Introduction
Individuals are the building blocks of the community they reside in. They have significant impacts on the outlook of the community. In addition, the individuals are the only ones capable of dealing with the challenges that face them (Elliot, Frances & Parietti, 2000). Consequently, success is attained when all persons combine their efforts to create a healthy, safe, and cohesive society.
Only the persons living within a particular area can improve their welfare. Most programs aimed at improving the welfare of the people originate from the national government. However, the locals must also participate for the plans to succeed. The major challenge comes in uniting members of the society to help them deal with their problems in a collective manner.
To work with a community, it is important for one to understand its nature. For instance, it is important to understand the factors that unite and divide the people. A group of people can be referred to as a community for a number of reasons (Mintz, 2013). For example, individuals within the same neighbourhood can be treated as a community by virtue of living together. Another group of people that can be referred to as a community is those who reside within a city or one of its sections.
The entity shares the same amenities and the individuals are subjected to the same issues, which make them come together to improve their wellbeing (Mintz, 2013). A community can also refer to a group of persons who share common attributes. The attributes may include profession, faith, culture, heritage, belief, age, or experience. The group does not necessarily have to be within the same geographical area. On the contrary, the members can be spread over a wide area, such as a state, a country, or the entire world.
Newark is the largest city in the state of New Jersey. It is also the biggest in Essex County. It has a population of over 300,000. It is the 67th most populous municipality in the U.S. It is located in the New York Metropolitan area. The city is home to people of different religions, ages, and professions (Brown, Fiester & Annie, 2003). The diverse community is created by the numerous corporations and social institutions based in the city.
For example, the city is home to the Panasonic Corporation of North America, PSEG, and the Prudential Financial Corporation. Such organisations bring together professionals from different parts of the world. The municipality is also home to a number of universities. They include the Seton Hall University, Rutgers–Newark Medical and Law School, and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. The city is divided into five wards based on their geographical positions.
The nature of Newark’s neighbourhoods varies from quiet suburban areas to busy urban districts. Blacks make up the largest proportion of the municipality’s population.
Their figure stands at 52.4 percent of the population. The number of Latinos is also high. They constitute about 33.8 percent of the city’s population, making them the second largest group. Poverty remains a major problem in Newark. It is estimated that close to a third of the population are impoverished. The main reason behind this is the high number of immigrants moving to the city in search of employment.
To solve the issues facing members of the community in Newark, adequate and effective programs must be formulated. The State of New Jersey has put in place a number of measures to improve the welfare of the people (Brown et al., 2003). One of the most successful programs is the establishment of the Family Success Centres (FSCs).
They were introduced in 2007. The main aim of their establishment was to provide support to families and other members of the community. The agencies sought to empower the people of New Jersey through sharing of resources, knowledge, and skills. They also place emphasis on child care. The FSCs achieve this by providing a protective environment for the children living in the neighbourhoods.
FSCs have contributed significantly to the lives of people in New Jersey. However, residents of Newark have been neglected for long. The neglect is evident in spite of the fact that the city is ranked 6th in the country as far as the population of needy people is concerned (Goldstein, 2011).
The population living within the city faces high rates of unemployment. As a result, cases of poverty are rampant (Goldstein, 2011). The poverty is made evident by the large number of people seeking public assistance. Cases of unstable families are also above the average in the country. As a result, the welfare of children in the city is adversely affected.
The FSCs within Newark city work in collaboration with other agencies in the area. In particular, they work closely with the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P).
Their main aim is to create cohesive families and provide an environment that is conducive for raising children (Goldstein, 2011). They achieve this by compiling the needed information into a guide. The guides prepared by the FSCs act as resources for the employees working for the DCP&P. The information is usually disseminated in form of presentations made to the DCP&P workers.
As a result, the number of referrals from DCP&P’s local office in Newark to the FSCs in the city has increased. The resources provided by FSCs are meant to help the DCP&P employees and their clients (CerrutiDellert & Johnson, 2014). Families with ongoing cases in the DCP&P are referred to the FSCs. As a result, they can effectively support their children. Relationships between parents are also strengthened, reducing the incidences of single parenthood in Newark.
