AEA365 | A Tip-a-Day by and for Evaluators

TAG | focus groups

My name is Somongkol Teng, Extension Educator for Evaluation at the University of Minnesota Extension Center for Youth Development. Recently, I conducted an evaluation using focus groups with our 4-H Online Adventure Program, a collaborative, project-based learning program for Minnesota 4-Hers, ages 10 to 12. While many evaluators are familiar with focus groups with adults, conducting one with youth requires careful considerations and preparation.

Below are lessons learned and hot tips:

  • Pick the right facilitator. A good facilitator with adults might not be as good with youth. In our case, we had a colleague who had starred in our training videos facilitate the sessions. He was selected because he was not too involved in the program, but was recognizable by the youth.
  • Be attentive to the age range. Keep the age range no more than two years. Different age groups behave differently and require different strategies.
  • Keep the group small. Unlike focus groups with adults, we found conversation was easier and richer with a smaller group of youth, usually around 5-6.
  • Group youth participants thoughtfully. Find out in advance about the youth’s group dynamic and try to separate close friends. This strategy helped ensure a wider range of comments.
  • Start with fun icebreaking activities. Invest 10-15 minutes for some fun ice-breaking topics about celebrities, video games, etc. to get the conversation started.
  • Ask age-appropriate questions. Remember that youth will have fewer life experiences to draw from compared to adults. When developing questions, keep sentence structures simple, avoid yes/no questions, and be aware of questions that potentially threaten the freedom and independence of young people (e.g. if interested in knowing how decisions were made about their 4-H project selection, try not to stress on “who” made the decision since few youth liked to admit before their peers that their parents decided for them).
  • Use interactive and participatory activities. Including technology or drawing kept the session lively and fun. We embedded a live online polling using UMU, a free online platform for engaging learning experience, into one of our activities.
  • Keep the session short. We found it effective to keep the focus groups to one-hour sessions using a short set of 6 to 8 questions.
  • Provide food. Food is the key to the heart. Find out what the youth like. Do not underestimate the power of food to keep them engaged.
  • Get consents. This is critical! Determine what the appropriate protocol might be to get parental or guardian consent. That said, it is equally important to get youth’s assent to participate in the focus group. Communicate why their participation matters.
  • Be flexible. Things are bound to not go as planned. Have fun, and go with the flow.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Youth Focused Evaluation (YFE) TIG Week with our colleagues in the YFE Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our YFE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org.

·

My name is Dr. Moya Alfonso, MSPH, and I’m an Associate Professor at Georgia Southern University and University Sector Representative and Board Member for the Southeast Evaluation Association (SEA).

So you want to be an evaluator but you’re unfamiliar how to moderate focus group discussions – a key qualitative approach involved with formative, process, and summative evaluations. Plus, there are limited to no focus group specific courses in your program of study. Do not lose hope. All it takes is some creative thinking.

Focus group discussions are a qualitative research method that involves a focused set of questions that are asked of six to 10 focus group participants. The keyword in this definition is focused – discussions revolve around a specific topic.

Lesson Learned: Focus groups are done when you are interested in group dynamics, participant language, stories and experiences, and a breadth of information. Focus groups are wonderful; however, they are designed for a very specific purpose and have limitations that should be considered (e.g., difficulty with recruitment, brief stories or snippets of information, etc.).

Hot Tips: These resources will help you learn about focus groups and how to moderate discussion:

  1. Find a mentor: Most of my training and expertise in focus group research was gained through hands-on experience. I worked with experienced qualitative researchers who enabled me to co-facilitate, and then later conduct focus groups and train others. Many evaluators are open to mentoring those starting out in the field. Technology can facilitate your mentor search process by providing opportunities for remote relationships.       Try searching university expertise databases for potential mentors or the American Evaluation Association’s evaluator database.
  2. Read everything you can about focus group research: One of the focus group research resources is Krueger’s Focus Group Toolkit.       Although a new copy of this toolkit may stretch your budget, used copies are available. Start with Krueger’s free resource on focus group research. The toolkit takes you through everything from recruitment, participatory approaches, focus group research, question development, and to data analysis and report writing. It’s a worthy investment.
  3. Look for other virtual resources: A terrific resource for focus group research is the Community Toolbox, which provides access to numerous focus group resources.
  4. Attend (many) conferences: Reconsider spending your student loan check on a vacation and head to a conference! You can do both; for example, the annual University of South Florida’s Social Marketing Conference is held at a lovely beach resort. This conference historically provides a course in focus group research.

