vision, its integrity and by the articulation of different approaches, methods, theories and praxis combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluation. This approach is centred on the whole learning process (integrally and from different points of view), prioritising the most valuable information, avoiding the risk of “doing everything”. The methodological proposal of this approach to educational evaluation is the combination of diverse spaces, actors, times, methods, sources and techniques of evaluation. By doing so, the “conceptual” (learning, motivating…) and the “instrumental” (judging, changing, deciding…) visions of evaluation become complementary rather than contradictory.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY The presence of diversity in international and intercultural activities is a fact. Very often it is one of the most important sources of learning for the group. For the purpose of analysing them, evaluation often puts the emphasis on separating and breaking down backgrounds, opinions, experiences, conclusions, contexts, contents, organisational frameworks and methods. However, and necessarily, this diversity should be respected and all of the aspects of the process have to be considered. This does not contradict the idea of considering all of them part of a whole or of a unity. This approach constitutes a significant challenge. Having reviewed definition, aims, operational objectives and fields, it is not difficult to identify the actors of evaluation. The questions “who?” and “for

Page | 8

whom?” are deliberately formulated together because everybody involved in the educational process should participate in its evaluation and should be informed about its results, as follows:  The participants/learners: as learners and the target group of the activity  The organisers and partners: as promoters of the activity  The funders: as supporters of the activity  The decision-makers: as those “responsible” for considering the results of the evaluation in further decision making processes. These different actors have different responsibilities and tasks in the evaluation. They should participate at different levels and in different phases of the evaluation. Nevertheless, it is important to involve everybody. The evaluation should be democratic, transparent and simultaneously accessible for all actors concerned. Evaluation group The evaluation group is composed by the managers of Cemea del Mezzogiorno (Italy), Pistes Solidaires (France) and Inwole (Germany), together with the external evaluators. Its role consists in supervising the evaluation action in its complexity, revising and testing the evaluation tools produced, intervening to correct or reinforce some of the different aspects arose during the evaluation process, claiming for the contribution needed from the partners. This extra level of coordination among partners is actually fostering and guiding the quality milestones needed for the EU’GO project.

Page | 9

THE ON LINE EVALUATION SYSTEM The on line evaluation system realized for the mobilities has been extended to all the phases of the project; it is accessible from the section dedicated to EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO project in the webpage www.cemea.eu (partner responsible for the evaluation). All the evaluation activities have been recorded on line including mobilities (Kick off meeting, Mid Term Meeting, E-Learning Meeting, Final Evaluation and the 5 study visits in the 5 countries involved), local experimentation, e-learning phase and external evaluators monitoring questionnaires. Most of the evaluation tools are in English, even if during the experimentation phase, when local gardeners where presumed to answer autonomously, the consortium decided to provide them in the 5 languages of the project. The coordinator of the work package sent a specific password to the subjects involved, that allowed them to interact with the specific evaluation session, performed online. The results of the different questionnaires are readable in a special section (blue button) accessible under password and reserved to the members of the evaluation group coordinated by Cemea del Mezzogiorno and to the external evaluator. Concerning the managers meeting held in 2013 the system has been organized to collect objective and quantitative data organized on 2 levels: Entry data An ex ante questionnaire aimed to fix the expectations and priorities before a meeting/activity with specific questions, most of them with close answers, to be analyzed with graphics summing up the results. Some of them are open questions with the opportunity to add comments. Output data An ex post questionnaire aimed to evaluate qualitative and quantitative aspects of the meeting/activity just after its end with specific questions, some of them with close answers, to be analyzed with graphics summing up the results, some of them are open questions with the opportunity to add comments.

Page | 10

During the experimentation phase, when gardens’ leaders were testing the Good Practices chosen, the need to have a direct feedback from the final beneficiaries brought the consortium to realize the on line questionnaires in all the 5 languages of the partnership. Another distinction has been done between the evaluation of the experimentation phase done by the gardens’ leaders and the EU’GO staff, following and supporting all the different experimentation at local level. Collecting this data separately, allowed the partners to have a non filtered perception of the impact of the implementation of the experimentations and it could be used also to collect information about the competencies development during the process. The same choice permitted to evaluate through the staff questionnaire the experimentation as a whole common process in the 5 countries, including the cooperation among the partners in this phase. Concerning the creation of the e-learning platform, the objective of the evaluation was in this case not only to collect advice about effectiveness and satisfaction of the online tool, but also to give the beneficiaries the possibility to intervene directly in the construction process. Throughout the testing period, Cemea del Mezzogiorno together with the webmaster in charge of the e-platform creation, activated a feedback form, available in each single page visited, through which gardeners visiting the beta version were allowed to communicate directly with the webmaster to give instant feedback. Content feedback have been processed by Cemea del Mezzogiorno staff in coordination with members of what the consortium called SWG (Super Working Group: 1 technician for each partner dealing specifically with interdependent issues). The functioning feedback (bugs, malfunctioning, mistakes) was treated directly by the webmaster. At the end of this long but very profitable process all the people involved have been invited to answer to the questionnaire the E-Learning platform as a whole, specifically concentrating on the pertinence of the results coming out after the E-Learning Pathway and the content of the E-Learning pages signaled by the tool, in terms of description, multimedia materials and further information.

In the following lines you can find the questionnaires prepared for the second year of the project EU’GO, concerning the Experimentation Phase for the Leaders (EQL) and for Staff (EQS), as well as the questionnaires concerning the E-Learning Platform Testing Phase (ELP-TP):

Page | 11

EXPERIMENTATION LEADERS EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE EU’GO Experimentation and acquisition of skills – February – May 2013

Page | 12 Gender

Name

Age Country Family Name

Occupation

Name of my Urban Garden (U.G)

My role in the U.G.

(scroll Male Female) (scroll 18-99) (scroll countries) (scroll occupations) (scroll roles)

Starting date of the experimentation Ending date of Experimentation

Practice experimented

When and where did I choose the Good Practices I experimented? 

In an Urban Garden during a Study Visit



After the meeting with the local coordinator of EU’GO

 I have been already interested in developing it and the project EU’GO gave me the opportunity Why did I choose this Good practice?

For every item, click in the scoring box that most closely represents how you feel about the EU’GO Experimentation period, you have experienced. Where foreseen, you can briefly comment about your reasons for giving this score, particularly requested if your ratings are 3, 2 or 1.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL How much did you feel motivated to do the experimentation? (-) At the beginning At the end

1 2 3 4 5 6            

(+)

Please, rate your level of satisfaction about your involvement in the experimentation (-) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (+)      

How much clear have been the steps of the experimentation process? (-)

1 2 3 4 5 6      

(+)

To what extent did you feel you have had the needed information before the implementation of the experimentation? Not at all  Fully Comments

Page | 13 COOPERATIVE LEVEL Please, rate your level of satisfaction about the involvement of the gardeners/people in the experimentation (-)

1 2 3 4 5 6      

(+)

Please, rate your level of satisfaction about the support from the local coordinating organization (-)

1 2 3 4 5 6      

(+)

Please, rate your level of satisfaction about the support from your twin urban garden (-)

1 2 3 4 5 6      

(+)

Comments

LEVEL OF IMPACT To what extent did you feel to have actively contributed to the good development of the experimentation? (-)

1 2 3 4 5 6      

(+)

To what extent did you feel you have learned from this experimentation period? (-)

1 2 3 4 5 6      

(+)

In general how do you rate the impact of the experimentation on your Urban Garden/local community? (-)

1 2 3 4 5 6      

(+)

On the base of the experimentation period, rate your level of satisfaction regarding: a) Strengthening your knowledge on the topic of the experimentation Poor  High b) Exchanging with other local gardeners of your reality Poor  High c) Exchanging with other European gardeners of the EU’GO project Poor  High e) Improving my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening in general Poor  High On the base of the results of the experimentation do you think that this period was useful: a) to foster you personal knowledge about new educational practices Nothing  A lot b) to bring innovation in your Urban Garden Nothing  A lot c) to better valorize Urban Garden concept in your local reality Nothing  A lot Comments

Thanks to the EUGO experimentation I gain in… : Creativity Manual Competences Scientific Knowledge Social competences Civic competences Pedagogy Health and alimentation Sustainable development Communication New technologies Project management Personal development

1 2 3 4 5 6            

Referring to the competences gained, please explain or give some examples about how you acquired them:

Something else I would like to add…

Page | 14

EXPERIMENTATION EU’GO STAFF FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE EXPERIMENTATION – FEB-MAY 2013

Name

Partner

Family Name

Role in EUGO

(scroll partners) (scroll EUGO STAFF)

MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION To what extent did you feel you had complete information about: a) the objectives and content of the Experimentation phase Poor  High b) How to use the tools produced by WP3 (3.4 Practical Activity Sheet) Poor  High c) How to use the tools produced by WP4 (4.1 Portfolio of Individual Competences) Poor  High d) The content and the method of the E-learning platform – WP5 ( 5.2 E-learning Guide Method Poor  High e) The online evaluation questionnaire produced by WP9 for the experimentation’s leaders Poor  High

SUPPORT FROM OTHER PARTNERS During the experimentation phase, did you ask support to the other partner’s in order to help the beneficiaries in implementing their experimentations? Yes  No  If yes, to which of these partners?  CEMEA del Mezzogiorno – ITALY What kind of support did you ask for?

How do you rate the level of support given to you? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given these ratings

 RJSM – FR What kind of support did you ask for?

Page | 15

How do you rate the level of support given to you? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given these ratings

Page | 16  PISTES SOLIDAIRES – FR What kind of support did you ask for?

How do you rate the level of support given to you? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given these ratings

 INWOLE – DE What kind of support did you ask for?

How do you rate the level of support given to you? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given these ratings

 NEXES – ES What kind of support did you ask for?

How do you rate the level of support given to you? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given these ratings

 KC ENGLISH - UK What kind of support did you ask for?

How do you rate the level of support given to you? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given these ratings

RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTATION ON THE BENEFICIARIES At the end of the Experimentation phase, how do you rate the level of: a) The involvement of the urban gardens in the experimentation phase Poor  Excellent b) The results of the experimentation in your local realities Poor  Excellent c) The impact of the experimentations on the beneficiaries in terms of competences Poor  High Please, give some examples on how the beneficiaries have acquired competences and the results of their learning process

ON YOUR ORGANIZATION To what extent did the experimentation phase contribute: a)

To foster exchange of knowledge between your organization and the beneficiaries of Urban Gardens Nothing  A lot b) To bring innovation in the work of your organization Nothing  A lot c) To better valorize Urban Garden concept in your local reality Nothing  A lot d) To strengthen the partnership with your local networks of Urban Gardens Nothing  A lot Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

To what extent has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the experimentation phase… a) concerning the Grundtvig Multilateral dimension Poor  High b) concerning the next EUGO phases and timeline Poor  High c) concerning the expected outcomes of the EU’GO project Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

As professional, did you feel you have learned from the EXPERIMENTATION PHASE? Learned nothing  Learned a lot What is your overall rating of the EXPERIMENTATION PHASE? Poor  Excellent Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Something I would like to add…

Page | 17

E-LEARNING PLATFORM TESTING PHASE QUESTIONNAIRE TESTING PHASE – OCTOBER 2013

The EU’GO project is reaching its end. For its final conclusion, as products of the project we’ve created a multimedia platform that collects the results of the project in order to make them visible and to share them with other urban gardens and people interested in gardening. Please could you take a little time to answer the following questions? Your answers will be used to improve the quality and content of the training material. If you have further recommendations or comments, please use the blank space in the end of the questionnaire.

Name

Country

Family Name

Partner organization

GENERAL INFORMATION You are...?  A gardener or a coordinator of an urban garden  A citizen interested in Urban Gardens  A public Institution interested in Urban Gardens What is your profession?  Member of an Organisation / Group  Social Worker / Social Educator  Psychologist / Psychiatrist  Teacher  Environmental Technician / Environmental Expert  others (Please specify)

(Scroll list) Italy Germany France Spain United Kingdom (Scroll list) CEMEA del Mezzogiorno INWOLE Pistes Solidaires RJSM NEXES KC English

Page | 18

Have you been involved in the EU’GO project? Yes  No  Did you take part in the experimentation phase? Yes  No 

TESTING PHASE To what extent did you feel you had complete information about: a) The objectives of the testing phase Poor  High b) How to use the e-learning platform for the testing phase Poor  High c) Your role/contribution to the e-learning platform by doing the testing phase Poor  High Comments:

EVALUATION OF THE LEARNING MATERIALS – E-LEARNING PAGES Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements by ticking in the boxes Poor for negative and High for positive a) The e-learning pages provide in general comprehensive tool for the user Poor  High b) The e-learning pages are easy to read and understand Poor  High c) The material is related to the needs of the Urban gardens sector Poor  High d) The material is of good quality Poor  High e) The material is appropriate to the learning outcomes and objectives as outlined in the introductions of the modules Poor  High f) The presentation of the material was good. Poor  High Comments:

GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE PLATFORM Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements by ticking in the boxes Poor for negative and High for positive a) The e-learning platform is well structured Poor  High b) The e-learning platform is easy to navigate and user-friendly Poor  High c) The e-learning platform fulfilled my expectations Poor  High

Page | 19

e) The profile is easy to create and manage Poor 

High

Comments:

Page | 20 I would recommend the training toolkit to other gardeners Yes  No  Why?

