JANUARY 24, 2013 LAUREN GAGE, BPA NICK O’NEIL, RTF ERIKA KOCIOLEK, ETO RTF PAC: Qualitative Survey Options 1

Overview Why are we here?  This presentation was requested by PAC at last meeting as supplemental information to the dashboard. Should the PAC pursue a qualitative survey?  Does the dashboard provide enough information to the PAC?  Is the PAC looking for more strategic or more informative feedback from the region?  Is a survey on regional perspectives valuable enough to spend the time/effort for it?  What would the PAC do with survey results on varying perspectives from various stakeholder types? Note: RTF recently fielded survey for voting/corresponding members on satisfaction with meetings/sub-committees. We think overlap is limited. 2

Refresher: RTF Metrics (Subjective in blue) PAC Metrics and the subjective  PAC #1: Engaging stakeholders to identify regional priorities to recommend to the Council and foster the appropriate use and acceptance of data and outputs from the RTF;  PAC #2: Securing the resources necessary to perform the technical work required by the region;  PAC #3: Reviewing the progress of the RTF toward fulfilling those priorities recommended by stakeholders and the RTF Advisory Committee that have been established by the Council; and,  PAC #4: Providing consensus recommendations to the Council on policy-related matters on how best to meet the mutual needs of the RTF’s stakeholders. 3

Qualitative Data Goal of survey?  Inform PAC of regional perspectives and feedback on RTF. This will allow the PAC to provide better input to the Council on the RTF. Who should be surveyed?  Regional stakeholders, PAC members, RTF Staff/Administration, RTF Voting and Corresponding Members.  Are some perspectives more important than others? Possible Survey Questions:  Are regional stakeholders engaged in developing priorities for the RTF? (PAC #1)  Are regional stakeholders engaged in research efforts supporting the RTF? (PAC #1)  Are regional stakeholders consistently using RTF data and outputs? (PAC #1)  Are RTF members able to share opinions and be heard? (PAC #1)  Is there sufficient transparency in decision-making and resulting votes? (PAC #3)  What policy issues related to the RTF should the PAC be aware of? (PAC #3) 4

Implementation Methods  Consultant  Options: Market research firm; Evaluation firm  Pros: independent source requesting information and keeping data confidential; reduces work required at PAC-supporting organization, possible to field phone/in-depth interview  Cons: Expensive (~$20-60k), requires an organization to contract and manage the consultant  Internal  Options: RTF staff (Survey Monkey), BPA staff (C-Vent), ETO staff (Qualtrics), PAC members reach out to wider audience  Pros: No cost  Cons: Not independent; Requires somewhat significant staff effort to implement and analyze; limited to Web survey 5

Tasks and Some Issues  Assumptions:  Internal implementation, Web-based survey  Approximate hours in parentheses if conducted by internal staff  Develop List to be surveyed (10)  Small sample or large sample?  Weighted by some criteria or all the same?  Different questions for different types?  Develop Survey Instrument (20)  Need a small team to develop/review instrument  Program Instrument (40)  Communicate and Remind on Survey (20)  Analyze results (40)  Develop presentation for PAC (10) 6