Legal Services NYC: Measuring Performance and Improving Workshop Evaluations

ANNEX
A. Work Agreement
B. Project Overview Memo
C. Consultant Biographies
D. Data Analysis Memo
E. Data Analysis Course Details
F. Old Evaluation Form
G. Staff Biographies
H. Literature Review
I. Focus Group Questions
J. LSNYC Staff Interview Questions
K. List of Universities
L. List of Organizations (Environmental Scan)
M. Interview Questions for Organizations (Environmental Scan)
N. Environmental Scan
O. Evaluation Forms from Environmental Scan
P. New Electronic Evaluation Form
Q. New Paper Evaluation Form
R. Client Meeting Agendas
S. Power Point Presentation
1
ANNEX A - Work Agreement
Debora
2
3
4
5
ANNEX B - Project Overview Memorandum
E AN
To: Melanie Raoul
From: Sonia Balaram, Andrew Farwell, Kenrick Fraser, Andrew Lease and Debora Aponte
Date: October 30, 2015

RE: Legal Services NYC Capstone Project Overview
________________________________________________________________________
Statement of the Problem
Legal Services NYC’s (LSNYC) Learning Center hosts approximately 100 classes per
year, and had over 10,000 participants in the last five years. Despite the scale of their
program, they currently do not have a performance measurement system and they’ve
never formally assessed their legal education and professional development workshops.
LSNYC has thousands of evaluation forms, which were only used to fulfill continuing
legal education requirements. Without a performance measurement system, LSNYC
is unable to assess if their educational programming is accomplishing its goals
and contributing to their mission of lessening the justice gap in New York City.
Objective of Project
The project’s objective is to analyze the effectiveness of the Learning Center’s
educational programming and create a performance measurement system, which they can
use to inform their management decisions going forward.
To accomplish this, we will extract data from completed course evaluation forms starting
with 2014. If the data is revealing of their current program during our analysis and in the
development of creating a performance measurement system, we may examine
evaluation forms from 2013 to continue to analyze what trends or patterns arise.
We will prepare a comprehensive report of the key findings of our analysis, and identify
potential strong points and areas where programming can be improved.
When creating a performance measurement system, we will research and recommend
strategies for increasing the evaluation form response rate for both the openended and
closed questions. The new performance measurement system will utilize a standardized
ratings system to inform LSNYC if their educational programming is achieving its
intended outcomes. Since the evaluation form will be the focal point of the performance
6
7
measurements system, we will ensure that the form includes both the continuing legal
education requirements and have the ability to procure data that will used to measure the
educational program’s performance against the Learning Center’s intended outcomes. To
gain clarity on the outcomes that the staff wishes to achieve, we will conduct interviews
and streamline the main goals with staff members that are integral to the program.
During the research phase of creating the performance measurement system, we may
consider conducting a literature review of best practices in measuring the performance of
legal workshops and educational programming in similar organizations.
After our thorough analysis, revising the evaluation process, and creating a performance
measurement system, LSNYC will know if their educational programs are having their
intended outcome and make informed management decisions on an ongoing basis.
Additionally, we will ensure that these recommendations are implementable and
sustainable for the Learning Center.
Information Needed
To ensure that we are able to execute our objectives of this project, we will need:
● the continuing legal education requirements that must be included on evaluation forms;
● the key outcomes that the staff want to accomplish through their educational
programming;
● and the capacity of the staff to implement the new performance measurement system and
evaluation form
● e a at on or data ro past wor s ops
Boundaries of the Project
This project will focus on analyzing and creating a system to measure the performance of
the Learning Center’s workshops at LSNYC HQ. This project will not take into
consideration any workshops at nonHQ sites, or the program’s longterm benefit to the
work of workshop attendees. The analysis of past workshops will only go as far back as
2013, at maximum.
Interim Deliverables
The interim deliverables that we may decide upon with LSNYC include:
● a client agreement;
7
8
● a report analyzing data retrieved from the evaluation forms of previous workshops;
● a potential literature review of best practices in evaluations of legal workshops and adult
educational programming operating in a similar capacity to LSNYC;
● interviews assessing stakeholders, focus groups,
● and a memo of the key outcomes of the program (as informed by them).
● new evaluation form
● recommendations on how to implement it,
● proposed performance measurement system.
Final Product
The final product will include a new evaluation form and recommendations on how to
implement it, and a proposed performance measurement system. These
recommendations will also be included in a final presentation.
8
10
ANNEX C - Consultant Biographies
Débora L. Aponte Martínez has made the most of her time here at NYU. In addition to studying
public and nonprofit policy and management as a full time MPA student at the Robert F. Wagner
Graduate School, she has spoken out about issues that are both personal and political to her. She’s
a queer, alterabled Latina, Senator at Large at NYU and outspoken sexual assault survivor.
Drawing on these elements of her identity and experience, Débora has taken on multiple leadership
roles and projects to advance discussions critical to her own life. Last year Débora spearheaded
the Its On Us initiative at NYU, which calls on students to engage in conversations and planning
to increase awareness and activism around issues of sexual assault and abuse in campus
communities.
Beyond her roles highlighting challenges faced within the LGBTQ and NYU communities,
Débora has worked since September 2015 in a full-time intern role at the Hillary For America
presidential campaign. As a member of HFA’s Latino Outreach office based in Brooklyn, she is
in charge of organizing Latinos across the United States and aims to include Latino, queer, and
alterabled millennials and other underrepresented minorities in the primary and general election
process.
10
9
Sonia Balaram is an educator/facilitator and community organizer passionate about increasing

opportunities for youth. She currently works with the Department of Education as the Director of
Youth Development at Bronx Bridges High School where she oversees the social work, guidance
and dean's offices. Previously, Sonia worked at the Center for Court Innovation training youth
court members on the various roles of the youth court, facilitating youth court sessions, conducting
outreach with community members, and managing cases referred to the youth court from schools,
police precincts, probation, the Law Department, and criminal court. She has worked extensively
on youth development and justice-related projects.
In her free time, Sonia interviews prospective students for Brown University as a volunteer
interviewer. She mentors youth through the Indo Caribbean Alliance’s Youth Leadership Program
and she is an organizer for East Coast Solidarity Summer, a summer leadership program for South
Asian youth. Sonia enjoys traveling and she has lived in Canada, India & South Africa. Sonia
graduated magna cum laude from Brown University with a degree in Political Science, focusing
on Comparative and International Politics. She is currently pursuing a Masters in Public
Administration, specializing in Public and Nonprofit Management at Robert F. Wagner School of
Public Service, New York University.
9
11
A Soviet History major turned public advocate, Andrew r e is interested in

developing strategic communications solutions for public sector organizations. At NYU
Wagner, Andrew studied management of nonprofit and government organizations. Andrew is a
member of NYU Wagner Student Network for Arts and Culture, and as a volunteer Andrew
is an advocate for arts and music in the community, animal welfare, and mental health advocacy.
11
13
Kenrick Fraser is a Master of Public Administration candidate and a Social Sector Leadership
Diversity Fellow at NYU’s Robert F. Wagner’s Graduate School of Public Service. Kenrick’s
commitment to the social sector lies in corporate social responsibility, and leveraging public-
private partnerships to bridge socioeconomic gaps by creating opportunities to economically
empower marginalized communities. He currently is the National Operations and Employee
Engagement Coordinator at Gap Foundation, where he partners with nonprofits to utilize the power
of skills-based employee volunteers to prepare youth for their careers. Before Gap Inc., Kenrick
served as the Corporate Relations and Finance Coordinator at New York Cares, where he managed
the funding that enabled them to engage corporate sponsors and their employees in meaningful
community engagement. Prior to New York Cares, Kenrick served as an Attaché at the Permanent
Mission of Grenada to the United Nations, where he garnered experience in cultivating investor
relationships and community outreach, while contributing to the policymaking process of the 67th
General Assembly.
Kenrick obtained his Bachelor of Science in Business Management at Rutgers University, where
he embodied his passion for economic empowerment and volunteerism by raising over $17,000
for economic empowerment causes through a variety of grassroots fundraising and awareness
events, and volunteer efforts. He continues to spread awareness on the social impact of
philanthropy and volunteerism within the NYU community and beyond, and recently received the
President’s Service Award “for unwavering commitment to philanthropy, and fostering
community partnerships and networking opportunities to engage NYU students in the social
sector.”
13
12
Andrew Lease currently works as the Assistant Director of Administration in the New York State
Executive Chamber under Governor Andrew M. Cuomo. In this role, he oversees daily operations
and logistics of the Governor’s New York City Office and manages the Executive Chamber
Internship Program in Albany, New York City, and Washington DC. Andrew is passionate about
developing and implementing strategies for organizational development and growth in the public
and civic sectors. In addition, he is passionate about politics, and has worked and volunteered on
a number of political campaigns in the past.
Andrew graduated Summa Cum Laude from the University of Delaware with a degree in Criminal
Justice, along with minors in History and Political Science. He is currently pursuing a Masters in
Public Administration, specializing in Public and Nonprofit Management at the Robert F. Wagner
School of Public Service at New York University.
12
14
ANNEX D - Data Analysis Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
TO: Hima Gleason, Director, Legal Education, LSNYC

