A new community health initiative was about to start, funded by anti-smoking money from the state Department of Health. The program was intended for people participating in a number of community service programs – employment training and job development, adult basic education, pregnancy prevention among adolescents, and others. Its focus was supposed to be on sharing information about the health effects and addictive nature of smoking and supporting people who wanted to quit.
Before the program started, however, its organizers decided that they needed to understand which health issues potential participants considered most important.
The health educators interviewed a large number of people involved in the community programs they were working with and found that many both smoked and were interested in quitting. More immediate concerns for many participants, however, included neighborhood violence and substance use. Smoking ranked much lower among their priorities.
After conferring with its funder, the community health program began by addressing violence and substance use as community health issues. It attracted a large number of participants who, through a variety of strategies and collective efforts, helped reduce violence in the area and supported the establishment of a substance use treatment center in the neighborhood. During this work, participants were also introduced to information about tobacco addiction and resources for smoking prevention and cessation. Many participants who smoked subsequently joined smoking cessation groups and were able to quit. Although the program had begun by addressing health concerns that might initially have seemed unrelated to smoking, the health educators ultimately developed one of the most successful smoking cessation programs in the state. They realized that this success depended in large part on asking participants about their priorities, experiences, and what would make the program relevant to them.
Health and community service programs often seek to support community well-being, but organizations do not automatically know what community members consider most important or what approaches will be useful. One of the best ways to understand these priorities is to ask people who are directly affected by or involved in the work. Chapter 40 is about attaining and maintaining quality in your work. In this section, we'll discuss what feedback from participants consists of, how you can obtain it, and how you can use it to create and maintain a high-quality program, initiative, or intervention that is responsive to community priorities, strengths, and needs.
What do we mean by feedback from participants?
In simplest terms, feedback from participants consists of reactions, perspectives, experiences, and opinions about your effort from people who are affected by or involved in it. If you've read the first section of this chapter, you'll remember that an important element of building quality into programs is responsiveness to the people and communities involved. In the original Total Quality Management framework, this concept is described as customer-centeredness. In community-based work, participant- and community-centered practice means understanding what people actually experience, value, and need rather than assuming you already know. It also means meaningfully involving participants in planning, implementing, and evaluating the work so that programs can adapt in response to their knowledge and experiences.
This emphasis on participant- and community-centered practice fits closely with the Community Tool Box's emphasis on participatory processes. We believe that involving participants from the beginning in a program or intervention greatly increases the possibility of its success. W. Edwards Deming's Total Quality Management framework emphasized listening to customers; in community-based work, that principle can be expanded to recognize participants and community members as partners whose lived experience and knowledge should help shape decisions. Understanding what people experience, value, and need makes it easier to develop programs that are relevant and responsive.
Feedback is not simply criticism, constructive or otherwise. Rather, it reflects the experiences and perceptions of the person or group providing it. You may believe that you are presenting something in a particular way or accomplishing a particular purpose, but participants may experience it differently. Understanding those differences can provide important information for improving your work.
Feedback can be positive, negative, mixed, or neutral.
Its nature may also be influenced by a number of factors:
- Feedback may draw on facts, observation, past experience, personal reactions, relationships, cultural context, trust, and other sources of knowledge. Rather than treating some forms of feedback as inherently more valid than others, consider what each perspective can tell you and what additional information may be needed.
- Participants may bring important knowledge about the history of the community, specific people and relationships, culture, local institutions, previous initiatives, and other factors that may not be visible to program staff.
- Feedback may also be shaped by the information participants have received, how accessible that information is, and their experiences with the issue or process. When perspectives differ, additional conversation can help clarify what people know, understand, or have experienced.
- Feedback might be solicited (asked for) or unsolicited. Unsolicited feedback may sometimes be expressed strongly, particularly when people have felt unheard or frustrated. Even when its delivery is difficult, it may contain important information worth considering.
In addition to its range of possible characteristics, feedback can be communicated in a number of ways, and it's important to pay attention to as many of them as possible.
- Direct verbal feedback. Direct feedback can be especially useful because it gives participants an opportunity to describe their experiences and perspectives in their own words. It may be offered face to face, virtually, by phone, or in writing. Not everyone will feel comfortable providing direct feedback, however, particularly when there are differences in power or concerns about how the information will be used.