For the DCP&P employees to have faith in the FSCs, the information provided in the resource guides should be updated and relevant. Case practice specialists (CPSs) at DCP&P’s local office are confident of their ability to deal with referral cases (CerrutiDellert & Johnson, 2014). For this reason, FSC employees at Newark edit and update the resource guides regularly to improve access to information for families living in the city. The content of these resource guides is generated on the basis of the requests made by the clients. The current study was designed to assess the usefulness of the resource guides provided by FSCs to the DCP&P staff.
The services provided by FSCs in New Jersey are grouped into four broad categories. They include social, civic, entertainment, and day-care (Talwar, Cote & Binder, 2014). The agencies also address the psychological needs of members of the community. For example, some of the centres are involved in the treatment of depression.
Others help in resolving relational problems. As such, parents can keep their families united. Consequently, the welfare of the children is improved. The FSCs also take care of the environment. They achieve this by eliminating hazards that would pose risks to public health. Members of the society are also economically empowered through the FSCs. They are provided with knowledge and skills to engage in productive activities.
Methods
Participants
The survey was conducted to assess the effectiveness of FSCs’ resource guides in Newark. The participants were 30 DCP&P employees. All of them were from Newark South Local office. Supervisors and administrators were not included in the survey. The aim was to avoid the perception that they were pressurising the employees to participate.
As such, the participants were likely to respond openly to the questions posed during the survey. They were engaged in different roles within the organisation. Some were engaged in intake, while others were involved in resource work and permanency for children living in Newark. All the participants were above 18 years.
Setting
The study was carried out in DCP&P Newark South Local office, which is located in 153 Halsey ST. Newark, NJ. The agency has CPSs who deal with cases involving parents (CerrutiDellert & Johnson, 2014). The Newark offices serve approximately 2008 families. Currently, the families have a total of 4275 children. 1435 of these families are headed by single parents.
The agency offers a number of services to parents living in Newark city. The services range from psychological evaluation to marriage counselling and treatment of substance abuse (Brown et al., 2003). All parents must undergo psychological evaluation. The results of the evaluation help CPSs make informed decisions on how to handle them. Division in marriages is highly discouraged, especially among couples with children.
The agency prefers children to be raised by both parents. As such, counselling services are provided to the parents to create strong relationships within which children can be raised with minimal disruptions. All parents residing in the area are eligible to services provided by the agency (Crier, 2015). Parents with cases before the agency are taken through a 26-week training program. The government funds the entire program.
Tools
A Likert scale questionnaire was used to collect data (Talwar et al., 2014). The title of the survey was ‘The Assessment of Resources for Family Success Centres in Newark, NJ. It had a total of 12 questions. Two of them required a simple ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘not sure’ response. Out of the remaining ten, eight required the participants to give their personal opinion.
They were requested to respond with either ‘agree’, ‘neutral’, or ‘disagree’. The remaining two questions were open-ended. The participants were required to respond qualitatively based on their assessment. A copy of the survey is attached in appendix 1.
Recruitment
The participants were recruited using a letter. The letters were distributed by Jonathan Reid, the principal investigator (PI), four weeks before the scheduled presentation. They were delivered personally to the participants. The PI worked in close collaboration with Mr. Santiago, the CPS at the agency. The administrator helped the PI to invite the participants to the presentation. He also played the role of the research supervisor for the investigator.
E-mails were sent to the participants on a weekly basis to remind them of the upcoming presentation and survey. The e-mails were protected using a password to enhance confidentiality. Memos were put on the employees’ notice board to serve as a constant reminder of the upcoming event.
The presentation was made by the PI. It sought to inform the participants about the FSCs operating in Newark. The participants were then requested to complete the survey. They were informed that participation was voluntary. Consequently, respondents were required to sign a consent form before taking part in the survey.
Procedure
Both the presentation and the survey were carried out in one day. The presentation was made at the DCP&P Newark South Local Offices. It took place in the first week of January, 2015.
The PI had already set the room to be used and the survey with the help of the CPS. The 30 participants were ushered into the room and thanked for their attendance. Once all of them were settled, the PI gave the PowerPoint presentation about the resource guide. At the end of the presentation, participants were given an opportunity to ask questions and raise any concerns.
After the presentation had been made and all questions and concerns addressed, the PI requested the CPS, the supervisors, and all persons in positions of authority to leave the room. The aim was to ensure that the participants were at ease to participate in the survey (Crier, 2015). The PI made it known that involvement in the survey was voluntary and anonymity would be guaranteed. He then distributed the consent forms. The remaining copies were collected and marked as unused to avoid any confusion during data analysis. The consent forms gave detailed information about the rights of the participants, potential risks, and benefits of their contribution.
