Lack of a Clear Program Objective One of the critical issues that emerged from the survey responses and the Team’s observations is the change in scope of the GPIA Program. As previously mentioned, IEP initially designed the GPIA Program for ten Ambassadors. The training program would have been more intimate and given Ambassadors more support and opportunities for professional development. Some respondents expressed disappointment that the program was significantly larger than initially advertised, and some even cited this as the reason they did not plan to submit a proposal for the 10 for the 10 Competition. th
Understandably, the GPIA Program is a pilot and the first of its kind for IEP. Consequently, there were a number of issues that IEP had not anticipated, which resulted in extemporaneous decision-­‐making. Some of these issues include: How would participants who do not live in an area with Rotary presence complete the program requirements? Who incurs travel and accommodation costs in cases where Ambassadors must travel to deliver their required presentation? Concerning competition submissions, would IEP be open to accepting team proposals in addition to individual submissions? The first two questions have so far not been addressed in great detail despite their direct impact on some Ambassadors’ completion of program requirements. However, the third question created an opportunity for collaboration and possible generation of more creative submissions. The impact of the GPIA Program’s unclear goals and desired outcomes is two-­‐fold. The change in the program’s scope disappointed some Ambassadors and discouraged further engagement, but also resulted in critiques of the program design itself. Content and Program Design The GPIA Program’s lack of clearly established objectives gave rise to a program design that has room for improvement. Originally, the GPIA Program was marketed as an intimate and interactive professional development opportunity for participants. The subsequent expansion to all interested Rotary Peace Fellows understandably demanded a change in the program’s design. While a webinar platform facilitates the dissemination of information to participants around the world, the Team noted some dissatisfaction among respondents concerning the discrepancy in the program’s initial conception/presentation and the piloted result. Increasing the interaction between Ambassadors and IEP facilitators through a change in the style of webinar offering, such as video sessions, could possibly reconcile the issue. As previously mentioned, 81.2 percent of respondents did not feel completely prepared to present the GPI. The information presented in the GPIA webinars is mostly complete, with a few additional considerations for improvement. The Team noted a trend in the respondents’ concerns, most notably a desire for further explanation on GPI methodology and region-­‐specific data. Altering the program design to address regional interest would support IEP’s desire to expand its presence in Africa and Asia. Ambassadors from these two regions represent 60 percent of participants in the GPIA Program (see Figure 5). Thus, having region-­‐specific sessions should give Ambassadors from these regions better preparation and ultimately encourage them to actually deliver a presentation in the future. In terms of engendering continued engagement 13 with the GPI through IEP’s proposed competition, a change in program structure would address the most oft-­‐cited reason for not participating: lack of adequate preparation time for submissions. Asia and Pacific (17) 27% North America (2) 33% Labn America (4) Europe (13) 2% 26% 4% 8% Middle East North Africa (1) Sub-­‐Saharan Africa (14) Total: 51 countries Figure 5: Ambassadors by region of origin Networking Opportunities Not only did some Ambassadors comment on the need for a more interactive program, they also addressed the GPIA Program’s shortcomings in providing networking opportunities. Ambassadors critiqued the passive nature of the webinar offerings, with little possibility for interaction with IEP facilitators or between the Ambassadors themselves. While IEP circulated contact information for all GPIA participants, there was no mechanism or platform for real-­‐time interaction during the live webinars, nor was there an official social media platform for networking opportunities. Establishing a robust network of Ambassadors is not only beneficial to participants, it also increases opportunities for the dissemination of IEP’s work. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Develop a clear program objective The GPIA Program currently lacks a clearly defined objective, resulting in unclear measures of success for both IEP and Ambassadors. As the GPIA Program is in the pilot stage, IEP is able to reevaluate the desired outcomes of the program following the shifts from its initial conception to its current iteration. Accordingly, changes to the program structure and design will follow IEP’s desired outcomes and affect future scale-­‐up efforts. Recommendation 2: Improve content and program design The Team recommends modifying the order in which the webinars are currently presented. We suggest that “Building Peace in Your Community” (currently Webinar 3) should be offered first, 14 as it provides an overview of Rotary International’s work and IEP’s potential projects and long-­‐