In general, this section focuses on obtaining intentional, direct feedback. We include some other ways of recognizing feedback immediately below. Direct feedback can often be easier to clarify and use, but organizations should also pay attention to other ways participants communicate their experiences.
- Indirect verbal feedback. This might include remarks that aren't intended specifically as formal feedback, comments made during everyday interactions, or observations shared by participants with one another.
A conversation with a participant might include a remark about how helpful the program has been for her, or how a particular activity or process wasn't useful. Participants may also discuss experiences with one another that they have not felt comfortable sharing directly with staff. When these concerns reach staff appropriately and without violating privacy, they may provide useful information about the participant experience.
Comments that initially seem broad or unclear may become more informative through respectful follow-up. A participant might say, for instance, "This is stupid!" Rather than assuming the comment reflects cynicism or lack of understanding, you might ask what specifically isn't working for them or what would make the activity more useful. The response may identify confusing instructions, inaccessible material, embarrassment, frustration, or another issue that can be addressed. Asking rather than assuming can produce useful information for both participants and staff.
- Direct non-verbal or behavioral feedback. Patterns such as missed appointments, difficulty completing tasks, reduced participation, or leaving a program may provide information about participants' experiences. These behaviors should not automatically be interpreted as rejection of the program; they may reflect barriers such as transportation, work schedules, caregiving responsibilities, accessibility issues, health concerns, stress, previous negative experiences, or other circumstances. When safe and appropriate, changes in behavior can be an invitation to ask what is happening and what support or changes might be useful.
It is important not to assume that every action is feedback about a program. A person's behavior may reflect many factors, including experiences within the program, conditions outside the program, stress, trauma, health, family responsibilities, safety concerns, or other circumstances. For example, an adolescent who appears guarded or disengaged may be responding to an interaction that felt disrespectful, to previous experiences of abuse, neglect, discrimination, or other trauma, or to circumstances unrelated to the program. Similarly, several people missing appointments may point to a program-level barrier, such as inconvenient scheduling or transportation difficulties, but individual circumstances may also play a role. The most useful response is usually to avoid assumptions and seek additional information where appropriate.
- Indirect non-verbal feedback. Facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, participation patterns, and other behaviors may provide clues about how people are experiencing a program. For example, continued signs of discomfort, anxiety, disengagement, or reluctance to participate may suggest that something about the environment, relationships, expectations, or activities deserves closer attention. Non-verbal cues vary greatly across individuals and cultures, so they should not be interpreted in isolation. Instead, use them as a reason to check in respectfully and create opportunities for participants to describe their experiences in their own way.
It's important to remember that feedback reflects participants' experiences and perceptions. Different people may interpret the same situation differently, and feedback should be considered alongside other information and perspectives. At the same time, participants' perceptions are themselves important information. If many participants report that they don't feel respected, supported, safe, or well served, the organization should seek to understand why and consider what changes may be needed rather than simply trying to change those perceptions. Even feedback that is difficult to hear can provide an opportunity for reflection and improvement.
Why do you need feedback from participants?
- It's part of being participant- and community-centered. Paying attention to participants' priorities, experiences, needs, strengths, and ideas is a crucial element in creating a quality program.
- It gives you tools to improve your program. Understanding what's useful and what isn't, what's working and what isn't, and what participants would change can help increase the effectiveness and responsiveness of your work.
- It allows you to respond to changes in the community or in participants' circumstances. Social, cultural, economic, demographic, environmental, or policy changes may affect participants and the community. For example, changes in migration patterns, employment opportunities, housing, neighborhood safety, or access to services may influence what participants need from a program. Participant feedback can help your organization understand these changes and respond appropriately.
- It can give you information about the history of the community, the issue, or previous efforts. Participants may know that a particular approach carries negative associations, has been tried previously, or encountered barriers that are still present. Understanding that history can help an organization avoid repeating past mistakes and build on previous learning.
- It can help you understand relationships and community dynamics. Participants may have valuable knowledge about relationships among organizations, neighborhoods, leaders, networks, and community groups. This knowledge can be important when building partnerships or creating planning and decision-making groups.
- It can tell you when your methods or approach aren't working. If participants consistently report that they aren't seeing progress or that an approach isn't useful, that feedback should be examined alongside other evidence.
