With the aim of the project to develop strategies and initiative to help raise
awareness among adults of their rights as EU citizens including Human Rights, and
encourage them exercise their rights, the second meeting was held on May 22 and 23 in
Waalre, the Netherlands. The meeting was hosted by the partner organization SECMO. Four
participating organizations from four countries (Germany, France, Spain and the
Netherlands) took part in the meeting.
The contecnt of the second meeting included the revision of the activities performed
between the two meetings, the presentation of the questionnaire designed and conducted
by the partner organization IFAID, possible actions to be taken by participating
organizations, confirming dates for the next meetings and preparing a draft for the interim
report. After the meeting, an evaluation questionnaire was designed by SECMO based on the
content of the meeting.
The questionnaire sought for responses regarding participants’ views on the activity
held by Dissens EV (Question 1), the evaluation of the period between 2 meetings
(Questions 2), presentation of the questionnaire (Question 3), discussions on possible
actions to be designed (Question 4), planning the dates for the next meetings (Question 5),
interim report (Question 6), visit to Waalre Municipality (Question 7) and overall personal
satisfaction (Questions 8, 9, 10) about the second meeting. Out of 16, 9 participants
answered and sent back the questionnaire. The distribution of the scores for each question
is given below (See Appendix for questions).

The distribution of the results represents that the participants evaluated the meeting mostly positively. The average score is 4,52 out of 5. The lowest score is 3,89, which is about the evaluation of the period between the first and second meeting. The highest score is 5 and it is related to the organization of the meeting. Overall, the participants have a satisfaction score of 4,44 of the meeting.
Based on the responses to the questionnaire on the second meeting presented above, the participants are satisfied with the presentation of the questionnaire, the possible actions to be taken regarding the results of the questionnaire, planning the next meetings, preparing the interim report, and a visit to the municipality of Waalre, and the contribution of the participants to build common ideas. As the question with the lowest score, which is about the evaluation of the period between the meetings, the possible explanation could be that participants think there were not enough equal distribution efforts by participants, or the presentation of the period during the meeting was not well-prepared. A suggestion may be that each participant organization read the minutes carefully, recognize their responsibilities and shoulder them. Strenghtening the powerful sides of the team and the project and improving the deficits will definitely be the key to the success to achieving in the aims of the project.

Appendix
Q1: Can you please evaluate “Getting to know each other /icebreaking activity (Bingo game)”
Q2: Can you please evaluate “Evaluation of the period between the two meetings.”
Q3: Can you please evaluate “Presentation of the questionnaire”
Q4: Can you please evaluate “Deciding on the actions that we will develop. Example; workshop/blog etc.”
Q5: Planning the dates and places for all coming meetings
Q6: Can you please evaluate “Talking about interim report. What information is needed there?”
Q7: Can you please evaluate “Visit to Municipality Waalre”
Q8: What is your overall satisfaction with this meeting?
Q9: Do you think that the meeting was well organized?
Q10: Do you think that at the end of the meeting, all the participants have contributed to
build common ideas?