term goals for this partnership. Presenting the webinar and details concerning the GPIA competition would also increase the time Ambassadors have to work on proposals and possibly lead to higher submission numbers. GPI methodology should instead be presented in the second webinar. A number of survey respondents mentioned that increased focus on the methodology of the GPI would better prepare them to deliver future presentations. “Measuring Peace through the Global Peace Index” (currently Webinar 1) may be supplemented with region-­‐specific webinars wherein Ambassadors learn about IEP’s regional methodology from regional or country experts. These shorter webinars could provide additional in-­‐depth information on data collection and analysis, especially concerning conflict areas and/or cultural and political issues specific to particular regions. Although this presents an additional time investment, these supplemental webinars correspond with IEP’s goal of tailoring presentations to audiences in specific countries or regions, thereby making the GPI more compelling and interactive. The webinar series should conclude with “Communicating the Global Peace Index” (currently Webinar 2) as a video presentation of the GPI. Numerous respondents remarked on the impersonal nature of audio-­‐only webinars and the Team notes the value of providing Ambassadors with a visual representation of IEP’s expectations for a successful presentation style. It would also be beneficial for IEP staff to share their personal experiences presenting the GPI, including any challenges they faced when doing so. The final webinar would also provide adequate time for Ambassadors to ask any remaining questions, including those concerning information from previous webinars. The Team recommends that PowerPoints and presentation materials be made available prior to the webinar sessions so that Ambassadors have sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the webinar’s content. The Team also recommends IEP develop a mechanism to follow up with Ambassadors prior to delivering the presentation required for program completion. While the attendance data for webinar attendance is readily available, it is more difficult to track whether Ambassadors need assistance developing their presentation or whether they have established a date and audience. IEP should also establish a firm deadline for completion of the presentation to hold Ambassadors accountable and ensure program objectives are being met. While the Team acknowledges that participants cited personal time constraints and commitments as reasons for not continuing engagement outside of the required elements, an open-­‐ended deadline for presentations complicates effective follow-­‐up and measuring the program’s success. Recommendation 3: Establish professional development/networking opportunities Although IEP has circulated a contact list of all participants among the Ambassadors, professional development and networking support can improve. The chat function used during the webinar presentations only allows limited interaction between Ambassadors and IEP facilitators, with no opportunity for interaction among Ambassadors. The lack of real-­‐time interaction between participants could be a possible platform configuration issue easily remedied by switching to a different service. 15 The Team also recommends the creation of GPIA-­‐specific social media groups, notably LinkedIn and Facebook, to increase participant engagement and provide further networking opportunities. Establishing a social media presence for the program is the most immediate and cost-­‐effective way to cultivate connections among Ambassadors. IEP could create an initial page for the inaugural cohort and subsequent pages for each cohort along with an alumni page. Within their cohort page, Ambassadors may also form subgroups based on location to facilitate in-­‐person networking or collaboration on presentations. Recommendation 4: Considerations for scale-­‐up IEP’s goals for scaling up the GPIA Program require significant changes to the existing program structure. The Team considered two scale-­‐up scenarios, which are not mutually exclusive. •
