PROGRAM ASSESSMENT - 2024
Chautauqua Dialogues
Prepared for: The Department of Religion and the IDEA Office
Prepared by: Roger Doebke, Lynn Stahl, Robin Harbage and Cathy Digel.
Additional members of the Leadership Team for 2024 were: Hal Simmons and Robert Cahn.
December 5, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 3 - DATA: Raw data for participants, facilitators, and venues
Page 6 - Assessments from Participants
Page 10-Assessments from Facilitators
Page 12 - Assessment of Venues
Page 12- Assessment of Focus Dialogues
Page 13 - Assessment of Institutional Support
Page 14 - Assessment of Facilitator Training
Page 15 - The Red Bench Project
Page 15 - The Lecture Journals
Page 16 - Promotion for 2025
Page 18 - Leadership Team of 2024
DATA
The 2024 Season provided CHQ Dialogues to 1259 participants. This was a 10% increase in participation over 2023.
In all, 14 venues were used. The chart below depicts the average attendance by venue.
The lowest attendance was experienced at the Quaker House and the highest at the UU House and the AAHH.
As in the past, attendance varied considerably by week. We continue to believe that this is a result of the extent to which Weekly Themes drive attendance, demographics and conversations.
Over the nine weeks, 55 facilitators participated in CHQ Dialogues to provide 126 unique sessions.. Of the 55 participating facilitators, 20 individuals facilitated 60% of the total Dialogues. As in seasons past, a core of our facilitators are the backbone of our facilitation team, but many come for a week or two, and take the time to participate.
Assessments from Participants
We received 990 completed assessment cards during the 2024 Season. The following information was gleaned from reviewing those responses. We asked attendees to respond to six questions and provided space for comments. Sample responses shown here were chosen based on their being representative of numerous similar comments.
Responding to the question: Is this the first time you have attended a session?
51% responded that this was the first time they had attended a session, decreasing slightly from 2023 Thus, 49% said they had attended previously.
Responding to the question: Did you consider this a good experience?
99.7% responded “Yes” to this question. In fact, only 9 respondents said they did not consider it a good experience.
Sample responses:
“Terrific group of 12 people. Wonderful experience, excellent conversation. There were people I would love to spend more time with.”
“All Chautauqua Institution participants should come to CHQ Dialogues.”
“It was a great way to interact with other Chautauquans.”
“Having a dialogue about my experience and listening to others gave me a sense of community and further enriched my experience at CHQ.”
Responding to the question: On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best, how would you rate your facilitator?
In 2024 70% of participants gave facilitators a rating of 5
24% of participants gave facilitators a rating of 4
5% of participants gave facilitators a rating of 3.
1.3% of participants gave facilitators a rating of 1 or 2.
93.5% of the participants giving facilitators either a 4 or 5 rating is very much in line with the responses we received in 2023
Sample responses:
“Great discussion; excellent moderation; good steering of conversation. Please do more of these.”
“Terrific idea. Great structure and facilitation.”
“Thank you for facilitating and allowing everyone to have a voice.”
“An atmosphere of respect and thoughtful expressions. All were encouraged and affirmed by facilitator.”
Responding to the question: Do you feel any different about any topic discussed after hearing what others in your group had at to say?
54% responded “Yes”
Sample responses:
“Keep up the good work! So helpful to me to process new information”
“These dialogues help me to integrate ideas and experiences gained in the week.””
“ It helped to hear others articulate my own reflections as well as stimulate new ones!”
Responding to the question: Did talking about ideas you heard in the lectures help you process the substance of the lectures?
94% of respondents said the Dialogues helped them process the substance of the lectures they attended during the week..
Sample responses:
“Great way to deepen the experience.”
“I appreciate the rich conversation and the diversity of lenses.”
“Coming from large lecture to small group is the best process for positive change to occur.”
Responding to the question: Would you attend a Dialogue in the future?
99% of respondents said they would attend a Dialogue in the future. Out of the total responses only 7 participants said they would not return in the future.
Sample responses:
• Very positive! Do more!
• ·Very well done! A game changer!
• ·Absolutely amazing. Enlightening, engaging and profound – very well done!
• A wonderful innovation.
Editor’s note: We received numerous comments saying “thank you”, “I loved it”, “don’t stop doing this” and “great job” to the facilitator.
Responding to the request for additional comments:
· Plan to implement 2-3 ideas when I return home – inspired by group.
· Healthy listening and learning experience.
· These dialogues are a fantastic plus for CHQ
· Very helpful, stimulating part of experience here. Appreciate chance for feedback.
Assessments from Facilitators:
This summarizes the feedback from our post season facilitator survey for 2024.