FROM: Sonia Balaram, Andrew Farwell, Kenrick Fraser, Andrew Lease, Debora
Lorena Aponte Martinez, NYU Capstone Consultants
DATE: January 25, 2016
RE: LSNYC Past Evaluation Data Analysis
Overview
This memo summarizes our analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data that derived from
LSNYC’s past course evaluation forms. This is analysis is limited to evaluations forms that
were submitted from January 1st, 2015 through June 30th, 2015. Our analysis covers
participant feedback, and implications that the data suggests regarding the design of the
evaluation form.
Methodology
Quantitative
We gave the ranked questions for content and presentation a numerical value, and aggregated
them. The numerical value we assigned each answer are as follows:
Strongly Agree = 4
Agree = 3
Disagree = 2
Strongly Disagree = 1
We analyzed the aggregated data utilizing excel pivot tables, where we were able to look at
the patterns and trends from different angles. We particularly took into account how the
course and evaluator’s occupation affected the rankings.
Qualitative
Qualitative data refers specifically to the data that derived from the comments section. The
approach we utilized to analyze this data started with aggregating it. Once aggregated, we
separated the data based on the workshop. Afterwards, we examined the relationship
between the number of completed comment sections and the total number of completed
evaluations form.
Participant Feedback
We identified key trends and patterns in the overall participant feedback. These can be
divided into three sections: the quantitative ratings of each course’s content, quantitative
ratings of each course’s presentation, and participants’ qualitative comments.
Quantitative Content Feedback
Participants felt that LSNYC’s 2015 courses had strong content. Out of a maximum of 20
points, participants gave content a near-perfect average rating of 18 points. Although the
14
15
overall ratings were excellent, we noticed that in some courses certain professions ranked
aspects of the course noticeably lower than others. For example, paralegals frequently ranked
content lower across the board. The reasons for this vary by course. However, we identified
that the two most common reasons are: that the course is not useful to their job and that there
wasn’t sufficient time for discussion.
Quantitative Presentation Feedback
Overall, participants were very satisfied with the presenters, and gave their presenters an
average rating of 19 out of a maximum of 20. Participants unanimously consider their
presenters as highly knowledgeable. In some instances, participants felt that the presenter did
not cover the material clearly and did not refer to the written materials.
Qualitative Feedback
Only ten percent of evaluators left feedback in the comments section. From the comments
that were submitted, they included a great deal of comments that aren’t useful for analysis
(e.g. “Great!” “Thank you.” “Snacks”). Occasionally, we came across participants who
provided detailed feedback on what went well, how the course can be improved, and their
opinions on the presenter, etc. The most common comments were that the presenter did not
provide sufficient time for discussion/questions, the presenter rushed through the materials,
and that participants in the back of the room were not able to hear the presenter because s/he
gave the presentation seated. Some participants provided examples on how the workshops
can be more helpful in the comments section. We noticed that the comments that were given
are particularly helpful for presenters, and staff that create the curriculum. Although the
comments were sparse, we also notice that certain courses received significantly more
comments in comparison to others. It is an important trend to dig further into the cause of the
variance. Possible variance explanations include the emphasis the presenter places on
completing the forms and/or the course material inciting more responses.
Evaluation Form Design
Evaluation form responses cannot be separated from the design of the evaluation form. The
two directly correlate, and the form’s design can directly impact the quality of responses.
When we analyzed the evaluation form design based on data implications, we noticed design
flaws such as the lack of clarity, question intent, limited options for responses, and ineffective
use of the comments section.
The design of the form affects the accuracy of the data. Flawed data can limit the
effectiveness of LSNYC’s tactical and strategic decisions.
Evaluation Form Intent
The evaluation form lacks clarity in its intent. It is not indicated to participants if the
feedback will be shared with presenters, used to evaluate the program, or for marketing
purposes, etc. What should participants keep in mind when completing the form? When
evaluation forms are vague and do not communicate intent, it may decrease the quality of the
results. Providing respondents with intent can increase the quality of responses by helping
15
16

them to understand why their responses are important for LSNYC, and the implications that
their responses can have on future courses.
Inadequate Response Options
Participants can choose between strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree as
options for their responses to the statements. What they are not offered is an option that they
neither disagree nor agree, and not applicable. It’s problematic for participant to not be
provided with a category that fits their opinion and/or situation. This can lead to flawed data
(e.g. the participant might agree or disagree with the statement, but chose to agree so he/he
can avoid giving the presenter negative feedback.) This would have inflate positive
responses, and increase the number of forms that are incomplete. For example, the comments
from the “Overview of Rent Regulations” workshop clearly stated that no visual aids were
used, yet 10 respondents gave the presenter either agreed or strongly agreed for “Effective
Visual Aides.” There were many instances like this. It’s essential to add the aforementioned
options to maintain the integrity of the data.
Lack of Structure in the Comments Section
The comments section did not have concrete instructions. Thus it elicited answers that were
not useful, and that matched the vagueness of the instructions. This section can be improved
by asking specific open-ended questions that can help guide the participant’s responses (e.g.
“What could be improved?”).
16
17
ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details
TO: Hima Gleason, Director, Legal Education, LSNYC

FROM: Sonia Balaram, Andrew Farwell, Kenrick Fraser, Andrew Lease, Debora Lorena
Aponte Martinez, NYU Capstone Consultants
DATE: January 25, 2016
RE: LSNYC Past Evaluation Analysis Details
The content and presentation sections were both ranked highly by evaluators, with an average
ranking of 18 and 19, out of 20, respectively. The tables below show the trends and patterns that
we found in the content and presentation sections that were abnormal (not ranked highly), by
course and presenter. We predominantly noted trends and patterns from courses or presenters
that were ranked at or below 16, out of 20. In the insightful comments section, we recorded
comments from evaluators verbatim. However, we removed comments that we deemed as not
helpful (e.g. “Great.” “Thank you.” “Strong coffee please.”). Underscores in the comment
section is a placeholder for a word that was illegible.
Content-Related Trends and Patterns
Content
Course Trend/Pattern
Advocating for Victims of Foreclosure Rescue Paralegals ranked this course noticeably lower
Scams: Regulations, Strategies, and Ethical than other participants in all areas.
Rules
Asylum 101: Law and Practice Paralegals said this course may not be of use to
their practice.
Common Ethics Dilemmas in a Legal Services Ranked lower than average.
Practice
Communication with Deaf Clients: Guidelines Intake officers ranked this lower than average.
for Working with ASL Interpreters
Disability Hearings: Representing Low-Income Attorneys and students both ranked this course
Clients for SSI & SSD Benefits poorly. In particular, the media visual aids
were not effective.
Father's Rights in the Context of Parental Social workers ranked this course noticeably
Rights Proceedings lower than other evaluators.
FHA Loan Underwriting and Origination Law school graduates said that there was not
Abuse adequate time for questions/discussion. Law
graduates, paralegals, and staff ranked
this course lower on average.
Housing Court Procedure and Motion Practice Evaluators pending admission, law students,
and paralegals ranked this course below
average in regards to the use of good examples,
and questions/discussion time.
Statutes of Limitations in Residential Paralegals ranked the content low.
Foreclosure Actions
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Paralegals ranked this course extremely poor in
regards to usefulness to their jobs.
17
18
Representing Respondents in Article 10 Cases Unidentified staff members ranked this course
& Racial Justice Session Two: Race Equity poorer than other evaluators.
Lawyering Impact Evidence and Title VI
Housing Repair Actions: Prosecuting Code Staff managers, students, and summer
Violations on Behalf of Low-Income New associates ranked this course below average.
Yorkers Managers ranked the usefulness of this course
to their practice poorly.
Nonpayments & Holdovers: Substantive Issues Paralegals ranked visual aids as not effective.
Overview of Rent Regulations This course was ranked lower on average. In
particular, students ranked effectiveness of
visual aids as extremely poor.
Racial Justice Session 3: Raising Racial Justice This course was ranked lower on average.
Claims in our Practice Attorneys felt that there wasn’t enough time
for discussion/questions.
Presentation-Related Trends & Patterns

Presentation
Presenter: Course Trend/Pattern
Phillip Genty: Common Ethics Dilemmas in a The staff ranked Phillip low in referring to the
Legal Services Practice written material.
Cathy Bowman: Disability Hearings: Cathy was ranked below average. Attorneys
Representing Low-Income Clients for SSI & said that she did not present materials clearly.
SSD Benefits
Susan Shin: New NYS Debt Collection Rules; Financial counselors ranked Susan’s
What You Need to Know instruction slightly below average.
Luis Hernandez: Overview of Rent “Other” staff ranked Luis slightly below
Regulations average.
Christine Clarke: Racial Justice Session 3: Christine was ranked below average.
Raising Racial Justice Claims in our Practice
Maureen Schad: Special Immigrant JuvenileParalegals marked her poorly in referring to
Status written material, but she was marked highly
(including by paralegals) in all other aspects.
Sara Manaugh: Statutes of Limitations in Paralegals ranked Sara slightly below average.
Residential Foreclosure Actions
Insightful Comments by Course

Racial Justice Session 3: Raising Racial Justice Claims in our Practice
Small Group activity is not very useful - too unfocused
Basic Public Assistance and FEPS Eligibility

Good overview, but the details could not be addressed in the time we had
Good presentation on FEPS. Took multiple tries to explain, but we finally understood.
18
19

Peter was great! Hearing examples of real people was extremely helpful! (As opposed to
simply hearing the law and process). Also - the power points were well-organized and
easy to follow. Thanks!
great use of personal experiences and examples
Meeting Unmet Needs of Veterans: Child Support

Overall, a little disjointed compare to other VTF CLE events. E.g.: unaware of possible
$0 payment for noncustodial parent. Fit to include nyc program that may reduce arrests.
Representing Clients in Naturalization Proceedings with Legal Services NYC

This presentation was great and made me excited to this kind of work! The presenters
were engaging and knowledgeable and the description of the clients made me want to this
work with them.
This presentation was very helpful - there are times where I think we should have moved
a little more quickly to get through all the material
SSI/SSD Federal Appeals

very useful information - clear, helpful explanations
Housing Repair Actions: Prosecuting Code Violations on Behalf of Low Income New
Yorkers
would be helpful if spoke more loudly, thanks
Negotiating Fair Student Debt Repayment for Low-Income Veterans

The training was clearer and more streamlined than I remember. I like the refinements!
well organized training packet
VAWA Self-Petitions & Battered Spouse Waivers: Immigration Relief for Low-Income
Survivors of Domestic Violence
Great presentation. Hypothetical was useful.
Presentation was very well organized, clear, and engaging. The presentation materials are
similarly well organized and will prove very useful in taking on a VAWA case. Thanks
for coming!
Defending a Permanent Neglect Termination of Parental Rights