Recommendation 4.1: Expanded participation and accessibility The Team considered the GPIA Program’s goal of expanding IEP’s presence and the GPI footprint in underrepresented regions. The Team notes the benefits of partnering with Rotary International as IEP is provided with a diverse pool of applicants. As Rotary Peace Fellows, Ambassadors have already undergone a rigorous selection process and are high-­‐caliber participants. Peace Fellows have a strong background in peace and conflict studies and the ability to comprehend and disseminate the GPI after the relatively short training period. However, the pool of Rotary Peace Fellows is finite, with only around 100 new Peace Fellows per year. To date, there have been over 500 Rotary Peace Fellows, with 135 applicants to the inaugural GPIA Program. Because the GPIA Program is in its infancy, the participant pool has not been exhausted; however, IEP should expect smaller number of participants from the pool of Rotary Peace Fellows in the coming years. This logistical issue leads to the question of how IEP views the evolution of the GPIA Program. Significant expansion of the applicant pool by opening the GPIA Program to participants other than Peace Fellows requires establishing admission criteria. If IEP decides to reach a wider audience and open-­‐source its training tools, the Team suggests IEP explore existing course platforms such as EdX or Coursera as possible host sites. IEP could also host the training program on its own website, Vision of Humanity. With audience expansion, the GPIA Program offerings increasingly become a resource and training tool for incorporation in third-­‐party programs as opposed to a standalone training program. If there is no requirement for course takers to complete the current program requirements of webinar participation and subsequent presentation, IEP can more easily achieve its goal of increased audience exposure to the GPI. Adopting this iteration of the GPIA Program would require more advertising and public relations exposure, especially if the training tools are hosted on IEP’s website. However, the benefit from offering a course is that IEP can generate revenue by offering certificates both on the suggested open-­‐source websites and on its website. IEP should also make a 16 “Donation” button more visible on the Vision of Humanity website, especially on the training page, so people can opt to make a voluntary donation. •
Recommendation 4.2: GPIA Program as a seminar The Team considered this option as a standalone scale-­‐up activity or as a complement to the aforementioned scenario. This option envisions the scale-­‐up similar to the original GPIA Program “10 for the 10th.” The Team sees an opportunity for IEP to potentially generate funds from participation in the program by offering interactive, professional development and networking opportunities for participants or by using this program to seek funding in the form of sponsorship or grants. A small and exclusive participant pool is more manageable in terms of follow-­‐up and addresses the critique posed by Ambassadors concerning the impersonal nature and lack of interaction from the current iteration of the GPIA Program. Modeling the GPIA Program as a seminar requires establishing selection criteria, should IEP decide to open admission to people aside from Rotary Peace Fellows. IEP will also be required to provide deadlines for completion of program requirements, thereby simplifying the follow-­‐up process and providing clearer measures of success. Although this scale-­‐up scenario involves more personal and financial investment from IEP, it can provide the networking/professional development and interactive experience that the current GPIA Program lacks. If in-­‐person training is not financially feasible, a video conference for participants could be an alternative. The Team notes the possibility of combining the two scenarios by providing standalone training and resource materials for engagement with the GPI while also providing a personalized seminar for people willing to further engage the GPI. IEP could hold the seminar close to the yearly launch of the GPI so as to increase its global outreach while simultaneously establishing a global network of Ambassadors who are intimately acquainted with the GPI. 17 IV. Resource Development IEP has made significant strides targeting new potential funding sources in its effort to become financially independent of the Australia office in the near-­‐term. The Team was tasked with developing resource development recommendations for how IEP can continue to work toward that goal. Although IEP has already identified potential targets for outreach, the Team conducted further research to identify important issues IEP should consider when planning its resource development strategies. Methodology The Team based its research on three documents IEP provided: Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement Plan as of May 1, 2015, and U.S. Office Key Outreach Targets. Based on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, the Team identified sources of funding with which IEP is most familiar and has had prior successful engagement. Following consultation of IEP’s stakeholder mapping and outreach targets, the Team attempted to identify information gaps wherein further research could be conducted. The Team then conducted research on the targets IEP had already identified through the Foundation Center’s foundation directory, government agency websites, and corporate websites. Findings According to the FY 2016 Budget, the largest single grant IEP won was awarded by Coppel Mexico, a corporation. This grant was valued at $200,000, or 60 percent of IEP’s total $332,800 in grant funding. The