Please use the spaces below for further recommendations: a) I recognized the following as positive

b) I recognized the following as negative

c) I have the following recommendations

Project management The evaluation system includes evaluation questionnaires also for the meeting held in 2013 between the different actors directly involved in EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO management inside the different organizations, members of the consortium. For the E-Learning meeting among managers in Barcelona, please note that the respondents to the ex-ante questionnaires are 8 while the ex-post respondents are 10. The reason for this increase is the change in the Spanish team that includes 2 new members of the team, one substituting the previous responsible and one working at local level especially on the need to translate and communicate with beneficiaries also in Catalan language rather than only in Spanish. Before the meeting in Barcelona and the final one in Berlin the external evaluators submitted to the consortium also their feedback questionnaires (2 and 3).

External evaluation The external evaluators requested and obtained by the consortium the possibility to integrate the evaluation system on line with feed-back questionnaires, realized 3 times during the 2 years, corresponding the period immediately before the face to face meetings in Rome (November 2012), Barcelona (April 2013) and Berlin (December 2013). The feedback, aimed to provide guidance and objective material to support the discussion among partners and solution finding within the consortium, was given in presence, by Skype conference during the events or by written reports and presentations delivered to the coordinator of WP9. A final report with a final conclusive analysis of the project has been provided.

In the following lines you can find the ex ante questionnaire and ex post questionnaires of the E-Learning Meeting (ELM) and the Final Evaluation Meeting (FEM) and the two feed-back questionnaires realized by the external evaluators for the second year of EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO project:

Page | 21

E-LEARNING MEETING EX ANTE QUESTIONNAIRE E-Learning Meeting – Barcelona (SPAIN) from 16th to 19th April 2013

Page | 22 Name

Partner

Family Name

Role in EUGO

(scroll partners) (scroll EUGO roles)

For every item click in the scoring box that most closely represents how you feel about the eLearning Meeting. Where foreseen, you can comment briefly on each item about your reasons for giving this score, particularly requested if your ratings are 3, 2 or 1.

To what extent do you think you have received complete information about: a) The objectives and contents of the E-Learning Meeting (ELM) Poor  Excellent b) Your role inside the ELM Poor  Excellent c) What to prepare before to come to the ELM Poor  Excellent To what extent is the tasks’ division of the ELM organized among the partners? Poorly organized  Well organized Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP1 - Project management How do you rate your level of satisfaction regarding: a) Internal monthly newsletters Poor  High b) Decision making process within the Consortium Poor  High c) Working plan for the next 9 months Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP3 and WP4 – Experimentation How do you rate your level of understanding about the experimentation phase in EU’GO project (objectives, content, guidelines, steps to follow, implementation)? Poor  High How do you rate the usefulness of the tools produced by the SWG1 (Experimentation guidelines and Evaluation of Individual Competences)? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP5 – E-learning How do you rate your level of understanding regarding: a) Aims and objectives of the e-learning platform within the EUGO project Poor  High b) The sample of e-learning page received by Cemea Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP6 – Social Marketing How do you rate your level of understanding regarding: a) Aims and objectives of social marketing within the EUGO project Poor  High b) How to concretely implement social marketing within your reality Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP7 – WP8 Website and Dissemination /Newsletter How do you rate your level of understanding and satisfaction regarding: a) The actual version of the website: content, management and contributions from each partner Poor  High b) The actual version of the external newsletter: content, management and contributions from each partner Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP9 – Evaluation How do you rate your level of understanding regarding the evaluation objectives of the experimentation phase? Poor  High How do you rate your level of satisfaction regarding the evaluation tools chosen for the experimentation phase? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Something I would like to add…

Page | 23

E-LEARNING MEETING EX POST QUESTIONNAIRE th

E-Learning Meeting – Barcelona (ES) – 16 to 19 of April 2013

Page | 24 Name

Partner

(scroll partners)

Family Name

Role in EUGO

(scroll EUGO roles)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Useless  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Useful

Boring  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Stimulating

Limited discussions  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Good discussions

Rigid structure  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Flexible structure

Poorly conducted  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Well conducted

Too condensed  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Well spaced out

Poor use of time  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Good use of time

Poor level of work



Good level of work

Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

My objectives not achieved  achieved Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

My objectives

To what extent did you feel you had previous information about: a) the objectives and content of the E-learning Meeting Poor  Excellent b) your role inside the ELM Poor  Excellent c) what to prepare before to come to the ELM and bring relevant materials Poor  Excellent To what extent has the task’s division of the ELM been organized among the partners? Poorly organized  Well organized To what extent did you feel you tackled the preparation of the ELM? Passively  Proactively Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

To what extent has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the E-learning Meeting… a) concerning the EU’GO project dimension of each partner at European and local level Poor  Excellent nd b) concerning the EUGO 2 year objectives, phases and timeline Poor  Excellent To what extent was the work done during the ELM useful for the next steps? Not at all  Fully

WP1 - Project management How do you rate your level of satisfaction/ understanding regarding: a) Internal communication for the next 9 months Poor  High b) Working plan for the next 9 months Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP3 and WP4 – Experimentation How do you rate your level of understanding about the experimentation phase in EU’GO project (objectives, content, guidelines, steps to follow, implementation)? Poor  High How do you rate your level of understanding regarding the work to do for deliverable 3.4. “Practical Activity Sheet” and 4.2. “ Method sheet for the acquisition of skills” Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Page | 25

WP5 – E-learning How do you rate your level of understanding regarding: a) Aims and objectives of the e-learning platform within the EUGO project Poor  High b) The work to do (materials, documents, local work) in order to create the E-learning platform Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP7 – WP8 Website and Dissemination /Newsletter How do you rate your level of understanding and satisfaction regarding: a) The website: content, management and contributions from each partner Poor  High b) The external newsletter: content, management and contributions from each partner Poor  High How do you rate the feedback questionnaire prepared by the external evaluators prior the ELM? Poor  Excellent How do you rate the contributions of the external evaluator in the opening of the ELM? Poor  Excellent How do you rate your level of satisfaction at the end of the ELM… a) about the common agenda for the following months Poor  Excellent b) about the role and tasks of your organization and of the partners in the project Poor  Excellent

As professional, to what extent did you feel you have learned from the ELM? Learned nothing  Learned a lot As member of the consortium, to what extent did you feel the partnership consolidated during the ELM? Nothing  A lot

Page | 26

How do you rate the travel to the meeting location ? Poor  Excellent How do you rate the lodging? Poor  How do you rate the meeting working room? Poor 

Excellent

Page | 27 Excellent

How do you rate the board (breakfasts, refreshments, meals, etc)? Poor  Excellent How did you feel about the length of the meeting? Too long  Just right  Too short 

What is your overall rating of this meeting? Poor 

Excellent

Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

FINAL EVALUATION MEETING EX ANTE QUESTIONNAIRE rd

Final Evaluation Meeting, Berlin (Germany) - 3 to 6 of December 2013

Page | 28 Name

Partner

Family Name

Role in EUGO

(scroll partners) (scroll EUGO roles)

For every item click in the scoring box that most closely represents how you feel about the Final Evaluation Meeting. Where foreseen, you can comment briefly on each item about your reasons for giving this score, particularly requested if your ratings are 3, 2 or 1.

To what extent do you think you have received complete information about: a) The objectives and contents of the Final Evaluation Meeting (FEM) Poor  Excellent b) What to prepare before to come to the FEM Poor  Excellent WP1 - Project management How do you rate your level of satisfaction regarding: a) Monthly Conference Call Poor  High b) Decision making process within the Consortium Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

How do you rate your level of preparation regarding the documents to produce for the Final Report? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP5 – E-learning Platform How do you rate the level of: a) Coordination of the WP 5 in order to create the e-learning platform Poor  High b) Information received for creating the e-learning pages you were responsible for Poor  High c) Contribution from the gardeners in testing the platform Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

As professional, do you feel you have improved your skills and competences by contributing to building the e-learning platform? Nothing  A lot Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Page | 29 Do you think the EU’GO e-learning platform could become a tool used in future projects of your organization? Yes  No Why?

What is your overall rating of the E-learning platform? Poor  Excellent Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

WP6 – Social Marketing At this time of the project, how do you rate the impact of the social marketing strategy planned in your reality? Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

EU’GO PROJECT As professional, to what extent do you feel you have learned from the EU’GO project in general? Learned nothing  Learned a lot Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

How do you rate the added value the EU’GO project brought to your organization in terms of: a) New project ideas in your organization Poor 

High

b) Networking with the involved realities and gardens Poor  High c) Innovation in your work Poor  High Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Something I would like to add…

FINAL EVALUATION MEETING EX POST QUESTIONNAIRE rd

Final Evaluation Meeting, Berlin (Germany) - 3 to 6 of December 2013

Page | 30 Name

Partner

Family Name

Role in EUGO

(scroll partners) (scroll EUGO roles)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Useless  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Useful

Limited discussions  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Good discussions

Poorly conducted  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Well conducted

Too condensed  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Well spaced out

Poor use of time  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Good use of time

My objectives not achieved  Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

My objectives achieved

To what extent do you feel you had previous information about the content of the Final Evaluation Meeting? Poor  High To what extent did you feel you tackled the preparation of the FEM? Passively  Proactively Comments

How do you rate the feedback questionnaire prepared by the external evaluators prior the FEM? Poor  Excellent Comments

Page | 31 WP1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT How do you rate your level of satisfaction regarding the EU’GO project coordination in terms of: a) Decision making process within the Consortium Poor  High b) Mutual and internal support among partners Poor  High c) EU’GO financial management Poor  High Comments

WP2 – STATE OF THE ART & GOOD PRACTICES How do you rate your level of satisfaction regarding: a) the WP2 coordination Poor  High b) the State of the Art Poor  High c) the Good Practices Poor  High Comments

WP3 – EXPERIMENTATION OF GOOD PRACTICES How do you rate your level of satisfaction about: a) the WP3 coordination Poor  High b) the Study Visits Poor  High c) the Experimentation phase Poor  High Comments

WP4 – EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL SKILLS How do you rate your level of satisfaction about: a) the WP4 coordination Poor  High b) the tools developed to define and asses competences Poor  High Comments

WP5 – E-LEARNING METHOD How do you rate your level of satisfaction about: a) the WP5 coordination Poor  High b) the E-learning platform Poor  High c) the E-learning method (the system of contribution from the users to the E-learning platform) Poor  High Comments

WP6 – SOCIAL MARKETING How do you rate your level of satisfaction about the WP6 coordination? Poor  High How do you rate the impact at local level of the Social Marketing events realised? Low  High Comments

WP7 – WEBPLATFORM How do you rate your level of satisfaction about: a) the WP7 coordination Poor  High b) the Webplatform Poor  High c) the Newsletter Poor  High Comments

WP8 - DISSEMINATION How do you rate your level of satisfaction about: a) The WP8 coordination (including the dissemination strategy, supporting documents, etc.) Poor  High b) The overall realization of the EU’GO project dissemination at local level Poor  High c) The overall realization of the EU’GO project dissemination at European level Poor  High Comments

Page | 32

WP9 - EVALUATION How do you rate your level of satisfaction about: a) The WP9 coordination Poor  High b) The internal evaluation tools Poor  High c) The external evaluator’s tools Poor  High Comments

What is your overall rating of the EU’GO project? Poor  Excellent Comments

EU’GO FOLLOW-UP How do you see your involvement in the E-learning platform and website sustainability after the end of the EU’GO project? No involvement  High involvement Please comment briefly why you have given this rating

Page | 33

FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE 2 In preparation for the E-Learning Meeting – Barcelona (SPAIN) from 16th to 19th April 2013

Name

Partner

(scroll partners)

Family Name

Role in EUGO

(scroll EUGO roles)

IMPACT Q4 Can you list the most relevant activities that you (your organisation) are running at local and national level?

Q5 Which are the most relevant changes that you have provoked with your practice within the work in the urban gardens?

Q6 Can you identify the most relevant good practices discovered in one of the study visits that has been applied (with the necessary adjustments) in your local/national reality?

Q7 Why have you chosen these specific practices? What are the replicable successful elements you have identified?

SUSTAINABILITY Q8 Do you think your action will be sustainable after the end of the project EU’GO? If yes, what are the elements grating the sustainability? If not, what do you see as major barriers?

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT Q9 How would you evaluate your personal development as member of your organisation so far? What is the main achievement of the project EU’GO in the field of “personal growth”?

Q10 Can you list your needs in terms of personal development as member of your organisation at this stage of the project?

MANAGEMENT Q11 If you had to choose three “problematic” issues in the management that have not satisfied you so far within the project EU’GO, what would you choose? Could you suggest some solutions for these issues to be implemented in the remaining period of the project?

Page | 34

FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE 3 rd

In preparation for the Final Evaluation Meeting – Berlin (GERMANY) from 3 to 6 December 2013

Name Partner

(scroll partners)

Family Name

EU’GO PROJECT CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS Q3 What are the main improvements from the Mid Term seminar till now? What have been the major changes (positive/negative)?

IMPACT Q4 Can you describe the most successful outcomes of EU’GO for your organisation?

Q5Can you describe the most successful outcomes of EU’GO for your local partners?

PARTNERSHIP Q6 Do you think that this partnership will be sustainable? If yes, why and how? If not, why?

SUSTAINABILITY Q7 How will you ensure sustainability of your work at national level?

Q8 How will the tools developed during EU’GO and the good practices be implemented and enriched after the end of the project?