Two copies of the consent form were handed out to each of the participants. The PI then read the contents of forms to the participants while making clarifications on matters that seemed difficult to comprehend. The participants were allowed to ask questions and seek clarifications concerning the form.
They were required to sign both copies. One was to be retained by them, while the second was to be handed over to the PI. The PI collected all the second copies that were signed and inserted them in a large manila envelope, which was then labelled and sealed.
All the participants accepted to take part in the survey. They were given instructions on how to fill the survey (Chao & Mantero, 2014). The PI then distributed the surveys to the now seated participants. They were instructed to desist from consulting amongst themselves since that would affect anonymity. Prior to the completion of the survey, the PI read the questions out loud to ensure that all the copies were identical. He then sat at the corner of the room, away from the participants, to avoid interrupting them.
Participants were instructed to place their completed surveys inside another large, labelled manila envelope left on the table. The measure was taken to protect their anonymity. The last participant to leave the room was requested to seal the envelope after placing their completed survey inside. Once all the participants had left, the PI collected both envelopes. The signed consent forms and surveys were taken to the faculty sponsor, Dr. Takagi.
Results
A total of 30 participants took part in the presentation. The survey was carried out at the end of the presentation after participants had returned their second copy of the signed consent form. The survey contained 12 questions. It was divided into three sections. The first part was about the presentation made by the PI. It had two multiple-choice questions.
The second section was about the resource guide presented. It had a total of eight multiple-choice questions. The choices offered here were either ‘agree’, ‘neutral’, or ‘disagree’. The last section composed of two open-ended questions. Participants were required to give short comments.
The data analysis process started with the opening of the envelope containing the consent forms. The forms were counted and the envelope resealed. The number was indicated on top of the envelope. All participants had agreed to take part in the survey. Consequently, the PI indicated that there was a total of 30 signed consent forms. The sealed envelope containing the completed surveys was then opened. It had 30 completed copies. The PI also indicated this number on top of the envelope.
After this, an analysis of the responses commenced. The master sheet developed for the survey was used to tally the responses. For the first section of the survey, the number of each response was indicated. The same was done for the second section. The master sheet was then used to calculate the percentage raw score for each of the responses per question. To obtain the percentages, the formula below was used:
Number of people who gave a certain answer x 100 = score for each response
Total number of people who answered the question
Section 1
Response to question one was 100 percent (n=30). The question sought to understand whether or not the presentation helped in understanding of how to utilise FSCs. 90 percent of the participants (n=27) answered ‘yes’. 10 percent of the participants (n=3) answered ‘no’. No participant (N=0) gave the ‘not sure’ response.
The second question sought to assess whether or not the presentation was helpful in understanding the sections of FSCs. 100 percent (n=30) of the participants responded. 80% (n=24) answered ‘yes’. 10 percent (n=3) responded ‘no’, while the remaining 10% replied ‘not sure’.
Section 2
In question three, participants were asked whether or not the resource guide on FSCs provided beneficial information. 100 percent (n=30) agreed that the information provided during the presentation was beneficial.
Question four sought information on whether or not the participants will use at least one FSC provided in the resource guide in their work within the following month. 90 percent (n=27) responded. The remaining 10 percent (n=3) did not respond. Out of the 27, 88.9 percent (n=24) ‘agreed’, while the remaining 11.1 percent (n=3) were neutral on the matter.
Question five sought to clarify whether or not the resource guide contained information that would be helpful in the future. All participants (n=30) responded. 83.3 percent (n=25) agreed. 6.7 percent (n=2) remained neutral, while 10 percent (n=3) disagreed.
The sixth question also had 100% responses (n=30). It was used to assess whether or not the resource packet contained information that was new to the participants. Responses were similar to those in question 5. 83.3 percent (n=25) agreed. 6.7 percent (n=2) remained neutral, while 10 percent (n=3) disagreed.
Question seven sought to determine whether or not FSCs would be helpful in dealing with DCP&P clients. All participants responded. 100 percent (n=30) agreed with the statement. However, there were variations on whether or not the information provided in the resource was new. In spite of this, all participants agreed that it was useful.
