Interviews with Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs - One way to get quality time with Members Susan Swift APLIC Conference Regina, September 9, 2014

2 Needs Assessment and Service Evaluation Conduct face to face interviews with Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Once per Parliament - in 2011 and 2014 Purpose  get feedback on our services, and  their current and evolving needs

3 Methodology letters to each of the Chairs and Vice Chairs requesting a meeting and explaining why we want to meet with them Legislative learner followed up to schedule half hour appointments Committee Clerks invited to accompany us and coordinated with their schedules

4 Methodology Consulted with researchers assigned to specific committees to establish questions Sent questions in advance of the meeting Legislative learner accompanied as the note taker Follow up letters to participants citing concrete changes

5 Standard Questions Standard set of questions for all  can you think of a time when the Service failed to meet your expectations? the Service did an especially good job for your committee?  any changes that would make our papers easier to use?  what should we be thinking about now to make sure we continue to meet your changing needs?

6 Standard Questions  Beyond your Committee role are your constituency office and Queen’s Park staff aware of our services? Have you had any feedback on the quality of services they receive? what has been your experience with the customized work we have done for you?  News and current awareness How do you keep up on current events and emerging issues in your riding, provincially, nationally?

7 Standard Questions  How important are our news products in your news gathering (Provincial Press Plus and Toronto Press Today)?  What other resources do you use to keep yourself informed about emerging issues?

Committee Specific Questions Based on specific needs of a particular Committee e.g., PAC v. Estimates, witness bios Ask questions about specific types of work researchers may be doing for that Committee and whether they value it, e.g., particularly labour intensive work – agency backgrounders, summaries of recommendations 8

Differences 2011/ Standing; 2 Select interviewed 17 of 22 1 responded in writing = 81% participation rate Committee Clerk accompanied us Members came prepared Standing; 1 Select interviewed 12 of 20 - one from each committee = 60% participation rate Committee Clerk accompanied us Members not as prepared Asked non-Committee related questions 9

What we learned We’re meeting their expectations Listening to the language they used we learn what they value  Answers come back quickly – timely response and delivery  Research is thorough  Non-partisan  Professional 10

What we learned  Helped to keep them organized  Objective, thorough and factual  Researchers are approachable and responsive 11

What we learned Some disappointments  Specific instances cited  Issues around the Regulations Committee in 2011; addressed in 2014 interviews  Comments about specific products  Papers need to be short, easy to absorb and use What more we could be doing  Executive summaries in reports 12

What we learned  Find ways to ensure our reports are not lost in piles of paper  Move to electronic  Committee portal for all docs  Increase use of graphics 13

Why do the interviews Validate that you are on the right track – regulations committee update Helps you to articulate and validate your value proposition – why are we important to the Members – what do they value about what we do? Can guide promotions; support budget Learn about what matters to them 14

What we learned They use TPT and “all the Members are using it” Majority of Member from outside Toronto use our Provincial Press Plus; a good number from Toronto use it too PPP is very useful for when Committees travel Twitter is a primary source of news and information for Members 15

Why do the interviews All of this information helps inform your service and product decisions (e.g., TPT and PPP) Learn about the missteps and address them Build relationships with the Members, Clerks Practical tips for improving services, publications 16

Why do the interviews Learn what they don’t know about you – then you can do something about it  Not sure what is appropriate to ask us  Didn’t understand researchers have different specialties  Didn’t know why we were taking notes  Not always clear about the role of researcher – who’s going to write the report? 17

Why do the interviews Learn about Needs of New Members  they don’t know about our services – another Member told me to use you  Provide examples of how they can use us – they don’t have the context yet  Committee chair needs a briefing on work of the committee and where it fits in  Regulations and other legal committees – can be intimidating 18

Why do the interviews Gives you an idea about their pain points and how the deal with them Gives you credibility with staff and facilitates making changes 19