majority of grants were from foundations, including $5,000 from Jubitz Family Foundation, $35,000 from the Open Society Foundation, and $50,000 from Humanity United. IEP also received a $10,000 and $17,800 grant from individuals. Based on these findings, IEP seems to be most familiar and successful with foundations. At the same time, building close relationships with individuals could also lead to meaningful partnerships and continuous financial support. It is also worth noting the opportunity for high-­‐value grants from corporations. Moreover, the same document shows that IEP has submitted a grant proposal of $450,000 to the U.S. Department of State. Even though the current percentage of success for this project (Mapping Countering Violent Extremism in Africa) is relatively low, government agencies can certainly be a good source of substantial and continued financial support for IEP in the future. Discussion and Recommendations IEP’s efforts to identify potential sources of funding and its initial to prioritize potential resources have provided a well-­‐established foundation; however, given IEP’s limited human resources, the Team recommends further prioritization. By narrowing the existing pool of potential funders, IEP can target its revenue generation efforts to funders with the highest potential of increasing short-­‐term income. The Team recommends IEP use the following indicators for future prioritization: •
Established relationship or engagement 18 •
•
•
•
Aligned topic areas Grant size Amount of time and effort required to secure grants Probability of success (if funding is being pursued) Even though the indicators above are not strictly arranged based on their importance or weight, IEP could consider using a two-­‐step prioritization system. First, IEP should identify the sources of funding with which well-­‐established relationships already exist and those whose topic areas align with IEP’s work. Once IEP has identified targets that meet the aforementioned criteria, IEP should then conduct a cost-­‐benefit analysis based on the size of grants that are usually given and the amount of time and effort needed in applying for such grants. For future prioritization of targets with which IEP has not yet established any connections, it is crucial that IEP also use the area of focus, grant size, amount of time, and level of effort indicators. We recommend that IEP give a weight to each of these indicators as it sees fit and prioritize all the potential sources of funding. We recommended that IEP focus its resource development efforts primarily on foundations, followed by corporations, high net-­‐worth individuals, and finally, U.S. federal government agencies. Foundations IEP should prioritize its efforts into securing grants from large, well-­‐established foundations before targeting other funding sources. In FY 2016, IEP secured grants from three foundations, totaling $90,000. Foundations have become the majority source of financial support for IEP programs. Based on IEP’s Key Outreach Targets, among the foundations with which IEP has established some engagement, only Carnegie Corporation, Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Humanity United, and Nexus Fund have focus areas in peace and security or international relations. Depending on how well-­‐established the relationships with these organizations are, IEP should first look at pursuing funding from organizations with similar areas of focus. Since all the foundations listed give the majority of their grants in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $500,000, IEP could consider the amount of time required for the proposal application process. For example, Carnegie Corporation takes around 4-­‐6 weeks to make final award notifications, while Rockefeller Brothers Fund takes around 3 months. Taking the response time into consideration, and assuming an equal level of engagement with both foundations, IEP may wish to prioritize securing funds from Carnegie Corporation over Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Of the foundations with which IEP does not have an established connection, MacArthur Foundation and Howard G. Buffett Foundation have programs that focus on peace and security or conflict mitigation. Both foundations mostly offer grants in the $100,000-­‐$500,000 range. The difference between the two is the ratio of grants awarded to number of recipients. The information for such indicators is readily available on the Foundation Center database. MacArthur Foundation has awarded 1,156 grants to 760 recipients, a ratio of 1.52:1, while 19 Howard G. Buffett Foundation has offered 243 grants to 108 recipients, for a ratio of 2.25:1. These numbers might be an indicator of the willingness of these foundations to accept new applications. Since IEP does not have an established connection with either of these foundations, it might consider prioritizing grant applications for the MacArthur Foundation over the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. In addition to the indicators mentioned in the previous section, IEP could also consider the ratio