90 percent of the participants (n=27) responded to question 8. The question was used to assess whether or not the resource guide should be provided to other DCP&P offices that have FSCs in their communities. 88.9 percent (n=24) agreed, 3.7 percent (n=1) disagreed, while the remaining 2 were neutral.
Question nine sought to determine whether or not the respondents would refer clients to FSC. 100 percent responded (n=30). 83.3 percent (n=25) agreed, 10 percent (n=3) disagreed, while 6.7 percent (n=2) were neutral.
Question 10 sought to understand whether or not the DCP&P employees were aware of the services offered by FSCs prior to the presentation. 100 percent of the participants (n=30) responded. 60 percent (n=18) agreed they were fully informed, 30 percent (n=9) disagreed, while 10 percent (n=3) were neutral.
Section 3
In question eleven, participants were asked what part of the presentation they found to be most interesting. All the participants responded. 40 percent (n=12) indicated that the entire presentation was interesting. 30 percent (n=9) found the visual aids used as illustrations to be the most interesting. 20 percent (n=6) found the PI’s mode of presentation to be interesting, while 10 percent (n=3) did not find the presentation interesting at all.
Question 12 sought to know what the DCP&P employees wanted to learn more about in the future. All participants responded. 10 percent (n=3) sought information on continued outreach. 30 percent (n=9) wanted to know about the success rates reported by FSCs in dealing with past referral cases. 60 percent (n=18) wanted to know the powers FSCs have in enforcing their decisions concerning parents with cases before the agency.
Discussion
The survey was aimed at assessing whether or not the resource guide provided by FSCs was beneficial to DCP&P employees. From the findings, it is evident that majority of the participants felt that the information provided was clear enough to help them understand how to use FSCs. It was also helpful in making them understand the various sections of the FSCs.
It is clear that the presentation was a success. The success can be attributed to the thorough work done by the PI. The PI’s presentation skill was excellent (Tourse, Mooney, Kline & Davoren, 2005). However, the presentation was not a total success. It had some limitations. In future, the PI should provide a more detailed presentation. He should also work on his presentation skills to capture the attention of the participants.
The second section of the survey sought to evaluate the content of the resource guide presented. All participants were of the view that the information was beneficial. They also indicated that they will use the resources provided in FSCs in the future. Majority felt that the guide provided new information, which should be passed to other DCP&P employees in the area.
It was found that there was a significant relationship between FSC and DCP&P offices in Newark. The former complemented the efforts of the latter and referrals could be made where need arose (Powell & Diamond, 2013). The results of this survey can be used to enhance the relations between the two agencies.
Most participants considered the mode of presentation and the use of visual aids to be the most interesting aspect about the resources. They also recommended that in future, the PI should indicate the level of success that FSCs have had in handling referral cases.
They also wished to know what steps the FSCs took to enforce their decisions. A number of participants requested information on continued outreach. It is clear that the respondents expressed overall contentment with presentation. However, improvements can be made in the future. The recommended topics should be addressed in future presentations to achieve positive results (Powell & Diamond, 2013).
The survey had various benefits and limitations. To begin with, the presentation skills of the PI were excellent. The value of this is evident in the responses given by the participants. He was able to convince all the participants to take part in the study. The survey was also short and easy to complete. The language used was easily understood by the DCP&P employees. The anonymity of the participants during the study was highly maintained, which is one of the reasons why all of them accepted to take part (Talwar et al., 2014).
However, there were a number of limitations associated with the study. For example, the presentation and the survey were carried out in one session. Consequently, the PI did not have enough time to cover all aspects of FSCs. The survey was also not standardised. The inclusion of open-ended questions made it difficult for the PI to deduce the answers of the participants. As such, mistakes could be made during data analysis. Statistical tests, such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) were also not used.
To effectively assess the FSC resource guide, the PI should have instructed participants to support their responses. In this case, the clients would have been able to explain the reason why they picked the responses. As a result, the PI would have effectively assessed the aspects of the resource guide that need to be improved. In the survey, this could have been done especially for questions one, four, seven, and eight.
The section should be included in future surveys. The PI should have involved administrators in the survey. He could have achieved this by holding two separate sessions (one for the employees and the other for the supervisors). The reason is that this group of people is highly experienced and would have provided informed responses (Talwar et al., 2014). They are also able to influence policies in the agency. If they had participated, referrals from DCP&P to FSCs in the Newark area would have increased.
