1. Evaluation CHOICES transnational partnership Helsinki 22-23 May 2006

2. Participation in the 2. evaluation round All partners handed in questionnaires after the meeting in Spain. 8 questionnaires were handed in – all of them with respect to the deadline. Prior to this meeting new questions were send out, all partners – except for Finland – handed in answers. Thank you very much – your cooperation is much appreciated!

3. Evaluation of SG- meeting in Spain Did the meeting achieve it’s goal? 3 says YES! 5 says TO A GREAT EXTENT! Was the meeting well prepared? 5 says YES! 3 says TO A GREAT EXTENT! Was the structure of the meeting appropriate? 4 says YES! 4 says TO A GREAT EXTENT! Did the meeting provide new information or insights? 4 says YES! 4 says TO A GREAT EXTENT! Was the focus of the agenda chosen appropriately? 3 says YES! 5 says TO A GREAT EXTENT!

4. Project Evaluation (1) Transnational website1234 1Your overall impression of the website-44- 2How do you assess the user-friendliness of the website?233- 3How do you think the website will work as an internal project tool?215- 4How do you think the site will work as a source of information for your national DPs? 233- Teamwork 6The communication between project partners concerning different fields of expertise -35- 7The degree of mutual trust and teamwork among the project partners-35- Work plan and outcomes 9The quality of the outlined activities-17- 10The quality of the work plan--53 1 = Poor2 = Saticfactory3 = Good4 = Excellent

5. Project Evaluation (2) Communication and understanding1234 1The extend to which there is a clear understanding about the shared roles and responsibilities of the partners in the project 2 (2)3 (7)1 2The effectiveness and quality of communication between the project partners 4 (6)2 (3) 3The efficiency and quality of the communication with the project secretariat (Finland) 3 (2)1 (2)2 (4) 4The Clarity about the overall objective of the transnational partnership1 (6)3 (2)2 (1) 5The clarity of the ongoing activities1 (0)3 (2)2 (6)(1) Teamwork 6The communication between project partners concerning different fields of expertise 4 (3)2 (5) 7The degree of mutual trust and teamwork among the project partners4 (3)2 (5) 8Overall assessment of the Choices teamwork42 Website 9How do you assess the user-friendliness of the website?1 (2)2 (3)3 (3) 10How do you think the website will work as an internal project tool?1 (2)2 (1)3 (5)

6. Important issues to clarify at this meeting: Activity planning – time table update How are thing progressing? Are we being realistic or too ambitious? Research activities Bringing the researchers together Discussing methological issues, data collection, and possibilities of comparison between countries Good Practice booklets Debate on the contents and formats

7. Indicators have been developed for all activities Since last meeting: Good work!

8. Indicators: Research ActivityQualitative indicatorsQuantitative indicators Research1. The fluency end efficiency of the cooperation between researchers 2. The novelty value of the results seen from both national and European Perspectives 3. Evaluating the potential in terms of setting up a new large scale research project X articles published

9. Indicators: GP on Guidance ActivityQualitative indicators Quantitative indicators Good Practice Booklet on Culture- and gender-sensitive guidance and counselling 1. Correspondence to EU policy guidelines in the field 2. Dissemination potential 1. Number of downloads 2. Number of contacts by interested persons

10. Indicators: GP on Gender Mainstreaming ActivityQualitative indicators Quantitative indicators Good Practice Booklet ”Gender Mainstreaming” 1. Correspondence to EU policy guidelines in the field (which field?) 2. Dissemination potential (target group?) 1. Number of downloads 2. Number of contacts by interested persons

11. Indicators: World Cafe ActivityQualitative indicators Quantitative indicators World Café – a transnational workshop 1. Intensive debate in café groups 2. A clear summing up on different perspectives on equal treatment and AT 1. Minimum 4 participants from each country 2. Positive response from 75%

12. Indicators: Exchange of experts ActivityQualitative indicatorsQuantitative indicators World Café – a transnational workshop 1. The fluency end efficiency of the cooperation between researchers. 2. The novelty value of the results seen from both national and European Perspectives 3. Evaluating the potential in terms of setting up a new large scale research project X articles published

13. Indicators: website ActivityQualitative indicatorsQuantitative indicators CHOICES website 1.User friendliness 2. Relevance and applicability of the materials available on the site 3. Ability to facilitate and improving cooperation 1. Number of opened/downloaded CHOICES-products 2. Number of materials available on the site for public use

14. Indicators: Newsletter ActivityQualitative indicatorsQuantitative indicators CHOICES Newsletters 1. Relevance of contents 2. Level of satisfaction of destinataries 3. Impact on national and transnational activities 1. Number of newsletters printed 2. Number of newsletters distributed 3. Number of events advertised 4. Number of entities interested in the project after reading the newsletters

15. Indicators: Evaluation Report ActivityQualitative indicatorsQuantitative indicators Final evaluation report The report covers the transnational cooperation in a loyal and thorough manner 1. Transnational products to be covered by the report: All known by now 2. Transnational activities to be covered by the report: All known by now 3. All partners contribute

16. Next step in the evaluation Evaluation of workshop activity Adjustment of indicators Preparation of evaluation of world Café activity