Page | 35

IMPACT OF THE EXPERIMENTATION PHASE

EVALUATION REPORT EXPERIMENTATION LEADERS February - May 2013

Page | 36

This evaluation report is based on the Experimentation Questionnaires filled in by the Italian, French, Spanish, English and German Leaders following the Experimentation Phase. This is a global report that gathers the feedback of the leaders from all the five partner countries in the project, evaluating the preparation of the Experimentation, its development and local level impact. An evaluation report of the experimentation done from the point of the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO staff involved, has been done also separately and it will be seen further on. The 29 LEADERS INTERVIEWED had the following characteristics:

AGE

GENDER

less than 30 6,90%

over 50 34,48%

Men 38%

between 3040 24,14%

Women 62%

between 4050 34,48%

ROLE IN EU'GO EU'GO Staff 6,90% Active citizen in an U.G. 17,24%

Urban Gardener 27,59%

Coordinator of an U.G. 48,28%

OCCUPATION

Student 0%

Civil servant 17,24%

Retired 0%

Unemployed 20,69%

Employed 62,07%

The experimentations have been realized at local level (11 in France, 6 in Italy, 3 in Spain, 4 in United Kingdom and 5 in Germany) and some of them were concerning the same kind of good practice (contributing so to one unique and richer elearning page) because the choice was made autonomously on the base of the needs and interest of the local gardens. The total number of final e-learning pages

were reached also adding the contribution of the scientific work done by the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO staff members within the consortium. In the annexes it will be possible to see the graphics concerning the situation designed by the beneficiaries answers at local level in each country. In the following pages graphics will analyze the aggregated data in order to read the general situation in the project, from the point of view of the experimentationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; leaders:

GOOD PRACTICES CHOICE

EQL Q11.* When and where did you choose the Good Practices you experimented?

I have been already interested in developing it and the project EU'GO gave me the opportunity 31%

In an Urban Garden during a Study Visit 31%

After the meeting with the local coordinator of EU'GO 38%

Page | 37

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL EQL Q13.* How much did you feel motivated to do the experimentation? 6 = High

1=Poor

Page | 38

100,00% 80,00%

72% 62,07%

60,00% 34,48%

40,00%

21%

20,00%

3,45%

0,00%

At the beginning

At the end

EQL Q14. Level of satisfaction about the personal involvement in the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00% 55,17% 60,00% 34,48%

40,00%

6,90%

20,00%

3,45%

0,00%

EQL Q15. How much clear have been the steps of the experimentation process?

EQL Q16. To what extent did you feel you have had the needed information before the implementation of the experimentation?

100,00% 100,00% 80,00% 80,00% 60,00%

41,38% 60,00%

40,00%

27,59%

24,14%

20,00%

40,00%

3,45% 3,45%

34,48% 34,48% 13,79% 13,79%

20,00%

0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

3,45%

0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

COOPERATIVE LEVEL

EQL Q18.*-Q20.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. Page | 39 6 = High

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

1=Poor

75,86%

72,41%

17,24% 10,34% 10,34%

6,90%

27,59% 24,14% 20,69% 17,24% 6,90% 3,45%

6,90%

..the involvement of the gardeners/people in the experimentation

..the support from the local coordinating organisation

..the suport from your twin urban garden

LEVEL OF IMPACT EQL Q22. Active contribution of the leaders to the good development of the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 80% 60%

48%

38%

40% 14% 20% 0%

Leaders active contribution

EQL Q23. To what extent do you feel you have learned from this experimentation period? 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00% 60,00%

41,38%

40,00%

17,24%

20,00% 0,00%

Leaders learning

EQL Q24. In general how do you rate the impact of the experimentation on your Urban Garden / local community? 6 = High

100,00% 80,00% 44,83%

60,00% 34,48% 40,00% 20,00%

17,24% 3,45%

0,00%

Impact of the Experimentation

1=Poor

Page | 40

LEARNING EVALUATION OF COMPETENCES

EQL Q28.* Thanks to the EU'GO Experimentation I gained in.. Personal development

6,90% 10,34% 13,79%

Page | 41

41,38%

27,59% 13,79%

Project management

New technologies

Communication

3,45%

17,24%

44,83%

20,69% 27,59%

10,34%

20,69%

34,48%

3,45% 3,45% 10,34% 13,79% 13,79%

41,38%

20,69% Sustainable development

Health and alimentation

6,90% 3,45% 10,34% 6,90%

6,90%

Pedagogy

10,34% 10,34%

Civic competences

6,90% 3,45% 10,34%

Scientific knowledge

Manual competences

Creativity

6,90% 6,90%

4 5 51,72% 6

34,48% 31,03%

13,79% 13,79%

31,03% 31,03%

20,69% 13,79% 17,24%

3,45% 6,90%

17,24%

13,79% 6,90% 3,45%

34,48% 37,93%

17,24% 13,79% 27,59% 20,69% 13,79%

10,34%

Social competences

34,48%

17,24% 17,24%

37,93%

17,24% 6,90% 10,34% 3,45%

24,14%

31,03%

24,14% 0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

LEVEL OF IMPACT OVERALL EVALUATION

EQL Q25. On the base of the Experimentation period, rate your level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00% 58,62% 60,00% 40,00% 20,00%

41,38%

37,93%

31,03%

10,34% 10,34%

17,24% 13,79% 6,90%

0,00%

..strenghting your knowledge on the topic of the experimentation

3,45%

..exchanging with other local gardeners of your reality

20,69% 24,14% 17,24% 17,24% 13,79% 10,34% 6,90% 6,90% 10,34%

..exchanging with other European gardeners of the EU'GO project

..improving my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening in general

EQL Q26.* On the base of the results of the Experimentation, do you think that this period was useful.. 6 = A lot

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

34,48%34,48%

1 = Not at all

37,93% 34,48%

44,83% 34,48%

20,69% 3,45% 3,45% 3,45%

..to foster your personal knowledge about new educational practices

10,34% 6,90% 3,45%

..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden

17,24% 3,45%

3,45%

..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality

Page | 42

EVALUATION REPORT EXPERIMENTATION EU’GO STAFF February - May 2013 This evaluation report is based on the Experimentation Final Questionnaire filled in by the EU’GO Staff following the Experimentation Phase. The questionnaires gather partners’ feedback regarding the preparation of the Experimentation, its development and local level impact. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting respondents’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-experimentation-final-questionnaire-staff/). From this questionnaire and further on the evaluation approach starts to change and to introduce elements to read the contribution given from the different deliverables and from the WPs in general. This decision has been taken within the evaluation group composed by Cemea del Mezzogiorno (Italy), Pistes Solidaires (France) and Inwole (Germany) due to the goals reached in internal cooperation applied between the Mid Term Meeting and the E-Learning Meeting. The creation of different SWGs (Super Working Groups) among partners on experimentation, e-learning and social marketing, foster the effectiveness of communication and cooperation. From this moment so, the consortium needed feedback on the level of efficiency of the tools created and fine-tuning of the practices. The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 6 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:

PARTNER KC English 16,67%

CEMEA del Mezzogiorno 16,67%

Inwole 16,67%

Pistes Solidaires 16,67%

NEXES 16,67%

ROLE IN EU'GO

RJSM 16,67% Trainer 0%

Manager 16,67%

Administrative 0%

Technician 83,33%

Page | 43

MANAGEMENT & COORDINATION PREPARATION OF THE EXPERIMENTATION Page | 44

EQS Q4. To what extent did you feel you had complete information about..

6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00%

50%

50,00% 40,00% 33,33%

66,67%

33,33%

30,00% 20,00% 10,00%

16,67%

16,67% 16,67%

0,00% The objectives and How to use the How to use the The content and The online content of the tools produced by tools produced by the method of the evaluation Experimentation WP3 (3.4 Practical WP4 (4.1 Portfolio ELP - WP5 (Equestionnaire phase Activity Sheet) of Individual learning Guide produced by WP9 Competences) Method) for the Experimentation Leaders

SUPPORT FROM OTHER PARTNERS EQS Q5. During the Experimentation Phase did you ask for support to the other partners in order to help the beneficiaries in implementing their experimentations?

33% YES NO

67%

RATING OF THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS This graphic has been elaborated matching the number of rates from the STAFF that asked for support to a specific partner and indicating the average on the quality of the answer they received: EQS Q6.*-Q21* Average of the rating of the support received from the partner.. 100%

100,0%

100%

80% 50% 50%

60% 40% 20% 0% ..CEMEA del Mezzogiorno

..RJSM

..Pistes Solidaires

6 = High

..Inwole

..Nexes

..KC English

1=Poor

Page | 45

RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTATION ON THE BENEFICIARIES EQS Q24.* At the end of the Experimentation phase, the rating of.. Page | 46

60,00% 50%

50%

50,00% 40,00%

33,33% 33,33%

33,33%

30,00%

16,67%

20,00%

16,67%

10,00% 0,00% ..the involvement of the urban gardens in the Experimentation phase

..the results of the Experimentation in the local realities

6 = High

..the impact of the experimentations on the beneficiaries in terms of competences

1 = Poor

ON THE PARTNER ORGANISATIONS

EQS Q24.* The Experimentation Phase contributed to.. 66,67% 70,00% 60,00%

50%

50,00% 40,00%

33,33%

33,33% 33,33% 33,33%

30,00% 20,00%

16,67%

33,33%

16,67%

16,67% 10,00% 0,00% ..to foster the exchange of knowledge between your organisation and the beneficiaries of Urban Gardens

..to bring innovation in the work of your organisation

6 = A lot

..to better valorize the ..to strenghten the Urban Garden concept partnership with your in your local reality local networks of Urban Gardens

1 = Not at all

RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTATION UNDERSTANDING OF THE EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO PROJECT

Page | 47 EQS Q28.* To what extent has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the Experimentation Phase concerning.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00%

66,67%

60,00% 40,00% 20,00%

50% 33,33%

33,33%

16,67%

50% 33,33%

33,33% 16,67%

0,00% ..the Grundtvig Multilateral dimension

..the next EU'GO phases and timeline

..the expected outcomes of the EU'GO project

LEARNING EQS Q30. As professional, to what extent do you feel you have learned from the Experimentation Phase?

50% 6 = Learned a lot 5 4 3 2 1 = Learned nothing

50%

OVERALL RATING OF THE EXPERIMENTATION PHASE

EQS Q31.* EXPERIMENTATION PHASE OVERALL RATING

33,33%

6 = Excellent 5 4

66,67%

3 2 1 = Poor

Page | 48

E-LEARNING PLATFORM POTENTIALITY & FUNCTIONALITIES

EVALUATION REPORT E-LEARNING PLATFORM TESTING PHASE October 2013

Page | 49

This evaluation report is based on the questionnaire filled in by the participants to the E-learning Platform Testing Phase. The questionnaires gather participants’ feedback regarding the E-learning Platform quality potentiality & functionalities and their recommendations or comments on how to improve the quality and content of the training material. This questionnaire was characterized by the presence of a series of open questions, to collect detailed recommendations and advices, that have been taken into account by the WP5 leader but cannot be visualized in a graphic. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting participants’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaire. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-testing-phase-of-the-e-platform/ ). The questionnaire was directed to a sample of 16 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED, all involved in the EU’GO project, 15 of which have taken part also in the Experimentation phase. KC English 6,25%

United Kingdom 6,25%

EU'GO PARTNER CEMEA del Mezzogiorno 25%

RJSM; 12,50% Pistes Solidaires 12,50%

Italy 25% France 25%

Inwole 25%

Germany 25%

Spain 18,75%

NEXES; 18,75%

Public institution interested in U.G.; 6,25%; 6%

COUNTRY

PROFESSION

ROLE

Environmental Technician/ Expert 0%

Other 18,75% Citizen interested in U.G.; 31,25%

Teacher 6,25% Gardener/ Coordinator of U.G. 62,50%

Social Worker/ Social Educator 25%

Member of an organisation/g roup 50%

Psychologist/P sychiatrist 0%

ORGANISATION PREPARATION OF THE ELP TESTING PHASE Page | 50 ELP-TP Q8.* To what extent did you feel you had complete information about.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

50%

43,75%

40% 30%

25%

31,25%

25% 18,75%

20% 10%

37,50%

6,25%

12,50%

0% The objectives and the Testing Phase

How to use the ELP for the Testing Phase

My role/contribution to the ELP by doing the Testing Phase

EVALUATION OF THE LEARNING MATERIALS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; E-LEARNING PAGES

ELP-TP Q10.* 100%

Page | 51

90% 80% 70%

56,25%

60%

56,25%

50%

37,50%

40%

43,75%

37,50%

43,75%

43,75% 37,50%

30% 12,50%

20%

6,25%

10%

18,75%

12,50%

6,25%

0% The e-learning The e-learning pages provide pages are easy in general to read and comprehensive understand tools for he user

The material is related to the needs of the Urban Gardens sector

6 = High

The material is of good quality

The material is The appropriate to presentation of the learning the material outcomes and was good objectives as outlined in the introduction of the modules

1 = Poor

ELP-TP Q14.* All the 16 respondents would recommend the training toolkit to the other gardeners. GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE PLATFORM ELP-TP Q12.* 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00%

56,25%

60,00% 50,00% 40,00%

50% 43,75% 37,50%

37,50%

30,00% 20,00%

37,50%

18,75% 12,50%

12,50% 6,25%

10,00% 0,00%

37,50%

6,25%

6,25% The ELP is well structured

The ELP is easy to navigate and userfriendly 6 = High

The ELP fulfilled my expectations

1 = Poor

The profile is easy to create and manage

IMPACT OF THE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS

If the KOM has established from the beginning a very positive approach towards the project and the consortium of partners, the MTM has reinforced the possibility to contribute and to participate in the decision making process also for the partners having difficulties in facing the complexity of the project. The first part of project, thanks to the mutual support between partners, contributes to foster capacity building, incrementing the project ownership. This condition has been the base to overcome the tasks division defined by the Working Packages distribution, conceptually revising them on the base of their interdependence. What has been started in the first phase by each WP coordinator has been tackled by working groups, counting on staff coming from different partners and WPs. This positive trend have been reinforced during the meeting held in 2013 especially concerning the partnership, even if a stronger role of the coordinator, supported by the suggestions and requests given by the EC and by the external evaluator, until the following meeting in Barcelona, has been less flexible in the application of the solutions commonly agreed. The face to face meeting in Barcelona clarified the aim of this approach, focused on reinforcing the partnership weaknesses in a short time; the perception of part of the consortium has anyway affected the rating about â&#x20AC;&#x153;decision making processâ&#x20AC;?.