- It can tell you when people feel uncomfortable, unheard, excluded, or disrespected. Participant feedback can identify an intake process that feels impersonal or intimidating, communication that is inaccessible, or staff attitudes and practices that make participants feel that their knowledge or experiences are not valued.
- It can help you address what is important to participants, even when those priorities differ from your original focus. The smoking cessation example that opens this section shows how responding to participants' priorities can strengthen engagement and ultimately support the program's broader goals.
- It can help ensure that your objectives are meaningful to participants as well as to your organization. Programs are more likely to be relevant and sustainable when their goals are informed by the priorities, strengths, and experiences of the people involved. If participants see little connection between a program and what matters to them, participation is likely to decline.
Who are the participants that can offer feedback?
All participants can offer meaningful feedback when organizations provide appropriate and accessible ways for them to communicate. People differ in age, language, communication style, literacy, cognitive abilities, disability, comfort with institutions, and preferred ways of expressing themselves. These differences may affect the methods you use to gather feedback, but they should not be treated as reasons to exclude people from the process. The key is to match feedback methods to participants' communication preferences and support needs and, where appropriate, offer multiple ways to participate.
Considerations for making feedback opportunities inclusive include:
- Participants who use languages other than the dominant language. Provide interpretation, translated materials, bilingual staff, or other language-access supports when possible. Also consider how power, previous experiences with institutions, immigration experiences, cultural norms, and concerns about confidentiality may affect whether someone feels comfortable giving candid feedback. Avoid assuming that everyone from a particular cultural or language group will communicate in the same way; ask participants what would help them feel comfortable and heard.
- People who have left the program before reaching their goals. Their perspectives may provide especially valuable information about barriers to participation. Why did they leave? Was the program relevant and accessible? What barriers did they encounter? What might have made participation easier or more worthwhile? When appropriate and respectful, following up with former participants can help an organization understand where changes may be needed.
Sometimes a participant's decision to leave has less to do with the program's content than with barriers surrounding participation. Participants may need childcare, transportation, disability accommodations, scheduling flexibility, language access, financial support, or other resources that are not available. Understanding these barriers will not make every program appropriate for every person, but it can identify changes that make participation more accessible and equitable.
- Children. Children can provide meaningful feedback about how they experience a program, even when they may not describe those experiences in the same way adults do. Use developmentally appropriate questions and methods such as conversation, drawings, visual scales, activities, or observation, and make sure children understand that their perspectives are welcome. Behavioral changes may also signal comfort, distress, confusion, or unmet needs, but they should be explored rather than interpreted automatically.
- Adolescents facing significant barriers or challenging circumstances. Young people experiencing violence, difficulties at school, substance use, unstable housing, discrimination, family stress, or other challenges may have important perspectives about the services and environments around them. Trust may take time to develop, particularly when young people have had negative experiences with adults or institutions. Create respectful, confidential, youth-friendly opportunities for feedback and avoid assuming that reluctance to speak reflects a lack of insight or interest.
- People with mental health conditions. People with mental health conditions can provide valuable information about the services and programs they use and about their own experiences, priorities, and needs. Organizations should provide respectful opportunities for feedback and make reasonable accommodations when needed rather than assuming that a diagnosis limits someone's ability to contribute.
- Adolescents and adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities. People with intellectual or developmental disabilities can provide meaningful feedback about their experiences. The best method will depend on individual communication preferences and support needs. Plain language, visual aids, supported communication, accessible surveys, additional time, trusted communication partners, or other accommodations may help people express what they like, dislike, need, or would change.
When might you obtain and use feedback from participants?
In thinking about when feedback is necessary, it's helpful to refer to the Deming Cycle, which consists of five phases: Plan, Do, Check, Act, Analyze. Feedback from participants can and should be used at every phase of the Deming Cycle.
- Before a program or initiative starts (Plan): Participant feedback is crucial to ensuring an accurate understanding of community strengths, assets, priorities, needs, and circumstances and to identifying outcomes that are meaningful to the people involved.
- During the development of the program or initiative itself (Do): Invite people who will participate in or be affected by the effort not only to provide feedback but, where possible, to help shape its goals, design, activities, and implementation. Meaningful participation can strengthen relevance, accessibility, trust, and community ownership.
