California Boys’ State
Delegate Survey & Results
Tim Aboudara, Chief Counselor, CGBS
Boys’ State Directors’ Conference
September 25, 2010
Overview
•Past Practice
•Why We Changed
•What We Chose To Do
•How We Did It
•Sampling of What We Asked
•The Results
•What We Learned
•What We’re Going To Do Differently
•Other Ways We’re Using the Tools
•Our Investment
•“Piggyback” Us!
•Questions
Past Practice
•1937-(First Year of Program)
• Legal Sheet of paper with very simple questions
•Past 30+ Years-Delegate “Participation Form”
•Daily Summary of “Highlights”
•Form Sent to Boys’ State District Chairmen
•Discovered that 90% of District Chairmen did nothing with
the information!
•Past 30+ Years-Staff Evaluation
•Fairly Informal
•Asked 5-6 Basic Questions
Why We Changed
•Implemented Online Registration
• This gave us a foundation on which we could build
•We took a “corporate look” at what we were providing in the
program
•We had an idea of what those delivering the program thought but
we had no idea what our “customers” thought about the
experience we were trying to deliver
•Wanted to get a “baseline” measurement from which we could
work on improvement
•Starting to really survey our delegates supported our goal of
Continuous Improvement and Pursuit of Excellence
•Most of the improvements we have been able to achieve have
come from discussions that have taken place at this Conference
What We Chose To Do
• We had to find a “backbone” to support the “mass” email needs
for Online Registration (The Department of California did not
have the ability to do large scale “broadcast” emails that we
could control within the Boys’ State Program.)
• After extensive research, we settled on Constant Contact located
in Colorado (Had previous experience with them from a prior
work position.)
• As we settled on them we learned that they could also provide
us with not only “broadcast” emails but Online Surveys with
“instant” updated results
Samples of What We Asked
•Total Number of Questions Asked: 53
•Topics Covered:
•Effectiveness of Counselors (City, County, etc.)
•Effectiveness of Orientation
•City “Bonding”
•General Assembly “Programs”
•“Optional” Programs
•Guest Speakers
•State Capitol Visit and Opportunity to Meet
with Legislators
•Major Candidate Debates
•“Core Values” Questions
Survey response rate was good,
and responses were prompt
926 survey invitations sent to 2010 delegates – no prior notification
• 562 Opens – 60.7%
• 334 Responses – 36.1%
95% Confidence Interval
• 290 Completed Surveys – 31.3%
+ / - 4.8% Margin of Error
100
35.0%
30.0%
80
60
Number of Responses
25.0%
Response Rate
20.0%
15.0%
40
10.0%
More than half of total responses
received in first two days
20
5.0%
8/9
8/7
8/5
8/3
8/1
7/30
7/28
7/26
7/24
7/22
7/20
7/18
7/16
0.0%
7/14
0
The Results
•By any “corporate” measure, the response was very good
•Data is statistically significant
•Responses were predominantly from delegates who were elected
or appointed to an office
•Identified areas where results were very positive
•Delegates evaluation of:
• City Counselors
• County Counselors
• Party Counselors
• Majority of our “outside” speakers
• 1937 Boys’ State Delegates
• Members of the Legislature
The Results
• Opportunities for Improvement
• Oratorical Contest
• Legal Advocacy
• Food (somewhat)
• Help strengthen District Orientations
• Core Values:
• Biggest—99% of the delegates said that they would vote in
the first election for which they are eligible
• Will talk to others to encourage them to request an interview
to attend next year
• Boys’ State was as good or better than any other summer
program—95%
• Very likely they will get more involved in government, politics
community service
What We Learned/We’ll Do
Differently
•The “Scoring System” we used needs to be “reversed” to better
Interpret results
•Use more “drop down” choices:
•Ask them what “County” they were in
• Use drop down of cities in that county so we can better
measure the response rate by city. (This will allow us to
recognize those City Counselors who talked to their cities
before the program ended to encourage them
to respond.)
•Do a better job of Yes/No questions to see if they participated in a
a particular activity. If Yes, then open up questions so we’re
getting responses only from participants
What We Learned/We’ll Do
Differently
• Expand Questions about:
•Food
•Legal Advocacy
•Oratorical Contest
•Public Speaking 101
•Facilities
• Offer “Manual of Government” online so that delegates can
prepare for the Bar Exam (this should increase our
“participation rate” in the Bar Exam)
• Re-examine content of “class” for candidates running for
Statewide Constitutional Offices to improve quality of
speeches
Other Ways to Use the Tools
•Broadcast Email Tools
•Reach Out to Parents
• Facebook Fan Page
• Contribute to Foundation
•Follow-up Email to Delegates
• Encourage to join Alumni Association
•Annual Email Newsletter to Members
• (Promised for several years but poorly executed)
•Survey results:
•Program Improvements
•Great information to use in grant requests/Corporate
Donations
Our Investment
•Pricing is included in handout
•California Program Investment
•Broadcast Email for up to 2500 “active” email addresses:
$252.00 for 12 months (includes 30% non-profit discount with
unlimited emails)
•Online Survey for up to 5000 survey responses monthly:
$126.00
“Piggyback” Us
•This is not a sales presentation!
•Contact information for our representative at Constant
Contact is in the handout
•If you choose to use our username (timaboudara) when you
sign up, you will receive a $25.00 credit
Questions
Thank You!!