Responding to the question: What made CHQ Dialogues a good experience for you?
Overwhelmingly, responses listing benefits of CHQ Dialogues for facilitators described (1) the opportunities to meet and engage with other facilitators, (2) listening to the fresh and differing perspectives of the many participants, (3) meeting new people at Chautauqua, (4) demonstrating that disagreement is okay, (5) having an opportunity to encourage participants to reflect on their own positions and beliefs, and (6) “facilitating was fun and informative (for me) and I met a lot of nice people”.
Responding to the question: What changes would you make to CHQ Dialogues in the following areas:
• Organizational meeting on Mondays should be mandatory.
• Find better ways for facilitators and co-facilitators to collaborate.
Responding to the question: How would you rate the Venues?
The most common venue complaint related to participants being unable to find the Presbyterian Chapel.
There was also concern about the AAHH because of the constant coming and going of non-participants. It was suggested that we have a sign asking non-participants to use another entrance/exit.
Several facilitators mentioned again that we should emphasize in marketing the Dialogues, that the venues are merely convenient locations and the Dialogues are not related to the denominations, so everyone is welcome at all venues.
Responding to the question: What do you think about the Dialogue structure?
There was unanimous praise for the structure of the Dialogues. Specific comments mentioned the simplicity of following the process, the value of sticking to the weekly theme for participant inclusion and having opportunities to be paired with other facilitators.
A few participants clearly want to be solo facilitators. We were fortunate to have enough facilitators to assign two to most venues, and we should make it clear that facilitators should agree in advance as to the role each co-facilitator will play. We will encourage experienced facilitators to release as much responsibility as possible so that the less experienced facilitator will feel comfortable as the lead.
Responding to the question: Do you have other suggestions for improvement in marketing, recruiting, or training?
Many suggestions centered around marketing CHQ Dialogues.• Provide more articles in CHQ Daily explaining the Dialogues.
• Place large ads in the Monday or Tuesday CHQ Daily.
• Change the announcement at the Amphitheater. Several stated the announcement needs to be more specific, clearer, varied and more welcoming. It does not currently stand out and misses the mark for anyone who hasn’t previously participated. A suggestion was made to place the announcement before the Q&A is announced, which would differentiate this announcement, when most people are in the amphitheater and when most participants are already thinking about the lecture . Even if they are about to exit, they may be more receptive to a hearing about a venue where they could engage in Dialogue.
• Request that Roads Scholars and other organizations announce and participate in Dialogues.
• At the end of each CHQ Dialogue, encourage the participants to urge others to attend upcoming Dialogues by “word of mouth”. Perhaps even pass out materials to share or ask participants to share the brochure they’ve already been given with another guest, encouraging them to attend.
• Tell participants how they can become facilitators.
Assessment of Venues
We have so appreciated the support and participation of the denominational houses. Ten of these houses contributed their space and support each week: three hosted two each week; and seven hosted one per week. In addition the AAHH was used once a week during the Season.
During the 2024 season, the facilitators of the simultaneous Dialogue groups were given each other's cell numbers, so if one group only had a few participants, the facilitators were able to connect with one another and combined the groups.
Our leadership team continued to do more direct work with the denomination house hosts, especially since there seems to be a turnover in hosts each season. Many had not fully grasped their role and importance of encouraging their house guests to participate in any of the weekly dialogues anywhere on the grounds. Again, we will provide material for the hosts to distribute at their weekly orientation sessions. We also will continue working with the hosts to arrange appropriate seating as well as establishing a quiet area. Some of the houses provide water and even a little treat like raisins, but that is totally optional on the part of the hosts!
Assessment of Focused Dialogues:
Again this summer the AAHH Dialogues focused solely on the Wednesday afternoon AAHH speaker. They were held on Thursday afternoon at 4:00 pm, so the participants could walk the extra distance following the 2:00 lecture. Several of these Dialogues involved large groups which had to be split in half. Fortunately, there were at least two facilitators assigned to the 4:00 Thursday Dialogues each week, in case this actually happened. With the new tent erected next to the AAHH House it was easy to split participants into two groups.
Assessment of Institutional Support
All of our Leadership Team agrees that support from Institutional Staff was excellent in every way. Support was provided by the Institution in both tangible and intangible ways. Across the board, Staff did everything they could to make the Dialogues a success.
Primary support was provided by Amit Taneja and Melissa Spas. One or both of them attended our Monday Facilitators Lunch at Hurlbut Church each week. They always welcomed the facilitators and told them about the Institution’s support for, and commitment to, the Dialogues. Staff also provided appropriate assistance in answering questions that dealt with larger issues and concerns.