- When your program is ready to begin (Check): Asking potential participants to review the plan can identify barriers, omissions, strengths, and opportunities for improvement before implementation. Ask whether the program reflects the priorities participants identified, whether it is accessible, and whether its intended outcomes are meaningful and realistic.
- During the running of the program (Act): Continue creating opportunities for feedback throughout implementation so you can respond to emerging issues, improve accessibility and participation, and make appropriate adjustments as you learn.
- As part of a formal or informal evaluation (Analyze): Conduct evaluation regularly at intervals appropriate to your program. Participant feedback is an important part of understanding strengths, challenges, outcomes, and unintended effects. Combining it with other forms of evidence can guide improvements and begin the cycle again.
How do you obtain feedback from participants?
Obtaining honest feedback from participants may sometimes be as simple as asking, but creating conditions where people feel comfortable answering candidly often requires more intentional work. Differences in power, previous experiences with institutions, language, culture, disability, age, confidentiality concerns, and the consequences participants believe could follow from criticism can all affect what people feel comfortable sharing.
Avoid assuming that a person's culture, gender, age, or other identity determines how they will respond. Instead, consider how communication norms, relationships, social expectations, institutional experiences, and power dynamics may affect participation. Language access and literacy can also affect which methods work best. Participants in involuntary programs, such as court-mandated substance use treatment, may have particular concerns about confidentiality or about whether criticism could affect their status. Others may simply hesitate to criticize a staff member or organization they value.
Obtaining honest feedback is generally easier when participants have been treated from the beginning as people with valuable knowledge and a meaningful stake in the program. When participants help shape planning, implementation, services, education, or treatment, feedback becomes part of an ongoing partnership rather than a separate activity. People are more likely to share candid perspectives when they know their knowledge is respected, understand how their feedback will be used, and see evidence that the organization takes their ideas seriously.
We present below several ways to ask for and obtain useful feedback from participants, but one of the strongest foundations for honest feedback is to involve participants as partners in the work from the outset wherever possible.
Methods of obtaining feedback
There are a number of methods you might use to obtain feedback. Which is best will depend on your situation, and you may use more than one method in order to make participation accessible to different groups of people.
Surveys. Using a survey to collect feedback is a common practice. Surveys can be administered in several ways.
- Written. This often takes the form of a short questionnaire that people can complete and return. Some surveys are longer and may include opportunities for open-ended comments in addition to yes-no answers or rating scales.
- Face to face. An interviewer asks questions and records the participant's responses. A longer or more open-ended conversation may become an interview, a method discussed below.
- Phone. Phone surveys can be useful when participants prefer or need to respond remotely and can allow an interviewer to clarify questions when necessary.
- Online surveys. These are now common and convenient for many participants. However, digital access, reliable internet service, device availability, digital literacy, disability access, data costs, and privacy may affect who can participate. If these barriers are likely, offer additional ways to provide feedback rather than relying exclusively on an online survey.
Email and online surveys can make feedback easier for some people, but digital access is not universal. Communities with limited economic resources, rural communities, older adults, people with disabilities, and others may face barriers involving devices, internet access, data plans, accessibility, or digital literacy. Offering multiple feedback options can help avoid excluding people.
Like all the methods described here, surveys have advantages and disadvantages. Short surveys are relatively easy to complete and can be designed to require little time. Written or online surveys may also be structured so that participants can respond anonymously, which may make it easier to share candid feedback.
Getting people to complete surveys can be difficult. Reasonable incentives may increase participation, as may providing time during a program activity for participants to respond. Be clear about whether participation is voluntary and avoid designing incentives in ways that create undue pressure to participate.
Surveys can also provide limited information when they rely primarily on fixed-response questions. Longer surveys may provide more detail but may be more burdensome to complete. Consider accessibility, time, participant preferences, and the amount of detail you need when choosing a format.
Some participants may prefer or need alternatives to standard written surveys because of literacy, language, visual, cognitive, or other accessibility needs. This may include people who left high school before graduating, participants in adult basic education or English-language learning programs, and many others. Options can include plain-language materials, translated surveys, screen-reader-compatible forms, phone or face-to-face administration, large print, visual response scales, or having questions read aloud when the participant chooses that support.