of grants given and recipients in prioritizing potential funders. In the case where IEP does not have any connection with a foundation, it should prioritize those with a diverse group of recipients. Once it has established a strong connection with some foundations, those that have higher ratio of grants and recipients could be promising in provide continued support. Finally, IEP can search for potential grantmakers to support its work by using the Foundation Center database to research grants awarded to organizations similar to IEP. This proves to be effective and less time-­‐consuming than starting the search for organizations with which IEP has no established connections from scratch. Corporations In FY 2016, IEP secured a $200,000 grant from Coppel, a Mexican corporation, which made up to 60 percent of the total amount raised. IEP is currently in the process of obtaining funding of $150,000 from Kohler and has reached out to other corporations, including Sodexo, KPMG, and Coca-­‐Cola, to support its 10th Anniversary event that will be held in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2016. This shows that corporations are willing to support IEP with substantial funding once IEP has established a good relationship. In addition to long-­‐term funding, corporations might contribute in the form of one-­‐off donations and in-­‐kind giving. Researching the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices of a given corporation can be difficult because not all corporations have a formal CSR department or fully advertise their efforts online. Yet, IEP has an advantage in reaching out to corporations for two reasons. Steve Killelea presence gives IEP the opportunity to tap into his network both within the U.S. and internationally. However, IEP acknowledges the limitation in having a highly successful businessman as a founder because it leads to public perception that IEP is personally funded by Mr. Killelea, which may hamper fundraising efforts. Despite such a limitation, IEP should take advantage of its location in New York City to reach out to large corporations. Corporations could most likely support IEP in the form of sponsorship for IEP’s events such as the 10th Anniversary event, or the launch of IEP’s annual Global Peace Index and Global Terrorism Index. High Net-­‐worth Individuals Similar to corporations, IEP is well-­‐positioned to find funding from high net-­‐worth individuals. Securing funding from individuals is similar to doing so from corporations in that it requires extensive utilization of personal connections and networking. In FY 2016, IEP secured $27,800 from individual donors, which made up 8.35 percent of the total funds received. Even though the total amount generated from individuals is small compared to other sources, the Team finds that this source of funding is still worth pursuing because of IEP’s large pool of GPI endorsers, a number of whom are successful entrepreneurs. With a subscription, IEP can also 20 use www.donorsearch.net to access the giving records and profiles of individual givers to learn of their interests to decide whether to pursue funding from them. U.S. Federal Government Agencies IEP has already identified some federal government agencies such as U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and U.S. Department of State, providing the Team with a starting point for further research. Based on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, IEP submitted a proposal for a grant of $450,000 from the U.S. Department of State. Even though the percentage of success appears to be low, the Team sees these agencies as a potential source of large funds in the form of grants and awards. However, federal government agencies should be considered as potential funders in the long-­‐
run rather than sources of immediate to short-­‐term funding because their grants usually contain a number of conditions. The procurement processes from grant application to implementation, reporting and closeout are complicated and require significant time investment. IEP’s current human resources capacity and technical expertise may not be well-­‐
equipped to navigate federal grant proposals but should consider future opportunities worthy of this investment. In conclusion, the Team finds that IEP has already established initial identification and prioritization of potential funding sources, but we suggest that IEP further narrow the current pool of potential funders so that its limited financial and human resources may be better allocated toward targets with the highest potential for success. In order to narrow down the list, we recommend that IEP first look at the organizations or individuals with which it has established preexisting relationships. It is important that IEP pursue grants or support from organizations that share a similar focus in line with IEP’s work. Among the several sources of funding, the Team recommends prioritizing targets based on their likelihood of success, with foundations as highest priority, followed by corporations, and high net-­‐worth individuals. The Team also recommends that IEP look into receiving financial support from federal government agencies as these are often high-­‐dollar awards. Once IEP has established itself as a successful recipient of government funds, IEP’s likelihood of receiving future funding from the same agencies will increase. However, the Team acknowledges the limited resources for securing funds from such agencies and thus ranks this source as the lowest priority for immediate-­‐term funding. 21 V. Appendices 22 Appendix 1: Survey Instrument 1. After completing the Global Peace Index (GPI) webinar series, how satisfied are you with the program overall? •
