Blueprints for Progressseries of blueprints for the future. These blueprints represent the best...

Blueprints for Progress A Report of the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee

Program Year 2003 - 2004

LSCC Blueprints for Progress 2

Foreword

There comes a time in the life of every successful organization when its members need to reflect carefully on its mission and purpose -- not just to reaffirm what it is, but to discover what it can be. Over the years the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee (LSMI) has been an active and important part of NCSL’s commitment to legislative staff involvement in strengthening state legislatures. It has served as an incubator for countless ideas and projects that have benefited us all. It has also paused periodically for times of reflection. The 2003-2004 program year has been such a year, as we carefully considered whether we are making the best use of our talents and opportunities in helping our legislatures find solutions that resonate in these difficult times. That has been the underlying theme of this year’s LSCC efforts. In November 2002, I issued my first challenge in this regard by posing a series of thought-provoking questions about the potential of LSCC in coordinating our response to the interests of a diverse and divergently focused legislative staff, all with the common goal of making our services to state legislatures unparalleled in professionalism and competence. As I assumed the role of staff chair, I, with the full support of staff vice chair Jim Greenwalt and immediate past chair Gary Olson, carried the challenge forward in the form of subcommittees and task forces designed not only to address immediate concerns, but to bring a long-range plan for the LSCC into focus. The response to that challenge has been gratifying. LSCC members have brought their ideas to the table, voiced their concerns, and opened our eyes to a world of possibility and promise. They have volunteered their time, talent, and energy and this report is the tangible result of that effort. Within these pages you will find that the LSCC has completed some significant carry-over work from previous years, but it has also reflected on its mission, solidified and prioritized its thinking on needs, and provided a series of blueprints for the future. These blueprints represent the best thinking of this body regarding the courses the LSCC should take in its major areas of coordinating responsibility. This program year has been an exercise in communication, problem identification, and strategic, as well as tactical, thinking. This final report contains the seeds of a promising future, and the LSCC is fully committed to taking the next steps toward making that future a reality. Through its work this year the LSCC has proven that it can be a primary fount for synergy among legislative staff interested in keeping NCSL a leader in professional development and issue-oriented training and in the development of broad-based initiatives and services that enable us all to do our jobs better. It has shown that it can create an on-going work environment that allows the strengths, weaknesses, needs, and goals of its diverse membership to meld into action beneficial to all. Not only has LSCC carried forward the important work of the past, it has improved the channels of communication among staff interests, it has proposed efficient, cost-effective ways to improve NCSL services to staff, it has developed a vision for enhancing our core support and outreach efforts, and it has positioned itself to prepare more effectively for a future that is yet to be revealed. My thanks as staff chair go to the Committee as a whole for its renewed emphasis on communication and coordination; to the subcommittees for their timely completion and monitoring of ongoing projects; and to the task forces that have struggled with issues that require extended study, discussion, and formulation of mutually acceptable action plans. Special thanks go to the leaders of these task forces: to Strategic Issues Task Force Chair Jim Greenwalt and Vice Chair Judy Hall; to Staff Communication Task Force Chair Kathy Schill and Vice Chair Guy Cherry; to Value and Efficiency Task Force Chair Craig Kinton, Value Team Vice Chair Dave Henderson, and Efficiency Team Vice Chair Connie Hardin; and Support and Outreach Task Force Chair Susan Swords, Support Team Vice Chair Pat Saville, and Outreach Team Vice Chair Sharon Crouch Steidel. Without their hard work, this important step toward the future could not have been taken. Finally, I want to thank the supporting staff from NCSL. Your full-time commitment and effort make our part-time contributions truly bear fruit.

National Conference of State Legislatures


Task Force Summaries The Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures embarked on a unique path during the 2003-04 year, reflecting on its mission and considering how to best use its talents to provide solutions in helping our legislatures and staff during these difficult times. The LSCC formed four task forces to review issues of immediate concern and, more importantly, to bring long range planning into focus and identify areas of opportunity. The following task force summaries highlight the task charged to each, the primary activities undertaken by each to accomplish their goals, and a brief list of their recommendations.

Strategic Issues Task Force Charge

The Strategic Issues Task Force developed a blueprint for a multi-year strategic monitoring and planning process for the LSCC, developed a portfolio of possible actions to address areas of concern, and assessed the current level of staff compliance with the NCSL strategic plan.