I think we breezed thru diligent efforts. We could spend more time on this very important
piece -> maybe we should have a separate training on diligent efforts?
This was a lot of material to cover, occasionally felt a little rushed. I would suggest
starting earlier or lengthening the program.
He was generally good, but spoke a little too quickly and his voice often dropped off
partway through a sentence, making it hard to hear the complete thought
She spoke a little too much and not always loudly enough, it would have been helpful if
she stood up sometimes. It would have been nice to have more balance among the
presenters and occasionally the training went off on a tangent that was not as clearly
useful. Overall however, the training was quite good.
Need longer training and samples, but otherwise, very effective training. Thank you!
19
20
Pls stand & speak loudly when the room is full! Hard to hear in the back (or
microphone?)
I would recommend microphones. It is very difficult to hear presenter
Disability Hearings: Representing Low-Income Clients for SSI & SSD Benefits
Very interesting but perhaps too much material covered
Housing Repair Actions: Prosecuting Code Violations on Behalf of Low-Income New

Yorkers
It might be helpful to go through some of the documents (OSC, Demand Letter) during
the seminar so everyone can see the kind of documents they would be preparing and what
is expected.
Housing Repair Actions: Prosecuting Code Violations on Behalf of Low-Income New

Yorkers
Good overall, but I think there were too many tangents that may or may not be useful.
Good/sobering examples.
Racial Justice Session One: Understanding Racial Justice Concepts through the Lens of
Litigation
More time for presentations
some technical difficulties seems like trainers could use some training on mikes & how to
use the PowerPoint
Overall this was great and I'm looking forward to the coming sessions. I'd just say that we
need to do a better job w/timing so no speakers get shortchanged at the end. Also, would
be great if these workshops could a) provide space for advocates to meet/connect (i.e.
small group discussions) and b) provide space to "team up" and actually create
opportunity to work collaboratively on racial justice oriented affirmative litigation.
Generally, good examples of civil rights cases. asked good questions
While I enjoyed the panelists’ case studies I wish the cases discussed/panelists selected
were more on point with my area of practice. Particularly the voting rights case study,
while very interesting, and was so far outside our areas of practice and all available
resources. Having said that, Pavita's discussion of the FHA case was very illuminating.
voting rights piece seemed least relevant/useful to our work
The statistics are staggering, I wish the presenters would personify those numbers and put
a face to racism. It would be more interesting and powerful.
Advocating for Victims of Foreclosure Rescue Scams: Regulations, Strategies, and Ethical
Rules
Would have liked to spend more time on the questions in the end -> very interesting!
The last presenter had quite a bit of material to cover in the last 30 minutes. I understand
that she wanted to cover everything in the slides but I would rather her tell us to refer to
the rule to move through the materials instead of reading the entire rule. There some good
exercises towards the end that was very interesting and would have liked to spend more
time on that.
20
21

Great presentation that gave much needed nuts + bolts of pleading less used causes of
actions. All the presenters were clear. Sample pleadings extremely helpful portion on
"Developing Your Affirmative Case" was extremely useful.
Excellent written materials - reflects a lot of thought and hard work. Thank you!
-Section V applies to the development of any case so may not have been necessary. -The
ethics section lacked clarity; it might have been more effective to give an overview of the
rule violations rather than discussing every single one.
Great job. Presentation not as effective when reading long text from PPT presentation.
Ethics PPT could use some improvement.
Ensuring Language Access

Happy to learn that there are some form/documents we can give to clients to give to
____to request interpretation/translation
Good presenters. Useful information about how to navigate and access interpreters.
Would have been more useful with some kind of brief fact-sheet with all necessary
contacts for reference
Very useful to practice area & good to have more direction on issue spotting w/current
clients, specifically LEP & NYCHA
New NYS Debt Collection Rules; What You Need to Know

I think the consumer debt topic should have been a separate class from the ethics so that
the consumer portion didn't feel so rushed
It would have been helpful to show actual textual examples of the egregious conduct so
advocates would be better able to detect these issues. Also, it’s nice to have primary
source material. Overall, extremely thorough, yet still concise. A great training. Another
thing that might be nice is to have relevant selections of the statutory texts in a table form
for the purpose of better comparing them. The pro/con bullet points after each law were a
very nice summation tool.
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status

The training is a bit too short for the amount of material covered. It should be at least 1/2
day training
Training was a bit rushed - perhaps more time should be allotted
Representing Respondents in Article 10 Cases

The PowerPoint presentation slides should be part of the written material. Hard to follow.
There was too much info per slide. Break it up so that each slide conveys one point. A
microphone is needed because it is very hard to hear the speakers.
Some of the materials would be helpful to have electronic format
FHA Loan Underwriting and Origination Abuse

Not much discussion. Presenters basically read the materials to us; their knowledge base
seems/was no greater than mine on this subject. However, thanks for the material.
More about loan mod process re: FHA compared to a conventional loan
Thanks for the thorough job on this - no doubt a beast to pull together! Great to finally
have all this in one place.
21
22
More time and more Fair Housing Act

Did an excellent job of distilling a very complicated subject into a relatively short
training
Aisha mic was low hard to hear in the back of the room
Asylum 101: Law and Practice

I was unable to register online despite trying to use the online system
Would've liked a redacted sample asylum application w/ the materials
Permanency Hearings in Article Ten Proceedings

Presentation could have slightly more clearly organized & had more structured Q&A.
Some visual aids would also been useful
Assisting Homeowners with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Owned Loans in the Loans
Mitigation Process
Great job. Very rationally organized & easy to follow
I would like to see this topic covered in more depth - maybe an "advanced" version
I don't practice in this area of the law so the training wasn't something that will be useful
to my practice of the law. However, it did give me a good introduction to this area of the
law and an understanding of problems fueled by borrowers and the means to deal with
these problems
Racial Justice Session Two: Race Equity Lawyering Impact Evidence and Title VI
Really Appreciate Brainstorm/action plan component
Great structure to the presentation. Glad to have time to workshop ideas. Great materials.
Most presenters need to understand that it is better for them to stand up to talk rather than
sitting down. Audience may be more engaged if the speaker is visible. Otherwise it is like
listening to a podcast and it can turn an interesting subject into a boring speech. I also
think the presenters have to give breaks. Lots of audience seemed to have lost attention
after an hour of listening without a break. Break out session were very useful!
Ensuring Language Access - Manhattan

Christine is a great presenter and super knowledgeable - Looking forward to working
with her brain more! Amy can't leave and someone needs to get me a giant handkerchief
because I am crying all summer.
Litigation Skills: Conducting a Direct and Cross Examination
would've liked written materials
As always, such an educational, thoughtful, and practical training. I appreciate Chris’s
efforts to tailor his presentation to our staff's needs and the particular area in which we
practice
Really helpful and thorough presentation. Only suggestion is to have it more clearly
distinguished when a certain aspect of trial does not apply or applies differently in
housing court.
Very practical, helpful information. Made laying the foundation so simple.
22
23

The Focus on jury trials and the bit on summations made it feel not entirely relevant to
our practice. But the overall was on direct & cross exams was really great, very pointed
& detailed and interesting.
Would have appreciated fact patterns more than 1 day in advance. overall good
presentation and very useful - would improve w/more specific reference to housing
practice strategy
Statutes of Limitations in Residential Foreclosure Actions

The training was very useful in understanding SOL issues/definitions, and helpful in
conducting intakes moving forward
Excellent material and information very practical information
Great presenter! One constructive comment - it was a bit difficult to follow the slides b/c
the [pages didn't match the printed version
Great job - thanks for all of your work in putting this together. These materials will be a
great resource. Thank you Sara & Randi!
This was really helpful! It's clear that both Randi & Sara were well-prepared and have
done an enormous amount of research. Thanks!
Loved the practical screening tool and practice tips. Material was a bit dry and technical.
Would have loved some visual aids like timeline examples with a graphic for the
timeline. Thanks for taking on this tough topic!
The materials were great and cover the topic well, especially since the case law seems to
be full of ambiguities. I did think that it probably could have been tightened up a little
and done in 1.5 hours.
The presentation was very informative, but it would have been helpful if the slides in the
written material matched the order of slides in the PPT
Mediation Training: Working with Interests

Excellent training! I think it would've been helpful to have mediators loop both parties
Very interesting & useful - my first real exposure to the topic. Organization could have
been a little stronger when breaking out into small group activities - sometimes
facilitators didn't seem clear on what they wanted us to do. Thank you!
I believe I was at a disadvantage having not attended the larger mediation training. I
found this helpful but it would have been more impactful with a broader context.
Super helpful skill-building exercise. Enjoyed role playing, lots of insights
I learned from this how to listen more & make sure to understand what the party is
saying.
Found flip chart exercise distracting and it muddled issue/interest. Overall, though, great
Racial Justice Session Four: Pre-Litigation Skills

Really useful to hear practical applications & thought process, which this training has
done a great job of doing throughout. Great ideas will come of this!
I found the PowerPoint presentation very informative. I wish other presenters would list
the element of the claims. It makes it easier for me to follow the discussion regarding the
challenges of finding & presenting persuasive evidence. Because most of our litigants
face retaliation to presenting & prosecuting race based claims. I would also find it helpful
if we could have a discussion regarding the steps taken to protect our clients and present a
23
24
retaliation claim. I also feel that a presentation in June _____ would be interesting
and helpful
May have been helpful to have more written/visual aids to follow each speaker's
presentation. Overall very interesting and relevant conversation.
Very interesting case studies + discussion. My only criticism is that it's too bad (and kind
of ironic) that you had a presumably white woman talking about the work her fosters do,
and she brought her lead tester with her - a Latina woman - who wasn't on the panel and
didn't say anything and was only talked about. It would have been great if she had been
invited to be a panelist also
Communication with Deaf Clients: Guidelines for Working with ASL Interpreters
We need more trainings like this. We also need a training to work with mentally disabled
clients.
Very informative presentation. Gave interesting examples/references to relate to the
presentation.
Very interesting training. Should be provided to all LSNY employees. Although
Reception & Intake are the first people clients/walk-ins see they will most likely meet w/
attorneys and possibly social workers. I just feel it’s a great training for everyone.
Learned a lot.
Really great to think carefully about working w.sign language interpreter - different from
out work w/LEP clients using))) Bridge, etc... Not word for word! Also very useful to
think about literary/language fluency issues.
Basic Trial Skills: Direct and Cross-Examination

