The Use of Online Methodology to Inform Public Policy Planning: A Case Study from San Francisco See Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study Final Report, Chapter.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
There is no program and no policy that can substitute for a parent who is involved in their childs education from day one. President Barack Obama Overview.
Advertisements

T. Bothos / D. Apostolou Prediction Market prototype V1 Information Management Unit (IMU) Institute of Communication and.
Community Needs Assessment A successful service project Has realistic goals with measurable results Responds to community identified needs Incorporates.
Evaluation Capacity Building Identifying and Addressing the Fields Needs.
Connect Nevada Residential Technology Assessment Results.
Collecting Citizen Input Management Learning Laboratories Presentation to Morrisville, NC January 2014.
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC) John O’Neill Kessler Foundation Purvi Sevak Mathematica.
ARMA International 2012 Region Leadership ARMA HQ and Your Chapter: Resources for Success.
Global Strategic Planning Meeting for Teacher Training on Human Rights Education Evaluation Results — Day 1.
State Plan for Independent Living UPDATE Overview, Impact and Involvement.
Speed Interview Review “In Review” Haajira Lansana December 9, 2008.
Chapter 5 Research Design.
Questionnaire Design.
The US 101 Mobility Study will -  Examine current and future conditions, identify key deficiency areas and propose multi-modal improvement packages along.
Online Bulletin Board Focus Groups Nobles Research.
ASSESSMENT Research, Marketing, and Publications Residential Life Kevin Hytten and Audrey Place.
Junction City Growth Survey March 2008 Joyce Wolfe Docking Institute of Public Affairs Fort Hays State University Hays, KS
Promoting Student Engagement: Involving Students with NSSE Planning and Results William Woods University NSSE Users’ Workshop October 6-7, 2005.
Welcome to the Performance Indicator Data Webinar Hosted by: The Family Institute for Education, Practice & Research The webinar will begin shortly. Thank.
Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens Dr. Michael MacMillan Department.
Oregon Health Authority Communications and Engagement Plan Patty Wentz Director of Communications Oregon Health Authority and Department of Human Services.
Version 1 | Internal Use Only© Ipsos MORI 1 Version 1| Internal Use Only Sheffield CCG CCG 360 o stakeholder survey 2014 Summary report.
Wherever Life Takes You 8 (PT) 2 is a 5-year nationwide education and outreach initiative designed to build support for public transportation.
1 Survey Training Presented by: Ray Crawford Analyze Data and Develop Action Plan.
Key Lecture Slides on Qualitative Research I generally don’t post slides but because of adverse weather we had some choppiness and some compression to.
1 Welcome Working with Volunteers Course Heelis, 10 th January 2012 Mike Elliott, National Volunteering Manager Michelle Upton, Working Holidays Officer.
1 School of Health in Social Science 2011 UG Entrants’ Survey Analysis.
Community Health Improvement in Action (CHIA). CHIA Overview What is the CHIA project? What distinguishes funded partners from other participants? What.
Incident Management Taking Task 05 Forward David Stones, Stockholm 12/
THE HAPPINESS INITIATIVE TOOLKIT A Tool kit for creating your own Happiness Initiative How To Conduct A Happiness Initiative in your city or town.
An Evaluation of SLIS Student Satisfaction and its Global Impacts Christina Hoffman, MLS Dr. Samantha Hastings, Interim Dean The University of North Texas.
IAF Certification/ Registration Bodies’ Member Satisfaction Program September 19, 2003 Final Report Summary.
Technology, Tools and Techniques to Improve Public Engagement ILG Webinar June 18, :00am – 11:00am.
Designated County Partner Grassroots Grant Application.
Town Hall Meetings That Work for School Boards. Dianne Macaulay Trustee Don Falk Superintendent Bruce Buruma Community Relations Dianne Macaulay Trustee.
MTC Public Participation Plan Jan Workshops with Advisory Committees.
August 7, Market Participant Survey Action Plan Dale Goodman Director, Market Services.
Calendar for America: Communicating the Navy Story.
Stakeholder consultations Kyiv May 13, Why stakeholder consultations? To help improve project design and implementation To inform people about changes.
What is the NCI? A campaign to enact an agenda for reform A national dialog on student financial aid Federal issues State issues Philanthropic and institutional.
An Orientation: General Psychology Online. The Course Menu Shown on the far left is the menu used to navigate our Psychology course.
Key Stakeholder Interviews Assessing Effectiveness of Washington State Board of Education Communications with Key Stakeholders.