Activities The task force broke into several topical groups. Through lengthy discussion at LSCC meetings, using the NCSL listserv, and collaborative sharing over a specially developed web site, the task force developed a list of legislative and institutional issues it felt were a high priority for NCSL and the LSCC to consider and develop over the next two to three years. It also produced a report on the NCSL’s compliance with its 2002 Strategic Plan.

Recommendations The task force identified emerging institutional, social, technological, and political issues important to state legislatures. It recommends the following actions with respect to its two objectives.

Horizon Objective

The methodology used by the task force was helpful in identifying policy and procedural issues likely to affect state legislatures and NCSL in the future. This methodology or something similar should be used periodically to monitor significant events and continuously define issues facing state legislatures.

The following issues were identified as major areas that NCSL and the LSCC should

consider during the next two to three years: o Outreach to states and legislative staff o Preserving the image of the legislative institution o Preserving institutional memory o Demographic changes in society and state legislatures o Technological changes o Training opportunities for legislative staff

The LSCC should undertake a regular cycle of identifying strategic issues every three

years. The Staff Chair should identify and focus on issues for the current year and the Staff Vice Chair should maintain the Strategic Plan and enhance it with new ideas and issues. The Immediate Past Staff Chair should assist in providing closure on previous tasks and projects.



Compliance Objective

NCSL should retain sufficient resources to maintain the association management database. NCSL should develop an evaluation system for the state assignment system. A questionnaire should

be sent to legislators and legislative staff in each state every two years. During NCSL’s annual performance reviews supervisors should evaluate the staff’s work on state

assignments.

Communications Task Force

Charge The Task Force on Communication was charged with developing a blueprint for improved communication and cooperation among the 10 professional staff sections of NCSL, and between the 10 staff sections and the NCSL standing committees. This charge has been important because with the recent changes in NCSL organizational structure and budget priorities, the LSCC has had little time to examine the interactions of legislative staff and the potential synergy of more formal legislative staff discussion forums.

Activities The approach used to tackle the issue of communication among staff sections included an inventory of each staff section’s existing functions and activities, a study of the common threads among these functions, identification of strengths and gaps, and determination of points of priority for further examination. From this process, the group identified four areas of common activities that appeared to have the most promise for further examination, including skills development training, annual meeting sessions, internal operations processes, and membership. Similarly, the approach used to examine the issue of communication between staff sections and the standing committees included a survey the committee’s knowledge of the structure and functions of the standing committees, a study of the overlapping functions and interests of the 10 staff sections and the 15 standing committees, the identification of formal and informal points of communication and interaction, and a determination of priority for further examination. From this process, the group noted that staff sections with a policy focus frequently matched with several standing committees activities, while staff sections with an organizational service focus matched only with committees on Legislative Effectiveness and State Government. While there is a need for more timely information relays, the lack of natural pathways for communication has contributed to information voids.

Recommendations

Improved Communication and Cooperation Among Staff Sections

Formalize the staff section officers group and have it meet at each LSCC meeting to coordinate common interests among the staff sections.

Share venues for staff section training seminars, find common content, and hold joint sessions.

Revive staff section reports at the LSCC meeting. Co-sponsor sessions at the NCSL Annual Meeting and share staff section agendas

ahead of time. Improve the flow of information between staff sections using websites, newsletters,

and listservs.



Keep membership lists as current as possible and use listservs to tap seasoned members for information and advice.

Formulating Better Interaction with the Standing Committees

Seek coordination between staff section officers and standing committee staff officers

Share staff section match-up information with standing committee officers. Ask that each standing committee examine the information and offer ideas for possible interaction.

Further explore critical information relays, e.g. meeting agendas, resolutions, training, email/listservs.

Share standing committee officer appointments with staff section officers as soon as the appointments are made.

Value and Efficiency Task Force Charge

The Value and Efficiency Task Force charge was to develop a blueprint to improve the value and efficiency of NCSL programs and services to legislative staff. Sub-charges included measuring satisfaction with programs and services and identifying of unmet needs, competing interests, and opportunities to improve programs and services. The task force was also to consider efficiency opportunities including the utilization of time during and between meetings.

Activities At the initial meeting in October 2003, the task force brainstormed ideas to promote value and efficiency for legislative staff through NCSL. The task force members organized into five areas with each group considering both value and efficiency issues. The areas of pursuit included:

Survey. Work with the Communications Task Force to gather information on services valued by members.