This was great! It would be interesting to address bench-trial-specific issues, since the
majority of LSNY trials are bench. Practical! Helpful! Excellent! More please!
Father's Rights in the Context of Parental Rights Proceedings

Productive discussion. Inclusion of practice tips was very helpful. I would've preferred
the bids discussion be replaced with race and gender based record preservation tips.
Like integration of CL stories parallel to case practice. Appreciated the handbook of case
law etc.; definitely helpful as a social worker to have a reference to understand
proceedings/work w/CL through the process.
needs to be a bit more organized in presentation (esp. around paternity)
Would be helpful to have presenters stand so we can see. Would be helpful to have slide
handouts
Would be nice to have PowerPoint presentation during training to follow along & take
notes on (sounds like we'll get it - thanks!)
I really enjoyed the stories. As a student I don't have the real-world basis to refer to when
hearing the law so the stories really helped. I wished that there were more. Also, it would
have been nice to have the PowerPoint printed. Thank you.
Would have been nice to have PowerPoint printed
Last part pretty dry - 1st part after break good - nice to be more interactive
First part of the presentation (9:30-10:30) was way too fast, especially w/o a copy of the
PowerPoint we were looking at.
24
25

Very informative! I am a student so it feels great to know there are people out there so
committed to making this practice fairer and more just for our clients
Excellent, thank you!
I want the PowerPoint in the handout
Great training! would have liked to have gotten an outline consolidating the material
Really like the intro presentation. In the future can you please also share the PowerPoint
or include in training materials?
Jessica also presented well (paternity) - topic extremely useful + relevant to my practice 0
would also be helpful to have discussed how to use these pointers in representing mothers
- would be helpful to define real basics to make sure everyone understands
context/terminology (ex: what does "legal father" mean + what right come along w/that,
etc...)
This was an excellent presentation that addressed law, statutes, and the elephant in the
room - stereotypes + biases against men of color. Humanizing client addressing inequities
in law and taking advantage of the fact that some laws are all over the case were excellent
tips
Overview of Rent Regulations

Need visuals to stay connected and possibly more examples to relate
Maybe a bit more effective with visuals + not just reading off the handout. Thought it
was useful when real life cases were discussed in reference to materials
Time could have been used more effectively
Visual aid would be helpful; maybe a PPT? More time for general questions/practice
points. Thank you for scheduling the trainings spread out and in half-day chunks!
The first 2 portions maybe should be provided when first hired. It would help to
understand general terms. The section 8 info was at a good time.
The information presented helped me in my work experience. It was most helpful.
Smaller classes would be ideal. Also would be good to distribute materials beforehand to
be read, which would allow for more Q-and-A or conversational format
I wanted more discussion time on Section 8. But overall a great training
Content: needed to be organized a bit better, leaving enough time for each topic. Could
have used more practical examples. Heejung kook: difficult to follow. Not very animated
and didn't break up presentation with examples.
Could be more helpful if there were more examples. Manual is useful but could good if
can be supplemented w/access to training video during practice.
Housing Court Procedure and Motion Practice

Need visuals to stay connected and possibly more examples to relate
Visuals would be helpful + more engaging
Awesome presentation; visual aids are always helpful
Very useful training. Perhaps include sample documents (court notices, etc.) in the
packet?
Nonpayments & Holdovers: Substantive Issues

Would like trainings to be more interactive, use more examples. Do group exercises etc. -
the manuals are very helpful
25
26
The material presented will help me with my intake in regards to Holders & nonpayment
cases
Good training but it would have been more helpful if we had case studies to read and
answer questions for some practice. Thank you!
May want to consider providing training sooner in employment, I have an active court
calendar and there was time in the beginning where I had more time.
A lot of material to cover, suggest extra time
very informative - wish there was fact patterns to get an idea of how the law applies but
overall good
great use of actual cases/hypotheticals made it more interactive
Practical Housing Skills

The info wasn't as useful for paralegals, but some of the training covered areas we used to
research, in particular
"Dialog" section needed more hand puppets. Very good training! - would have been more
valuable closer to hiring date
Impact Litigation and Advocacy

Last part of training where advocates spoke of recurring issues in the field was very
informative
26
27
ANNEX F - Old Evaluation Form
Evaluation
Title:
Date:
Start/End Time:
Location:
Name (optional): ________________________________________________
For each of the following areas, please indicate your choice:

[ ] Attorney In practice ______ yrs [ ] Paralegal [ ] Social Worker [ ] Staff - Manager
[ ] Staff - Non Manager [ ] Student [ ] Volunteer [ ] Other - ___________
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Content Agree Disagree
Covered Material Useful to My Practice [] [] [] []
Well Organized [] [] [] []
Adequate Time for Discussion/Questions [] [] [] []
Good Use of Practical Examples [] [] [] []
Effective Visual/Media Aids (if applicable) [] [] [] []
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
Presentation - Name of Faculty Member
Knowledgeable [] [] [] []
Effective Presentation Style [] [] [] []
Covered Material Clearly [] [] [] []
Referred to the Written Materials [] [] [] []
Responded Well to Questions [] [] [] []
27
28
ANNEX F - Old Evaluation Form
Other Comments:
28
29
ANNEX G - Staff iographies
Andrea Zigman is the Deputy Director of Legal Services NYC. She is a national leader in the
field of legal services who has fought for justice for low-income people for more than thirty years.
Immediately before joining LSNYC, Ms. Zigman operated a consulting firm that served legal
services, legal aid and public interest law programs all over the United States. Previously, Ms.
Zigman worked with the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati for fifteen years as the Managing
Attorney of the economic justice and health practice group and as the Managing Attorney of Legal
Aid’s first post-merger branch office. Ms. Zigman started her career as an attorney with the Legal
Aid Society of Orange County, California, where she served as a staff and supervising attorney for
nine years. She received her B.A. in Economics from Antioch College and her J.D. from the
University of California.
Hima Mallampati Gleason is the Director of Legal Education at Legal Services NYC. Hima has
worked in a variety of educational settings including law schools, universities, high schools, grade
schools, and museums. Prior to joining LSNYC, she was as an Assistant Professor/Faculty Fellow
at New York University and taught classes to law students and other graduate students. She
continues to teach about legal issues affecting nonprofit organizations at NYU. Prior to that, she
earned a PhD, where her research examined how the governance patterns of nonprofits affected
their decision-making capabilities. She has a certificate in multicultural classroom facilitation,
which she has used to encourage greater cooperation among a diversity of participants in the
classroom. As a litigator, Hima has worked on employment discrimination matters, landlord-tenant
disputes, and guardianship cases. She received her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania, her
PhD from the University of Michigan, and her JD from Stanford Law School.
Tanya E.M. Wong, Esq., is the Director of Government Benefits at the Legal Support Unit at
Legal Services, NYC. Building on her background in human rights advocacy, Ms. Wong began
practicing in this area as a Staff Attorney at Harlem Legal Services, Inc., in 1996 during the advent
of welfare reform. Ms. Wong participates in several work groups with the NYC Human Resources
Administration and NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Ms. Wong conducts
welfare rights trainings for Legal Services and various CBO’s throughout NYC. She co-chairs the
Practicing Law Institute’s annual Public Benefits program from 2013 to present, as well as the
Welfare Law Taskforce at the NYSBA’s bi-annual Partnership Conference. She has served on
the Advisory Board of the Empowerment Project at Urban Justice Center (1997-2003) and the
Board of Directors of Project FAIR (2010-2015). Ms. Wong is a graduate of Harvard University
(1991) and Northeastern University School of Law (1996).
Anthony Navarrete is the Training Program Associate at the Legal Services NYC’s Learning
Center. After receiving his B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science from Stony Brook University,
he began his career as a second grade teacher at the Benjamin Banneker Charter Public School in
Cambridge, MA. His experience as an educator made him realize the importance of legal
services. Many of his students’ lives were greatly affected by legal matters, so he decided to
pursue a career in legal advocacy. His responsibilities at the Learning Center include the
production of training materials, customer service, videography and administrative support of
Legal Support Unit.
29
30
ANNEX G - Staff Biographies
Robert Narine is the Production Assistant at Legal Services NYC’s Learning Center. He
maintains Legal Services NYC’s office including conference room set-up, creation of training and
PR materials, mail delivery, and kitchen maintenance among his other duties. He has a B.A. in
computer Information System from Monroe College.
30
31
ANNEX H - Literature Review
LSNYC’s Workshop Evaluation:

An Assessment of Course Evaluation Research
Presented to LSNYC by NYU Capstone Team Consultants
Consultants:
Andrew Farwell
Sonia Balaram
Kenrick Fraser II
Andrew Lease
Debora Lorena Aponte Martinez
31
32
Abstract: The purpose of this literature review is to compile best practices for course
evaluations with the intention that LSNYC can implement select practices to improve its
workshop evaluations. This literature review includes research conducted on a number of
classroom environments, including continuing legal education (CLEs) courses, higher education
courses, and to a lesser extent compulsory education courses. Though the nature of LSNYC’s
workshops is largely professional development, we drew upon these diverse sources in order to
broaden our recommendations to LSNYC in terms of constructing course evaluations,
developing methodologies for course evaluations, best practices for increasing evaluation
participation, and implementing feedback captured in course evaluations.
Thesis: Creating a performance measurement and management system for LSNYC’s
workshops requires a multidimensional approach drawing on research from multiple disciplines.
The below cited research will be helpful in drafting appropriate course evaluation questionnaires
(data collection), understanding results (data analysis), and methodologies and strategies for
implementing feedback (performance management).
32
33
I.! Background
Designing and executing an appropriate performance measurement and management
system is essential for any organization to measure its success. Recognizing this, LSNYC is
seeking to implement a new performance measurement and management system for the Learning
Center’s CLE workshops. Existing research on legal education workshops is limited. As a result
of LSNYC’s unique needs, our literature review has compiled research focused on creating
course evaluations for higher education courses, determining benchmarks, and data analysis
methodology that can ultimately aid LSNYC in developing this new system.
LSNYC’s workshops are mostly tied to professional development for practicing attorneys
with some courses satisfying continuing legal education requirements (CLEs) for practicing
attorneys. Other workshops, though not CLE courses, still educate attorneys on legal subjects
such as tenant rights which contribute to LSNYC’s mission to legally advocate for low-income
New Yorkers. Due to the variety of courses provided by the Learning Center, we will review
research related to broader course evaluations rather than CLE-specific or legal-specific courses.
The compiled research shows that a course or instructor’s performance should be
evaluated by appropriate stakeholders. Appropriate stakeholders include course participants
(students), peer instructors, and the program administrators (LSNYC staff). Methods of
evaluation should incorporate feedback from each of these three stakeholders. Feedback should
also aim to measure common pitfalls of CLE courses. The most common complaints of CLE-
specific courses are: Cost, instructor presentation skills, and a lack of interaction between
professor and student or between students (Bichelmeyer, 2006). Though it may be beyond the
capacity of some educational institutions, Rhode et al advises that CLE courses follow adult
33
34
learning best practices and “supply opportunities for interaction, application, feedback, and
follow up” regarding CLE course material (Rhode, 2014). This can be a model that the Learning
Center offers to instructors prior to the workshop to ensure that these best practices are taken into
consideration in the design of the workshop.
II.! Constructing Course Evaluations
The course evaluation is the main vehicle for a workshop performance measurement and
management system. Much research has focused on how to improve the efficacy of evaluation in
two dimensions: Increasing the overall number of evaluation participants (students that take the
evaluation), and improving the accuracy of the measurements (whether the evaluation is actually
useful). While most research shows increasing evaluation participation to be difficult for
organizations to manage, improving the usefulness of measurement is a tangible and realistic
goal for organizations via two methods.
a.! The Construction of Course Evaluations for Participants
While getting answers from course participants is important, an organization must be
asking the right questions to get useful answers. Furthermore, the right questions must be
asked in the right way. Cuseo offers a useful framework for best practices in designing
question prompts and answer choices. Cuseo recommends limiting rating scales to a 5-7-
point Likert scale when asking a rating question, such as, “How likely are you to recommend
this course? Please rate between 1-7 with 1 being very unlikely and 7 being very likely.” To
this point, LSNYC is in good shape as The Learning Center currently uses a 5-point scale on
their evaluations. This is important because having too many choices reduces the analytical
power of the data analysis (in other words, the difference between each rating becomes less
meaningful).
34
35
Additionally, Cuseo advises that evaluations only ask open-ended questions when
searching for a short-answer (write-in response). Cuseo provides the example of such a
question, “Describe a major change (if any) in their approach… that resulted from their
participation in the course (Cuseo, 2000).” Below this prompt, participants are given space
for a write-in response. Cuseo argues that this open ended questioning reduces the “box-
checking” mentality of evaluation participants and instead produces useful qualitative
feedback for both the administrators and the instructor. For example, the evaluation could
question participants with the prompt, “How did in-class exercises affect your learning
experience? Do you have any suggestions for future workshops related to the topic?” These
types of questions will allow LSNYC to improve workshop effectiveness using concrete
participant feedback. Open ended questions and room for additional comments also increase
the sense of ownership participants feel in taking the evaluation. Most importantly for
question construction, evaluations should target feedback related to the desired outcomes for
the course (Berk, 2005). An example of this could be an agree/disagree Likert scale with the
prompt, “My knowledge on the course material has improved by taking this course.”
b.! Self Evaluation for Instructors
While time intensive instructor management may be beyond LSNYC’s capacity, L. Dee
Fink and Berk argue that it is useful for instructors to self-evaluate whenever possible. This
method is normally used as a performance measurement tool for employed instructors, but it
may also be useful in evaluating instructor performance in LSNYC workshops where most
instructors are volunteers. L Dee Fink states that instructors are part of the course evaluation
process and should review the feedback in tandem with the administrators.
35
36
III. Best Analytical Methodologies
1. Take A Pulse of Your Participants
It is important to know the baseline of student knowledge before analyzing the data. The
Stanford University Center For Teaching and Learning, a scholarly journal on best practices in
education, offers recommendations to make interpreting data easier to understand instructor
performance and course usefulness as well as targeting areas to focus on (Stanford University
Newsletter on Teaching, 1996). This methodology will be particularly useful for LSNYC in
regards to evaluating instructor performance. The Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching
cites William Cashin, a specialist in student ratings, who argues that when planning a workshop
the instructor should concentrate on the students’ previous knowledge of the subject and use it to
get a baseline. A helpful technique would involve administering short, pre-assessment evaluations
designed by the instructor that could indicate what the participants already know and what they
intend to learn from the workshop. This will be useful in analyzing the data, as participants that
are more knowledgeable may rate the course differently than their less knowledgeable peers.
2. Identify Desired Outcomes to Wholly Assess Instructor Performance
Effective outcome measures are crucial in order to evaluate LSNYC’s workshops. For the
purposes of this literature review, outcome measures will be defined as a quantified benchmark or
goal that LSNYC has chosen in order to assess its workshop performance (Berk, 2005). To help
determine outcomes measures, LSNYC must ask its own questions about its desired outcomes,
such as, “What do we hope we will accomplish for a participant who takes this workshop,” and
“How do we define a successful workshop?” Dr. Berk, professor of biostatistics and measurement
at Johns Hopkins University, advises that organizations use multiple measures to analyze the
overall teaching effectiveness rather than one source. For example, LSNYC could analyze
36
37
performance through participant ratings, instructor self-evaluation, and appropriate participant and
faculty interviews. Each of these single measures would be used to analyze the overall performance
towards the desired outcomes.
3. Avoid the pitfall: Don’t exaggerate the significance of the average rating
Once an organization has received its data, it shouldn’t simply average the scores and
stamp the number down in a performance review. Instead, Cuseo provides methodologies for
understanding participant responses that can be applied to LSNYC’s data analysis (Cuseo, 2000).
Consistent with most recommendations, Cuseo recommends calculating the mean per source, but
also calculating the standard deviation. While averages can be very important for getting a quick
pulse of course ratings, standard deviations also help illustrate if data is positively or negatively
skewed (statistical outliers can increase or decrease the average and obscure overall
performance). This may seem like a minor detail, but it can be crucial to understand whether or
not a recent change in data is a “fluke” or not.
IV. Implementation of Evaluation Feedback
After analysis has been done, an instructor's performance can be measured against their
desired outcomes (Berk, 2005). For the purposes of LSNYC with its volunteer instructors and
limited capacity, it may be advisable to limit performance reviews to periodic check-ins. L. Dee
Fink recommends that administrators and teachers compare and contrast course evaluation
findings against their instructor’s own self-evaluation. For example, a manager or administrator
could ask the instructor, “Which ratings are surprising, and why do student reactions differ?”
(University Of Michigan, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 2015). To keep track of
performance shifts, managers may find it helpful to keep a portfolio for instructors on their self-
assessment, course feedback, and any other feedback given. The manager can then identify areas
37
38
for improvement, strengths, and set goals for the instructor to meet for the next “performance
review (Berk, 2005).”
V. Conclusion
This literature review aims to compile research of best practices on:
•! Crafting effective course evaluations !
•! Targeted feedback collection strategies via course evaluations !
•! Data analysis methodology !
•! Implementing and managing course evaluation feedback !
Due to the unique nature of LSNYC’s needs, we feel that the diverse sources we have
selected pose a small limitation in their lack of specificity or highly detailed recommendations. To
overcome this, we believe that our internal research of LSNYC, namely the interviews and focus
groups, will help guide our strategy in acquiring and prescribing the appropriate course evaluation
strategy for LSNYC.
38
39
Works Cited
Berk, Ronald A. "Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness." Johns Hopkins
University, 2005. <http://www.physics.emory.edu/faculty/weeks//journal/berk-
ijtlhe05.pdf>.!
Bichelmeyer, B. A. "Best Practices in Adult Education and E-learning: Leverage Points for
Quality and Impact of CLE." Http://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol40/iss2/11/. Valparaiso
University Law Review, 2006. !
Cameron, Jane. "Continuing Education Learning Preferences and Styles of Legal Clinic
Lawyers." (Book, 2007) [WorldCat.org]. Brock University, 2006.
<http://www.worldcat.org/title/continuing-education-learning-preferences-and-styles-of-
legal-clinic-lawyers/oclc/436329969>.!
Cuseo, Joseph. "Evaluating New-Student Seminars and Other First-Year Courses via Course-
Evaluation Surveys: Research-Based Recommendations Regarding Instrument
Construction, Administration, Data Analysis, Data Summary, and Reporting Results."
Resources - Assessment Resources. University of South Carolina.!
Fink, L. Dee. "How to Evaluate Your Own Teaching: Evaluating Your Own Teaching." How to
Evaluate Your Own Teaching: Evaluating Your Own Teaching. University of Oklahoma,
20 July 1999. !
"Guidelines for Evaluating Teaching." Guidelines for Evaluating Teaching. Center for Research
on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan.!
Rhode, Deborah L., and Lucy Buford Ricca. "Revisiting MCLE: Is Compulsory Passive
Learning Building Better Lawyers?" American Bar Association. Stanford Law School,
2014.!
39
40
ANNEX H - LiteratureReview
"Using Student Evaluations to Improve Teaching." Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching
9.1 (1997): 1-4. Speaking of Teaching. Stanford University. Web.!
40
41
ANNEX I - Focus Group Questions
1. Aside from an exceptionally great or exceptionally bad experience, what makes you want to
fill out a survey for a company or organization?
2. Nothing is too nitpicky, what bothers you about taking evaluations?
3. Are you usually on a time crunch when you come into LSNYC workshops?
4. How many of you don’t fill out LSNYC’s surveys?
5. What’s your preference: Completing a course evaluation online, or doing it in class?
6. In your experience at LSNYC, how do the instructors explain the surveys before they give
them to you?
7. Would ending a workshop 10 minutes early make you more likely to complete the survey?
8. Look at the current survey: What do you wish the survey would ask you that you feel it
currently doesn’t?
9. Would you be more likely to leave qualitative feedback if there were structured questions
rather than just a broad “comments” section?
10. How does our workshop compare with other legal workshops you’ve taken?
41
Learning Center Staff Interview Questions
Impact
What long term impact do you want the learning center’s programs to have on the city and
beyond?
In terms of achieving LSNYC’s mission (to defend and educate low income New Yorker in
regards to their legal needs), what of Learning Center’s work do you think has the highest
return?
Outcomes
What are successful outcomes of LSNYC’s workshops?
Inputs
What are the Learning Center’s biggest assets or resources?
What resources do you think the Learning Center needs more of?
Activities
What activities are most important to the Learning Center?
Outputs
What would you consider to be the direct product of the Learning Center’s workshops and other
activities?
What do you consider to be the outcomes of these products?
Theory of Change
How do the Learning Center’s programs and client services contribute to an overall change for
lowincome New Yorkers?
Evaluation Form Design
What is the evaluation form currently missing?
What do you like about the current evaluation form?
Evaluation Form Process
Pretend you are asked to complete an evaluation on something outside of work: What prompts
you to fill out an evaluation form? What helps you feel your input matters?
Be as nitpicky as you want, what bugs you the most about evaluations?
What role do you see technology playing in evaluation form process, if any?
What do you consider a reasonable timeframe to complete an evaluation after partaking in an
activity?