•
•
•
•
Extremely satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Not at all satisfied 2. In terms of technical content, how would you rate the GPI webinar series overall? •
•
•
•
•
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 3. After completing Webinar 1: Measuring Peace through the Global Peace Index, rate your understanding of the GPI and its methodology. •
•
•
•
I completely understand and could explain it to others in detail. I am unclear on a couple of issues but mostly understand and could explain it to others in detail. I am unclear on many issues and somewhat understand but could NOT explain it to others in detail. I do not understand at all and/or would not be able to explain it to others. 4. Given your existing knowledge of peace and conflict issues, how appropriate was Webinar 1's level of technical complexity? •
•
•
•
•
The webinar was easy to understand and I learned new information. The webinar was easy to understand but I did NOT learn any new information. The webinar required some effort to understand but I learned new information. The webinar was difficult to understand but I learned new information. The webinar was difficult to understand but I did NOT learn any information. 5. How much did the program increase your knowledge of peace and conflict issues? •
•
•
•
Significantly increased my knowledge Somewhat increased my knowledge Did not really increase my knowledge Did not increase my knowledge at all 23 6. After completing Webinar 2: Communicating the Global Peace Index, how prepared do you feel to deliver a presentation on the GPI? •
•
•
•
Completely prepared Mostly prepared Somewhat prepared Not at all prepared 7. How useful do you find the presentation script and PowerPoint template tools provided in Webinar 2? •
•
•
•
Very useful Somewhat useful Not very useful Not at all useful 8. Is there anything the webinars did not cover that would make you feel more prepared to present the GPI? Please specify. 9. After completing Webinar 3: Building Peace in Your Community, how useful did you find the information for your presentation(s) and future peacebuilding work? •
•
•
•
Extremely useful Somewhat useful Not very useful Not at all useful 10. Do you have any suggestions for how the webinar series could be improved? 11. How likely are you to use the information you learned in this program outside of the required Rotary presentation? •
•
Very likely Somewhat likely 24 •
•
Not very likely Not at all likely 12. If you plan to present this information outside of Rotary, what is your potential audience? (select all that apply) •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not planning to present outside of Rotary Universities or other academic settings Businesses or corporations Nonprofits or non-­‐governmental organizations Other community-­‐based organizations Governmental organizations Conferences Other (please specify) ___________________________________ 13. How has your participation in this program contributed to your professional development? •
•
•
•
Significantly Moderately Somewhat Not at all 14. Do you plan to submit a proposal for the GPI Presentation Competition? (if no, the survey skipped to question 17) •
•
Yes No 15. Do you plan to submit the proposal individually or as part of a team? •
•
Individual Team 16. Would you like assistance identifying potential team members? •
•
Yes No 17. If you do NOT plan to submit a proposal, why not? 25 Appendix 2: Complete Survey Results 1. After completing the Global Peace Index (GPI) webinar series, how
satisfied are you with the program overall?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Extremely satisfied
Mostly satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Not at all satisfied
20.5%
64.4%
9.6%
15
47
7
2.7%
2
2.7%
answered question
skipped question
2
73
0
2. In terms of technical content, how would you rate the GPI webinar
series overall?
Answer Options
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Response Percent
23.6%
50.0%
23.6%
1.4%
1.4%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
17
36
17
1
1
72
1
3. After completing Webinar 1: Measuring Peace through the Global
Peace Index, rate your understanding of the GPI and its methodology.
Answer Options
I completely
understand and could
explain it to others in
detail.
I am unclear on a
couple of issues
but mostly
understand and could
explain it to others in
detail.
I am unclear on many
issues and somewhat
understand but could
NOT explain it to
others in detail.