FUNCTIONALITY OF THE PARTNERSHIP KOM

100,00%

MTM

ELM

FEM

100,00%

100,00% 100,00%

88,89% 88,88% 87,50%

50,00%

DECISION MAKING PROCESS INSIDE THE GROUP

PARTNERSHIP

Page | 52

The consortium took the decision to modify substantially the program of ELearning Meeting, advancing a lot of work in the planning of the E-Learning structure by distance and with the support of an external professional, in order to dedicate time to analyze the EC interim evaluation and to work together on timing and interdependence. Also the venue has been changed from United Kingdom to Barcelona, easier to reach, with the aim to add to the meeting 2 additional sessions in the first afternoon and the last morning of the travel days. A very full program has anyway been managed in a very structured way during the ELearning Meeting (ELM) and all the objectives established in the preparation have been achieved. The Final Evaluation Meeting in Berlin held almost 1 month before the end of the project and many tasks about reporting, evidences and social marketing have been realized, designed and fine-tuned during it. The high level of internal satisfaction and cooperation pointed out some new ideas on how to valorize better what realized, sometimes creating some additional and not planned work for the last month of the project. What can be surely considered a positive result of the meeting can explain the 90% of rating for â&#x20AC;&#x153;objectives achievedâ&#x20AC;?.

OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS 77,77% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

Good discussions / Limited discussions

Flexible structure / Rigid structure

66,66% 75,00% 70,00%

KOM

100,00%

Good level of activity / Poor level of activity

88,89% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%

My objectives achieved / My objectives not achieved

88,88% 100,00% 100,00% 90,00%

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION 77,77%

Timing and planning

Task division

KOM MTM ELM FEM

Communication system

100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 90,00% 88,89% 87,50% 100,00% 90,00%

MTM ELM FEM

Page | 53

E-LEARNING MEETING IN BARCELONA (SPAIN) April 16th – 19th, 2012 In the following pages we would present part of the graphics coming out from the analysis of data before and after the ELM in Barcelona. The questionnaires gather partners’ feedback regarding the ELM management and preparation of the meeting, with a special focus given to an evaluation of the steps already implemented within EU’GO since January 2013. For the whole series of graphics presenting partners’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires, have a look to Annex 2. From the ELP the evaluation approach change, following a request of the consortium elaborated in the evaluation group formed by Cemea del Mezzogiorno, Pistes Solidaires and Inwole, monitoring also the impact of the tools realized as deliverables of the working packages.

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP3-WP4 - EXPERIMENTATION EX-POST ELM Q30.-Q31.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 = Poor

50%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

..the Experimentation Phase in EU'GO (objectives, content, guidelines, steps to follow, implementation)

..the work to do for deliverable 3.4.Practical Activity Sheet & 4.2.Method sheet for the acquisition of skills

Page | 54

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP5 – E-LEARNING EX-POST ELM Q33.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

Page | 55 100% 90% 80% 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

20% 10% 0% ..the aims and objectives of the elearning platform

..the work to do (materials, documents, local work) in order to create the E-learning platform

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP6 – SOCIAL MARKETING EX-POST ELM Q37. The level of understanding and satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

30% 20% 10%

20%

20% 10%

0% .. the website: content, management and contributions from each partner

..the external newsletter: content, management and contributions from each partner

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP7-WP8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; WEBSITE & DISSEMINATION / NEWSLETTER EX-POST ELM Q35.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100% 90% 80% 70%

60% 50%

60% 50% 40%

30%

30% 20%

10% 10%

10%

10% 0% ..aims and objectives of social marketing within the EU'GO project

..how to concretely implement social marketing within my reality

Page | 56

FINAL EVALUATION MEETING IN BERLIN (GERMANY) December 3rd – 6th, 2013 In the following pages we report some of the graphics based on the EX-ANTE and EX-POST questionnaires filled in by the EU’GO partners participating to the EU’GO FINAL EVALUATION MEETING in Berlin, Germany. Completing the overview on the impact of the tools and actions developed following the deliverables of the project, as a result of the Final Evaluation Meeting, the consortium rated the different Work Packages from the point of view of the satisfaction about the its coordination and products. For the whole series of graphics presenting partners’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires, have a look to Annex 2.

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT EX-POST FEM Q24.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding the EU'GO project coordiantion in terms of.. 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

60%

1 = Poor

60% 50% 40%

30%

10%

Decision making process within the Consortium

Mutual and internal support among the partners

EU'GO financial management

WP2 – STATE OF THE ART & GOOD PRACTICES EX-POST FEM Q26.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 80% 60% 60%

60%

40% 40%

40% 20% 20%

20%

20% 10%10%

10%

0% ..the WP2 coordination

..the State of the Art

..the Good Practices

Page | 57

WP3 – EXPERIMENTATION OF GOOD PRACTICES EX-POST FEM Q28.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 6 = High

1=Poor

Page | 58

100% 80% 60% 60%

50%

40% 30% 20%

40%

20%

10%

20%

30% 20%

20%

0% ..the WP3 coordination

..the Study Visits

..the Experimentation phase

WP4 – EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL SKILLS EX-POST FEM Q30.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 70%

80%

60% 60% 40%

30%

20% 10%

10%

20% 0%

..the WP4 coordination

..the tools developed to define and assess competences

WP5 – E-LEARNING PLATFORM EX-POST FEM Q32.* How do you rate the level of satisfaction about.. 100% 90%

80%

80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

40% 30% 10%10%

20%

10%

10% 0% ..the WP5 coordination

6 = High

..the E-learning platform

1 = Poor

..the E-learning method (the system of contribution from the users to the elearning platform)

WP6 – SOCIAL MARKETING EX-POST FEM Q34.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about the WP6 coordination 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

Page | 59

90% 80% 70% 60%

60% 50% 40% 30%

20%

10%

WP6 coordination

EX-POST FEM Q35.* Rating of the impact of the social marketing events realised at local level 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

90% 80% 70% 60%

50%

50% 40% 30%

30% 20%

10%

Impact of the Social Marketing Events (Mid December 2013)

WP7 – WEBPLATFORM EX-POST FEM Q37.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 100% 90%

80%

80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

30% 20%

20% 10%

10%

..the WP7 coordination

..the Webplatform

10% 0%

6 = High

..the Newsletter 1 = Poor

WP8 – DISSEMINATION EX-POST FEM Q39.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 100% 90%

Page | 60

80% 70%

60%

50% 50%

50% 40% 30%

20%

20% 10% 10%

10% 10%

10% 0% ..the WP8 coordination (including the dissemination strategy, supporting documents, etc.)

..the overall realisation of the ..the overall realisation of the EU'GO project dissemination at EU'GO project dissemination at local level EU level

6 = High

1 = Poor

WP9 – EVALUATION EX-POST FEM Q41.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 100% 90% 80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

20%

10%

20% 10%

10% 0% ..the WP9 coordination

..the internal evaluation tools 6 = High

..the external evaluator's tools

1 = Poor

RECCOMANDATIONS FROM THE EXTERNAL EVALUATOR

Analysis after FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE 2 April 2013

Introduction The purpose of this external evaluation report is to clearly set out the findings and conclusions three moths after the mid-term evaluation report, analyzing the ongoing process on the basis of the feedback of the Commission about the mid-term report dated December 2012. The report is the product of external evaluation and is intended to be used by EU GO project partners to maintain or strengthen their self-assessment. The style of this external evaluation report is intended to be succinct and evaluative. The report will present significant findings including:  weaknesses, strengths and areas for further improvement  any opportunities identified for new ways of doing things  sufficient information for EU GO project partners to use for ongoing improvement The review, which allowed the development of the present report, was conducted through the employment of the following methods and strategies:  at distance, following the e-mail exchanges among project partners, reading the project documents being produced;  through an on-line questionnaire (see page 34), filled-in by all the representatives of project partners directly involved in the implementation of the action. The present report was presented to the partners during the manager meeting held in Barcelona on the 16th of April 2013.

Findings The present report presents recommendations and the actions required, on the basis of the feedback received by the Commission about the mid-term report dated December 2012.

Page | 61

1. GENERAL REMARKS 1.1 Status of the different Work Programmes On the basis of the mid-term evaluation report dated December 2012, the external evaluators strongly encourage the partners to work more on the detailed action plan that is able to fulfil the gaps of the 1st year of implementation. Partners are invited to concentrate more on the weaknesses highlighted in the mid-term report, trying to adapt the GANTT diagram of the project according to the new time frame, making it sure that the planned objectives are fully reached at the end of the project period.

1.2 “Not implemented” vs. “Not communicated” The external evaluators warn the project partners about the necessity to make a distinction between the project activities that have NOT been implemented in Year 1 – due to different reasons – and those that have been duly developed but NOT well (or enough) communicated, both internally and externally. The mid-term report clearly highlights these two different gaps. On one side, some activities foreseen by the Work Programme in Year 1 have not been implemented, and the delay in the implementation is due to different causes that have been deeply analyzed during the evaluation meeting in order to find the necessary solutions. On the other side, some of the activities have properly been implemented on due time, but the lack of information and communication has negatively affected their visibility and thus the quality of the work programme. A clear distinction about “what has not been done” and “what has been done but not communicated” is fundamental to plan the different strategies and actions to be developed.

1.3 Call for clear internal Guidelines The mid-term report dated December 2012 clearly underlined the need to produce clear guidelines for project partners for a smooth and profitable management of the different work programmes. As an example, the guidelines drafted in Year 1 for the WP dissemination has helped the project partners to better implement the related strategies, to improve their common work and to facilitate the promotion of advantageous synergies. During the meeting in Barcelona, the external evaluators insisted on the need to produce succinct but clear and operational guidelines for the different work programmes, especially focusing on the ones having more “complex” steps.

Page | 62

1.4 Back … to the future The external evaluators warn the project partners to go back to the original application form when they are looking for solutions to problems they need to face throughout the project implementation period. As strongly highlighted in the mid term report, many answers and solutions can be found in the application form before struggling to “invent” or look for new ones. The evaluators invite partners to consider the original application form as the key “source” for “problem solving” and for identifying the necessary strategies.

2. SPECIFIC ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 2.1 Coherence of the action plan and the work programmes The external evaluators strongly recommend the partners to re-draft the GANTT diagram, on the basis of the mid term report dated December 2012. Moreover, partners are strongly encouraged to design the PERT diagram, in order to clearly highlight the interdependencies between the different work programmes.

2.2 Partnership support and project management The external evaluators warn the leader, as well as the coordinators of the different work programmes, to develop and put in practice the identified strategies and to produce the necessary tools/instruments aiming at supporting the partners (especially those who have proved to be weak in some of their tasks) in the implementation of the assigned tasks/activities. Nevertheless, the evaluators recognize the value of the planned meetings on Skype, now organized on a monthly basis. Moreover, as highlighted in the introductory part, the evaluators urge all the partners to produce the expected guidelines for each work programme, in order to support the work of each partner in the different steps.

2.3 Financial management A series of totally avoidable mistakes have occurred in the financial mid-term report. The evaluators strongly invite the partners to adapt all the necessary strategies to avoid this kind of mistakes that affect the quality of the whole action. Some suggestions provided by the evaluators may be banal but effective: double check system: the financial report should be double checked by at least 1 person who was not directly involved in the drafting of the report

Page | 63

work on time: project managers, as well as financial managers, need to draft their own GANTT diagram as a tool that may help them plan their work within the project framework. Work in advance allows a more careful approach to reporting.

2.4 Evaluation On the basis of the positive feedback of the Commission about the evaluation report, the evaluators encourage the partners to consider it as a milestone for a profitable implementation of the project in Year 2. The report indeed includes several advises and recommendations which may support the successful management of the action and a smooth implementation of the foreseen activities towards the achievements of the planned goals.

2.5 Communication and dissemination Internal More and better communication is required both from the project partners to the Contracting Authority (EC and EACEA) and among the partners. The evaluators urge the coordinator to put into practice a series of measures to promote better communication flows and information transfer. External There is a strong need for an upgrade of the communication and dissemination strategy, passing from a focus on the local and national level to the European one. The evaluators encourage the partner to make any possible effort to achieve this “upgrade”, a necessary step toward the creation of the network of urban gardens in the EU.

Final Remarks In general, the evaluators acknowledge a general improvement of the quality of the implementation of the whole action and certainly of the overall awareness of project partners about the necessary steps for improving it. Some delays in putting into practice the decision taken and agreed in December 2012 are still present and need to be “solved” in a rapid manner. The sessions expressly dedicated to planning during Barcelona meeting can surely contribute to improve a real and suitable planning, taking into account all the different aspects of interdependence, as a reinforcement of the process started after the Mid Term Meeting in Rome

Page | 64

Analysis after FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE 3 December 2013 Introduction The purpose of this external evaluation report is to collect and analyse the final answer of the beneficiaries of the projects and to provide a closing perspective. The focus of this last feedback was the impact of EUGO and the successful outcomes on the organisation, local partners and the sustainability of the partnership as international dimension as national (including a specific focus on the tools developed during the project).

Findings The present report presents analysis of the feedback questionnaire n3.