42
ANNEX J - List of niversities
NYU Wagner
http://wagner.nyu.edu/academics/per
Contact - (212) 998-7400 or email Surahbi Lal (surabhi.lal@nyu.edu)
Pace University Law School

https://law-pace-csm.symplicity.com/employers/index.php
Contact - Nicole Moncayo, Esq. Director, Employer and External Relations Strategic
Professional Development Initiatives (914) 422-4607
Pace University
Elyse Moskowitz, Esq. Director, Public Service Careers (914) 422-4219
Columbia SIPA - https://sipa.columbia.edu/careers/employers/post-a-position-with-sipa
Contact 212-854-4613 or via email at: sipa_ocs@sipa.columbia.edu.
Columbia Law School

http://web.law.columbia.edu/social-justice/employers and http://web.law.columbia.edu/social-
justice or contact Brian Juergens at 212-854-8484
CUNY Law School

http://www.law.cuny.edu/career/job-portal/employers.html or contact (718) 340-4230 or email
careerplanningoffice@law.cuny.edu
NYU Law School

https://law-nyu-csm.symplicity.com/employers/ or contact Irene Dorzback
Associate Dean, Office of Career Services
irene.dorzback@nyu.edu
42
43
ANNEX K - List of Organizations for Environmental Scan
• Legal Aid Society

• Erie County Bar Association
• Louisiana State Bar Association
• Minnesota Legal Services
• Empire Justice Center
• Monroe County Bar Association
• Office for Attorneys for Children
43
ANNEX L - Interview Questions for Organizations
1. How do professionals find out about your CLE workshops?
2. Is there a charge for taking the CLE workshop?
3. How many CLE workshops do you offer per year?
4. Approximately how many legal professionals take these courses

every year?
5. Who are the instructors for the CLE workshops?
6. What method do you utilize for evaluating the courses?
a. If there are surveys, what is the return rate on your surveys from
lawyers?
b. What is the return rate on surveys for non lawyers?
7. What works about your current evaluation system for the CLE
workshops?
8. What would like to change about your current evaluation system for
the CLE workshops?
9. How do you compile the data that is collected from the surveys?
10. How do you analyze the data results?
11. How often do you analyze the data?
12. How do you use the results? How have the survey data altered your workshops in any way?
a. How are CLE instructors evaluated?
13. What lessons have you learned in implementing this performance measurement and
management system?
14. How has your evaluation form evolved over time?
44
LSNYC’s Workshop Evaluation: Environmental Scan

Presented to LSNYC by NYU Capstone Team Consultants

Consultants:

Sonia Balaram

Andrew Farwell

Kenrick Fraser II

Andrew Lease

Debora Lorena Aponte Martinez

Environmental Scan: PEST Analysis
Introduction
The first step in developing a performance measurement and management system is to conduct
an environmental scan to understand what other organizations are doing in this field and to
identify best practices. To conduct this environmental scan we used the PEST (Political,
Economic, Sociological, and Technological) method to analyze trends in the CLE provider
landscape. Findings from the PEST analysis were then used to discern patterns and determine
implications for Legal Services NYC.
Methodology
Our team identified and reached out to 30 CLE providers. We conducted phone interviews, sent
out questionnaires, and also utilized twitter to contact organizations. We gathered in depth
information from 6 organizations: Erie County Bar Association, Louisiana State Bar Association,
Minnesota Legal Services, Empire Justice Center, Monroe County Bar Association, and the
Office for Attorneys for Children. These organizations ranged in size, with some offering as few
as 50 CLE workshops to as many as 600 CLE workshops a year. The organizations also varied in
geographic location from close to New York City to as far as Minnesota.

Political
As dictated by the political climate, we found that all organizations we interviewed offer
evaluation forms to participants. Where there was significant variation is whether organizations
mandated evaluation forms or kept the forms anonymous.
It is unclear whether mandating evaluation forms negatively affect quality of responses, but it
produces high response rates
Some organizations like the Monroe County Bar Association and Empire Justice Center require
that participants complete an evaluation form in order to receive CLE credit. For example, the
top of the evaluation form for the Monroe County Bar Association reads: “Please complete this
form and return to the registration desk at the end of the program or return to the Academy of
Law of the Monroe County Bar Association. You will be given a Certificate of Attendance in
return.” Due to the mandatory nature of the evaluation forms, the Monroe County Bar
Association reported response rates as high as 99% for both paper and online evaluation forms.
When asked, the training managers did not feel that the compulsory nature of the evaluation
forms affect the overall quality of the responses. Other organizations like the Office for
Advocates for Children and Empire Justice Center keep their evaluation forms anonymous, yet
still report high response rates as high as 75%.
Economical
Build capacity for data compilation and analysis

Legal organizations that we surveyed are all strapped for money and funds. The CLE workshops
are usually managed by one individual and funded by the fees paid by participants. The limited
capacity of the organizations means that training managers generally do not have time to compile
data from their evaluation forms and enter it into a spreadsheet. Most training managers are only
able to look at evaluations right after workshops and provide instructors with feedback based on
overall evaluation responses and comments. There are some exceptions, such as the Erie County
Bar Association that enter all the data from forms into an excel sheet and conducts comparisons
across programs. However, the rest of the organizations we spoke to do not have the capacity to
enter the data from evaluations and the numerical responses are not compared across workshops
or over time to determine trends and patterns. To combat this capacity issue, a few organizations,
such as the Louisiana Bar Association, utilize online survey platforms such as Survey Monkey
that allows them easier access to the data and an ability to analyze patterns.
Social
Legal organizations base their CLE workshop evaluation practices on the demographics of the
lawyers they serve. Most training managers felt they had a good understanding of what their
participants wanted in evaluation forms and did not want to burden them with additional work.
The managers also shared that how and when they give out evaluation forms greatly impacts the
response rate.
Participant feedback is taken very seriously

Across the board, training managers stated that they make decisions about whether to invite an
instructor back or to repeat a workshop based on participant feedback. Ms. Kostin, Assistant
Director at the Office for Attorneys for Children, stated: “If a speaker is rated highly, we will ask the
speaker back in the future. Conversely, if a speaker is rated average, fair or poor, we will not do so.
Also, we regularly plan seminar topics based on requests from attendees, especially if there are multiple
requests for the same topic, or the same topic is requested by attendees at more than one seminar.”
Organizations also all stated that they share the evaluation results and most comments with the
instructors.
Evaluation forms lack insight into whether participants retain information
Louise Spinelli, Manager at the Monroe County Bar Association, stated that one of her biggest
frustrations with evaluation forms is that they do little to test whether participants truly learned
anything from the workshop. She is considering adding a few questions in her evaluation form to
test retention of the information that participants receive.
Type of practice area and age of lawyers determines whether electronic evaluations should be
used
Louise Spinelli of the Monroe County Bar Association also mentioned the age and type of
lawyers they serve as a determining factor for their evaluations practices. Ms. Spinelli explained:
“We tried survey monkey three years ago. Most attorneys did not have laptops with them. We
serve mostly family court and criminal court attorneys and they are rarely in front of their desk so
we had much lower response rates that is why we have stuck to hard copy forms.”