Conducting focus group research takes practice, practice, and more practice. Good luck on becoming a well-trained focus group moderator!

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Southeast Evaluation Association (SEA) Affiliate Week with our colleagues in the SEA Affiliate. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from SEA Affiliate members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

We are Lynne Franco: Vice President for Technical Assistance and Evaluation at EnCompass LLC, and Jonathan Jones: Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Advisor with CAMRIS International. Jonathan is also co-chair of AEA‘s International and Cross Cultural TIG.

Focus groups are an important tool in the data collection tool box, allowing the evaluator to explore peoples’ thinking on a particular topic in some depth. The very interaction among participants during a focus group can generate rich discussion as they respond, positively and negatively to each other’s ideas. During our evaluation careers, we have conducted numerous focus groups all over the world. We have learned that ‘supercharging’ focus groups with creative adult facilitation techniques can generate especially rich and meaningful data in group settings for anywhere from 5 people to 50.

Hot Tip: Ensure that participants can use more than their ears to retain what others are saying. Use a large sticky wall and index cards (or flip chart paper and big post its). Have participants write ideas on cards and then present them to the group. This is a great way to have all participants’ ideas up in front of the group – enabling group reflection and processing in real time.

AEA4

Hot Tip: Help introverts to participate. Asking participants to provide their input through writing gives introverts (and everyone) time to put their thoughts together before speaking about them.

Hot Tip: Give participants an environment that enhances creativity. Make the room colorful! Research shows that color encourages creative thinking. We often scatter pipe cleaners on the table. It is amazing what participants create during the focus group! We also use scented markers — this always generates many laughs while creating a relaxing and creative atmosphere.

AEA5

Rad Resource: We have found Brain Writing, a variation on brainstorming, to be an excellent focus group facilitation technique. It enables simultaneous group thinking and processing that is also focused and individualistic – and can appeal to both the introvert and the extrovert.

Rad Resource: Check out the forthcoming AEA New Directions in Evaluation: Evaluation and Facilitation

Rad Resource: Join our session at Eval 2015.

This contribution is from the aea365 Tip-a-Day Alerts, by and for evaluators, from the American Evaluation Association. Please consider contributing – send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. Want to learn more from Lynne and Jonathan? They’ll be presenting as part of the Evaluation 2015 Conference Program, November 9-14 in Chicago, Illinois.

Hi! I’m Myia Welsh, an independent consultant working with nonprofit and community organizations. Much of my work is done with organizations that provide services to survivors of human trafficking. What’s that, you ask? Trafficking is any enterprise where someone makes a profit from the exploitation of another by force, fraud or coercion. Just like the sale of drugs or weapons, the sale of humans occurs both in the U.S. and around the world. Find out more about human trafficking here.

Lesson Learned: Conducting evaluation with these organizations has required me to learn my way around engaging trauma survivors in evaluation – especially in focus groups. Focus groups with trauma survivors can be challenging if you don’t know what to expect. They require slightly different planning and facilitation skill. I recommend the following preparations:

  • Understand what you’re dealing with. Do some reading on trauma, so that you know how to recognize dynamics in the room.
  • Review your protocol for trigger questions. Stick with what’s essential to the evaluation.
  • Consult knowledgeable stakeholders to help you be aware of causing potential harm, and brainstorm about how to avoid it.
  • Be prepared for an emotional response, and have a plan to handle it with respect and support. An abrupt or uncomfortable response from the facilitator could silence participants. So, check your reactions. Have tissues ready in case of tears and tactile toys/objects around to help manage anxiety.
  • Make safety a factor in your planning: Where will this group feel safe? Physical space and location should be taken into consideration. Will bringing additional note takers or co-facilitators into the situation enhance or threaten perceived safety?
  • Check your facilitation practices. In most focus groups, a zoned-out participant would be prompted to participate. With a group of trauma survivors, this might be a signal that the reflection brought on by the discussion is getting overwhelming. Have a plan ready so that you can recognize it and continue on without disruption. Consider a non-verbal cue that you can set up in the beginning, a colored index card for instance. A participant can set their card on the table as a signal that this is getting tough. Make sure everyone knows that they can step away if they need to.
  • What’s your wrap-up plan? Have a strategy ready for ending in a positive way, soothing the emotions that may have emerged. Guide discussion to future hopes or recent accomplishments.

