Home / Resources / Evaluation plan
Kin Vow pilot evaluation
An imperfect union. A promise to each other.
Proposed plan, version 0.2 | October 31, 2026
Kin Vow is a project in development and a working name pending rights review. No gatherings are scheduled, and no host organization or official chapter is confirmed. This plan describes how a small adult pilot could learn from four gatherings within a 90-day preparation and review period. It contains no results. Its thresholds are practical choices to review, not validated measures of social change.
Plan for 8-12 participants, with a target of 12, plus two hosts. Prepare on days 1-14; hold gatherings on days 15-21, 35-42, 56-63, and 77-84; review on days 85-90; prepare the internal account after day 90. Gatherings are roughly three weeks apart. Preparation may take longer, and no launch date is fixed. The host guide sets out the readiness conditions.
What we want to learn
- Do people return and find the activity worth their time?
- Can participants use listening, keep or revise a promise, offer wanted help, or respect a boundary?
- Can people disagree, decline a prompt, and raise a concern without pressure?
- If a shared task is chosen, does it help the people who wanted it?
- Can hosts sustain the work and address concerns responsibly?
Do not infer that the pilot heals polarization, changes democracy, or represents Americans as a whole. Followers, pledge signatures, and press mentions measure reach; they do not answer these questions.
Listening can be enough. Participation does not require taking the vow or making a new commitment. A shared task is optional and depends on need, permission, capacity, and participant interest. Record why a task was revised, stopped, or not chosen without treating that decision as a failure by itself.
Explain this to participants
“We would like to learn whether these gatherings are useful. Feedback is optional and anonymous unless you choose to provide contact information separately for a concern. We record the number attending, without taking an evaluation attendance roster. Please leave names and identifying stories out of feedback. You can skip every question and still participate. We will share a short group-level account of what we learned with participants. Any public report requires a separate review.”
Collect the minimum
| Information | Method | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | Hosts count participants at each gathering, excluding hosts and observers. | No names or sign-in roster for evaluation. Repeat attendance is self-reported at the end. |
| Meeting experience | Optional paper form at each gathering. | No political affiliation, demographics, employment details, or personal histories. |
| Everyday practice | Optional self-report at tables two through four about listening, a promise, useful help, or a boundary. | No new commitment is required. Do not require descriptions of another person or proof of kindness. |
| Shared-task usefulness | If a task was chosen, ask the intended users or venue contact whether the agreed result helped. | Record a brief conclusion and its basis without a testimonial or identifying quotation. Note when no task was chosen or a task was revised, stopped, or still underway. |
| Effort and cost | Hosts record total preparation hours, meeting hours, and expenses. | Separate costs incurred from future estimates; do not collect participant spending. |
| Conduct response | Reviewer checks whether reports received a response and whether any unresolved pattern requires a pause. | Incident contents and identities stay out of evaluation. No public incident counts from a tiny group if they could identify someone. |
The absence of complaints does not establish good conditions. Read it alongside whether participants felt able to raise a concern. Surveys from returning participants will miss some people who left; state that limitation. Do not chase people who have declined contact.
Short meeting form
Use the same questions at every table. Hosts may read the form privately at a participant's request, while explaining that spoken responses are not anonymous to the reader.
KIN TABLE FEEDBACK
Optional. Please leave out names and identifying details.
For each statement, mark:
Yes / Partly / No / Prefer not to answer
1. I had a fair chance to speak or pass.
2. I felt heard when I chose to contribute.
3. I could disagree without pressure to change my views.
4. I knew how to raise a concern, including one about a host.
5. This gathering was worth my time.
What should we change? (optional)
____________________________________________________________
For a concern that needs a response, use the separate feedback
notice. This anonymous form cannot support a personal reply.
At tables two through four, add these optional questions:
Since the last gathering, what did you try? Mark any that apply.
Listening with care / Keeping or revising a promise /
Offering wanted help / Respecting a boundary /
None of these / Prefer not to answer
If you chose a commitment, which best describes it?
Completed / Revised and followed through / Still underway /
Did not follow through / Made no commitment / Prefer not to answer
At table four, add:
How many pilot tables have you attended, including today?
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / Prefer not to answer
Across the pilot, did you use at least one practice you found useful?
Listening, an existing promise, wanted help, or a boundary can count.
Yes / Partly / No / Prefer not to answer
Would you choose to attend another Kin Table?
Yes / Maybe / No / Prefer not to answer
What, if anything, changed in how you treated someone?
Please describe only your own behavior, without identifying anyone.
____________________________________________________________
These questions support descriptive learning. They are not a validated survey or a clinical assessment. Do not add together anonymous responses across meetings as though they came from distinct people.
Handle information carefully
Assign one evaluation keeper before the pilot. Hold paper forms in a closed envelope or locked storage; limit access to the keeper and one reviewer. If forms are entered electronically, use a restricted local file. Do not send raw responses or incident records to an AI service, a group chat, a public repository, or a shared marketing system.
Keep any optional event-contact list separate and explain its purpose when someone opts in. Do not add people to a national mailing list through pilot participation. Do not copy incident records into the evaluation file.
Make aggregate counts and a short paraphrase of recurring suggestions. Omit identifying details, distinctive stories, and verbatim quotations. Never promise that a small group's responses are impossible to recognize.
Set a review date 30 days after the final pilot decision. At that review, obtain the owner's approval to dispose of raw evaluation forms and retain only the aggregate account, unless a specific unresolved need requires a short extension. Explain any extension to participants. This is a proposed retention arrangement; no deletion is authorized by this document. Incident records require their own need-based review and must not be deleted automatically with survey forms.
Decide what happens next
For a pilot beginning with 12 participants, use these provisional signs to consider another cohort. Agree on the criteria for the actual starting group before reviewing results:
- At least eight final respondents report attending three or four tables.
- At least eight final respondents report using one practice they found useful. Listening alone, an existing promise, wanted help, or a boundary can count.
- Most respondents say the gatherings were worth their time, with no pattern of pressure to agree or disclose.
- If a shared task was chosen, intended users consider it useful or participants explain why it was revised, stopped, or remains underway. Choosing no task does not count against the pilot.
- Hosts can explain the actual workload, and a willing host pair can support another cohort within an agreed limit.
- Every conduct report has received a response, and no unresolved pattern of intimidation remains.
Report counts and denominators. For example, say “8 of 10 final respondents reported using a practice they found useful; 12 people attended the first gathering.” Describe those as self-reports and do not assume absent participants had the same experience. Adjust the provisional counts to the actual starting group before reviewing outcomes.
These signs support a judgment, not an automatic pass. A serious unresolved concern can justify pausing even with strong attendance. Low participation or mixed feedback can justify revising and repeating the pilot. Stopping is a valid result.
Final account
Prepare a short internal account after day 90 with the dates and scope; attendance and response counts; reported practices and follow-through; the status and usefulness of any shared task; host hours and costs; suggestions and unresolved limits; and the decision to repeat, revise, or stop. Share the group-level account with participants through the contact method they chose, after that communication is authorized. Review separately before any public claim or publication. Any later expansion needs a further test led by hosts other than the founder; this pilot cannot establish national effectiveness.