EVALUATION OF THE PARTNERS FOR THE PROJECT PHOENIX

(FIRST YEAR OF ACTIVITIES)

1.Start of project

Please answer the following questions by showing your preferences from 5(high)-1(low) and write a comment

where appropriate.

1.1 How well were the objectives of the project delivered to each of the partner?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

ITALIA MALTA LITUANIA GERMANIA

1.2 How good was the composition of the partners?

0

1

2

3

4

5

MALTA ITALIA LITUANIA GERMANIA

Italy: We could have some more country to complete the European framework

1.3 How well were you informed about the activities to be done?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

MALTA ITALIA LITUANIA GERMANIA

1.4 How clear was the time schedule?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

2. Co-ordinator’s meetings

Please answer the following questions by showing your preferences from 5(high)-1(low) and write a comment

where appropriate.

2.1 How good was the timing of the co-ordinator meetings?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

2.2 How good was the content of the co-ordinator meetings?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

Lithuania: Interesting, effective and fruitful

3. Activities carried out & Timing

Please answer the following questions

3.1 Did we manage to do what we originally planned?

• Malta: We should have finished the questionnaire dissemination before. It took us long to finish questionnaire administration and data inputting. We need to disseminate more

• Italy: Yes

• Lithuania: Yes we did, despite the data of the questionnaires was a little late

• Germany: Yes we did

3.2 How well did we stick to our original plan?

• Malta: On the whole we did well. The only problem was at the end, when we did not manage to finish the work on time

• Italy: On the whole we did well

• Lithuania: We did well despite the data of the questionnaires was a little late, but the project has been renewed for the second and third year it was not a problem to postpone the analysis of the questionnaire

• Germany: We stuck close to our original plan. With the exception of the analysis of the questionnaire and the packages for the clients, but we think this was for an 2 year runtime

3.3 What results have we achieved?

• Malta: Questionnaire is ready, analysis will be ready. This would point us to the material that needs to be covered in the course

• Italy: Questionnaire is ready. Web site is ready

• Lithuania: We thought disadvantaged members of society, who had difficulty in finding a job, through arts and the use of new information technologies and through the administration of the questionnaire found out the problems of securing a job; This year we devoted more time on arts and socialization the unemployed women created different type of art works. We organized the meeting with all participants and teachers of the project and disseminated the results of the project; made a video of this meeting and the booklet of the project. We also wrote some articles in local and regional newspapers

• Germany: Everything was done in a short time (see above)

3.4 What was not done and why?

• Malta: Everything was done

• Italy: The website needs to be brought up to date. We need to respect and work on a schedule to enable the site to be functional

• Lithuania: We missed to analyze the data of the questionnaires

because of the lack of time. It was quite a difficult task to question 100 respondents and to fill the data in the SSPS program. The project was renewed and the analysis of the data is being discussed on 5th December 2007

• Germany: See above because of shortening the project time from two to one year

3.5 If you have encountered problems what can be done to improve the situation?

• Malta: No real problems

• Italy: Giving deadlines to partners for sending information to be put on the website. The cost of mobilities from Sicily is high. The SOCRATES grant is not adequacy

• Lithuania: No serious problems only minor ones because of the lack of the experience, for example, with the financial reports. But it was easy to correct, as the National Agency was very helpful. There were no problems while implementing the activities of the project.

• Germany: Everything is all right

3.6 Where the things that had to be done delivered in time by the different partners?

• Malta: No, the questionnaires were all late in arriving. It seems that we all had some difficulties with the questionnaire

• Italy: We all had some linguistic difficulties with the questionnaire

• Lithuania: Yes, no problems everything in time

• Germany: Yes, everything was fine

4. Communication

Tick where applicable

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

SKIPE

E-MAIL

PHONE

OTHER

4.1. How did you communicate?

4.2 Was the mode of communication good?

00,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,9

1

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

YES

NO

5. Involvement and impact

5.1 What other partners were involved in your country?

0

1

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

TEACHERS

LEARNERS

NON TEACHINGSTAFF

OTHER

Italy: Non teaching staff - (director), Vocational guidance, Evaluator, secretaryLithuania: Non teaching staff Labour Centre service