Interviews. These are conversations with a specific purpose – in this case, obtaining feedback about your work. Interviews can take place in person, by phone, or virtually and can be conducted individually or in groups.
An interview differs from a structured survey in several ways. Interviews may use a consistent set of questions while still allowing the interviewer to ask follow-up questions, clarify responses, or explore issues that participants raise. Interviews also tend to provide more space for explanation and reflection than brief surveys.
Most interviews emphasize open-ended questions rather than questions that can be answered only with yes or no. Rather than asking "Did you like X?", for example, an interviewer might ask, "What worked well for you about X? What didn't? Why?" A good interviewer can also ask respectful follow-up questions when an important theme emerges.
Individual interviews can provide detailed information and give the participant privacy and the interviewer's focused attention. These conditions may make it easier for some people to discuss experiences that they would not raise in a larger group.
Individual interviews can also be time-consuming and may limit how many people can participate. As with any form of qualitative feedback, one person's account represents that person's experience and should not automatically be treated as representative of everyone. The quality of the interview also depends on trust, accessibility, interviewer skill, and the participant's comfort with the setting.
Small-group interviews and focus groups. A small-group interview includes several people and gives participants opportunities to respond to and build on one another's ideas. Questions may be prepared in advance while still allowing space for follow-up discussion and issues raised by participants.
Focus groups are structured small-group discussions organized around a particular topic. A trained facilitator uses prepared questions while allowing participants to elaborate, respond to one another, and raise related concerns. Explain the purpose of the discussion honestly while avoiding questions that lead participants toward a predetermined response. When deciding who should be in a group, consider whether relationships, power differences, confidentiality concerns, or group dynamics could make some participants less comfortable speaking openly.
Town-meeting or whole-program format. In this situation, a larger gathering – perhaps even all participants in a program – meets to discuss experiences, concerns, ideas, and possible improvements. With skilled facilitation and clear expectations for respectful participation, this format can generate useful feedback, new ideas, and opportunities for collaboration. It may be less appropriate when people need confidentiality, when power differences make open discussion difficult, or when unresolved conflict could prevent some people from participating safely and meaningfully.
If you use a town-meeting or whole-program format, provide skilled facilitation, establish expectations for respectful discussion, and consider whether some participants may need other ways to share concerns privately. Significant disagreements or unresolved problems do not necessarily mean that a group discussion should be avoided, but they may require additional preparation, facilitation, or opportunities for smaller or confidential conversations.
Journals. A way of obtaining ongoing feedback is to invite participants to keep journals. These may be devoted solely to feedback or may have a larger programmatic purpose, depending on the nature of the program. Regular entries can provide an ongoing record of participants' reactions, experiences, questions, and observations.
If journals are interactive – participants' entries are read and responded to by an educator or another appropriate staff member – participants can be invited to elaborate on particular comments and concerns. Be clear about privacy, who will read the journal, and how the information will be used. This method works best when participants are willing and able to use the format and when alternative methods are available for those who prefer another way to communicate.
There are many other ways of obtaining feedback. For example, a program might use a brief anonymous rating after an activity, suggestion cards, text-message surveys, accessible digital forms, participant advisory groups, listening sessions, or creative methods designed with participants themselves. The most useful method is one that fits the people, context, and type of information you need.
Which method you decide to use will depend on a number of factors, including time, accessibility, confidentiality, available resources, participant preferences, and the amount of detail you need. Individual interviews may be useful for detailed feedback; surveys may work well when participants are geographically dispersed; group discussions can generate interaction and collective ideas; and journals can provide ongoing reflection. Using more than one method often helps organizations hear from people who communicate in different ways.
Ways to improve your chances of getting good feedback
Regardless of what methods you use to gather feedback from participants, there are some things you can do to increase the likelihood that people will feel comfortable sharing honest and useful information. Not every strategy will be appropriate for every method or group, so choose approaches that fit your participants and context.
Let people know from the beginning that you want their feedback, and will ask for it
This lets participants know that reflection and constructive criticism are expected parts of the program, establishes them as partners in improvement, and makes clear that their perspectives are valued. Explain that feedback is welcome throughout the program, not only when formally requested.
Specify what kind of feedback you want
The clearer you are about the information you're seeking, while still leaving room for issues you may not have anticipated, the more useful the responses may be.