Lesson Learned: Even if it might be emotional or messy, service recipients are key stakeholders who’s voice cannot be left out of an evaluation.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org . aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

Hello! We are Manolya Tanyu, senior researcher, and Nicholas Read, researcher at American Institutes for Research (AIR), a behavioral and social science research organization, sharing our insights on conducting virtual focus groups as part of a national evaluation of enhanced youth mentoring programs. We’re using videoconferencing as an alternative to in-person focus groups to save time and travel costs.

Lessons Learned: Virtual focus groups feel different than in-person focus groups, where the researcher is in the same room with participants and can observe group dynamics. In some of our focus groups, participants from the partner agencies met in one location and shared a computer with a webcam. This format allowed them to interact with each other but in most cases made it difficult for our remote facilitator to see everyone in the room. In other focus groups, participants joined separately via different computers. While this format allowed the facilitator to see all participants, it limited group interaction and participants tended to respond to the facilitator rather than participate in group discussion. In some instances, participants lost internet connection and were only present via teleconference, eliminating visual observation altogether. Overall, virtual focus groups can be an effective way to collect qualitative data, with a few parameters:

  • all participants in the same room (if possible)
  • reliable internet connectivity
  • test the technology
  • clear guidance to participants that focus groups should be group discussions.

Hot Tip: We used Cisco’s WebEx online conferencing (one of many options). WebEx allows participants to join via computer without having to download software, has both telephone and computer-based audio options, and allows video and audio recording. We obtained consent from each participant to be recorded (they signed and email us consent forms), recorded each session for transcription, and also had notetakers in case of technical glitches. Coordinating each virtual focus group took about five hours, including finding a date / time that worked for everyone, setting up WebEx, sending e-mail invitations, scheduling and conducting a test run, retrieving video and audio files from WebEx, sending audio for transcription, and cleaning up our notes.

Cool Trick: We highly recommend conducting test runs with participants before the actual focus group. For the majority of participants, this was their first time participating in an online focus group using videoconferencing. Test runs helped participants sort out technical issues and test audio and webcams. A 15-30-minute test run can save valuable time during the actual focus group.

Rad Resources:

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Ed Eval TIG Week with our colleagues in the PK12 Educational Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our Ed Eval TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

·

I am Bob Kahle, a veteran evaluator and qualitative researcher. I want everyone’s voice to be heard. Group dynamics, whether in a focus group, planning or work group meeting can sometimes be hijacked by one or two people’s counterproductive behavior.

As evaluators, we often find ourselves in the role of moderator. Based on AEA’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators, respect for people and understanding divergent points of view are important values. When bad behavior takes over a meeting, whether it is dominating others, being cynical and argumentative or making a joke of everything, our respectful relationships can be undermined and some voices may be muffled.

In my book Dominators, Cynics and Wallflowers: Practical Strategies for Moderating Meaningful Focus Groups, I define common types of problem behavior and offer strategies and tactics to help be inclusive of divergent opinions.

Hot Tip: Be alert and sensitive to clues participants provide prior to the discussion session that may indicate the moderator needs to proactively prevent problem behavior.

Here are three examples illustrating this tip:

1. Be in close contact with the hands-on recruiters or meeting organizers (not just their supervisor). Recruiters often will encounter the first signs of problem behavior during the recruitment process. They can give you a “heads-up” that Joe just wouldn’t stop talking or that Marcia seemed really angry.

2. Greet and meet all participants in the hallway or waiting area as they arrive. Try to greet each individual personally to break the ice. If Joe tries to bend your ear on an off topic discussion you likely will encounter the same type of behavior in the session itself. If Marcia is carrying a stack of letters and other documentation about the problems she has encountered with your client organization, be ready to manage angry or even hostile behavior in the discussion session itself.

3. Observe very carefully how participants comport and seat themselves upon entering the meeting room. I purposely do not assign seats, as I want the clues provided by how participants choose to organize themselves. While not true in every single case, dominant and cynical participants typically sit directly opposite the moderator. Take the hint.

Hot Tip: If you need or want more information, I will be teaching techniques of preventing and managing problem behavior in an AEA eStudy series scheduled for February18th and 20th. Click here for more information.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org . aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

Hello! I am Bob Kahle and I have operated Kahle Research Solutions for nearly 20 years. I am a program evaluator and specialist in employing qualitative methods. I have written and trained extensively on managing difficult behaviors in groups (see Dominators, Cynics, and Wallflowers: Practical Strategies to Moderate Meaningful Focus Groups), but more recently have developed ways to think about and choose among new qualitative methods.

