# Feedback and evaluation tools ## Published project version Community Garden · version 1 · unapproved design · published 2026\-10\-03T01:26:13\.048381\+00:00 ## Operating permission Recorded operating status: confirmed\. Filed evidence status at publication: missing\. Public design approval and publication do not verify site permission\. ## Pilot scope The first growing season is the Community Garden pilot\. Two raised beds measuring 1 m × 3 m each provide six plots per bed, for 12 plots in total\. Participation is for the neighborhood bounded by Queen St, King St, Maple Dr, and Main St in Orangeville, Ontario, Canada\. The pilot includes plot use, optional informal peer mentoring, an opening event, at least two optional potluck meals, and a closing event\. Plot allocation, site access, resource contributions, and decision\-making follow the recorded garden rules\. The coordinating group will set the opening and closing dates\. After the garden closes, it will review the first season and decide whether to continue, subject to Bob’s authority to veto or override that decision\. The specific review date has not been set; the group will record and announce it when the seasonal schedule is established\. Bob records the continuation decision and agreed changes\. This is a plan for collecting evidence, not a claim that the pilot, events, or review have occurred\. Bob and the coordinating group still need to record the remaining operating\-dependency checks and verify the separate site\-permission copy and its required distribution and posting\. No separate operating\-permission evidence has yet been filed in ONPF\. Public availability and design approval do not verify these operating requirements or establish that the pilot has begun\. ## Feedback methods Invite voluntary feedback at the opening event, shared meals, closing event, and through the garden’s social media pages\. Karen records feedback from discussions and social media\. Participants may also speak privately with Bob or the coordinating group or leave an anonymous written note in a feedback box inside the shed\. Names and contact details are optional; a person who wants a reply may provide a preferred contact method privately\. Do not ask for names on anonymous forms\. Offer help reading or recording comments when requested, while explaining that the helper will hear the comments\. People who cannot reach the shed may use the private conversation or social\-media contact options\. Bob, the coordinating group, and Karen may read original feedback records\. Keep paper records and any digital copies under their control and restrict access to those people\. Share only unattributed summaries more widely; remove identifying details from summaries and avoid quoting distinctive comments that could identify someone\. Social\-media posts may be visible to others, so direct private or sensitive matters to Bob, the group, or Karen privately rather than posting them publicly\. An anonymous note cannot receive an individual reply unless contact details are supplied separately\. Retain ordinary feedback records until the end of the following season’s review, then remove identifiable details and retain a summary\. Record that review and cleanup in the review log\. If no following\-season review occurs, Bob and the group must set a disposal review date rather than leave retention indefinite\. Incident records and camera footage are separate: camera video has its recorded 90\-day retention arrangement, and incident records require separate handling\. Do not put identifiable feedback, incident details, contact information, or footage in public program documents\. Reusable short feedback form — answer any questions you wish; skip any question or choose “not applicable\.” Event or season \(optional\): \_\_\_\_\. 1\. How was your overall garden experience? Very good / Good / Mixed / Poor / Very poor / Not applicable\. 2\. What worked well, and what would you change? 3\. Were plot allocation, garden rules, and communications clear? Yes / Partly / No / Not applicable\. What needs explaining? 4\. Did paths, muddy ground, hours, or another access issue make participation difficult? What would help? 5\. If you sought informal mentoring, was it useful? Yes / Partly / No / Did not seek it\. No mentor qualifications or advice are verified by the program\. 6\. If you considered a potluck, were the 50\-serving dish contribution and three\-guest limit workable? What affected your choice to attend? 7\. What should change about maintenance, shared tools, resources, or community gatherings? 8\. Would you like the garden to continue next season? Yes / Unsure / No\. Why? Optional private reply request: name or alias and preferred contact method \_\_\_\_\. Report urgent hazards, injury, or property damage directly to Bob; the feedback box is not an emergency reporting channel\. Call 911 for an emergency\. ## Success and learning Use actual observations and voluntary feedback to assess whether the pilot offered useful growing space, supported informal learning, and strengthened community relationships\. Do not treat missing feedback as satisfaction, or mentor signup as proof of qualifications\. No yield, attendance, or satisfaction targets have been adopted\. At the seasonal review, record: plots allocated out of 12 and plots in active use; waiting\-list demand without publishing names; opening, meal, and closing events actually held; attendance only where reliably recorded; offers of mentoring and participant\-reported usefulness; feedback response counts and themes; access difficulties and responses; maintenance and plot\-care issues; incidents and actions in an unattributed summary; donations, actual costs, shortages, and tool replacements; and suggested improvements\. Distinguish participants from guests where counts are available, and mark unknown counts as unknown\. The 50\-serving dish requirement is not a site\-capacity figure\. Consider who was not heard, including people who could not access the site or declined meals, and whether the contribution requirement affected participation\. Describe positive and negative themes, remaining uncertainty, and any disagreement\. Compare planned activities with what actually happened without inventing results\. Keep individual incidents and identifying evidence in the restricted record\. Reusable review record: season and review date \_\_\_\_; reviewers \_\_\_\_; evidence considered \_\_\_\_; confirmed observations \_\_\_\_; missing information \_\_\_\_; what worked \_\_\_\_; access or other concerns \_\_\_\_; proposed changes \_\_\_\_; action owner and target date \_\_\_\_; decision and reasons \_\_\_\_; Bob’s override or veto, if any \_\_\_\_; communication date and method \_\_\_\_; next review \_\_\_\_; ordinary\-feedback cleanup due and completed dates \_\_\_\_\. The coordinating group decides plot reassignment by majority vote and other garden\-program matters, including continuation and program changes, by consensus\. Bob may veto or override decisions\. Bob records decisions and posts an appropriate summary on the shed’s outside bulletin board facing the beds; Karen posts the summary on social media\. Update affected drafts and decision records, and obtain the required approval for any subsequent release\. Completing this tool does not itself approve the documents or authorize a release\.