Some of the questions you might ask or things you might want to know about:
Assessment / planning:
- How important is this service or issue in the community? Who is most affected, and what strengths, resources, or barriers should we understand?
- Has this service or issue been addressed in the community before? What happened, and what can we learn from that experience?
- Who should be involved in discussing, planning, or making decisions about this effort?
- Are there relationships, histories, or power dynamics that could make collaboration difficult? Who has worked well together in the past?
- What would make people want to participate in this effort or program? What might discourage participation?
- Are any proposed approaches culturally inappropriate, inaccessible, disrespectful, or inconsistent with how people in the community prefer to engage?
Ongoing feedback and program evaluation:
- What do you like about the program? What works well for you?
- What would you change about the program? What doesn't work well for you?
- What makes it easier for you to continue participating? What has helped you stay involved?
- What circumstances, barriers, or program experiences might make it difficult for you to continue participating?
- Was/is intake welcoming, informative, accessible, and respectful? Were your questions answered? Was the process of determining eligibility or enrollment clear and manageable?
- Were you connected with activities or services that fit your goals and circumstances? Was there flexibility when your needs changed?
- Are you receiving the services or support that were explained or promised? Are they useful to you? Are there other services or resources you need?
- Are there support services or accommodations that would make participation easier, such as childcare, transportation, language access, disability accommodations, technology, or scheduling flexibility?
- Are staff supportive, knowledgeable, helpful, and respectful?
- Do you feel respected and treated as a partner whose experiences and ideas matter?
This question is really about the philosophy of your organization and how it views participants. Staff may be polite while still communicating, intentionally or unintentionally, that professionals know best or that participants lack the knowledge or ability to make decisions about their own lives. Respect involves recognizing participants' agency, experience, knowledge, and right to make informed choices. Honest conversations can include difficult information or accountability, but they should still preserve dignity and avoid humiliation or paternalism. If participants consistently report that they do not feel respected or heard, take that feedback seriously and examine the organization's assumptions, practices, policies, and power relationships.
- Are program expectations clear and consistent? Do staff demonstrate care and respect? Can you get help when you need it?
- How are your relationships with other participants? Do you feel comfortable and included? If problems arise, are there safe and effective ways to address them?
- Have there been problems related to payment, insurance, benefits, or eligibility? Are these processes easy to understand and address? Do you feel comfortable asking staff for help?
- Does the schedule work for you? What changes, such as evening, weekend, remote, or flexible options, might make participation easier?
- Is the location convenient and accessible? Are transportation options available? Do you feel safe traveling to and using the location?
- Is the program site comfortable, welcoming, and appropriate for the activities taking place? Is there enough space and privacy? Is it physically accessible, and are the restroom and other facilities adequate for the people who use them?
Make clear exactly what you're going to use the feedback for
Whether the feedback is being gathered for assessment, planning, ongoing improvement, or evaluation, explain how the information will be used. Participants may worry that criticism could affect their services, relationships with staff, eligibility, or other outcomes. Be clear about confidentiality, any limits to confidentiality, who will see the information, and how decisions will be made. Explain that the purpose is to understand experiences and improve the program rather than punish participants or individual staff members.
Openness about why you're asking for feedback also supports participatory practice by recognizing participants as contributors to planning, evaluation, and improvement and demonstrating that their knowledge is valuable.
Protect anonymity or confidentiality when appropriate
Concerns about being identified can prevent people from providing candid feedback. When possible, offer anonymous methods such as surveys that do not collect identifying information or confidential methods in which identifying information is protected and separated from responses. Explain clearly whether feedback is anonymous, confidential, or neither; these terms are not interchangeable.
When participants are concerned about being identified, choose methods that provide the greatest realistic protection. An independent facilitator, anonymous survey, confidential interview, secure suggestion process, or other approach may help. Group discussions cannot guarantee anonymity among participants, so make sure people understand those limitations before deciding whether to participate.
Let people know that you'll share the results of feedback with them, and be sure to do it
Participants should be told what you learned from the feedback and, when appropriate, what changes you plan to make in response. If recommendations cannot be implemented, explain why. Closing the feedback loop demonstrates that participation mattered and gives people an opportunity to respond to how their input has been interpreted and used.
How do you use feedback from participants?