Annual Meeting. Consider ways to improve the value and efficiency of annual meetings.

LSMI. Solicit proposals and consider options for improving the program. Staff Sections. Contact staff section leaders to gather information on value and

efficiency concerns. Meeting Efficiency. Consider ways to improve the efficiency of the Executive

Committee/LSCC meetings.

Recommendations

The task force made 14 recommendations to improve the value and efficiency of NCSL services to legislative staff which include:

Review the marketing plan for NCSL and use active NCSL members in each state to promote NCSL activities.

Develop programs for the first day of the NCSL Annual Meeting for legislative staff that do have interest in the standing committees’ policy issues.

Direct the NCSL officers to advocate that future meetings be held in cities that are easy to travel to and that have reasonably priced accommodations.

Establish roundtable discussions at each meeting for the staff section officers.



Approve a contract with the University of Southern California/California State University-Sacramento to host the Legislative Staff Management Institute for 2005-2009 and re-bid the contract in 2009.

Adopt a resolution thanking the Humphrey Institute for hosting the LSMI since 1990 and encouraging it continue to work with legislative staff.

Improve the marketing of the LSMI. Pilot a joint professional development conference for multiple staff sections with a target date of

Fall 2006 and create a task force to develop it. Explore use of the Web and other technologies to make presentation materials more readily

available to staff who can not attend meetings.

Support and Outreach Task Force Charge

The Support and Outreach Task Force was formed to recommend ways to strengthen and promote core support for NCSL among legislative leaders and executive management. The intent is to foster greater direct involvement in NCSL activities and governance.

Activities The Task Force is comprised of two teams, each of which established objectives and the methods for meeting them. The Support Team analyzed the current legislative environment to discern why some legislators and staff are consistently active with NCSL, while others are not. Part of the information was gathered through paper-based surveys of longstanding, high-level NCSL members. Similarly, the Outreach Team issued an electronic survey to approximately 13,000 legislative staff (with a 10 percent return rate) to obtain information on how legislative staff view NCSL. The team’s purpose was to find better ways to reach out to staff who are currently under-represented or under participating in NCSL.

Recommendations Support Team The Support Team recommended a number of ways to market NCSL services to legislators and staff, choosing different messages to appeal to each group based on their positions as elected officials or as legislative employees.

Develop a tool kit with talking points about NCSL services that legislators can use to promote NCSL in their states.

Encourage NCSL officers to visit legislatures that have been less active with NCSL. Make telephone contact with legislative leaders in “trouble spots” and determine what they want and

need from NCSL. Create photo opportunities at the NCSL meetings where legislators can be photographed with

celebrities. Continue to send information to newly elected legislators describing NCSL services and providing

training materials. Create an NCSL Ambassadors Program in which legislative staff advocate for NCSL in their states and

provide them with a tool kit similar to the one proposed for legislators. Encourage the Women’s Legislative Network to include legislative staff in their activities. Expand the Leadership Staff Section mebership to include district office/personal staff. Publish more articles about legislative staff in State Legislatures and include staff pictures. Refine NCSL’s marketing message to both legislators and legislative staff to emphasize how NCSL

services save states money, the strong role NCSL plays in lobbying the federal government, and the networking opportunities provided to legislators and legislative staff.



Regularly survey legislators and legislative staff about what they want from NCSL. Develop a formal marketing plan and further coordinate NCSL’s marketing efforts.

Outreach Team The Outreach team identified a number of methods to reach out to staff, including several electronic means of communicating.

Continue NCSL’s ongoing efforts to promote the newly redesigned web site, including sending a promotion email to the 13,000 legislative staff that received the electronic survey on NCSL services.

Create a link for first time visitors to the NCSL Web site and promote the Web page for personal legislative staff more extensively.

Develop a method for populating the contents bar on staff section pages as well as the individual standing committee pages with links to information of interest to both groups.

