considerations for citizen surveys
TRANSCRIPT
Considerationsfor
Citizen Surveys
Presenter: Morgan Drdak
Digital Communications Manager, Forest Preserve District of Will County
For Gonzaga University
COML 511 Communication Consulting & Training
Citizen Surveys: An Overview
• Introduction
• Motivation and Goals
• Sample
• Instrument
• Delivery
• Results Analysis
• Application of Findings
• Conclusion
Introduction
• Device to measure public need or opinion.
• Means for assessing organizational performance.
• Used by government agencies nationwide.
• Frequently performed with consultant assistance.
What is a Citizen Survey?
(Miller & Kobayashi, 2001, p. 8)
Motivation and Goals
• Assess organizational performance; i.e., productivity, effectiveness, responsiveness.
• Seek input for future planning and budgeting.
• Promote public participation and organizational responsiveness.
• Measure changes in public need over time.
Why Perform a Citizen Survey?
(DiGrino & Balling, 1984; Miller & Miller, 1991, p. 503)
Sample
• Represent entire constituency.
• Consider demographics.
• Determine sample size.
– Population
– Demographics
– Survey budget
– Acceptable level of error
Whose Opinions Are Important?
(Daneke & Klobus-Edwards, 1979, p. 424; DiGrino & Balling, 1984)
Instrument
• Consider goals and sample.
• Keep it concise.
• Be careful with wording and sequencing.
• Use measurement criteria appropriate for statistical analysis.
• Offer language translations.
• Pre-test instrument with small sample.
What Questions Should Be Asked?
(Daneke & Klobus-Edwards, 1979, pp. 423-425; DiGrino & Balling, 1984; Miller & Kobayashi, 2001, p. 7)
Delivery
• Direct Interview
– High response rate.
– Costly and time consuming.
– Subject to interviewer bias.
• Telephone
– Adequate response rate.
– Less costly than direct interview.
– Subject to interviewer bias.
How Will the Survey Reach Constituents?
(Daneke & Klobus-Edwards, 1979, p. 424; DiGrino & Balling, 1984; Miller & Kobayashi, 2001, pp. 7-8)
Delivery
– Similar response rate as telephone.
– Less expensive than telephone.
– Maximize response rate with multiple contacts.
• Internet
– Not a proven technique.
– Excludes demographic groups without Internet access.
How Will the Survey Reach Constituents?
(Daneke & Klobus-Edwards, 1979, p. 424; Miller & Kobayashi, 2001, pp. 7-8 ; Zickuhr & Smith, 2012, p. 2)
Results Analysis
• Perform statistical analysis.
– Identify frequency of responses.
– Calculate average ratings.
– Look for trends.
– Consider demographics.
• Evaluate results.
– Keep survey goals in mind.
What Does the Feedback Mean?
(Daneke & Klobus-Edwards, 1979, p. 424)
Results Analysis
• Compare results to past survey data.
– Have constituent needs changed over time?
– Are organizational changes made since previous surveys effective?
• Compare results to similar organizations.
– Is the agency measuring up to its peers?
– Are there industry standards to be met?
What Does the Feedback Mean?
(Kelly & Swindell, 2002, p. 614)
Results Analysis
Make some graphs. They can be fun.
What Does the Feedback Mean?
Application of Results
• Share results publicly to promote transparency.
• Remember survey goals.– Demonstrate responsiveness to needs?
– Make changes to current services or policies?
– Consider for future planning or budgeting?
– Evaluate success of changes since last survey?
• Do not use survey results as only measurement tool.
How Will the Feedback be Used?
(DiGrino & Balling, 1984; Miller & Kobayashi, 2001, p. 7; Stipak, 1979)
Conclusion
• Citizen surveys:
– Assess government performance and identify needs.
– Require careful planning and execution.
– Provide valuable information about constituents.
– Can measure current success.
– May help an organization plan for the future.
Should We Perform a Citizen Survey?
ReferencesDaneke, G. A. & Klobus-Edwards, P. (1979). Survey research for public
administrators. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 421-421.DiGrino, N. & Balling, C. (1984). Who are all those people, anyway? Illinois
Parks and Recreation, 15(6). Retrieved from http://www.lib.niu.edu/1984/ip841111.html
Kelly, J. M. & Swindell, D. (2002). A multiple-indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 610-621.
Miller, T. I. & Kobayashi, M. (2001). The voice of the public: Why citizen surveys work. Public Management, 83(4), 6-9.
Miller, T. I. & Miller, M. A. (1991). Standards of excellence: U.S. residents' evaluations of local government services. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 503-503.
Stipak, B. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review, 39(1), 46-46.
Zickuhr, K. & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.aspx
Image Credits
Slide 1: amovita.com.au
Slide 2: karikko.wordpress.com
Slide 3: buffalomountaincoop.org
Slide 5: priyanathan.imagineteachers.com
Slide 7: aisb.hu
Slide 9: forbes.com
Slide 11: graphjam.com
Slide 13: surveygizmo.com
Slide 15: wanelo.com