Once you've gathered feedback, the next step is to use it. Soliciting people's perspectives and then filing them away without meaningful consideration can undermine trust. Participant feedback should inform reflection, decision-making, improvement, and, where appropriate, changes in organizational practice.
Understand the priorities, strengths, and needs of the community
Feedback from potential participants and other community members before planning begins can help identify community priorities, strengths, assets, needs, existing resources, barriers, and the issues people believe deserve attention. It can also help determine what level and type of activity or service would be useful.
Understand changes in the community or in participants' circumstances
Communities continually change because of migration, economic conditions, housing patterns, demographic shifts, policy changes, development, displacement, environmental conditions, and many other factors. For example, the arrival of new residents may bring new languages, cultural knowledge, organizations, networks, and service needs, while longtime residents may also experience changes in resources, relationships, housing, employment, or neighborhood conditions. Factory closures, major construction projects, gentrification, or other changes may significantly affect participants and require an organization to reconsider its approach.
Organizations may be aware that community changes are occurring without fully understanding what those changes mean in people's daily lives. Participant feedback can provide that context and help organizations adapt their work in ways that remain useful, equitable, and responsive.
Improve your program itself
Participant feedback can be tremendously useful, both on an ongoing basis and as part of evaluation, in helping you make your program more effective, accessible, equitable, and responsive.
Feedback can alert you to the need to refine techniques and methods, strengthen approaches that are working, and change those that aren't. It can identify program content that is no longer relevant, as well as barriers involving schedules, transportation, language, disability access, technology, childcare, cost, or other conditions affecting participation.
Participant feedback can also have a major impact on program philosophy and organizational culture. What participants say about how they are treated, whether they feel heard, and whether they have meaningful opportunities to influence decisions can be as important as feedback about specific services.
There are really three areas to look at here, all of which have already been referred to in this section:
- Attitude toward participants. Participants are more likely to engage when they are treated with dignity and when their knowledge, choices, identities, and experiences are respected.
- Approach toward provision of services. When participants are treated as partners and have meaningful opportunities to shape a program, they can contribute to its relevance, quality, and success as well as benefit from what it offers.
- Identifying and addressing barriers to participation or success. Respectful, participant-centered programs pay attention to practical, organizational, and structural barriers such as childcare, transportation, disability access, language, schedules, cost, technology, literacy, benefits, or other supports. Rather than assuming that difficulty participating reflects a personal failure, ask what conditions may be creating barriers and what changes or resources could address them.
Develop an organizational culture that embraces and institutionalizes ongoing feedback from participants
Many Community Tool Box sections emphasize that effective practices need to be sustained rather than treated as one-time activities. The same is true of obtaining and using participant feedback.
Feedback from participants isn't a one-time activity. Participants and staff change, circumstances evolve, new issues emerge, and institutional memory can fade. Programs and organizations need ongoing opportunities to learn and adapt while remaining accountable to the people and communities involved. Regular participant feedback helps ensure that improvement is informed by current experiences rather than assumptions about what worked in the past.
In Summary
Feedback from people with direct experience of your program, initiative, or intervention can be essential to improving its quality. Participants bring knowledge about what is useful, inaccessible, respectful, frustrating, effective, or missing. Honest feedback may be difficult to obtain when people are concerned about confidentiality, power differences, negative consequences, or whether their input will actually matter. One of the strongest ways to build trust is to involve participants meaningfully from the beginning and demonstrate that their knowledge influences planning, implementation, evaluation, and improvement.
Participant feedback can help you understand community priorities and strengths, identify barriers, improve existing work, and respond to changing circumstances. It can also reveal when organizational assumptions, relationships, policies, or practices need to change. The purpose of obtaining feedback is not simply to confirm that a program is working, but to learn how it is experienced and how it can become more effective, accessible, equitable, and responsive.
You might obtain participant feedback through surveys, individual or group interviews, focus groups, community meetings, journals, advisory groups, digital tools, or other accessible methods. Whatever methods you choose, people are more likely to provide meaningful feedback when they are treated as partners whose knowledge and agency are respected rather than as passive recipients of services.
Ultimately, strive to create an organizational culture that continually invites, values, responds to, and learns from participant feedback as a necessary part of maintaining and improving the quality of your work.