There were two questions that three participants did not respond to. The plausible explanation for this would be lack of clarity in the questions. In addition, it is possible that the items did not apply to them. For example, the framing of question 3 seemed to be appropriate for persons in positions of authority within the agency.
In addition, question four did not apply directly to a mere intake officer. To reduce cases of unanswered questions in the future, the PI should instruct participants to indicate ‘not sure’ or ‘neutral’. It is evident that the DCP&P employees strongly feel that they can work with FSCs to improve the welfare of the children living in Newark. Both agencies are funded by the state government. As a result, their working together would improve the quality of services provided to families with ongoing cases at the DCP&P offices (Wechsler, 2012).
Conclusion
Research has shown that Newark is one of the most populous cities in the U.S. The population is also diverse (Bone, Christensen & Williams, 2014). Poverty remains a major concern in the city. The high influx of immigrants seeking employment opportunities is the major cause of the rising levels of poverty in the area (Elliot et al., 2000). Families living in poverty are unable to raise their children effectively. As a result, most of these families depend on public assistance from the state.
Research shows that there is a close relationship between high levels of poverty and unstable families. Financial problems often result in the separation of couples. Most of the children in these marriages are either brought up under single parenthood or in foster care. The DCP&P employees are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the wellbeing of the children is enhanced (Valverde, 2013). They achieve this by compelling the parents to put in place measures that will promote the welfare of the children.
The FSCs operating in the Newark area also play a crucial role in promoting the wellbeing of the young generation (Chao & Mantero, 2014). They achieve this objective by empowering members of the community both socially and economically. Services provided include marriage counselling, treatment of drug and substance abuse, as well as support for depression.
By referring some of the cases reported at DCP&P offices to the FSCs, the welfare of the children would be improved considerably. Collaboration of the two agencies would improve the success of their operations since a large population will be served. However, for the DCP&P employees to start referring cases to FSCs, a number of criteria have to be met. For example, there must be sufficient evidence to show that FSCs have the resources necessary to serve the families with cases of children abuse in Newark.
The FSC resource was created for the purposes of showcasing its different sections to the DCP&P employees. The content of the guides entailed new information concerning the FSCs. The resource was prepared in form of a PowerPoint presentation made to the DCP&P employees. A survey for the study was later conducted. Shortly after signing two copies of consent forms, a survey for the study was distributed to the participants.
The title of the survey was ‘The Assessment of Resources for Family Success Centres in Newark, NJ’. The main goal of the evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of the FSC resource guide presented. The secondary goal was to analyse the potential usefulness of the guides to the DCP&P employees and their clients (Mintz, 2013). In this case, the PI sought to evaluate the chances of the two agencies working together to safeguard the wellbeing of the children living in Newark area (Caplan & Whittemore, 2013).
An analysis of the responses provided by the participants leaves no doubt that the presentation made by the PI prior to the survey was effective. The resource guide presented to the DCP&P employees was also beneficial to them (Goldstein, 2011). They also felt that the same information should be shared with other DCP&P offices in Newark area (Goldstein, 2011). The survey showed that the two agencies complement each other.
However, more information should be included in the FSC resource guides to effectively cater for the welfare of children in Newark (Epstein & Voorhis, 2010). Recommendations were also made that in future, the PI should indicate the level of success reported by FSCs in handling cases referred to them. It was also recommended that the PI should disclose the steps taken by the FSCs to enforce their decisions. Inclusion of information on continued outreach was also recommended (Lynn, 2011).
The benefits and limitations of this study were affected by a number of variables. For example, the sample size used for the study (N=30) was small and easily manageable. The questions asked in the survey were also straightforward, which enabled the participants to respond with relative ease.
Only two of the twelve questions posed to the participants did not record 100% response rate. The survey was also short, which eased the process of data analysis. However, a number of limitations were also noted in the study (Lynn, 2011). To start with, there were a lot of repetitions in the survey questions. For example, questions 4 and 5 were similar. They sought to clarify the same issue. The survey was also largely quantitative in nature (Epstein & Voorhis, 2010). No enough qualitative data was generated to support the claims made.
Recommendations
- The resource guide should be presented and the survey administered on DCP&P employees annually. The aim of this is to enhance continued improvement of the tool.