1. IMPROVEMETNS FROM THE MID-TERM EVALUATION AND CHANGES The first question was focused on analysing the main improvements from the Mid Term evaluation and the main changes (positive and negative) happened in the same time frame. The general opinion is that after the Mid Term evaluation has been a turning point after that many tasks have been accomplished due to a better coordination and division in subgroups. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s clear that for the partnership in the 2nd Year of work was very important to clarify and agree upon the schedule of the project again and to divide the tasks in a better way and invest in some concrete common projects as the E-Learning Platform. This is mentioned as a success project and also achievement of whole partnership in which everyday felt the possibility to contribute. The cooperation within the partnership has improved and the work in subgroups as a better division of tasks contributes to this success. The partnership feels that it managed to rep-plan and to redefine the work in a more sustainable way also with the support of tools as the website, the e-learning portal and Newsletter and the conference online. There is the general idea that after the Mid Term evaluation the consortium found a common method of work by developing different tools in order to improve it. The Mid Term raises clearly the topic of the responsibility of each partner towards the realisation of the whole process and the quality standards of them. The critical point raised is the time framework, as many of these changes implied a larger use of time and resources.

Page | 65

2. THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES OF EU’GO FOR THE PARTNER ORGANISATIONS Regarding this point we should divide the outcomes on two levels: 1) Successful outcomes about the management and organisational skills; 2) Successful criteria about the knowledge of the topic in itself Regarding the 1st point most of the partners mentioned how much this project supported their development of internal competences in working in international projects and in transferring from international to national dimension the different achievements of the project. This was a clear big challenge of this project: keep the link between the international and national dimension and keep involving the national and local organisations within the whole process. For some partners this was a great challenge at the beginning and clearly was a very important learning point towards the second part of the process. This will be a key learning point that everybody will be able to transfer in any other similar project. Regarding the 2nd point, the partners mentioned the importance of this project in having provided many good practices about urban garden and also how this project provided the real opportunity to create strong network at local level and to be recognised as a point of reference of the local urban gardeners. For most of them, the most successful outcome was the new network of urban gardens and institutions that participated in the project. EUGO was, for some of them, the opportunity that allow the partnership to grow and to go further in the topic and be able to support better the local network.

3. THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES OF EU’GO FOR THE LOCAL PARTNERS In general the impact is perceived as very important, because the local partners got inspiration for new gardening techniques and also because the study visits were an opportunity not only to learn but also for getting motivation. The local partners got the clear picture that their local activity can have a clear place also at European level and that they can improve methods and also impact being part of international projects. This project allowed also getting interested new gardeners and young people too. The international experience allows having new perspectives on gardening by sharing the work and methods and also allowing creating new tools and involving some of local partners in a more massive use of ITC for keeping updated and being able to contribute. The use of e-learning platform is very important in this sense and has been used from the local partners in order to train new urban gardeners and/or also to show the quality of the job and the European dimension. Another important aspect linked to the project was that EU’GO brought for some of them the legitimacy of their work within the local community showing that this is a well-known and shared practice at European level. The partners highlight as critical point the fact that was very easy to get people involved during the study visit part, but was much more difficult to have some during the second year when the work was much more remote.

Page | 66

4. THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PARTNERSHIP The focus of most of the people answering to this question (Do you think that this partnership will be sustainable?) is more on the local and national partnership rather on the international one. We think that this is quite logic due to the fact that one of the most successful points mentioned above was the realisation of a new partnership at local level. The sustainability of the partnership with local gardeners is shared in most of the answers and there are already examples of new activities and initiatives to guarantee it. The sustainability at local level is linked to new project founded by local authorities or new networks created for sharing methods or experiences.

Some organisations started international cooperation at bilateral level. This is also linked to the internal competences and the nature of the NGOs of working internationally and having this as mission in their vision. The sustainability of the partnership (at local, national and international level) is for sure linked also to the development and sharing of good practices. This is a key point in the entire long-term project that would like to have an impact and sustainable developments and changes in their practices. This is, again, linked to the internal competencies of each partner to work on the transferability of the new knowledge, but seems well shared that the e-learning platform is a recognized place in which continuing this development.

Final remarks In general, the evaluators acknowledge a general improvement of the quality of the implementation of the whole action specially in terms of active participation of the local partners and the capability of involving in an international project the local actors and institutions. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s very clear the increasing of cohesion in the partnership and how the clearer division of tasks and creation of a precise agenda facilitated a higher level of participation, but also effectiveness. The development of good tools, as the E-Learning, facilitated the communication and the sharing process. This last tool seems one of the most relevant in the last feedback. The sustainability is quite clear and foreseen at local and international level, where new projects have been set up already for the next 2 years.

Page | 67

Conclusive Analysis External Evaluator December 2013 Introduction The purpose of this external evaluation report is to clearly set out the findings and conclusions at the very end, analyzing the on-going process on the basis of the feedback of the Commission about the mid-term report dated December 2012 and the report of last meeting in Barcelona. The report is the product of external evaluation and is intended to be used by EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO project partners to maintain or strengthen their self-assessment. The style of this external evaluation report is intended to be succinct and evaluative. The review, which allowed the development of the present report, was conducted through the employment of the following methods and strategies: -

At distance, following the e-mail exchanges among project partners, reading the project documents being produced.

At distance receiving and analysing all evaluation reports elaborated by the WP9 leader for each phase and activity

The direct participation of one of the external evaluators in one of the study visits

One feedback questionnaire submitted to all partners before the Mid Term Meeting (MTM)

The direct participation for the entire duration of the MTM

A document containing recommendations after the MTM

One feedback questionnaire submitted to all partners before the ELearning Meeting (ELM)

Online participation via Skype during one of the session of the ELM

A document containing recommendations after the ELM

One feedback questionnaire submitted to all partners before the Final Evaluation

A document containing recommendations after the FEM

Findings The present report presents recommendations and the actions required, on the basis of the feedback received by the Commission about the mid-term report dated December 2012 and of the report delivered by the external evaluators for the ELM in Barcelona in April 2013.

Page | 68

1. GENERAL REMARKS 1.1 Status of the different Work Programmes At the end of the project, seems that the partners are more coherent and focused in developing a common working plan and in supporting the weakness within the partnership in a professional coaching approach. From the perspective of the external evaluators, since the beginning of the implementation of the project EU’GO we have been noticing relevant improvements as far as internal communication and participation in the decision making process are concerned. Partners’ participation in the coordination meeting has been active and valuable and has represented an important “pillar” of EU’GO. The implementation of this action is clear in the last months of work and noticed a clearer participation in the whole programme. It is important to highlight the ownership of the WPs by each partner responsible for them as an important strength of the project implementation phase. Partners have managed their WPs employing a responsible approach and with a clear understanding and vision. Throughout the implementation period, partners have become more aware about the concrete tasks, the different steps foreseen by the project and about how to deal with them both at international and national level.

1.2 Responsibilities From the sources of information employed, it becomes evident that the responsibilities defined by the separation in WPs and assigned to each partner, were finally better defined and distinct. The interdependence and interrelation between WPs needed teamwork not only inside the consortium but also among different external actors (garden leaders, gardeners, etc.) in the last year of work. Seems that thanks to the development of clear internal Guidelines the responsibility has been better shared. The roles have been redefined and readapted according to the specific focuses of the coordinator and the leaders of the different Work Packages (WPs), during the second phase of the project.

1.3 Clear internal Guidelines The mid-term report dated December 2012 clearly underlined the need to produce clear guidelines for project partners for a smooth and profitable management of the different work programmes. As an example, the guidelines drafted in Year 1 for the WP dissemination has helped the project partners to better implement the related strategies, to improve their common work and to facilitate the promotion of advantageous synergies. During the meeting in Barcelona, the external evaluators insisted on the need to producing succinct but clear and operational guidelines for the different work programmes, especially focusing on the ones having more “complex” steps. The external evaluators reminded to have a good use of shared templates - jointly developed by partners under the supervision of the coordinator – as important management tools which highly contributed to a smooth and clear management of the different WPs. The development of such tools and a much more shared use of these tools supported a better flow of the activities and the harmonization of

Page | 69

the activities and their communication within and outside the partnership. The guidelines are very helpful for the beneficiaries to better contribute to the overall process and knowing how to support it. The guidelines developed in the framework of the WP focused on dissemination, despite the fact that the international dimension could be better valorised, represent a good example of a common and shared document which inspired also the other partners in charge of “transversal” WPs. Partners, and especially the less experienced ones, feel “safer” and duly supported when guiding documents are prepared and clearly present aims, objectives, tasks and methods to reach a defined quality standard.

2. PROJECT COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT 2.1 Coordination and decision-making process In the 1st evaluation reports, most of the opinions of partners concerning the coordination of the project highlighted the need to have a stronger role of the coordinator in collecting and making a synthesis of the work produced at local and international level, in order to foster a real participatory approach within the partnership. Moreover, in the first phase of the project the responsibilities and tasks of the Coordinator were more linked to the management of deadlines and guiding of the project management group (encompassing one manager for each partner in the role of WPs leader). Concrete and practical problems, emerged during the implementation of the mobilities, provoked on spot reflections among the staff members present at the study visits. This decision making process was so decentralized and delegated to a restricted number of partners. We recommended the coordinator to focus more on the internal coordination of the project, paying attention to fostering communication among partners as a key element to support a more participatory approach by project partners. During the 2nd year of project are clear, the more coherent coordination and sharing responsibilities and information among the partnership that was accompanied by better internal tools. The coordinator reinforced partners’ participation by preparing and delivering useful tools such as periodical reminders, functional templates, etc.

2.2 Partnership It is evident that the capacity and the knowledge of the partners in the specific field of the project EU’GO, as well as in the management of LLP or other European programmes, are very different. We recommended in the 1st annual evaluation report to all the partners to find out the best and most suitable and sustainable solutions for making the diversity of the partnership become an added value of the project, considering strengths, weaknesses and constraints. During the 2nd year, it is evident that the capitalisation of knowledge has happened and the different approaches have been encompassed in a common understanding. The online activities helped the partners to transfer the international activities (Study Visits) into their national practice. This was a great challenge for the partnership as noticed also during the 1st evaluation meeting and it has been accomplished.

Page | 70

2.3 Problem solving From the point of view of the external evaluators at the beginning of the project, the problem solving methods were mainly delegated or requested to the Coordinator and to a few partners, while the others relied most of the time on their decisions. We recommended all project partners to provide their active contribution to the identification of the most suitable solutions for the identified problems. We observed during the 2nd year of the project, the development and use of suitable tools for better increasing the participatory approach in the problem solving. We can say that the process has been started and tools implemented, but still some partners remained a bit outside of the cycle (maybe also for internal decision of the partner).

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Transferability and best practices One of the key steps of the project, namely the identification and the transferability of the best practices, presented, during the 1st report, a major problem that was not tackled at the right time: what are the criteria to be used to identify a best practice. Not considering and defining these criteria at a prior stage, has led to a collection of “practices” and to a later selection of “best practices” that requested an extra work before to be transferable. We recommended project partners to give consistence to the choice of the practices by defining a set of common criteria that could speed up the selection, focusing on their transferability. After the 1st year of work, the focus on transferability and best practices has been developed and has even become the centre of the new development of the year with the development of the e-tools collecting the good practices for sharing internally and externally. The tool and the educational process behind were both effective and inclusive also towards the national partners and including the different target groups.

3.2 Teamwork Related to what highlighted in 2.2, the teamwork component presents some weaknesses: if from one side the most experienced partners suffer from a certain redundancy in the implementation of the project, the less experienced ones claim for a more guided support. We recommended project partners to strengthen this relevant component by adopting a set of measures that includes strategies such as mutual support, working-groups, etc. We can observe that the partners tried to develop a role of the “back-up” partner, namely an experienced partner in charge of supporting the weak one in the management of its WP (as suggested). The general support inside the teamwork, as noticed in the point 2.2, increased in general and generated good impact in the quality of job.

Page | 71

4. SPECIFIC ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 4.1 Coherence of the action plan and the work programmes Concerning timing, due to some methodological delay, the coherence of the different project steps has not been fully fulfilled during the 1st report. For example, the identification of the best practices â&#x20AC;&#x201C; on the basis of identified criteria - during the realization of the study visits has limited the impact on the achievements and results of the study visits and of the following steps (i.e. transferring of the practices), requesting extra work to all the partnership. We recommended project partners to adjust all the logical relations between the different activities, in order to follow a coherent action-plan for 2013. We invited partners to draft a Pert Diagram â&#x20AC;&#x201C; besides the Gantt one - a project management tool used to schedule, organize, and coordinate tasks within a project that clearly illustrates task dependencies, so not to lose the coherent flow of the whole action. We can observe how generally the coherence of the action plan and work programmes is better defined and following a common schedule also because the work in partnership has a better coordination.

4.2 Communication and dissemination tools Communication towards external audiences has been achieved thanks to the information always available in the languages of the partnership on the local web sites of the organisations and, in the 2nd year, thanks to the international website, that offered a stronger possibility also for internal communication and interlinked e-learning platform.