I do not understand
at all and/or would
not be able to explain
it to others.
Response Percent
Response Count
30.6%
22
62.5%
45
6.9%
5
0.0%
0
answered question
skipped question
72
1
26 4. Given your existing knowledge of peace and conflict issues, how
appropriate was W ebinar 1's level of technical complexity?
Answer Options
The webinar was
easy to understand
and I learned new
information.
The webinar
was easy to
understand but I did
NOT learn any new
information.
The webinar required
some effort to
understand but I
learned new
information.
The webinar was
difficult to understand
but I learned new
information.
The webinar was
difficult to understand
and I did NOT learn
any new information.
Response Percent
Response Count
77.1%
54
5.7%
4
15.7%
11
1.4%
1
0.0%
0
answered question
skipped question
70
3
5. How much did the program increase your knowledge of peace and
conflict issues?
Answer Options
Significantly
increased my
knowledge
Somewhat increased
my knowledge
Did not really
increase my
knowledge
Did not increase my
knowledge at all
Response Percent
Response Count
34.3%
24
58.6%
41
5.7%
4
1.4%
1
answered question
skipped question
70
3
6. After completing Webinar 2: Communicating the Global Peace Index,
how prepared do you feel to deliver a presentation on the GPI?
Answer Options
Completely prepared
Mostly prepared
Somewhat prepared
Response Percent
Response Count
20.0%
61.4%
17.1%
14
43
12
27 Not at all prepared
1.4%
answered question
skipped question
1
70
3
7. How useful do you find the presentation script and PowerPoint
template tools provided in W ebinar 2?
Answer Options
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not very useful
Not at all useful
Response Percent
Response Count
68.6%
27.1%
2.9%
1.4%
answered question
skipped question
48
19
2
1
70
3
8. Is there anything the webinars did not
cover that would make you feel more
prepared to present the GPI? Please specify.
Answer Options
Response Count
70
answered
question
skipped question
70
3
9. After completing W ebinar 3: Building Peace in Your Community, how
useful did you find the information for your presentation(s) and
future peacebuilding work?
Answer Options
Extremely useful
Somewhat useful
Not very useful
Not at all useful
Response Percent
Response Count
50.0%
45.7%
2.9%
1.4%
answered question
skipped question
35
32
2
1
70
3
10. Do you have any suggestions for how the
webinar series could be improved?
Answer Options
Response Count
70
answered
question
skipped question
70
3
11. How likely are you to use the information you learned in this program
outside of the required Rotary presentation?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
28 Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
74.3%
22.9%
0.0%
2.9%
answered question
skipped question
52
16
0
2
70
3
12. If you plan to present this information outside of Rotary, what is your
potential audience? (select all that apply)
Answer Options
Not planning to
present outside of
Rotary
Universities or other
academic settings
Businesses or
corporations
Nonprofits or nongovernmental
organizations
Other communitybased organizations
Governmental
organizations
Conferences
Other (please
specify)
Response Percent
Response Count
1.4%
1
72.9%
51
21.4%
15
70.0%
49
44.3%
31
42.9%
30
50.0%
35
17.1%
12
answered question
skipped question
70
3
13. How has your participation in this program contributed to your
professional development?
Answer Options
Significantly
Moderately
Somewhat
Not at all
Response Percent
34.3%
50.0%
14.3%
1.4%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
24
35
10
1
70
3
14. Do you plan to submit a proposal for the GPI Presentation
Competition?
Answer Options
Yes
No
Response Percent
78.6%
21.4%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
55
15
70
3
29 15. Do you plan to submit the proposal individually or as part of a team?
Answer Options
Individual
Team
Response Percent
Response Count
83.6%
16.4%
answered question
skipped question
46
9
55
18
16. W ould you like assistance identifying potential team members?
Answer Options
Yes
No
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
55.6%
44.4%
answered question
skipped question
5
4
9
64
Response Count
15
answered
question
skipped question
15
58
30