- Future presentations should be made on areas of continued outreach, success levels in handling referral cases, and the steps taken to enforce FSC decisions.
- Information contained in the FSC resource guides should be edited and revised on an annual basis.
References
Bone, S., Christensen, G., & Williams, J. (2014). Rejected, shackled, and alone: The impact of systemic restricted choice on minority consumers’ construction of self. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 451-474.
Brown, P., Fiester, L., & Annie, E. (2003). New song academy: Linking education and community development to build stronger families and neighbourhoods. Newark, NJ: Casey Foundation.
Caplan, S., & Whittemore, R. (2013). Barriers to treatment engagement for depression among Latinas. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34(6), 412-424.
CerrutiDellert, J., & Johnson, P. (2014). Interventions with children and parents to improve physical activity and body mass index: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(4), 259-267.
Chao, X., & Mantero, M. (2014). Church-based ESL adult programs: Social mediators for empowering “family literacy ecology of communities”. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1), 90.
Crier, S. (2015). Beyond money: Public urban boarding schools and the state’s obligation to make an adequate education attainable. Journal of Law & Education, 44(1), 23-94.
Elliot, P., Frances, W., & Parietti, S. (2000). Assessment of a Newark neighbourhood: Process and outcomes. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 3(1), 211-224.
Epstein, J., & Voorhis, F. (2010). School counsellors’ roles in developing partnerships with families and communities for student success. Professional School Counselling, 14(1), 23-45.
Goldstein, D. (2011). What Newark schools need. Nation, 292(2/3), 14-18.
Lynn, J. (2011). Start your own child-care service: Your step-by-step guide to success (3rd ed.). Irvine, California: Entrepreneur Press/Jere L. Calmes.
Mintz, J. (2013). Financial emprovement: A supervitamin for human services. Policy & Practice, 71(3), 8.
Powell, D., & Diamond, K. (2013). Implementation fidelity of a coaching-based professional development program for improving head start teachers’ literacy and language instruction. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 102-128.
Talwar, A., Cote, N., & Binder, K. (2014). Investigating redictors of spelling ability for adults with low literacy skills. Journal of Research & Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary & Basic Education, 3(2), 35-49.
Tourse, R., Mooney, J., Kline, P., & Davoren, J. (2005). A collaborative model of clinical preparation: A move toward inter-professional field experience. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(3), 457-477
Valverde, J. (2013). A poor idea: Statute of limitations decisions cement second-class remedial scheme for low-income children with disabilities in the third circuit. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 41(2), 599-668.
Wechsler, H. (2012). Making a religion of intergroup education: The national conference of Christians and Jews, 1927-1957. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 47(1), 3-40.
Appendix
Appendix 1: Survey
Resources for Family Success Centres in Newark NJ Survey
Questions about the Presentation
1) Was the presentation clear to help you understand how to utilise the Family Success Centres?
(Circle one) YES NO NOT SURE
2) Was the presentation helpful in understanding what sections were in the Family Success Centres?
(Circle one) YES NO NOT SURE
Questions about the Resource Guide
(Please circle one answer)
3) This resource guide on Family Success Centres provides beneficial information.
Agree Neutral Disagree
4) I believe I will use at least one Family Success Centre provided in this resource guide for my work in the next month.
Agree Neutral Disagree
5) This resource guide contains information that will be helpful in the future
Agree Neutral Disagree
6) This resource packet contains information that is new to me.
Agree Neutral Disagree
7) Family Success Centres will be useful in helping the clients we work with.
Agree Neutral Disagree
8) This type of resource guide should be provided to other DCPP offices that have Family Success Centres in their communities.
Agree Neutral Disagree
9) After the presentation, I am more likely to refer clients to a Family Success Centre.
Agree Neutral Disagree
10) Before the presentation, I was aware of what the Family Success Centres provide.
Agree Neutral Disagree
Please write your short answer:
11) The part of the presentation/resource guide I found most interesting was:
12) Here is something I want to learn more about:
That concludes the Survey. Thank you for taking the time to fill it out! Please insert your completed survey inside the large, labelled manila envelope left on the main table in the room. After you include your survey in the envelope, you are free to leave. If you are the last participant to insert the survey in the manila envelope, you will also be expected to seal the envelope. THANK YOU for your participation!!