Page | 72

WP9 – AUTOEVALUATION FOR THE 2ND YEAR

WP9 leader agreed with the consortium and within the evaluation group the tools to be created and the areas to be investigated through the internal and external evaluation action. At the end of EU’GO project, in the following page, we rated the measure in which the objectives were reached, using a six stars range (6 yellow stars means “fulfilled completely”): EXPERIMENTATION PHASE - Set up tools aimed to support beneficiaries auto evaluation in terms of personal learning, obtained during the experimentation phase  - Set up tools aimed to support EU’GO staff in evaluating the experimentation process, oriented also to keep all the consortium informed about its evolution  - Set up an on-line rating system in the e-learning website dedicated to collect feed-back about the (experimented) good practices  SOCIAL MARKETING - Set up tools aimed to support beneficiaries auto evaluation in terms of personal learning, obtained during the social marketing phase  - Set up tools aimed to support EU’GO staff in evaluating the social marketing process, oriented also to keep all the consortium informed about its evolution  - Set up an on-line rating system in the website dedicated to collect feed-back about the social marketing tools  PARTNERSHIP - Set up tools aimed to support the evaluation of the E-Learning managers’ Meeting  - Set up tools aimed to support the evaluation of the Final Meeting  - Set up tool aimed to support the evaluation of the cooperation of the transnational consortium within the whole EU’GO project  EUGO PROJECT - Accompany partners in realizing video interviews with beneficiaries participating to all phases of EU’GO project  - Set up tools aimed to collect feedback on the web site and e-learning system  - Set up a final evaluation questionnaire for EU’GO project 

Page | 73

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT EU’GO PROJECT The data collected during all the process of the European Urban Gardens Otesha project (EU’GO) brought us to the conclusion that all the categories and level of involvement in the project were very high and very profitable. This aspect has been investigated also during the Final Evaluation Meeting and after thanks to the ex post evaluation questionnaire. EX-ANTE FEM Q21.* The added value the EU'GO project brought to your organisation in terms of.. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

50%

50% 40%

30%

30% 20%

20%

..networking with the involved realities and gardens

..innovation in your work

10% 10%

10% 0% ..new project ideas in your organisation

6 = High

1 = Poor

All the members confirmed the positive impact on their reality and some new projects ideas are already running, at local and international level. The transfer of innovation of the French expertise has been also concretize in a shared working plan within a Leonardo Da Vinci project, accompanying specifically the pedagogical and educative value developed by Pistes Solidaires, Cemea del Mezzogiorno and RJSM for the next 2 years. The concrete and deep involvement of gardeners in EU’GO project contributed to establish strong and large networking relationships in all countries, bringing fresh energies and ideas about the social challenges that can be tackled through urban gardens practices within the metropolitan societies. Ideas and intentions that can surely be supported by the next generation of EU programs like Erasmus+. EX-ANTE FEM Q19.* As professional, to what extent do you feel you have learned from the EU'GO project in general? 6 = Learned a lot

30%

5 4 3 70%

2 1 = Learned nothing

Page | 74

Also the contribution to the professionalism of the staff involved for 2 years in EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO has increased a lot in terms of cooperative approach, team working, financial management and technical knowledge in the specific field. At a local level this expertise has been considered at political level very useful to contribute to social dialogue and participation process between local public authorities and the movement of urban gardens. The E-Learning platform became a perfect bridge for future cooperation not only among the organizations involved in EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO project, but also among gardeners and urban gardens from different countries. The level of efficiency of the EPlatform convinced almost all the consortium to invest in this tool for the future already before to come to the Final Evaluation Meeting. EX-ANTE FEM Q13.* Do you think the EU'GO e-learning platform could become a tool used in future projects of your organisation? 6 = Yes

10%

1 = No

100% 80%

60%

60% 40%

20%

During the meeting in Berlin, having a global overview of the interest that this tool has created in the local communities, media and local authorities all the members of the consortium agreed in dedicating working days for free to the sustainability and upgrading of the website and e-learning platform, that became nowadays a reference point for a lot of realities around Europe. EX-POST FEM Q45.* How do you see your involvement in the Elearning platform and website sustainability after the end of the EU'GO project?

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

60%

30% 10%

EU'GO FOLLOW-UP (E-learning platform & Website sustainability) 6 = High involvement

1 = No involvement

Page | 75

The overall evaluation given from the members of the consortium, after a so challenging and tiring project, clearly going over any predictable expectation in terms of energies and working time, is mirroring the enthusiasm and the level of gratification collected during the project. Page | 76

EX-POST FEM Q43.* EU'GO OVERALL RATING

40% 6 = Excellent

EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO PROJECT OVERALL RATING. FOLLOW-UP

5 4 3 2

60%

1 = Poor

ANNEXE 1: EXPERIMENTATION GRAPHICS

EVALUATION REPORT EXPERIMENTATION LEADERS ITALY February - May 2013

Page | 77

This evaluation report is based on the Experimentation Questionnaire filled in by the Italian Leaders following the Experimentation Phase. The questionnaires gather their feedback regarding the preparation of the Experimentation, its development and local level impact. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-experimentation-leaders-i/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 6 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:

between 20-30 0%

GENDER

Women 50%

AGE

between 30-40 16,67%

between 40-50 16,67%

Men 50% over 50 66,67%

Active citizen in an U.G. 16,67%

Coordinator of an U.G. 33,33%

ROLE IN EU'GO

Urban Gardener 50%

OCCUPATION Civil servant 16,67%

Student 0% Retired 0%

Unemployed 16,67% Employed 66,67%

EU'GO Staff 0%

GOOD PRACTICES CHOICE

Page | 78

EQL IT Q11.* When and where did you choose the Good Practices you experimented?

I have been already interested in developing it and the project EU'GO gave me the opportunity 33,33%

In an Urban Garden during a Study Visit 50%

After the meeting with the local coordinator of EU'GO 16,67%

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

EQL IT Q13.* How much did you feel motivated to do the experimentation? 6 = High

100%

Page | 79

1=Poor

83,33%

80% 50%

60%

50%

40% 16,67%

20% 0%

At the beginning

At the end

EQL IT Q14. Level of satisfaction about the involvement in the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 66,67%

80,00% 60,00% 40,00%

16,67% 16,67%

20,00% 0,00%

EQL IT Q15. How much clear have been the steps of the experimentation process?

EQL IT Q16. To what extent did you feel you have had the needed information before the implementation of the experimentation?

100,00% 100,00% 80,00% 60,00% 40,00%

80,00%

50%

60,00%

33,33% 16,67%

40,00%

50% 33,33% 16,67%

20,00% 20,00% 0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

COOPERATIVE LEVEL

EQL IT Q18.*-Q20.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. Page | 80 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1=Poor

66,67% 50% 33,33% 16,67% 16,67%

33,33%

16,67%

..the involvement of the gardeners/people in the experimentation

..the support from the local coordinating organisation

..the suport from your twin urban garden

LEVEL OF IMPACT EQL IT Q22. Active contribution of the leaders to the good development of the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 66,67%

80,00% 60,00% 33,33% 40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

Leaders active contribution

EQL IT Q23. To what extent do you feel you have learned from this experimentation period? 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00%

66,67%

60,00% 40,00%

16,67% 16,67%

20,00% 0,00%

Leaders learning

EQL IT Q24. In general how do you rate the impact of the experimentation on your Urban Garden / local community? 6 = High

83,33%

100,00% 80,00% 60,00% 40,00%

16,67%

20,00% 0,00%

Impact of the Experimentation

1=Poor

Page | 81

LEARNING EVALUATION OF COMPETENCES

Page | 82

EQL IT Q28.* Thank to the EU'GO Experimentation I gained in.. 6 = A lot

1 = Poor

100,00% 90,00%

83,33%

80,00% 70,00%

66,67%

60,00% 50%

50%

50,00% 50% 40,00%

33,33%

30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

16,67%

16,67% 16,67%

16,67%

LEVEL OF IMPACT OVERALL EVALUATION

EQL IT Q25. On the base of the Experimentation period, rate your level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

66,67%

1=Poor

66,67% 50% 33,33%

33,33% 16,67%

..strenghting your knowledge on the topic of the experimentation

33,33%

..exchanging with other local gardeners of your reality

33,33% 16,67%

16,67%

..exchanging with other European gardeners of the EU'GO project

..improving my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening in general

EQL IT Q26.* On the base of the results of the Experimentation, do you think that this period was useful.. 6 = A lot

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

1 = Not at all

66,67% 50% 50% 33,33%

50,00% 33% 16,67%

..to foster your personal knowledge about new educational practices

..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden

..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality

Page | 83

EVALUATION REPORT EXPERIMENTATION LEADERS FRANCE February - May 2013 This evaluation report is based on the Experimentation Questionnaire filled in by the French Leaders following the Experimentation Phase. The questionnaires gather their feedback regarding the preparation of the Experimentation, its development and local level impact. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-experimentation-leaders-fr/).

Page | 84

The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 11 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:

GENDER

Women 45,45%

Men 54,55%

between 20-30 0%

AGE between 30-40 27,27%

over 50 45,45%

between 40-50 27,27%

EU'GO Staff 9,09%

Student 0% Civil servant 27,27%

Active citizen in an U.G. 0% Urban Gardener 0%

OCCUPATION

ROLE IN EU'GO

Retired 0%

Employed 54,55% Coordinator of an U.G. 90,91%

Unemployed 18,18%

GOOD PRACTICES CHOICE

EQL FR Q11.* When and where did you choose the Good Practices you experimented?

I have been already interested in developing it and the project EU'GO gave me the opportunity 27,27%

In an Urban Garden during a Study Visit 9,09%

After the meeting with the local coordinator of EU'GO 63,64%

Page | 85

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

EQL FR Q13.* How much did you feel motivated to do the experimentation? 6 = High

Page | 86

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00%

63,64%

60,00%

63,64% 36,36%

36,36%

40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

At the beginning

At the end

EQL FR Q14. Level of satisfaction about the involvement in the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00%

54,55% 45,45%

60,00% 40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

EQL FR Q15. How much clear have been the steps of the experimentation process?

EQL FR Q16. To what extent did you feel you have had the needed information before the implementation of the experimentation?

100,00% 100,00% 80,00% 80,00%

45,45%

60,00% 36,36% 40,00%

60,00% 18,18%

45,45% 36,36%

40,00%

20,00%

9,09% 9,09%

20,00% 0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

COOPERATIVE LEVEL

EQL FR Q18.*-Q20.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. Page | 87 6 = High

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

1=Poor

81,82% 72,73%

18,18%

27,27%

27,27% 18,18%

9,09% 9,09%

..the involvement of the gardeners/people in the experimentation

..the support from the local coordinating organisation

..the suport from your twin urban garden

18,18%

LEVEL OF IMPACT EQL FR Q22. Active contribution of the leaders to the good development of the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00% 60,00%

45,45% 27,27% 27,27%

40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

Leaders active contribution

EQL FR Q23. To what extent do you feel you have learned from this experimentation period? 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 63,64%

80,00% 60,00% 40,00%

27,27% 9,09%

20,00% 0,00%

Leaders learning

EQL FR Q24. In general how do you rate the impact of the experimentation on your Urban Garden / local community? 6 = High

100,00% 80,00% 60,00% 40,00% 20,00%

36,36%

36,36% 18,18% 9,09%

0,00%

Impact of the Experimentation

1=Poor

Page | 88

LEARNING EVALUATION OF COMPETENCES

Page | 89

EQL FR Q28.* Thank to the EU'GO Experimentation I gained in.. 6 = A lot

1 = Poor

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

54,55%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

45,45%

45,45% 36,36% 27,27% 27,27% 27,27%

18,18%

20,00%

36,36%

27,27%

18,18% 18,18% 18,18%

45,45%

27,27% 27,27% 18,18%

10,00%

0,00%

9,09%

9,09% 9,09% 9,09% 9,09%

18,18%

9,09%

36,36%

27,27%

18,18% 18,18%

36,36% 36,36%

9,09%

18,18% 18,18% 18,18%

18,18%

9,09%

LEVEL OF IMPACT OVERALL EVALUATION

EQL FR Q25. On the base of the Experimentation period, rate your level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 72,73%

80,00% 60,00% 40,00%

45,45%

36,36%

36,36% 27,27% 18,18%

18,18% 18,18%

9,09% 9,09%

20,00% 0,00%

18,18% 9,09%

9,09%

..strenghting your knowledge on the topic of the experimentation

..exchanging with other local gardeners of your reality

..exchanging with other European gardeners of the EU'GO project

..improving my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening in general

EQL FR Q26.* On the base of the results of the Experimentation, do you think that this period was useful.. 6 = A lot

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

45,45%

1 = Not at all

45,45% 45,45%

36,36% 18,18%

18,18% 9,09%

..to foster your personal knowledge about new educational practices

36,36% 36,36%

..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden

9,09%

..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality

Page | 90

EVALUATION REPORT EXPERIMENTATION LEADERS SPAIN February - May 2013 This evaluation report is based on the Experimentation Questionnaire filled in by the Spanish Leaders following the Experimentation Phase. The questionnaires gather their feedback regarding the preparation of the Experimentation, its development and local level impact. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-experimentation-leaders-es/).

Page | 91

The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 3 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:

GENDER Men 33,33%

between 20-30 0%

AGE between 30-40 33,33%

over 50 33,33%

Women 66,67% between 40-50 33,33%

ROLE IN EU'GO Coordinator of an U.G. 33,33%

EU'GO Staff 0% Active citizen in an U.G. 0%

Urban Gardener 66,67%

Retired 0%

Student 0%

OCCUPATION

Civil servant 33,33%

Employed 33,33%

Unemployed 33,33%

GOOD PRACTICES CHOICE

EQL ES Q11.* When and where did you choose the Good Practices you experimented?

I have been already interested in developing it and the project EU'GO gave me the opportunity 33,33%

In an Urban Garden during a Study Visit 33,33%

After the meeting with the local coordinator of EU'GO 33,33%

Page | 92

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

EQL ES Q13.* How much did you feel motivated to do the experimentation? 6 = High

Page | 93

1=Poor

100% 100% 80%

66,67%

60% 33,33%

40% 20% 0%

At the beginning

At the end

EQL ES Q14. Level of satisfaction about the involvement in the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00% 60,00%

33,33% 33,33%

33,33%

40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

EQL ES Q15. How much clear have been the steps of the experimentation process?