Develop a help document for navigating MyNCSL. Add an option to “add all news” to the MyNCSL pages. Create an interactive Web page to help users create their notification profile that would

automatically direct them to the NCSL services that meet their interests. Make webcasting and computer based training materials available through the NCSL Web

site. Develop a method for using staff who are active in NCSL, in conjunction with the NCSL state

contacts, to promote NCSL within their states. Standardize and formalize, where appropriate, the service level provided by NCSL state

contacts so that states have consistent expectations and experiences. Develop formal and standard media presentation tools on “What is NCSL?” that could be

used by state contacts and legislative staff to promote NCSL in their states. Explore the use of collaboration software within NCSL to facilitate the work of task forces

and committees. NCSL Marketing Plan The Support and Outreach Task Force recommends that NCSL prepare a comprehensive marketing plan with sufficient resources and authority to see that it is professionally implemented. Our recent research and discussion have led us to the following reasons for this recommendation:

A marketing plan is an important complement to NCSL’s strategic plan, and would support and enhance its implementation.

While NCSL departments make great effort to promote their services and products, these efforts are decentralized and do not benefit from an overall marketing strategy.

Research done under the aegis of a marketing plan would benefit and strengthen NCSL’s ability to serve its customers.

Conclusion Showing a renewed emphasis on communications and coordination, these task forces have provided the basis for a blueprint for keeping NCSL a leader in professional development and issue-oriented training and in the development of broad-based initiatives and services that enable us all to do our jobs better. Goals for the future and a draft work plan for the coming year are detailed later in this report. The success of the LSCC in the future will be directly linked to the effort and results of this year.



Special Project Subcommittee Reports

The Special Projects Subcommittees were charged with completing projects that carried over from the work of previous LSCC committees and task forces. In many cases they were designed to implement decisions or carry out programs.

Standing Committee Protocols Charge: Members of this subcommittee will develop recommendations for guidelines that will define the roles and responsibilities of legislative staff on the NCSL Standing Committees. Actions/Recommendations: Members developed recommendations defining the role of legislative staff on the NCSL Standing Committees, in particular their role in representing the committees at the Steering Committee meeting and voting on matters of state-federal policy. The work of this subcommittee was carried forward by the staff members of a subcommittee of NCSL’s Budget, Finance and Rules Committee. The NCSL Executive Committee approved amendments to the NCSL Permanent Rules of Procedure that reinforce the rule that allows committee chairs to designate vice chairs, including legislative staff officers, to represent the committee at the Steering Committee meeting. Another amendment clarifies the rule that only legislators can vote on matters of state-federal policy, including procedural matters relating to policy resolutions. These changes were supported by the legislative staff. Bill Status/Web Site Review Charge: Members of this subcommittee will monitor the redesign of the NCSL Web site to ensure that it meets the needs of legislative staff. Members of this subcommittee will implement the strategies to have all legislatures participate in the NCSL bill text and status system. Actions/Recommendations: Members monitored the implementation of the redesign and provided user feedback and reaction to the NCSL staff involved in this effort. Members also continued the work of trying to get states to participate in the 50-state bill status project. During the last year, two additional states agreed to participate, bringing the total to 15 states that provide their bill status information to NCSL so that pending legislation can be searched across states. This remains an important, but sometimes frustratingly slow-moving, project for NCSL. Focus groups with legislative staff have shown that a searchable database of pending state legislation is one of the highest priorities for the development of new legislative policy information. The subcommittee made numerous contacts with staff directors in the states but did not make as much progress as it would have liked. This project needs more concentrated attention from LSCC and NCSL staff in the coming year. The following states currently provide bill status information to NCSL: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.



New Officer Orientation Charge: Members of this subcommittee will plan and implement an orientation program for new staff section officers at the 2004 NCSL Annual Meeting. Actions/Recommendations: The subcommittee developed an agenda for a training session for new staff section officers that was held during the 2004 NCSL Annual Meeting. Invitations were sent to all of the staff section officers encouraging them to attend.

Staff Information Booth Charge: Members of this subcommittee will plan and run the staff information booth at the 2004 NCSL Annual Meeting. Actions/Recommendations: Legislative staff have not used the staff information booth in recent years. Information about staff services are presented during the orientation to the Annual Meeting, staff section brochures were available at the various hotels around Salt Lake City and information about the Legislative Staff Achievement Award winners was prominently displayed throughout the convention center. The subcommittee recommended and the LSCC approved discontinuing the staff information booth.

Staff Salary Survey Charge: Members of this subcommittee will monitor, review and provide feedback to NCSL staff as they conduct a survey of legislative staff salaries. Actions/Recommendations: The staff salary survey was not sent out this year because it is being modified. A sample of salary data will be collected on a regional basis rather than the comprehensive, 50-state data that was gathered in the past. The revised survey is expected to be distributed in the fall of 2004.