Tick where applicable

5.2 What was the level of their involvement? Please indicate it on a scale from 0 to 5.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

TEACHERS

LEARNERS

NON TEACHINGSTAFF

5.3 In what ways have you as a partner contributed to the project?

• Malta:– Co-ordinator of activities– General Organization– Organized Malta Meeting

• Italy:– Dissemination – logo of the website and creation of website– questionnaire for learners– presentations of the partner institutions (see website)

• Lithuania: – Created with the help of the other institutions the questionnaire,– Disseminated the questionnaire, and – Hosted the meeting between the partner institutions.

• Germany: – Created the questionnaire with the partners– Translated it to German– Disseminated it– Put it into SPSS grid– Organised meeting in Germany

Please answer the following questions

5.4 What was the impact of the project on partner organization/participants in your country?

• Malta: The participants felt good in being involved

• Italy: Our organization had the advantage of working with colleagues from Europe

• Lithuania: The learners and the staff directly participated in the project: the teaching staff had the opportunity to make contacts and know other European teaching methods, learners increased their knowledge and their employability through participating in training activities. Our institution had the opportunity to establish new contacts and focused on a European dimension as well as on the local situation of the disadvantaged groups and the local community benefited by increasing the work force

• Germany: With the questionnaire we got a good feedback from our clients and some very interesting background information about non employed people in our projectLearning about social and culture of the partner countries

5.5 How fair was the balance of the work load amongst the different partners? Explain

• Malta: I think it was fair enough. Everyone had things to do

• Italy: All the partners have worked about their tasks

• Lithuania: Most work was done by the coordinators

• Germany: Yes it was o.k. and balanced

6. Dissemination

6.1 What actions were taken and when in your institution in order to have the best dissemination for

the project.

• Malta: News paper articles

• Italy: Presentation of PHOENIX project to Marsala local press

• Lithuania: We prepared the booklet about the project and organized the final conference with the participants of the project about the first year of activities and presented the results on 13th April; shared our experience about the project with the other training centres in Lithuania in July 2007. There were three articles in October, February and April about the implementation of the project on the Internet and in the local and regional newspapers. In addition, in October we presented our products in the national Grundtvig 2 conference

• Germany:We spread the information about our project by talking and exchanging information with our other colleagues at work and also by discribing the project to the whole organisation.

6.2 Did the project receive any type of support

0

1

MALTA ITALY LITHUANIA GERMANY

LOCAL

REGIONAL

NATIONALORGANISATIONSAUTHORITIES

TANGIBLE

INTANGIBLE

Lithuania: Autorities - Mayor of the town

6.3 Give suggestions for some other dissemination channels for the future.

• Malta: We need to create dissemination material like pamphlets to distribute

• Italy: We need to create other material for dissemination like: flyers, posters, banners

• Germany: Blogging

7. European dimension European added value.

7.1 How did you and your organisation benefit from meeting other partners?

• Malta: An opportunity to see how people in different countries work, to compare and contrast ideas.

• Italy: Me and my work organization have had the advantage to work with international cooperation and to have, in this way, a true European spirit

• Lithuania: Increased the knowledge of other European teaching methods and approaches and gained some resources , which are used to teach and train disadvantaged groups

• Germany: – Cultural exchange

– Getting a view about other systems and values

– New Inputs for our work

– Improving foreign languages

8.2 Did the members of your organisation have the opportunity to learn about the

culture/customs/habits/history/… of the other partners, not just the host?

• Malta: Yes. In the beginning we held a briefing on each partner institution. Informally we also talked about each other’s country

• Italy: Yes

• Lithuania: The learners, teachers and the staff learnt more about the culture, customs and habits of all our partner countries.

• Germany: Yes they did

Any other comments….

• Malta: Although I know it is difficult, each partner must try to speak English more. I understand the difficulties being faced and I do appreciate the effort

• Italy: We need to create other material for dissemination like: flyers, posters, banners

• Lithuania: Challenging and needful!

• Germany: I think we benefit from the nice work from and with the partners

Any other comments….