EQL ES Q16. To what extent did you feel you have had the needed information before the implementation of the experimentation?

100,00% 100,00% 80,00% 66,67%

80,00% 60,00% 40,00%

60,00%

33,33% 33,33% 33,33%

40,00%

33,33%

20,00% 20,00% 0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

0,00% 6 = High

1=Poor

COOPERATIVE LEVEL

EQL ES Q18.*-Q20.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. Page | 94 6 = High

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

66,67%

33,33% 33,33%

..the involvement of the gardeners/people in the experimentation

1=Poor

..the support from the local coordinating organisation

33,33%

..the suport from your twin urban garden

LEVEL OF IMPACT EQL ES Q22. Active contribution of the leaders to the good development of the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 66,67%

80,00% 60,00%

33,33% 40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

Leaders active contribution

EQL ES Q23. To what extent do you feel you have learned from this experimentation period? 6 = High

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00% 60,00% 33,33% 40,00%

33,33% 33,33%

20,00% 0,00%

Leaders learning

EQL ES Q24. In general how do you rate the impact of the experimentation on your Urban Garden / local community? 6 = High

100,00% 80,00% 60,00%

66,67%

33,33%

40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

Impact of the Experimentation

1=Poor

Page | 95

LEARNING EVALUATION OF COMPETENCES

Page | 96

EQL ES Q28.* Thank to the EU'GO Experimentation I gained in.. 6 = A lot

1 = Poor

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

66,67%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

33,33%

33,33% 33,33% 33,33%

33,33% 33,33%

33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 33,33%

33,33% 33,33%

33,33%

LEVEL OF IMPACT OVERALL EVALUATION

EQL ES Q25. On the base of the Experimentation period, rate your level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

100% 66,67% 33,33%

33,33% 33,33% 33,33%

..strenghting your knowledge on the topic of the experimentation

..exchanging with other local gardeners of your reality

..exchanging with other European gardeners of the EU'GO project

..improving my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening in general

EQL ES Q26.* On the base of the results of the Experimentation, do you think that this period was useful.. 6 = A lot

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

1 = Not at all

66,67%

33,33%

33,33% 33,33% 33,33%

..to foster your personal knowledge about new educational practices

..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden

33,33% 33,33% 33,33%

..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality

Page | 97

EVALUATION REPORT EXPERIMENTATION LEADERS UNITED KINGDOM February - May 2013 This evaluation report is based on the Experimentation Questionnaire filled in by the UK Leaders following the Experimentation Phase. The questionnaires gather their feedback regarding the preparation of the Experimentation, its development and local level impact. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-experimentation-leaders-uk/).

Page | 98

The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 4 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:

GENDER Men 0%

AGE

over 50 0%

less than 20 25%

Women 100% between 40-50 75%

Coordinator of an U.G. 25%

ROLE IN EU'GO

OCCUPATION Unemployed 0%

EU'GO Staff 0% Active citizen in an U.G. 0%

between 30-40 0%

Employed 100% Urban Gardener 75%

Civil servant 0% Retired 0% Student 0%

GOOD PRACTICES CHOICE

EQL UK Q11.* When and where did you choose the Good Practices you experimented?

I have been already interested in developing it and the project EU'GO gave me the opportunity 25%

In an Urban Garden during a Study Visit 25%

After the meeting with the local coordinator of EU'GO 50%

Page | 99

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

EQL UK Q13.* How much did you feel motivated to do the experimentation? 6 = High

Page | 100

1=Poor

100% 80% 50% 50%

50%

60% 40%

25%

20% 0%

At the beginning

At the end

EQL UK Q14. Level of satisfaction about the involvement in the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 80% 50%

60% 40%

25%

20% 0%

EQL UK Q15. How much clear have been the steps of the experimentation process?

EQL UK Q16. To what extent did you feel you have had the needed information before the implementation of the experimentation?

100% 100%

75% 80%

80% 60% 40%

50%

60%

25%

40%

25% 25%

20% 20% 0% 6 = High

1=Poor

0% 6 = High

1=Poor

COOPERATIVE LEVEL

EQL UK Q18.*-Q20.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. Page | 101 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1=Poor

75% 50%

50% 25%

..the involvement of the gardeners/people in the experimentation

25% 25%

..the support from the local coordinating organisation

25% 25%

..the suport from your twin urban garden

LEVEL OF IMPACT EQL UK Q22. Active contribution of the leaders to the good development of the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 80% 60%

50%

40% 20% 0%

Leaders active contribution

EQL UK Q23. To what extent do you feel you have learned from this experimentation period? 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 80% 50% 60%

50%

40% 20% 0%

Leaders learning

EQL UK Q24. In general how do you rate the impact of the experimentation on your Urban Garden / local community? 6 = High

100% 80% 50% 60%

50%

40% 20% 0%

Impact of the Experimentation

1=Poor

Page | 102

LEARNING EVALUATION OF COMPETENCES

Page | 103

EQL UK Q28.* Thank to the EU'GO Experimentation I gained in.. 6 = A lot

1 = Poor

100% 90% 80%

75%

70% 60% 50%

50%

50% 40% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 20% 10% 0%

25%

25% 25%

25%

25% 25% 25% 25%

25%

LEVEL OF IMPACT OVERALL EVALUATION

EQL UK Q25. On the base of the Experimentation period, rate your level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

50% 25%

1=Poor

25%

50%

25%

25% 25%

25%

..strenghting your knowledge on the topic of the experimentation

..exchanging with other local gardeners of your reality

..exchanging with other European gardeners of the EU'GO project

..improving my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening in general

EQL UK Q26.* On the base of the results of the Experimentation, do you think that this period was useful.. 6 = A lot

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

25% 25% 25%

25%

..to foster your personal knowledge about new educational practices

25%

1 = Not at all

25% 25% 25%

..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden

25% 25% 25% 25%

..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality

Page | 104

EVALUATION REPORT EXPERIMENTATION LEADERS GERMANY February - May 2013 This evaluation report is based on the Experimentation Questionnaire filled in by the German Leaders following the Experimentation Phase. The questionnaires gather their feedback regarding the preparation of the Experimentation, its development and local level impact. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-experimentation-leaders-de/).

Page | 105

The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 5 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:

AGE

GENDER Men 20%

less than 20 20%

between 40-50 40%

Women 80% between 30-40 40%

over 50 0%

OCCUPATION

ROLE IN EU'GO EU'GO Staff 20%

Coordinator of an U.G. 0% Urban Gardener 0%

Unemploye d 40% Active citizen in an U.G. 80%

Retired 0% Civil servant 0% Student 0%

Employed 60%

GOOD PRACTICES CHOICE

EQL DE Q11.* When and where did you choose the Good Practices you experimented?

I have been already interested in developing it and the project EU'GO gave me the opportunity 40% In an Urban Garden during a Study Visit 60%

After the meeting with the local coordinator of EU'GO 0%

Page | 106

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

EQL DE Q13.* How much did you feel motivated to do the experimentation? 6 = High

Page | 107

1=Poor

100% 100%

80%

80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 0%

At the beginning

At the end

EQL DE Q14. Level of satisfaction about the involvement in the experimentation.. 6 = High

100%

1=Poor

80%

80% 60% 20%

40% 20% 0%

EQL DE Q15. How much clear have been the steps of the experimentation process?

EQL DE Q16. To what extent did you feel you have had the needed information before the implementation of the experimentation?

100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 40%

40% 20%

60% 20%

20%

40%

20%

40% 20%

20%

20% 0% 6 = High

1=Poor

0% 6 = High

1=Poor

COOPERATIVE LEVEL

EQL DE Q18.*-Q20.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. Page | 108 6 = High 100%

1=Poor

100%

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

80%

20%

..the involvement of the gardeners/people in the experimentation

..the support from the local coordinating organisation

..the suport from your twin urban garden

LEVEL OF IMPACT EQL DE Q22. Active contribution of the leaders to the good development of the experimentation.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Leaders active contribution

EQL DE Q23. To what extent do you feel you have learned from this experimentation period? 6 = High

100%

1=Poor

80%

80% 60% 40%

20%

20% 0%

Leaders learning

EQL DE Q24. In general how do you rate the impact of the experimentation on your Urban Garden / local community? 6 = High

100% 80%

60%

60% 40%

20%

20% 0%

Impact of the Experimentation

1=Poor

Page | 109

LEARNING EVALUATION OF COMPETENCES

Page | 110

EQL DE Q28.* Thank to the EU'GO Experimentation I gained in.. 6 = A lot

1 = Poor

100% 100% 90% 80% 80% 70% 60%

60%

50% 40% 40%

40%

40% 40%

30% 20% 20% 10% 0%

20%

20% 20% 20%

20% 20%

20%

20% 20%

LEVEL OF IMPACT OVERALL EVALUATION

EQL DE Q25. On the base of the Experimentation period, rate your level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1=Poor

80%

80% 60% 40%

20%

..strenghting your knowledge on the topic of the experimentation

20%

..exchanging with other local gardeners of your reality

..exchanging with other European gardeners of the EU'GO project

..improving my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening in general

EQL DE Q26.* On the base of the results of the Experimentation, do you think that this period was useful.. 6 = A lot

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

60%

1 = Not at all

60%

60% 40%

20%

..to foster your personal knowledge about new educational practices

20%

..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden

..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality

Page | 111

ANNEXE 2: MANAGEMENT MEETINGS GRAPHICS

EX-ANTE EVALUATION REPORT E-LEARNING MEETING IN BARCELONA (SPAIN) April 16th – 19th, 2012

Page | 112

This evaluation report is based on the EX-ANTE questionnaire filled in by the EU’GO partners participating to the EU’GO E-LEARNING in Barcelona, Spain. The questionnaires gather partners’ feedback regarding the ELM management and preparation of the meeting, with a special focus given to an evaluation of the steps already implemented within EU’GO since January 2013. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting partners’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-survey-exante-e-learningmeeting-barcelona-spain-16th-19th-april-2013-2/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 8 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED representing the partner organizations of the EU’GO project:

PARTNER

Nexes 12,50% Inwole eV 12,50% KC English 12,50% RJSM 12,50%

CEMEA del Mezzogiorno 25%

PistesSolidaires 25%

ROLE IN EU'GO Trainer/Expert 0% Administrator 12,50% Technician 25%

Manager 62,50%;

ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT PREPARATION OF THE ELM. TASK DIVISION Page | 113 EX-ANTE ELM Q3.* To what extent do you think you have received complete information regarding.. 6 = Excellent

1=Poor

100,00% 80,00% 62,50%

50%

60,00% 40,00%

50%

37,50%

20,00% 0,00% The objectives and the content of the ELM Meeting

Your role inside the ELM

What to prepare before to come to the ELM

EX-ANTE ELM Q4.* To what extent was the task division of the ELM organised among the partners? 1 = Poorly organized

37,5%

6 = Well organized

25%

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP1 - MANAGEMENT

EX-ANTE ELM Q6.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding the.. 6 = Excellent

1 = Poor

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

50% 37,50%

30%

25%

20% 10%

37,50% 25% 25%

25% 12,50%

12,50% 12,50%

0% Internal Monthly Newsletter

Decision making process within the Consortium

Working plan for the next 9 months

Page | 114

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP3-WP4 - EXPERIMENTATION

EX-ANTE ELM Q8.* The level of satisfaction about the Experimentation Phase.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00%

37,50%

40,00%

25%

30,00%

25% 12,50%

20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

the Experimentation Phase in EU'GO (objectives, content, guidelines, steps to follow, implementation)

EX-ANTE ELM Q9.* The usefulness of the tools produced.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100,00% 90,00% 80,00%

62,50%

70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 25%

40,00% 30,00%

12,50%

20,00% 10,00% 0,00%

the tools produced by the SWG1 (Experimentation guidelines and Evaluation of Individual Competences)

Page | 115

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP5 – E-LEARNING EX-ANTE ELM Q11.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

Page | 116

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

50%

50% 37,50% 37,50%

40%

25%

30%

12,50% 12,50%

20% 10% 0%

..aims and objectives of the elearning platform

..the sample of the e-learning page received by CEMEA

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP6 – SOCIAL MARKETING

EX-ANTE ELM Q13.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 25% 25% 25%

30,00% 20,00% 10,00%

12,50%

25% 25% 25% 12,50%

12,50%

0,00% ..aims and objectives of social marketing within the EU'GO project

..how to concretely implement social marketing within my reality

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP7-WP8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; WEBSITE & DISSEMINATION / NEWSLETTER

EX-ANTE ELM Q15.* The level of understanding and satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

90% 80% 70%

62,50%

60% 50% 37,50% 37,50%

40% 25%

30% 20%

12,50%

12,50% 12,50%

10% 0%

.. the actual version of the website (content, management and contributions from each partner)

..the actual version of the external newsletter (content, management and contributions from each partner)

Page | 117

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EVALUATION

EX-ANTE ELM Q17.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100,00% 90,00% 80,00%

62,50%

70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00%

12,50%

20,00% 0%

10,00%

0,00% ..the objectives of the evaluation of the experimentation phase

EX-ANTE ELM Q18.* The level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00%

37,50% 25%

25%

30,00%

12,50%

20,00% 10,00%

0,00% ..the evaluation tools chosen for the experimentation phase

Page | 118

EX-POST EVALUATION REPORT E-LEARNING MEETING IN BARCELONA (SPAIN) April 16th – 19th, 2012 This evaluation report is based on the EX-POST questionnaire filled in by the EU’GO partners participating to the EU’GO E-LEARNING in Barcelona, Spain. The questionnaires gather partners’ feedback regarding the ELM management and preparation of the meeting, with a special focus given to an evaluation of the steps already implemented within EU’GO since January 2013. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting partners’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-survey-expost-e-learningmeeting-barcelona-spain-16th-19th-april-2013/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 10 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED representing the partner organizations of the EU’GO project:

PARTNER

Nexes 30%

Inwole eV 10%

CEMEA del Mezzogiorn o 20% PistesSolidaires 20% RJSM 10%

KC English 10%

ROLE IN EU'GO Trainer/ Expert 0%

Administra tor 10%

Technician 40%

Manager 50%

Page | 119

EX-POST ELM Q4*-Q20.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE ELM

70%

60%

Page | 120

60%

50%

50% 50%

50%

40%

50%

40%

30%

30% 30%

30%

40%

30% 30%

20%

20% 20%

20%

10%

-10%

10%

0% 0%

10%

Useful / Stimulating Good Flexible Well Well spaced Good use of Good level My Useless for / Boring discussions structure / conducted / out / Too time / Poor of activity / objectives my work / Limited Rigid Poorly condensed use of time Poor level achieved / discussions structure conducted of activity My objectives not achieved 6(max)

1(min)

ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT PREPARATION OF THE ELM. TASK DIVISION

Page | 121 EX-POST ELM Q22. To what extent do you think you have received complete information regarding.. 6 = Excellent

1=Poor

100% 80%

40% 20%

60%

50%

60%

40%

40% 10%

50% 40% 10%

0% The objectives and the content of the ELM Meeting

Your role inside the ELM

What to prepare before to come to the ELM

EX-POST ELM Q24.* To what extent did you feel you tackled the preparation of the ELM?