Not long ago qualitative researchers had little choice. The array of choices included focus groups, individual interviews or ethnography. As ethnographic approaches are generally long term and in-depth, short timelines or tight budgets usually necessitate the group or individual interview.

Today, there are many more options available.

Cool Tricks:

1.) Computer Aided Telephone Focus Groups.Using special software, all participants can hear each other via traditional phone lines and see images or video on a shared screen. This allows groups who have common characteristics but are geographically distant to interact. Key features include:

  • Moderator uses software to “see” who is talking
  • Can use chat, polling or electronic white-board
  • Can be done with or without webcams

2.) Bulletin Board Focus Groups. These are asynchronous discussion forums typically lasting 3-7 days. The moderator pre-posts questions and can probe individuals or the entire group. Participants can upload photos or short videos to illustrate their points and usually are required to login 1-2 times per day.

3.) Mobile Qualitative: Any data you collect via computer, you can now gather via mobile devices, smart phones, and tablets. The mobility inherent in these devices allows for capturing data (text, digital audio, images or video) as respondents experience a place or event, rather than based on recall like many traditional methods.

Hot Tips: Assess whether Digital Qualitative methods are right for you.

  1. Does your target audience have Internet access and do they use smart phones? If yes, consider digital approaches.
  2. Is there a need to protect the confidentiality of the client’s stimulus, or any other aspect of the evaluation? If no, consider digital qualitative approaches.
  3. Is providing participants a sensory experience essential? If no, assess new qualitative techniques for application.

Rad Resources: Free training is available. Since much of this methodological innovation is going on in the market research space, check out these vendors for information, training, and access to tools. Most tools are easily portable to the evaluation context.

http://www.2020research.com/

http://www.civi.com/marketingresearch/

http://www.itracks.com/

New Qualitative Research Methods & Tools and companion NewQualitative.org website are produced by GreenBook with the support of the Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA). Check out this site for blogs, companies who offer software solutions, and an active blog discussing application of these new methods.

Clipped from http://www.newqualitative.org/

Want to learn more from Bob? Register for his workshop Qualitative Research Design in the Age of Choice at Evaluation 2013 in Washington, DC. 

This is one in an occasional series of posts by people who will be presenting Professional Development workshops at Evaluation 2013 in Washington, DC. Click here for a complete listing of Professional Development workshops offered at Evaluation 2013. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

·

Hello, we are Carolyn Cohen (Manager, Cohen Research & Evaluation, LLC) and Davis Patterson (Research Scientist, University of Washington Department of Family Medicine). We have partnered on several evaluations over the years, and are always excited to try out new facilitation strategies. We sometimes find ourselves challenged by access to, and time constraints of, potential interviewees or focus group members. As a case in point, we were recently charged with collecting reflections and eliciting new information from a group of participants in a two-week teacher professional development session. We were scheduled for 90 minutes on the agenda at the end of a long day.

Hot Tip: The Interview Design Process, a hybrid of a focus group and a speed dating session, fit the bill. It generated full and lively engagement, allowed for physical movement, and produced findings beyond our expectations. This technique allows the evaluator to collect responses to multiple questions from a large group of people in a short amount of time. Here is how it works.

  • The evaluator generates a question set with 3-5 questions.
  • Participants are divided into groups, preferably seated at tables; each group receives the same question set.
  • Tablemates are assigned a set of interview partners; please see the attachments for the explanation of how to do this.
  • Each participant conducts interviews on one assigned question, and is interviewed on the other questions by tablemates.
  • Interviewing is complete when each participant has been interviewed on each question.
  • At this point, participants move to their “like” tables, and synthesize their findings. (i.e., those who conducted interviews on question 1 gather with other 1’s, etc.)
  • Finally, each group presents their findings to the whole group, and the evaluator can then facilitate a learning discussion.

Rad Resources: In AEA Library

Lessons Learned

  1. This process is for a group of 12 or more participants, but the beauty of it is that there is almost no limit to the number of persons, because they mostly manage their own participation.
  2. Use a visual aid to explain the process to participants. We attached 2 examples.
  3. The process definitely takes careful advance planning. The number of participants determines the number of questions and seating configuration. Depending on the physical space, interview partners can sit across from each other or next to each other (see our two PowerPoint visual aid examples).
  4. Ask participants to write their notes as clearly as they can, and be sure to collect all of them. Electronic note-taking is a great option.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org . aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

· · ·

I am Lori Peterson an Assistant Professor at the University of Northern Colorado. Recently, I worked on a project conducting a series of focus groups with high school students with disabilities. I wanted to share tips and lessons learned from this experience.