Methods for giving out and collecting forms affects the willingness of participants to complete
hard copy forms
Most organizations that reported giving out hard copy surveys, such as the Monroe County Bar
Association and Erie County Bar Association, reported response rates of 75% and higher. They
stated that their high response rates are due to the fact that they spend time at the beginning of
workshops explaining the importance of filling out evaluation forms, they remind participants
during breaks to complete the forms, and they have staff stand by the door to collect the forms at
the end of the workshop. Other organizations also echoed that the process of handing out and
collecting forms is essential to receiving high response rates.
Technological
Whether to shift to electronic forms and how to capitalize on social media was a big topic of
interest for training managers. Most managers, like Ms. Spinelli at the Monroe County Bar
Association, shared that they would like to move to electronic forms because it would be much
easier to compile and analyze the data, but worried that they would not be able to maintain the
high response rates they’ve gotten from handing out and collecting hard copy surveys.
Online Forms produce low response rates unless reminders and laptops are offered at the time
of the workshop
Louisiana State Bar Association and Minnesota Legal Services exclusively use Survey Monkey
for workshop evaluations. Ms. Good, Manager at the Minnesota Legal Services explained that
she often receives only a 30% return rate on surveys. Ms. Good stated that she believes she

would receive more electronic evaluations back if she had the time to send out reminder emails
and the money to purchase laptops for participants to complete their evaluations before leaving.
Make CLE workshop information easily accessible online and through social media platforms
There is a noticeable difference in how accessible each CLE provider makes information online.
The Erie County Bar Association advertises their workshops via email, written brochures,
Facebook and Twitter. Other organization have a calendar of the whole year’s workshops on
their website, while other organizations like LSNYC requires lawyers to sign up and create a
username and password in order to access information about the classes. This added step
decreases the number of users seeing the information for the organization, and makes it harder
for the organization to disseminate information to a wide base regarding their CLE courses.
Evaluation Form
Ask Specific questions in comment section
From our observations, most evaluation forms ask specific questions in the comment section. For
example, the Erie County Bar Association states: “ Please let us know if you would like to
present a CLE or have suggested topics or possible speakers for future CLE seminars.” The
Office for Advocate for Children includes a similar sentence asking for suggestions for future
topics speakers. Monroe County Bar Association asks 6 long answer questions such as what
drew you to attend this program, what changes would you recommend if this program were
presented again, The strongest part of the program was..., The part of the program in need of
improvement was..., please make any additional comments, and finally “please let us know if

you would like to present a CLE, or have suggested topics or speakers for future CLEs.” The
organizations that included long answer questions reported relying heavily on these questions for
participants’ feedback.
Explain the purpose of the evaluation form
Erie County Bar Association includes a written explanation at the top of their evaluation form
describing the purpose of their evaluation form:
“Under the NYS Court Rules governing Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE), accredited CLE Providers must grant registrants an opportunity to evaluate the
quality and effectiveness of programs and must submit an annual summary of such
evaluations to the Office of Court Administration. As a participant in this program, your
assessment is very important. Please evaluate the program by considering if the
presenters were knowledgeable clear and to the point and if what you learned will be
useful. Please complete this form and return to the registration desk at the end of the
program. Thank you for helping us to comply with these rules.”

The written explanation followed by a verbal emphasis on the importance of evaluation forms
seemed to impress upon participants that filling out an evaluation form was a critical way for
them to express their opinions and views of the workshops.
Review and Edit Evaluation Forms Periodically
Many organizations stated that they start by just asking basic questions regarding the
performance of the instructors and evolve their forms over time to also garner information about
what participants liked and want to see improved upon. Most organizations also periodically
review and edit evaluations to ensure that the form was capturing all the information they
needed.

Conclusion
This environmental scan aims to compile research on best practices on political, economic,
social, and technological trends amongst CLE providers. Although it was helpful to have a
diverse group of organizations that we interviewed, it also posed a small limitation because we
would have liked to have heard back from more organizations in the New York City area.
Despite this limitation, we found that a trend shared by many of the organizations was an
emphasis on knowing participants and understanding their needs. Since the needs of Legal
Services NYC’s participants are unique we believe that we can best capture what will ensure a
quality performance measurement and management system by meeting with participants. The
input of current and past CLE participants will help guide our strategy in developing the
appropriate course evaluations for LSNYC.

45
ANNEX -E t on orm rom En ronment n
CLE PROGRAM EVALUATION
[ INSERT TASK FORCE OR TRAINING NAME]
[ INSERT NAME OF PRESENTATION AND PRESENTER ]

[ INSERT NAME OF PRESENTATION AND PRESENTER ]
[ INSERT DATE OF TRAINING ]

[ INSERT LOCATION OF TRAINING ]
Please circle the number that best describes your rating of each question.
Excellent Good Average Poor
1. How would you rate the overall content of the program? 1 2 3 4
2. How would you rate the written materials of the program? 1 2 3 4
3. To what extent did the program fulfill the following objectives?
a. Present the information you wanted 1 2 3 4
b. Provide answers to your questions 1 2 3 4
c. Provide you with knowledge or new skills 1 2 3 4
4. Please rate the speakers regarding content of presentation and ability to present subject material:
[INSERT PRESENTER NAME] 1 2 3 4

5. How would you rate the facility for this course? 1 2 3 4
OVER
Evaluation Form
Last Revised: 6/2015
4828-8904-9385, v. 1 45
46
ANNEX M - Evaluation Forms from Environmental Scan
6. What changes would you recommend if this program were presented again?
COMMENTS:
Thank you for attending. Please complete this form and return to Amy.
OVER
Evaluation Form
Last Revised: 6/2015
4828-8904-9385, v. 1 46
PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM 47
ATTORNEYS FOR CHILDREN PROGRAM UPDATE
Friday, October 30, 2015
Clarion Hotel
Batavia, New York
Name (Optional):
How long have you been an attorney for the child? __________
What county panel (principally)? __________
Please rate the seminar in terms of:

Speakers: 5 Excellent 4 Good 3 Average 2 Fair 1 Poor
The Ten Commandments of Cultural
Competency
Lillian M. Moy, Esq.
UCCJEA, Parental Kidnapping

Prevention Act and the Hague
Convention - What Every AFC Needs
to Know
William L. Koslosky, Esq.
Panel Discussion: Substituted

Judgment in Cases Involving Domestic
Violence, and Related Ethical
Considerations
Hon. Deborah Haendiges, Moderator
Elizabeth J. Ciambrone Esq.
David H. Frech, Esq.
Catherine E. Marra, Esq.
Melissa H. Thore, Esq.
Grandparent/ Nonparent Custody:

Statutory and Case Law Review
Michele A. Brown, Esq.
Please rate the seminar in terms of:
5 Excellent 4 Good 3 Average 2 Fair 1 Poor

PROGRAM
CONTENT
INSTRUCTOR
QUALITY
MATERIALS
FACILITY
ASSISTANCE IN
YOUR WORK
ADMINISTRATION
TECHNOLOGY
OVERALL
(PLEASE SEE OTHER SIDE)
1 47
48
Additional comments about the seminar, including most and least interesting aspects
and suggested improvements:
Suggestions for future seminar topics:
Comments about and suggestions for improving the Attorneys for Children Program:
2 48
49
Sponsored by the Section
Evaluation Re ort
Title
Date, 2016

.
NonAttorneys are also requested to fill out this form.
Thank you for helping us to comply with these rules.

content
ability

Presentatio
Content n Materials
Ability
Overall Rating of this
Seminar
Instructor Quality:
Name, Esq.
Name, Esq.
Name, Esq.
Facility
Registration Process
Advance notice of program
Was the content covered pertinent to your practice area? [ ] Yes [ ] No 49

50
ANNEX M - EvaluationForms from Environmental Scan
What drew you to attend this program? (Speakers, topics, CLE credit, biennial date approaching, etc)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Continued on the other side
What changes would you recommend if this program were presented again? ____________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
The strongest part of the program was: ______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The part of the program in need of improvement was: ______________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Please make any additional comments: __________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Please let us know if you would like to present a CLE, or, have suggested topics or possible
speakers for future CLEs:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you!
If you would like to discuss any of this program in more detail, please contact Louise Spinelli,
Program Manager, at 585.402.7189 or Lspinelli@mcba.org
50
ANNEX M - Evaluation Forms from Environmental Scan 51
E TION RES TS
Em lo ee andboo s in ouisiana: seful Tool or Tic in Time Bomb

S ea er: Ed ard ardin r
Did Not
Total
xcellent ood Fair Poor Attend This
Respondents
Session
Lecture
Content
Speaker s
Materials
Questions
Answered
Overall
Rating
Ever thin Old is Ne ain: F S ot To ics

S ea er: hristo her E Moore
Did Not
Total
Respondents
Session
Lecture
Content
Speaker s
Materials
Questions
Answered
Overall
Rating
51
Do nsi in in : urrent e al and Practical onsiderations for Em lo ers and
Em lo ees
S ea er: M Nan lessandra
Did Not
Total
Respondents
Session
Lecture
Content
Speaker s
Materials
Questions
Answered
Overall
Rating
The To Ten iti ation Priorities of the EEO

S ea er: David o e
Did Not
Total
Respondents
Session
Lecture
Content
Speaker s
Materials
Questions
Answered
Overall
Rating
eave Me lone: e al date on Difficult or lace eave Issues

S ea er: llison ones
Did Not
Total
Respondents
Session
Lecture
Content
Speaker s
Materials
Questions
Answered
Overall
Rating
52
Recent Develo ments in abor Em lo ment a
S ea er: Prof illiam R orbett
Did Not
Total
Respondents
Session
Lecture
Content
Speaker s
Materials
Questions
Answered
Overall
Rating
Deflate ate in the Practice of a nethical n rofessional or ealous dvocac