100% 80% 60%

30%

40%

30%

20%

10%

20% 0%

6 = Proactively

1=Passively

EX-POST ELM Q23. To what extent was the task division of the ELM organised among the partners? 1 = Poorly organized

20%

50%

6 = Well organized

30%

ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT. ELM USEFULNESS

EX-POST ELM Q26. To what extent has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the ELM concerning.. 6 = Excellent

1=Poor

100% 80%

60%

50%

60% 40% 10%

20%

20% 20%

20%

0% ..the EU'GO project dimension of each partner at EU and local level

..the EU'GO 2nd year objectives, phases and timeline

EX-POST ELM Q27. To what extend was the work done during the ELM useful for the next steps? 100% 80% 60% 60% 40%

40% 20% 0% 6 = Fully

1 = Not at all

Page | 122

ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP CONSOLIDATION EX-POST ELM Q42. As member of the consortium, to what extend did you feel the partnership consolidated during the ELM? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

40%

30%

0% 6 = A lot

0% 1= Nothing

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP1 - MANAGEMENT

EX-POST ELM Q28.* Rating of the level of satisfaction/understanding regarding the.. 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 = Poor

70% 60%

30% 10%

..internal communication for the next 9 months

20% 10%

..working plan for the next 9 months

Page | 123

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP3-WP4 - EXPERIMENTATION

EX-POST ELM Q30.-Q31.* The level of understanding regarding.. Page | 124 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 = Poor

50%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

..the Experimentation Phase in EU'GO (objectives, content, guidelines, steps to follow, implementation)

..the work to do for deliverable 3.4.Practical Activity Sheet & 4.2.Method sheet for the acquisition of skills

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; E-LEARNING EX-POST ELM Q33.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100% 90% 80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

20%

20% 10% 0% ..the aims and objectives of the elearning platform

..the work to do (materials, documents, local work) in order to create the E-learning platform

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP6 – SOCIAL MARKETING EX-POST ELM Q37. The level of understanding and satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

30% 20%

20%

20% 10%

10% 0%

.. the website: content, management and contributions from each partner

..the external newsletter: content, management and contributions from each partner

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP7-WP8 – WEBSITE & DISSEMINATION / NEWSLETTER

EX-POST ELM Q35.* The level of understanding regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100% 90% 80% 70%

60% 50%

60% 50% 40%

30%

30% 20%

10% 10%

10%

10% 0% ..aims and objectives of social marketing within the EU'GO project

..how to concretely implement social marketing within my reality

Page | 125

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EVALUATION: EXTERNAL EVALUATOR

EX-POST ELM Q38.-Q39. How do you rate the external evaluation concerning.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100% 80%

90% 80% 70%

60%

60% 50% 40% 30%

20% 20%

20%

20% 10% 0% ..the feedback questionnaire prepared by the external evaluators prior the ELM

..the contributions of the external evaluator in the opening of the ELM

Page | 126

ELM CONCLUSIONS PROJECT NEXT STEPS & LEARNING

EX-POST ELM Q40. The level of satisfaction at the end of the ELM about.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100% 90% 80% 70% 50%

60% 50%

40%

30% 30%

30% 10%

20% 10% 0%

..the common agenda for the following months

..the role and tasks of my organisation and of the partners in the project

EX-POST ELM Q41. As professional, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the ELM?

30%

6 = Learned a lot 5 4

50%

3 2 1 = Learned nothing

20%

Page | 127

ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT ELM LOGISTICS EX-POST ELM Q43.-Q46. How do you rate the ELM logistic aspects.. 6 = Excellent

1=Poor

100% 80% 60%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

20% 10%

10%

0% ..the travel to the meeting location

..the lodging

..the meeting working room

..the board

EX-POST ELM Q47. How do you feel about the length of the meeting? 6 = Satisfied

40%

1 = Unsatisfied

40%

20%

OVERALL RATING OF THE ELM EX-POST ELM Q48.* 6 = Excellent

20%

5 4 3

80%

2 1 = Poor

Page | 128

EVALUATION REPORT FINAL EVALUATION MEETING IN BERLIN (GERMANY) December 3rd – 6th, 2013 This evaluation report is based on the EX-ANTE and EX-POST questionnaires filled in by the EU’GO partners participating to the EU’GO FINAL EVALUATION MEETING in Berlin, Germany. The questionnaires gather partners’ feedback regarding the FEM management and preparation of the meeting, with a special focus given to an evaluation of the steps already implemented within EU’GO since January 2013 and on the EU’GO project follow-up. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting partners’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version: http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-final-evaluation-meeting-ex-ante-berlingermany-3-6-dec-2013/ ;

Page | 129

http://www.cemea.eu/report-eugo-final-evaluation-meeting-ex-post-berlingermany-3-6-dec-2013-2/ . The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 10 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED representing the partner organizations of the EU’GO project:

PARTNER

Nexes 20%

CEMEA del Mezzogiorno 20%

PistesSolidaires 20%

Inwole eV 20%

KC English 10%

RJSM 10%

ROLE IN EU'GO Trainer/Expert 10%

Administrator 0%

Manager 40%

Technician 50%

ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT PREPARATION OF THE FEM

EX-ANTE FEM Q4. To what extent do you think you have received complete information regarding.. 6 = Excellent

1=Poor

100% 80% 50%

60%

40%

40% 30%

40%

20%

10%

20%

10%

0% The objectives and contents of the Final Evaluation Meeting (FEM)

What to prepare before to come to the FEM

EX-POST FEM Q18.*-Q20.* To what extent do you feel you.. 6 = Excellent

1=Poor

100% 80% 60% 40% 40% 20%

40%

30% 20%

30% 10%

10%

10% 10%

0% ..had previous information about the content of the FEM

..tackled the preparation of the FEM

EX-POST FEM Q22.*How do you rate the feedback questionnaire prepared by the external evaluators prior the FEM? 6 = Excellent 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

60% 40%

1=Poor

Page | 130

EX-POST FEM Q4.*-Q14.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE FEM

Page | 131

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 50% 50%

50%

40%

40% 40%

40%

30% 30% 20% 20%

10%

20%

10%

20%

10%

Useful / Useless Good discussions Well conducted / Well spaced out / Good use of time My objectives for my work / Limited Poorly conducted Too condensed / Poor use of time achieved / My discussions objectives not achieved 6(max)

1(min)

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PROJECT MANAGEMENT EX-ANTE FEM Q5.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding the.. 6 = High

Page | 132

1 = Poor

100% 80% 60%

60%

60% 40%

30%

20%

10%

20%

10% 10%

0% Monthly Conference Call

Decision making process within the Consortium

EX-ANTE FEM Q7.* Rating of the level of preparation regarding.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100% 80% 50%

60% 30%

40%

10%

20%

10%

0% ..the documents to produce for the Final Report

EX-POST FEM Q24.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding the EU'GO project coordiantion in terms of.. 6 = High

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

60%

1 = Poor

60% 50% 40%

30%

10%

Decision making process within the Consortium

10%

Mutual and internal support among the partners

10%

EU'GO financial management

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP2 – STATE OF THE ART & GOOD PRACTICES EX-POST FEM Q26.* Rating of the level of satisfaction regarding.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 80% 60% 60%

60%

40% 40%

40%

20%

20% 20%

10%10%

10%

0% ..the WP2 coordination

..the State of the Art

..the Good Practices

WP3 – EXPERIMENTATION OF GOOD PRACTICES EX-POST FEM Q28.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 80% 60% 60% 40% 20%

50%

40% 30% 20%

20%

10%

30% 20%

20%

0% ..the WP3 coordination

..the Study Visits

..the Experimentation phase

WP4 – EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL SKILLS EX-POST FEM Q30.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 6 = High

1=Poor

100% 70%

80%

60% 60% 40% 20%

30%

20% 10%

10%

0% ..the WP4 coordination

..the tools developed to define and assess competences

Page | 133

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; E-LEARNING PLATFORM EX-ANTE FEM Q9.* How do you rate the level of.. 6 = High 100%

1 = Poor

Page | 134

90%

90% 80%

70%

60%

60% 50% 40%

30%

20%

10%

10% 0% ..coordination of the WP5 in order to create the e-learning platform

..information received for creating the e-learning pages you were responsible for

..contribution from the gardeners in testing the platform

EX-POST FEM Q32.* How do you rate the level of satisfaction about.. 6 = High

1 = Poor

100% 90%

80%

80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

40% 30% 20%

10% 10%

10%

10% 0% ..the WP5 coordination

..the E-learning platform

..the E-learning method (the system of contribution from the users to the elearning platform)

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; E-LEARNING PLATFORM

EX-ANTE FEM Q11.* As professional, do you think you have improved your skills and competences by contributing to building the e-learning platform? 6 = A lot 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 = Nothing

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

EX-ANTE FEM Q13.* Do you think the EU'GO e-learning platform could become a tool used in future projects of your organisation? 6 = Yes

10%

1 = No

100% 80%

60%

60% 40%

20%

EX-ANTE FEM Q15.*Overall rating of the E-learning platform 6 = Excellent

1 = Poor

100% 80%

70%

60% 40% 20% 0%

30%

Page | 135

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SOCIAL MARKETING EX-ANTE FEM Q17.* Rating of the impact of the social marketing strategy planned in your reality (at this time of the project) 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

Page | 136

90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

40%

40% 30% 20%

30% 20% 10%

10%

Impact of the Social Marketing Strategy (December 3rd, 2013)

EX-POST FEM Q35.* Rating of the impact of the social marketing events realised at local level 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

90% 80% 70% 60%

50%

50% 40% 30%

30%

20%

10%

Impact of the Social Marketing Events (Mid December 2013)

EX-POST FEM Q34.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about the WP6 coordination 6 = High

100%

1 = Poor

90% 80% 70% 60%

60% 50% 40% 30%

20%

20% 10%

10%

10% 0%

0% WP6 coordination

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP7 – WEBPLATFORM

EX-POST FEM Q37.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. Page | 137 100% 90%

80%

80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

20%

10%

..the WP7 coordination

..the Webplatform

10% 0%

6 = High

..the Newsletter 1 = Poor

WP8 – DISSEMINATION

EX-POST FEM Q39.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about.. 100% 90% 80% 70%

60%

50% 50%

50% 40% 30% 20%

20%

20% 10% 10%

10% 10%

10% 0% ..the WP8 coordination (including the dissemination strategy, supporting documents, etc.)

..the overall realisation of the ..the overall realisation of the EU'GO project dissemination at EU'GO project dissemination at local level EU level

6 = High

1 = Poor

EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS STEPS WP9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EVALUATION

EX-POST FEM Q41.* Rating of the level of satisfaction about..

Page | 138

100% 90% 80% 70%

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

20%

10%

20% 10%

10% 0% ..the WP9 coordination

..the internal evaluation tools 6 = High

..the external evaluator's tools

1 = Poor

EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO PROJECT ADDED VALUE EX-ANTE FEM Q21.* The added value the EU'GO project brought to your organisation in terms of.. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

50%

50% 40%

30%

30% 20%

20%

..networking with the involved realities and gardens

..innovation in your work

10% 10%

10% 0% ..new project ideas in your organisation

6 = High

1 = Poor

EX-ANTE FEM Q19.* As professional, to what extent do you feel you have learned from the EU'GO project in general?

30%

6 = Learned a lot 5 4 3 2 70%

1 = Learned nothing

Page | 139

EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;GO PROJECT OVERALL RATING. FOLLOW-UP EX-POST FEM Q43.* EU'GO OVERALL RATING

Page | 140

40% 6 = Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor

60%

EX-POST FEM Q45.* How do you see your involvement in the Elearning platform and website sustainability after the end of the EU'GO project?

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

60%

30% 10%

EU'GO FOLLOW-UP (E-learning platform & Website sustainability) 6 = High involvement

1 = No involvement

Page | 141