Hot Tips:

  • Feed them and they will come! High school students love food. We conducted the focus groups near lunch time and gave each group free pizza. We had almost 100% attendance.
  • Know the school calendar. We had an issue conducting focus groups on senior skip day!
  • Conduct focus groups on location. If you can work with the school and conduct focus groups on site, this eliminates the need for transportation. Students with disabilities may not drive, so this can increase the likelihood of participation.
  • Conduct focus groups during school hours. This offers the additional perk that some students enjoy ‘getting out of class’. There is a drawback though; you are limited to one class period. For many high schools this means you will only have 45-50 minutes to conduct the focus group.
  • Carefully consider how you group participants. Different group arrangements may inhibit student participation. Developmentally and cognitively, some participants may not be ready to open up and share information. The addition of a disability may confound disclosure of sensitive information. If you are collecting data from students with disabilities, be prepared to address the student’s comfort level related to their disability and skills.
  • Provide an Advanced Organizer. Many students with disabilities thrive in a structured setting and benefit from a schedule of events. Advanced Organizers help prepare participants for what is to come. Give options for written or visual format. Be careful not to deviate from the schedule or you may increase anxiety levels.

Click to increase size

Lessons Learned:

  • Provide multiple modes of data collection. Our most successful focus group for data collection allowed the students to fill out a short survey which they kept with them. This helped them communicate more effectively during the focus group.
  • Plan ahead for unanticipated needs. We had an unexpected Deaf participant who needed an interpreter, a guest to our focus group. Be ready to let the ‘guest’ know ‘the rules’ of your data collection. A handout listing the expectations will be helpful, e.g. please only interpret exact words, do not answer for the participant even if you disagree, do not interrupt the flow of conversation.
  • Provide multiple ways to state a question. A variety of skills and abilities may be represented. On several occasions in our focus groups, the moderator needed to provide alternate definitions and descriptions. Preparing for these will enhance consistency across groups.

Rad Resources:

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

· · · · · · · · · · ·

Hello, my name is Sue Hamann, and I work at the National Institutes of Health. Today I will share some tips about including intended service recipients in needs assessment and program planning.

Lessons Learned: Although leading authorities recommend the inclusion of intended service recipients, that is, those persons who have a need to be met by the proposed program (aka clients, customers, impactees, intended beneficiaries), many needs assessment activities are targeted at service providers (program staff, program funders, policy makers). Over the years, I have included persons lacking permanent housing, persons with cognitive impairments, persons with drug and alcohol addiction, and parents of children with developmental disabilities in assessments of need and program planning. This inclusion of intended service recipients has always resulted in information valuable to documenting needs and planning programs. Useful resources for you are found in Altschuld and Witkin’s books Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments (1995) and From Needs Assessment to Action (1999).

Hot tips:

  • Select an appropriate group interview process. The focus group meeting is a great method. A series of focus group meetings organized by important participant characteristics (gender, age, stage of treatment, severity of condition) will allow the needs assessor to gain information within and between these groups (found in Morgan & Kreuger’s 1998 The Focus Group Kit).
  • Ask engaging relevant questions. Interview processes are useful only to the extent that we know what information we want to gain from participants. We have to ask them relevant questions that they can answer.
  • Engage a skilled facilitator.The facilitator must be comfortable with group processes and the client population and knowledgeable about the needs assessment process and the social need under study. Sometimes staff from related programs can be outstanding facilitators with just a few hours of training.
  • Protect intended beneficiaries from any harm that could result from their participation. Infor med consent requires that you explain why you are collecting data, how the participant was chosen, what will happen during the activity, how the data will be used, and how the data will be reported. The comments of individual participants should not be identified to anyone. (See the 2011, 3rd Edition of The Program Evaluation Standards, especially Propriety Standards and P3: Human Rights and Respect.
  • Inform program staff that clients or potential clients are participating. Program staff will be curious and sometimes apprehensive about what clients might say.
  • Provide transportation, food, and babysitting. You’ll probably have to give up some Saturdays or evenings to make the meetings convenient for the participants.
  • Allow 8 hours of your time for each 2-3 hour meeting. The meeting has to include enough time for people to introduce themselves and feel comfortable talking. Transportation, set-up, and clean up take time.

 The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Needs Assessment (NA) Week with our colleagues in the NA AEA Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our NA TIG colleagues. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by theAmerican Evaluation Associationand provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

·

Older posts >>

Archives

To top