S ea er: on Patric anna
Did Not
Attend Total
xcellent ood Fair Poor
This Respondents
Session
Lecture
Content
Speaker s
Materials
Questions
Answered
Overall
Rating
53
OMMENTS
S ESTED TOPI S
OT ER O TIONS
54
ANNEX M- Evaluation Forms from Environmental Scan
ERIE INSTITUTE OF LAW
Reputation and Crisis Management
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Under the NYS Court Rules governing Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), accredited CLE Providers must
grant registrants an opportunity to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of programs and must submit an annual
summary of such evaluations to the Office of Court Administration. As a participant in this program, your assessment is
very important. Please evaluate the program by considering - if the presenters were knowledgeable - clear and to the
point - and if what you learned will be useful. Please complete this form and return to the registration desk at the end of
the program. Thank you for helping us to comply with these rules.
4 = Excellent 3 = Good 2 = Fair 1 = Poor
Speaker’s Speaker Usefulness Course

last name: effectiveness: of topic: Material:
SIMONETTI 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
TECHNOLOGY 4 3 2 1
FACILITY (convenience, aesthetics, amenities) 4 3 2 1
Did you receive adequate advance notice of the program? Yes _____ No _____
Did the program advertising accurately describe the course content? Yes _____ No _____
How do you like to receive CLE notices? Email ___ Brochure ___ Facebook ___ Twitter ___ Other ___
Do you prefer: Weekday CLE – 12-4 ___ after 4 ___ /Saturday CLE ___ /On Demand CLE ___
The strongest part of the program:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Please make any additional comments:
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Please let us know if you would like to present a CLE or have suggested topics or possible speakers
for future CLE seminars:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this evaluation form. We strive to offer quality CLE programs that our
members are looking for and appreciate the feedback!
55
LSNYC Workshop Evaluation
ANNEX N - New Electronic Evaluat on Form
Please share your feedback on the workshop by answering the questions below. We
value your feedback and will utilize it to measure performance and plan future workshops.
1. What is the title of the workshop you attended?
2. What was the date of the workshop you attended?
MM DD YYYY
Date / Time / /
3. Which of the following best describes your occupation?
Attorney
Paralegal Social
Worker Law
Student Other
4. The facilitator(s) clearly presented the content and effectively structured the workshop.
Neither Agree nor

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Disagree
5. The workshop was adequately paced.
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor

Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
56
ANNEX N- New Electronic Evaluation Form
6. The workshop content met my expectations and I learned a new skill or refined a
current skill.
Neither Agree nor

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Disagree
7. The workshop provided me with skills, training, and/or resources that I am able to
utilize in my current role.
Strongly Agree Neither Agree nor

Agree Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
8. What changes would you recommend to the instructor(s) if this content was
presented again?
9. Do you have a recommendation for a future workshop topic or presenter?
Thank you for completing this evaluation form. We appreciate your feedback, and strive to
offer quality educational programs to advance your career.
Done
Powered by
57
ANNEX O - New Paper Form
!
LEGAL SERVICES NEW YORK CITY TRAINING EVALUATION
Your feedback is taken very seriously and helps inform future programming and measuring the
performance of The Learning Center.
Title: ___________________________________ Date: __________________

Instructor(s): _____________________________ Location: _______________
Name (Optional): _________________________
Profession (circle one): Attorney Social Worker Paralegal Law Student Other____________
Please rate the following statements.
1.! I left the training with a greater understanding of this topic and the training met my expectations.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
!
!
2.! ! The pace of the training was appropriate.
1 2 3 4 5
Too Slow Appropriate Too Fast
!
!
3.! I! will be able to utilize these new skills, training, and/or resources in a future role or in my current role.
1 2 3 4 5
!
!
4.! The
! instructor(s) facilitated appropriate discussion and responded to questions effectively
1 2 3 4 5
!
!
5.! The
! instructor(s) clearly presented the content and effectively structured the training.
1 2 3 4 5
!
!
6.! I! would recommend this training to friends and colleagues.
1 2 3 4 5
!
!
!
If you would like to explain any of your ratings above further, please do so below:
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
58
ANNEX O - New Paper Form 59
7. Why did you attend this training? (speakers, topics, CLE credit, biennial date approaching, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
8. What changes would you recommend to the instructor(s)?

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
9. Do you have a recommendation for a future training topic or instructor?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this evaluation form. We strive to offer quality educational programs that our members are
looking for and appreciate the feedback!
If you would like to discuss this program in more detail, please contact Hima Gleason at hgleason@ls-nyc.org.
59
60
ANNEX P - Client Meeting Agendas
Client Meeting Agendas
Meeting Details
October 23, 2015
6:00 P.M.
40 Worth Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10013
Meeting Agenda
Introductions
• Exchange of contact information
• Establish points of contact within Legal Services NYC
• Capstone Process
• Individual Learning Objectives
Overview of organizational structure

• Organizational Work, Mission, Etc.
• Background on workshops
• Current evaluation system
• Resources for moving forward
Visualizing the final product

• Indicators of a successful project
• Challenges to overcome
• Project Scope
Wrap-Up: Key takeaways and next steps
Attendees
Legal Services NYC
• Hima Gleason
• Andrea Zigman
NYU Capstone Team

• Andrew Lease
• Sonia Balaram
• Kenrick Fraser II
• Debora Lorena Aponte Martinez
• Andrew Farwell
• Mel Raoul
60
61
Meeting Details
November , 2015
Meeting 6-7pm
Meeting Agenda
Check In
• Learnings from last capstone
• LSNYC Website Review
• Data Procurement and Digitization
• Confidentiality Agreement
• Work Agreement Review
• Problem statement and project mission
• Deliverables Schedule
• Meeting Schedule
• Closing, sign agreement and next steps
Attendees
Legal Services NYC
• Hima Gleason
• Andrea Zigman
NYU Capstone Team

• Andrew Lease
• Sonia Balaram
• Kenrick Fraser II
• Debora Lorena Aponte Martinez
• Andrew Farwell
• Mel Raoul
Meeting Details
March 10, 2016 : 6:00pm
Legal Services NYC
40 Worth Street, 6th Floor

New York, NY 10013
Meeting Agenda
Check-In
Findings
Recommendations
• Performance Measurement & Management
• Evaluation Form & Process
• Key Considerations
Questions for LSNYC
Feedback and Feasibility
Next
Next Steps
Steps
61
62
Attendees
Legal Services NYC
• Hima Gleason
• Andrea Zigman
NYU Capstone Consultants

• Sonia Balaram
• Andrew Farwell
• Kenrick Fraser
• Andrew Lease
• Debora Martinez
62
63
Meeting Details
ar !Call with Hima and Andrea
Meeting Agenda
• Overview of Recommendations
• Review logic model, theory of change, mission
• Logistics of Presentation on 04/15
• Pictures of Learning Center Staff
• Feedback and Questions
Meeting Details
April 7, 2016 6:00pm
Meeting Agenda
Check-In
Feedback from previous call regarding Logic Model
Recommendations
• Performance Measurement & Management
• Evaluation Form & Process
Feedback and Feasibility
Next Steps
Attendees
Legal Services NYC
• Hima Gleason
• Andrea Zigman
NYU Capstone Consultants

• Sonia Balaram
• Andrew Farwell
• Kenrick Fraser
• Andrew Lease
• Debora Martinez
63
64
ANNEX Q - Power Point Presentation
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
ANNEX Q- Power Point Presentation
71
72
72
73
ANNEX Q- Power Point Presentation
73
74
74

Legal Services NYC: Measuring Performance and Improving Workshop Evaluations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

You might also like

Legal Services NYC: Measuring Performance and Improving Workshop Evaluations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Legal Services NYC: Measuring Performance and Improving Workshop Evaluations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

ANNEX

Sonia Balaram is an educator/facilitator and community organizer passionate about increasing

ANNEX C - Consultant Biographies

A Soviet History major turned public advocate, Andrew r e is interested in

ANNEX C - Consultant Biographies

ANNEX C - Consultant Biographies

TO: Hima Gleason, Director, Legal Education, LSNYC

Quantitative Content Feedback

Quantitative Presentation Feedback

Evaluation Form Design

Evaluation Form Intent

ANNEX D - Data Analysis Memorandum

Inadequate Response Options

Lack of Structure in the Comments Section

TO: Hima Gleason, Director, Legal Education, LSNYC

Content-Related Trends and Patterns

ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details

Presentation-Related Trends & Patterns

Insightful Comments by Course

Basic Public Assistance and FEPS Eligibility

ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details

Meeting Unmet Needs of Veterans: Child Support

Representing Clients in Naturalization Proceedings with Legal Services NYC

SSI/SSD Federal Appeals

Negotiating Fair Student Debt Repayment for Low-Income Veterans

Defending a Permanent Neglect Termination of Parental Rights

ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details

Housing Repair Actions: Prosecuting Code Violations on Behalf of Low-Income New

Housing Repair Actions: Prosecuting Code Violations on Behalf of Low-Income New

ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details

Ensuring Language Access

New NYS Debt Collection Rules; What You Need to Know

Special Immigrant Juvenile Status

Representing Respondents in Article 10 Cases

FHA Loan Underwriting and Origination Abuse

ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details

More time and more Fair Housing Act

Asylum 101: Law and Practice

Permanency Hearings in Article Ten Proceedings

Ensuring Language Access - Manhattan

ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details

Statutes of Limitations in Residential Foreclosure Actions

Mediation Training: Working with Interests

Racial Justice Session Four: Pre-Litigation Skills

Basic Trial Skills: Direct and Cross-Examination

Father's Rights in the Context of Parental Rights Proceedings

ANNEX E - Data Analysis Course Details

Overview of Rent Regulations

Housing Court Procedure and Motion Practice

Nonpayments & Holdovers: Substantive Issues

Practical Housing Skills

Impact Litigation and Advocacy

For each of the following areas, please indicate your choice:

Covered Material Useful to My Practice [] [] [] []

Adequate Time for Discussion/Questions [] [] [] []

Good Use of Practical Examples [] [] [] []

Effective Visual/Media Aids (if applicable) [] [] [] []

Effective Presentation Style [] [] [] []

Covered Material Clearly [] [] [] []

Referred to the Written Materials [] [] [] []

Responded Well to Questions [] [] [] []

LSNYC’s Workshop Evaluation: