Analyzing NAFA’s 2009 Seattle conference evaluations (summary)
Doug Cutchins (Grinnell), Amy Eckhart (Western Kentucky U), Babs Wise (Duke)

Summary


Overall, the Seattle conference was a great success. Of the 100+ responses, 0% said that they were “somewhat unsatisfied” or “unsatisfied” with the conference. 68% said that they were “extremely satisfied.” 97% said that they would attend another NAFA conference. In planning the 2011 conference in Chicago we should largely follow the model that has been set before us, but do so with an eye towards what can be improved.
Conference features which were most highly praised
  • Amount and type of content
  • Ethics workshop
  • Breakfast roundtables
  • Pre-conference workshop
  • Anne Udall and William Gates, Sr. as speakers
  • Hotel facilities

We note that the majority of the most highly-praised items are content-focused aspects of the conference. Participants seem to most highly value structured, hands-on, small-group opportunities for them to engage with the topics being presented. Opportunities for networking also appear to be in high demand.

Conference features about which there was not a consensus

There was not a broad consensus in the evaluations on when the conference should be held, either in terms of the timing within the calendar year or in terms of days within a week. It seemed, overall, that a Wednesday-Saturday conference in early July was generally a workable and appreciated time, though there were many who had other opinions as well.
Conference features that were most criticized

 

  • Expense. The cost of registration and the hotel were the most-often criticized pieces of the conference. 16% of survey respondents said that they did not stay at the conference hotel, mostly because of the cost of the rooms.
  • Too many competing sessions. The breakout sessions were highly valued, but several people encouraged us to have fewer options per time slot, or to repeat sessions that we think will be most popular.
  • Not enough down time. Several people said that the pace of the conference was tough, and that they could have used some downtime to see Seattle or process what they were learning. Some people suggested scheduled Chicago-specific scheduled social events for 2011, such as a Cubs game, architectural tours, or visits to museums.
  • Several commenters felt that there was a “NAFA in-circle,” and perceived themselves as being on the “outside,” which they experienced as alienating and off-putting. This seemed to be reinforced by the NAFA 10th anniversary celebration.

Some of the suggestions for improvement are contradictory, and we cannot implement all of them at once; for example, it’s logistically impossible for us to simultaneously keep the same amount of content, have fewer concurrent sessions, add down time, have concurrent sessions run longer, make the conference less expensive, and shorten the conference by a day.

Observations and recommendations from the committee

 

  1. The Chicago 2011 planning committee should pay very close attention to matters of cost. This concern will be somewhat mitigated because of the conference’s mid-country location in Chicago (as opposed to the west coast in 2009), which should make airfare somewhat cheaper for many attendees. However, both large costs (hotel, registration) and smaller (wifi access) should be accounted for in choosing a hotel and dates. Cost was clearly the #1 concern of Seattle conference attendees. The conference planning committee should estimate the costs of attending the 2011 conference and publicize them when the dates, hotel, and theme are announced to the general NAFA membership.
  2. NAFA has turned a corner in its growth and level of professionalization. Conference sessions are of such high quality that conference-goers do not wish to voluntarily miss them, and so are asking for scheduled down-time. NAFA’s membership has grown beyond a club of friends into a large, diverse, and professional society, which must actively work to open its arms to new members and leadership.
  3. NAFA should continue to seek to define what services it provides its members, and what NAFAns are responsible for knowing. For example, should the lunchtime sessions on UK graduate schools and service opportunities be continued, or will NAFA only focus on scholarships/fellowships?
  4. As a means both to reduce costs and tailor content to specific audiences, we recommend that NAFA continue with a pre-conference workshop for new advisors, but also add a post-conference workshop for more experienced advisors (both would be added at additional cost to attendees). This might allow us to shorten the conference by a day, thus lowering the overall conference registration fee.
  5. Some foundations, such as Truman, Udall, and Marshall, have been exceptionally engaged at NAFA conferences, and advisors have had terrific access to representatives of these opportunities. In some cases, this has led advisors to wonder why there is “so much emphasis” on those scholarships and not others. We should not discourage the wonderful representation by long-time NAFA supporters such as Mary Denyer (Marshall), Jane Curlin (Udall), and Tara Yglesias (Truman), but rather encourage the board to seek to engage other foundations at the same level.
  6. The breakfast roundtables have proven to be very popular, and should be expanded.
  7. The 2011 conference committee should incorporate the city of Chicago into its planning. Giving NAFAns a dinner off would allow them to explore the city (and might lower the cost of registration). We should consider giving conference attendees a list of activities they can access in Chicago.
  8. The evaluations included a long list of suggested topics for future conferences. The most commonly-requested topic was advising students on the writing process. We note (with pleasure) that this topic is the subject of one of NAFA’s 2010 summer workshops. An announcement of all summer workshops will be posted in January 2010.

 

 

NAFA Journal

At the 2005 Louisville conference, membership determined to expand the newsletter to a journal format. The first NAFA Journal appeared in the summer of 2006. Current editors are Judith Zang, Amy Eckhardt and Julia Goldberg. To enquire about the Journal or to contribute, please contact Judith Zang, jzang@cmu.edu.

Archive:

Newsletters

The National Association of Fellowships Advisors publishes its newsletter twice a year. Please select a past edition below:

Minutes

Minutes from NAFA meetings and conferences will be posted here. Please select one of the following minutes:


© 2010 National Association of Fellowships Advisors
Site by Midwest New Media, LLC