National Restorative Justice Symposium 2017

NRJS 2017 Survey

Survey link can be found here!

Thank you so very much for participating in the 2017 National Restorative Justice Symposium! We hope you enjoyed a thought-provoking and energizing couple of days.

Now that we are settling back into our home communities, the Planning Committee is eager to hear your thoughts about the Symposium. Please follow this link to complete a short survey about your overall experience. It shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes of your time.

We thank you for your contributions to the Symposium, and for sharing your views with us. We look forward to seeing you again at the next Symposium in 2018!

___________________________________________

Courriel d’évaluation :

Nous vous remercions d’avoir participé au Symposium national sur la justice réparatrice de 2017. Nous espérons que ces quelques jours de réflexion et de revitalisation vous ont plu.

Maintenant que nous sommes tous de retour dans nos collectivités respectives, le Comité de planification est impatient de connaître les commentaires des participants au sujet du Symposium. Veuillez cliquer sur cet hyperlien afin de répondre à un bref sondage sur votre expérience globale. Cela ne devrait vous prendre qu’une dizaine de minutes.

Nous tenons à vous remercier d’avoir contribué au Symposium et de nous avoir fait part de votre point de vue. Nous sommes impatients de vous côtoyer de nouveau dans le cadre du prochain Symposium en 2018!

General Feedback Results

National Restorative Justice Symposium 2017 Survey Monkey Results (as of March 7, 2018)

In total, this survey had 78 respondents. Of these, just over 93% responded that, overall, their experience at the Symposium was good or very good. The remaining individuals responded that their experience was fair. The individuals who rated their experience as fair mentioned that they would have appreciated more time to connect with other participants and that they would have preferred a longer event. Those who rated the Symposium as Good or better did not leave comments. Many participants also spoke highly of the location. Furthermore, a common theme in the responses regarded the tours held for participants.

Of these participants, roughly 92% stated that the variety of workshops was commendable and enriching. However, the remaining 8% stated that these workshops were either fair or poor (in fact, only 1 participant marked these workshops as poor). Comments concerned making sure speakers were well aware of time constraints. However, some comments mentioned how certain workshops needed to be better reviewed and vetted before approving them. Indeed, some participants believed certain topics to not be at issue for the theme of the Symposium and felt some presenters lacked in their presenting skills. Similarly, it was mentioned by several participants that workshops should be tagged for the level of experience that a workshop caters to in order for attendees to make more informed choices.

Plenary

For these participants, just shy of 90% rated their impression of the Plenary speakers as good or very good while 4% rated them as fair or poor (the remaining respondents stated the question was not applicable to them). Very few comments were left explaining this spread of the responses however some individuals felt that there was too much of a political presence, particularly given the amount of time spent waiting, etc. Furthermore, they felt that Elders brought to speak were very engaging however some guests were stuck in a legal frame of mind. Another individual mentioned that they enjoyed the international element to the plenary sessions and also the contrast the two brought.

Training

The training sessions provided to participants were also very well received. Just over 82% of participants rated their experience of the trainings to be either good or very good. While 11% rated it as fair and 1% marking it as poor. Indeed, those with positive experiences noted the professionalism and dynamism of the presenters. However, those with more negative experiences noted that due to time constraints and unforeseen circumstances, training sessions were shortened, causing issues with their trainer. Some individuals also felt that they felt as if they were being lectured rather than learning anything. This may potentially have a connection with ensuring proper vetting of presenters as mentioned in participants’ concerns above.

Overall, the Symposium appears to have been incredibly well received by participants. They appreciated the work and organization they saw throughout the Symposium. However, the main stumbling points included ensuring proper, engaging presenters and allowing enough time for participants to talk, interact and connect.