Creating a Team Vision Training Outcomes: 1.Identified strengths and contributions of each team member 2.List of each team members’ vision for the CTT.
OAUG Customizations & Alternatives Special Interest Group Session ID: SIG9074 Moscone West – /28/14, 8:00 - 8:45 Bill Dunham SIG Coordinator.
Building relationships and bridging social capital: An inclusive approach to immigrant civic engagement within libraries A PROCESS AND OUTCOME EVALUATION,
ESG HIA Stakeholder survey results Participants 18 people Balanced representation (2 didn’t answer) 2 elected officials 4 planning officials 1 park system.
Developing your Research Plan for FemNorthNet Community Case Studies 1.
Recruitment 101 Recruitment 101 The Volunteer Centers of Santa Cruz County.
Chapter Planning Keys to Making Planning More Effective Don Boyer.
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Student Reassignment Survey Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools October 1 – November 1, 2012.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Fairfax County Comprehensive Transit Plan and Transit Development Plan Board Transportation Committee December 1, 2015 Randy.
CEC and its WWW Challenges for the New Year Results Web Survey December 2009 among CEC members Frits Hesselink, Andy Alm 31 December 2009.
Citizen of Edmonton Findings: Edmonton Public School Board Preference Measurement April 14, 2008 Public Presentation EPSB Board Meeting.
Working With Stakeholders. Continuous Effort Stakeholder engagement is the process by which an organization involves people who may be affected by the.
Elections Task Force As requested by the Board of Supervisors, staff has conducted an evaluation of the election process with specific focus on identifying.
IAB Involvement in ERCs: Assessing and Strengthening the Role.
APHEO Membership Survey Results May 2, APHEO Membership Survey Low membership turn-out at general meetings Obtain membership input on format, location,
Research Report Writing Presentation
Strategic Planning Chester County Library System Strategic Planning Steering Committee November 14, 2008 Gail Griffith.
Community Outreach Spring A New Way to Think Transportation vs. Mobility Photo credits: Top right, Richard Masoner, Flickr; bottom right: Wldehart,
April 2016 Discover England Fund Industry Consultation Survey.
More Effective Planning Using Agile and Lean Approaches INCOSE North Texas Chapter December 16, 2015.
District Engagement with the WIDA ELP Standards and ACCESS for ELLs®: Survey Findings and Professional Development Implications Naomi Lee, WIDA Research.
Stakeholder consultations
Hillingdon CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2014 Summary report.
San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan update
Workforce Engagement Survey
Building Organizational Capacity: An evaluation of
Harrow CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2014 Summary report.
PMISSC Summer 2018 Member Survey
Presentation transcript:

The Use of Online Methodology to Inform Public Policy Planning: A Case Study from San Francisco See Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study Final Report, Chapter 3 Outreach for additional discussion of outreach techniques and synthesis of feedback at For more information about this study, please contact: Liz Brisson ) or Jordon Peugh ) Introduction In Summer 2010, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Authority) conducted outreach efforts in support of its Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study (MAPS) of a transportation policy known as congestion pricing. The goal of the outreach was to inform and involve the San Francisco Bay Area community in the review of findings and recommendations of the study. As part of these efforts, Knowledge Networks, a GfK Company, conducted three Electronic Town Hall (ETH) meetings--web-based presentation and question-and-answer sessions that allowed the Authority to engage targeted populations in the Bay Area, as well as collect opinions on the study before, during, and after a presentation on the topic. The goal of the ETHs was to receive substantial input from stakeholders representing three distinct regional travel markets: the North Bay, the East Bay, and the South Bay. Zabe Bent & Liz Brisson San Francisco County Transportation Authority Figure 1: Presentation of Mobility and Congestion Pricing Scenarios Conclusions and Implications The ETH sessions allowed the MAPS study team to hear substantial input from regional stakeholders that would be affected by the proposed policy. The dynamic of a meeting with a recruited pool of participants was quite different than the in-person public meetings, which were also used during the overall MAPS project. Anecdotally, the MAPS study team found much more bifurcated, strong opinions (both in support and in opposition) among the members of in-person meetings, whereas the recruited participants represented more moderate individuals than those who typically attend in-person meetings. These sessions complemented other outreach methods used, which included: in-person meetings, webinars, direct outreach presentations to stakeholder groups, focus groups, polling, and social media. This input indicated substantial overall support from regional (as well as local) stakeholders for continuing to pursue development of a congestion pricing policy, and informed the development of several key feedback messages the MAPs team presented to the Authoritys policy-making board. Figure 4: Support indicated for a congestion pricing