Ballot Issues Education

1
Ballot Issues Education
Stacey McCullough Wayne Miller 2006 NACDEP
Conference
2
Why get involved?

• Democracy dependent on educated population
• People make good decisions if they understand
  issues
• Need for accurate unbiased information
• Expand Extensions visibility beyond traditional
  audiences programs

3
History
1970s - 1980s Designated faculty for public
policy issues programs
1991 - 1997 Requests for programs on specific
ballot measures
1998 Response to proposed amendment to abolish
property taxes
1998 - 2002 Requests for programs for every
general election, often at last minute
2004 Policy Issues Education Center (PIEC)
established with core faculty
4
Internal perception barriers

• Not what we do -- not CD, Ag, 4-H or FCS!
• No role for CES
• Its new
• We dont know what to do
• Its risky
• We cant respond that quickly

5
Program goals

• Conduct sound research and analysis regarding
  ballot measures
• Equip faculty with core competencies to conduct
  objective education
• Provide faculty with resources needed to conduct
  effective programs
• Develop capacity to reach new audiences

6
Key program components

• Human capital
• Research
• Review process
• County agent training
• Variety of delivery methods

7
Human capital

• Core faculty to develop resource materials and
  support county agents
• County agents who are willing to develop local
  programs
• Support from Administration
• External help in reviewing materials for accuracy
  and neutrality

8
Research

• Understand the issue
• Determine what are the consequences

Why on ballot?
What does measure say in laymans terms?
Who is affected?
What are existing related laws?
What are the direct impacts?
What are the indirect impacts?
Whats happening in other states?
What are proponents and opponents saying?
9
Review process base resource

• Internal (core staff)
• Subject matter expert
• Primary proponent/opponent
• Legal
• CES and UofA system administration

10
County agent training

• Equip faculty with core competencies to conduct
  objective education
• Education about the issues
• Techniques for ensuring neutrality
• Ideas for reaching different new audiences
• Encourage agent buy in
• Do whatever needed to increase agents comfort
  level

11
County agent training

• 2002 program
• 2-hour training session offered once staff
  chairs only in person
• 2004 program
• 4-hour training offered on 5 occasions staff
  chairs only in person
• 2005 program
• 1-hour training offered on 8 occasions open
  to all agents online via Centra

12
Variety of delivery methods

• Fact sheets
• Issue specific
• Related information
• PowerPoint presentations
• Displays flyers
• Presentations on DVD
• Web site

13
Variety of delivery methods
14
Variety of delivery methods
15
Variety of delivery methods
16
Variety of delivery methods

• Press releases
• Radio scripts
• Television
• Compressed video
• On-line symposium educational tools

17
Lessons learned

• Agent buy in is critical to program success
• Need more time!
• Keep information simple and easy to understand
• Must be ongoing effort for program to be
  perceived as unbiased

18
Lessons learned

• Provide in-depth training of county agents in
  advance
• Must be proactive in providing a consistent flow
  of information
• Link ballot issues program with broader public
  issues education program
• Respond quickly to questions

19
Lessons learned

• Need to look beyond traditional methods of
  reaching audiences, including new technology
• Given a choice, many agents will not immediately
  embrace public issues education as a priority
• Evaluation is hard!

20
Programs since PIEC inception

• 2004 General Election
• 2005 Special Election
• Local Elections
• Dallas County sales tax
• Yell County sales tax and bond issue
• Monroe County sales tax
• Crawford County sales tax and bond issue

21
Encouraging responses

• In most instances, county faculty received
  positive feedback
• Gained visibility credibility
• Worked with new clientele
• Worked more closely with local leaders
• Provided information demanded by public not
  available from other sources

22
Evaluation

• Outputs
• Reporting from county agents spotty
• Need to find ways of making reporting easier and
  more straightforward
• Outcomes
• Community demand of programs
• Are citizens more informed and active?

23
Summary

• Program development is a continuing interactive
  process
• To be effective, adequate resources must be
  available to
• Research and analyze issues
• Develop appropriate resource materials
• Train county agents

24
Summary

• Effective programs can
• Fill a real need within communities
• Lead to more educated voters better decision
  making
• Increase Extensions visibility to a broader
  audience
• Increase community support of county programs in
  all areas

25
Questions / Discussion

• Contact Information
• Stacey McCullough
• smccullough_at_uaex.edu
• 501-671-2078
• Wayne Miller
• wmiller_at_uaex.edu
• 501-671-2085
• http//piec.uaex.edu