• Staff was instrumental in promotion of the Dialogues. Signs for every venue were provided and proved very beneficial in promoting the Dialogues and identifying the host venues.
• Staff enhanced the presence of the Dialogues on the Institution website.
• Staff announced the Dialogues at many of the 10:45 and 2:00 Lectures and had a brief video slide announcement about the Dialogues running before the 10:45.
• Staff arranged for a feature article in the Daily.
• CHQ Dialogues was invited to participate in the Sunday Community Group Fairs on Bestor Plaza. Numerous facilitators engaged with visitors who sought more information about the program.
The intangible was the afirmation and encouragement provided by Staff.
• Preseason, Mellisa and Amit worked diligently with the Dialogues leadership to define what could be done to make the Dialogues more relevant and more visible. The results during the season were evident. Many Chautauquans expressed renewed interest in the program and lauded the commitment of the Institution.
• Staff members who were not directly involved with the Dialogues made a specific point of telling us how much they supported the program.
Assessment of Facilitator Training
Training materials that had been used in 2023 were incorporated to train six new facilitators prior to 2024. We will continue to train new facilitators by offering an introductory online class for those who are interested, as well as any facilitators who would like a refresher course. This class will purposely be limited because we have enough previously trained people who want to facilitate on their own rather than cofacilitate, and we want to give them that opportunity.
Because of the remote nature of our engagement with new facilitators we have learned that we cannot rely on any assumptions about their skill level. We therefore assigned all new facilitators to initially be observers. Next, the new facilitator will be a co-facilitator, until the more senior facilitator advises that he/she is ready to facilitate on their own or not participate at all. From our pool of experienced facilitators we have selected people who are Senior Facilitators and who can participate in mentoring.
We recognize the importance of presenting a consistent product, one that follows the Facilitators Manual. The only way to ensure consistency and quality is to audit the performance of our facilitators.
Our weekly lunch kickoff meeting for facilitators proved invaluable and we plan to continue and make attendance at them mandatory. They have became an important part of sharing, training and camaraderie.
A post dialogue checklist has been developed for our facilitators. This checklist provides a list of prescribed actions to take during the Dialogue and a means for facilitators and mentors to review whether the expected steps were taken and how effective these actions were during the Dialogue.
The Red Bench Project
We are frequently asked about The Red Bench project. Most questions focus on whether any of the benches still exist. In 2022 the program was initiated with the placement of 6 red benches on the grounds for the summer of 2023. We believe it proved to be a good tool to bring civil discourse to the public square because it was an image of our aspirations.. It has proven to invite interest by saying, “if you sit here, you are inviting conversation.” We heard nothing but positive comments from the public and believe that an expansion of the number of benches is justified in 2025 (a) as a symbol of our interest in creating good conversations; and (b) as an image of the dialogues program we are otherwise developing. We would like to see many more Red Benches throughout the grounds with prominent signage.
The Lecture Journals
In 2023 we started to create a culture of “listening” and then engaging with each other in Dialogues. We distributed 1000 of the new Lecture Journals at the AMP. Journals were given out only to those who expressed a sincere interest in the concept of journaling. We continued this program in 2024. Each person who received a journal also received a short verbal introduction to their purpose and agreed to participate in the process. Those who listened and received a journal were excited and grateful to the Institution for providing the journals. The journals were distributed only on Monday and Tuesday before the 10:45 Lecture. For 2025 we believe the quantity printed should be increased to 3,000 pieces, and we would also distribute them before the 2:00 lecture.
PROMOTION FOR 2025
We can’t say it often enough. People still think that selection of a venue has something to do with religion.
Our weekly population is now composed of so many folks who are at Chautauqua for a week or two, our promotion efforts need to be oriented to repeat week after week. We believe that a daily column in The Chautauquan explaining the opportunities as well as listing them is appropriate. A weekend edition spread would do wonders for awareness.
We also want to continue announcements at the 10:45 and 2:00 lectures. We believe it would be helpful to extend an invitation to participate in the Dialogue BETWEEN the lecture and the Q&A. The audience could continue their learning after the lecture by actively participating in a discussion specifically pertaining to the lecture, which will both attract more CHQ Dialogues attendees and demonstrate the richness of experiences at Chautauqua beyond the lecture hall. We believe the display ad item below would be helpful if run in the Daily.
Leadership Team for 2024
Roger Doebke
Lynn Stahl
Robin Harbage
Data Manager
Includes Scheduling Weekly Facilitators
Collecting Attendance Data
Cathy Digel
Organizing all materials and handling facilitator’s packets
Lecture Journal Distribution
Publicatiion Productiion
Hal Simmons
Mentoring
Community Fairs
Robert Cahn