project. (All session participants – asked in recruitment survey and post-meeting survey.) Jordon Peugh & Jeffrey Shand-Lubbers GfK Results The ETH sessions allowed the Authority to hear input from almost 300 Bay Area residents about possible congestion pricing scenarios in San Francisco. The ETHs allowed for the inclusion of participants who would not have attended an in-person town hall. Through this effort, the Authority was able to reach a broad cross-section of regional stakeholders, covering a wide geographic area, in a short time. The session design allowed participants to submit comments or questions over the course of the entire presentation. The study team reviewed statements of support or opposition that were used to educate policy makers about viewpoints among different stakeholders (see Figure 3 for a few example statements). Further, this project allowed us to gauge the impact of the sessions through the pre- and post-surveys. We found that the sessions had a positive impact on participants opinions about congestion pricing. In the recruitment survey 42% of all session participants supported congestion pricing; after participating in one of the sessions 58% indicated support for congestion pricing in the follow-up survey (see Figure 4). Figure 3: Sample Statements of Support and Opposition (Offered by participants during the presentation.) Figure 2: Example Of Polling Question Presented During Meeting Sample Statements of Support of Continued Study Its beneficial to have a congestion pricing project for San Francisco because the traffic … keeps me from going there…This keeps my dollars out of San Franciscos businesses and your taxes… other people I know have expressed similar thinking. Congestion pricing seems like a good step to take. We in the South Bay definitely need better access to transit, such as Caltrain, and better pricing too. Same Statements of Opposition to Continued Study When you add in all costs of coming to the city: parking, BART, buses, you are beginning to outprice yourselves. People dont trust lock boxes, especially when the state seems to raid local government boxes these days. Introduction In Summer 2010, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Authority) conducted outreach efforts in support of its Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study (MAPS) of a transportation policy known as congestion pricing. The goal of the outreach was to inform and involve the San Francisco Bay Area community in the review of findings and recommendations of the study. As part of these efforts, Knowledge Networks, a GfK Company, conducted three Electronic Town Hall (ETH) meetings--web-based presentation and question-and-answer sessions that allowed the Authority to engage targeted populations in the Bay Area, as well as collect opinions on the study before, during, and after a presentation on the topic. The goal of the ETHs was to receive substantial input from stakeholders representing three distinct regional travel markets: the North Bay, the East Bay, and the South Bay. Figure 1: Presentation of Mobility and Congestion Pricing Scenarios Introduction In Summer 2010, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Authority) conducted outreach efforts in support of its Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study (MAPS) of a transportation policy known as congestion pricing. The goal of the outreach was to inform and involve the San Francisco Bay Area community in the review of findings and recommendations of the study. As part of these efforts, Knowledge Networks, a GfK Company, conducted three Electronic Town Hall (ETH) meetings--web-based presentation and question-and-answer sessions that allowed the Authority to engage targeted populations in the Bay Area, as well as collect opinions on the study before, during, and after a presentation on the topic. The goal of the ETHs was to receive substantial input from stakeholders representing three distinct regional travel markets: the North Bay, the East Bay, and the South Bay. Figure 1: Presentation of Mobility and Congestion Pricing Scenarios Explanation of design and methodology Participants for the ETH meetings were recruited through two sources: Knowledge Networks probability-based KnowledgePanel® and e- Rewards, an opt-in online sample provider. Participants were recruited via an online survey that asked them to confirm in which Bay Area county they reside as well as respond to about 10 minutes of survey questions around their opinions on transportation issues in San Francisco. Based on their county of residence, respondents were then invited to participate in one of three ETH meetings. Over 4,000 respondents were invited to participate, 858 agreed to participate, and 282 attended the meetings. An incentive of $20 was provided for participating in the approximately 75 minute-long ETH meetings. In the ETH meetings a member of the MAPS study team presented possible mobility and congestion pricing scenarios (See Figure 1) overlaid with an audio presentation. Each presentation was tailored to the specific Bay Area region where the participants lived, offering the researchers an opportunity to address questions unique to their geographic area. Participants were also asked to respond to polling questions at different intervals throughout the session (see Figure 2). The day following each meeting, participants were invited to take a 4 minute follow-up online survey to offer additional opinions on the study scenarios. 89% of participants responded to the follow-up survey.