Diversity Recruitment and Participation Charge: Members of this subcommittee will monitor and provide feedback to NCSL staff as they implement the recommendations developed by the LSCC in 2003 to increase diversity among legislative staff and within NCSL. Actions/Recommendations: The 2003 diversity task force developed a "concept paper" to serve as a fund-raising tool and discussed a series of efforts for promoting diversity in state legislatures and for creating a useful service at NCSL. NCSL staff is currently working to finalize an updated list of legislative personnel and HR directors that will serve as the foundation for continuing much of the work on promoting diversity in state legislatures. We expect to have a solid 50-state list by the end of August.



Outreach to Individual Staff Charge: Members of this subcommittee will monitor and provide feedback to NCSL staff as they implement the recommendations developed by the LSCC in 2003 to enhance services to staff that work for individual legislators. Actions/Recommendations: The subcommittee created a page on the NCSL Web site for personal and district office staff. This page contains the types of information and services these staff requested in interviews and surveys conducted in 2003. NCSL staff will market this page more extensively to the personal and district office staff as well as their legislators in the fall of 2005.



Summary/Action Plan

The Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee has spent this past year reflecting on its mission and purpose. Legislative staff and NCSL staff have spent many long hours surveying, studying, and deliberating future concerns and possibilities, discovering what NCSL and the LSCC can do and be in the future. What began in October 2003 in Couer d’Alene as a seemingly impossible task, has come together with communications, problem identification, and strategic thinking to produce the a blueprint for the future. Many of the projects and tasks proposed for the LSCC for the next year are directly generated by this report. The task forces provided significant analysis of the current state of the LSCC and recommendations for its future direction. Upon review of the task force reports, there are several similar concerns arising from all four task forces. These include: 1) the need to strengthen marketing of NCSL and NCSL services to all legislative staff; 2) increase and improve the communications among staff groups, including the LSCC, Staff Sections, Standing Committees, and the Executive Committee; 3) gain efficiencies in providing professional development and training opportunities while maintaining their high standards; 4) continue developing NCSL services to legislatures and legislative staff; and 5) confronting institutional and operational issues facing all legislatives staff. It is to these issues the LSCC will direct its efforts during the next year. Task forces and special subcommittees will be established to implement specific recommendations from this report or study issues raised by it. Project scope and desired deliverables will be assigned to each group. Specific prioritized recommendations will be implemented by the 2005 NCSL Annual Meeting. Although final details of the organization of LSCC for 2004-2005 can not be determined until after the 2004 Annual Meeting, the basic structure has been completed. Some changes and fine tuning will certainly occur prior to the Fall LSCC meeting in Anchorage. Following is an outline of the basic structure and assignments for the LSCC in 2004-2005.



A. Task Force Structure

Task Force

Scope Chair/Vice Chair

Marketing and Support

Work with NCSL staff to develop marketing plans to improve NCSL’s name recognition and the awareness of its services among legislative staff. Market NCSL and the benefits of membership to leadership, developing support for programs and staff involvement. Strengthen staff outreach programs. Monitor and identify opportunities for use of the new Association Management System.

Professional Development

Review and monitor existing training programs such as the staff section professional development seminars, the Skills Development Seminar, LSMI, and SLSE. Work with staff section officers to encourage and implement efficiencies in professional development seminars. Define and implement efficiencies in the use of staff time for staff sections and standing committees at the NCSL Annual Meeting.

Communications

Implement recommendations for improving communications and coordination among staff sections, standing committees, Executive Committee, and LSCC. Identify continuing communications needs and issues.

The Legislative Institution

Develop programs and materials designed to assist legislatures in dealing with institutional issues. Identify demographic effects on future legislative staff; recommend how to manage multi-generational staff and provide succession training; and recommend how to preserve the institutional memory in legislatures with term limits and a change in the “old guard” staff. Work together with Strategic Planning Subcommittee to continue identifying horizon events and issues meriting consideration by LSCC and NCSL.



B. Special Projects Subcommittees

Subcommittee

Scope Chair/Vice Chair

NCSL I.T. Resource Review

Review the I.T. resources available to NCSL and compare to proposed projects and implementation schedules. Recommend appropriate level of resources necessary to maintain anticipated schedules or prioritization of resources.

LSMI

Monitor the move of LSMI to the University of Southern California and California State University, Sacramento. Assist with fine tuning program and curriculum.

50 state Bill Status & Text Project

Continue development of 50 State Bill Status and Text Project and continue acquiring state data.

Strategic Planning

Review and monitor LSCC strategic planning; identify future issues to be included in strategic plan; ensure completion of carryover tasks.

Staff Vice Chair/ Immediate Staff Chair

Diversity Recruitment and Retention

Work with staff and leadership of LSCC, Sanding Committees, Executive Committee Program Planning and Oversight Subcommittee to identify diversity recruitment and retention issues and provide programming on the issues at NCSL events.

New Officer Orientation

Develop and present new officer orientation programs for Annual Meeting.

C. Staff Section Officers Define opportunities for staff section officers to meet formally, to implement some of the recommendations of Communications Task Force, and to encourage improved communication among the staff sections and the standing committees.

D. Acknowledgement Staff leadership acknowledges and thanks everyone who worked tirelessly this year to successfully complete this project and issue this report. Your dedication and commitment are exemplary of legislative staff across the country, and your contributions will certainly bear fruit for the future.



Strategic Issues Task Force Jim Greenwalt, Chair Judy Hall, Vice Chair Overall Charge: Develop a blueprint for a multi-year strategic monitoring and planning process for the LSCC.

General Objectives: 1. Define the universe of monitoring and planning processes to be considered. 2. Agree on possible milestones, interim deliverables, and completion dates. 3. Approve procedures for developing and maintaining both the horizon and compliance portfolios.

Specific Objectives:

Objective 1: The Horizon Objective Develop procedures that will allow LSCC to monitor significant developments or events potentially affecting state legislatures and produce a portfolio of horizon issues. (Horizon Issues: Social, technological, economic, environmental, and political issues emerging from national and international developments and events.) Charges:

1. Develop a method for identifying and analyzing emerging social, technological, economic, environmental, and political issues important to state legislatures.

2. Develop a portfolio of potential ideas and projects to address emerging issues involving at least the following three areas of action: training, communication, and resource development.

3. Draft a horizon blueprint with recommendations. Activities and Recommendations Charge 1 - Develop a procedure that will allow LSCC to monitor significant developments or events potentially affecting state legislatures and produce a portfolio of horizon issues. The methodology developed this year appears to have generated considerable input from a multitude of sources, providing significant suggestions for consideration by the task force and recommendations to the LSCC for future work. The monitoring process could remain the same, implemented regularly during a planned cycle. Two primary types of issues were identified. First were policy issues, primarily requiring study and resources usually provided through the NCSL office and staff. The second was legislative institutional issues--those affecting the institution administratively, fiscally, technologically, or politically. These are issues LSCC and NCSL should consider expending resources on through study and resource development, providing training opportunities and other such deliverables. It is this second set of issues, dealing with the legislative institution, that was the primary focus of the task force. The task force surveyed the NCSL staff, staff sections through their chairs and vice chairs, NCSL leadership, and other outside sources such as CSG to identify issues. The issues were collected and assimilated for review



by the entire task force. Categories of issues were identified, suggestions were assigned to each category, and each category was assigned to a sub-group of the task force to provide a general definition of the category, and to refine the points on each, providing specifics on 1) identifying the problem or question; 2) what type of action should be take by NCSL or the LSCC; and 3) what possible deliverable should we expect. A final review and development of a portfolio of the top 10 major issues was completed by the task force. Discussions on possible study or other action that might be taken by the LSCC and/or NCSL, with a final recommendation, was presented to the LSCC at the Annual Meeting.

Following some form of this methodology during the coming years will allow the LSCC to continue monitoring significant events and developments, and continual define issues on a dynamic basis. Involving the incoming Staff Vice Chair with the responsibility of maintaining and enhancing the strategic plan on an ongoing basis will provide continuity to the activities of the LSCC and provide incoming leadership the opportunity to participate actively in the direction of the LSCC and NCSL. Charge 2 - Develop a portfolio of potential ideas and projects to address emerging issues involving at least the following three areas of action: training, communication, and resource development The Horizon Group identified four categories of strategic issues. They were assigned to task force members for analysis and recommendations. Three groups issued a draft of their recommendations which was considered at the Spring LSCC meeting in Washington, D.C. The following issue areas were selected as major areas NCSL and the LSCC should consider during the next two to three years.

1. Outreach to states and staff a. NCSL services and opportunities b. Increasing involvement by greater number of staff, both directly and indirectly c. NCSL technical assistance services for legislatures on process and management issues

2. Preservation of Institutional Image 3. Preservation of Institutional Memory 4. Demographics – effect on the legislature and legislative staff

a. Institutional operations b. Policies c. Managing multiple generations d. Bringing new generations into the institution e. Succession Training

5. Technology – managing growth and expectations within the legislative environment for staff, legislator and the public

6. Training opportunities for legislative staff Charge 3 - Create a multi-year emphasis on strategic planning, and the LSCC’s coordination mission, with direction from leadership. “The purposes of the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee (LSCC) are to oversee the legislative staff division of NCSL, to coordinate the work of the 10 staff sections of NCSL, to promote professional development of legislative staff, and to review and evaluate NCSL services to legislative staff. . . . .” The ability to identify issues of importance to staff sections and NCSL, to coordinate them, and to provide worthwhile professional development opportunities and services through NCSL to legislative staff is greatly enhanced through multi-year strategic planning and project implementation. It should be the goal of the LSCC and its leadership to emphasize and implement strategic planning for the LSCC. A regular cycle of performing the exercise of monitoring significant developments or events potentially affecting state legislatures and maintaining a portfolio of horizon issues for the LSCC can assist in the implementation of a dynamic strategic plan. It is essential that staff leadership be instrumental in the development of any strategic plan and be intimately involved in the process. Therefore we recommend a regular cycle of issue identification and review be performed every three years.



Once a strategic plan or issues identification is initially implemented, staff leadership will take specific roles in implementing and maintaining an ongoing plan. It will be the responsibility of the Staff Chair to identify and focus on issues or projects for that year and organize and guide their implementation. The Staff Vice Chair will be responsible for maintaining the strategic plan and enhancing it annually with new ideas and issues, preparing for future implementation. This may be accomplished through an ad hoc subcommittee, chaired by the Staff Vice Chair, with the responsibility for updating and enhancing the strategic plan. The Immediate Past Chair’s role will be to assist in providing closure on previous years task/projects, and to monitor activities with NCSL staff to ensure that projects carried over from the previous years are completed. An in-depth review of issues and plans should be completed every three years. While it need not take the form of a task force, it should be formalized in some manner to ensure that a comprehensive review is made. Table 1 below outlines the roles that legislative staff officers could play during the thee year planning process. Table 1 – Staff Officer Roles in the Strategic Planning Process Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Vice Plan Maintenance Maintenance Review Maintenance Maintenance Chair x Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Past x Advise Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor

Objective 2: The Compliance Objective

Assess the current level of staff compliance with the NCSL strategic plan and develop a portfolio of possible actions to address areas of concern. (Staff Compliance: LSCC programs and activities designed to address one or more of the goals established by the NCSL strategic plan.)

1. Review the critical elements of the NCSL strategic plan. 2. Identify areas of concern or lack of staff action in carrying out the plan. 3. Identify opportunities to improve the plan or propose actions to carry out the plan. 4. Draft a compliance blueprint with recommendations.

Activities and Recommendations The Compliance Group concentrated its study specifically on Objective I of the NCSL Strategic Plan and developed the following findings and recommendations:

1. The Compliance Group determined that three of the areas identified during this study were in compliance with the direction of the NCSL strategic plan: The Trust for Representative Democracy; Web redesign; and new member contact and outreach. It was decided that this group would concentrate further study in the areas of the state assignment system and the association management database.

2. The association management database being installed by NCSL will be a major factor in bringing

many of the concerns in the NCSL strategic plan into compliance. Specific areas include the Web redesign, state assignment system, and member contact and outreach.

3. NCSL should retain sufficient resources to maintain the association management database. The

database will be instrumental in the development of the Web redesign.

4. During NCSL’s annual performance reviews, supervisors should evaluate the staff’s work on state assignments.



Staff Communications Task Force Kathy Schill, Chair Guy Cherry, Vice Chair Overall Charge: Develop a blueprint for improved communication and cooperation among staff sections and between staff sections and the NCSL Standing Committees.

General Objectives:

1. Define the general communication issues of concern. 2. Agree on possible milestones, interim deliverables, and completion dates. 3. Approve procedures for developing and maintaining channels of communication among staff sections

and between staff sections and the NCSL standing committees.

Specific Objectives:

Objective 1: The Intersectional Communication Objective Develop procedures for improving the level of communication and cooperation among the staff sections of NCSL. (Communication and Cooperation: Developing an understanding of the core concerns of each staff section, uniting on common concerns, and seeking solutions that are mutually beneficial by drawing on the strengths of the staff sections.)

1. Determine the woes and worries, bounties and blessings of each of NCSL’s 10 staff sections. 2. Identify areas of mutual concern where improved communication among the staff sections has the

potential for benefit. 3. Draft a blueprint for staff-section-to-staff-section communication with recommendations.

Objective 2: The Standing Committee Coordination Objective

Develop procedures for improving the level of interaction between the standing committees and the staff sections of NCSL, with special emphasis on mutual support of programs. (Interaction: The free exchange of ideas and resources to the mutual benefit of staff section and standing committee in reaching their respective goals and objectives.) 1. Explore possibilities for staff section-standing committee interaction. 2. Identify possibilities for mutual support and benefit. 3. Draft a blueprint for staff section to standing committee interaction with recommendations.

TASK FORCE PHILOSOPHY Technology is great for information relays, but one can never underestimate the power of human interaction and communication. Activities



Communication Among Staff Sections The approach used to tackle the issue of communication among staff sections included the following processes:

• Inventory each staff section’s existing functions and activities • Study the common threads among them • Identify strengths and gaps • Determine points of priority for further examination

The group identified four areas of common activities that appeared to have the most promise for further examination:

1. Skills development training 2. Annual Meeting sessions 3. Internal operations processes, including coordination with and among NCSL staff, Web sites,

newsletters, listservs, “pass the baton” or staff section leader succession 4. Membership

Subcommittees were formed to further examine existing relationships, both formal and informal, and to identify potential opportunities for future interaction and joint activities. Potential roadblocks to fostering new relationships were also identified, including 1) the lack of a standard policy for organizing and running staff section operations, which might be a problem with coordinating joint meetings or obtaining sponsorships; 2) competition for timeslots during the NCSL Annual Meeting with the end goal of having the best program; and 3) well-established training programs, specifically tailored to a staff section’s professional audience. To provide a forum for communication, the group briefly discussed the benefits of a Staff Section Officers Council. Some thoughts included joint sponsorship of sessions at NCSL Annual Meeting and sharing information about membership, staff training, and dues. Communication Between Staff Sections and the Standing Committees The approach used to tackle the issue of communication between staff sections and the Standing Committees included the following processes:

• Survey the committee’s knowledge of the structure and functions of the standing committees, • Study the overlapping functions and interests of the 10 staff sections and the 15 standing committees, • Identify formal and informal points of communication and interaction, • Determine points of priority for further examination.

The group proceeded to match-up staff section interests and activities with the 15 standing committees, resulting in the following chart:

Standing Committees Staff Sections with related activities 1. Ag & Rural Development NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 2. Budgets & Revenue NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 3. Communications, Tech & Commerce ASLCS, LINCS, NALIT, LRL 4. Econ Dev, Trade, Cultural Affairs NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 5. Education NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 6. Energy & Electric Utilities NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 7. Environment & Natural Resources NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 8. Financial Services LSS 9. Health NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 10. Human Services NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 11. Labor & Workforce Dev NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS 12. Law & Criminal Justice NLSSA, LSS



13. Legislative Effectiveness & State Govt All Staff Sections 14. Redistricting & Elections LSS, NALIT 15. Transportation NALFO, NLPES, LSSS, RACSS, LSS It was noted that staff sections with a policy focus frequently matched with several standing committees, while most staff sections with an organizational service focus matched with Legislative Effectiveness and State Government, and some with Communications, Technology & Commerce. Existing Points of Communication Between Staff Sections and the Standing Committees As the group examined formal points of communication between the staff sections and the standing committees, no specific individual contact was noted. More often, informal person-to-person networking occurs among staff officers and other legislative staff. As for formal points of communication that are organizational in nature, the only place where these groups formally interact is at LSCC meetings. Time to allow a true exchange among standing committee officers and staff section officers at the LSCC meeting has been scarce, mostly due to multi-task obligations of all officers. Another form of organizational communication happens among NCSL staff. NCSL staff who work on similar issues “co-locate” their offices and remain relatively constant, while legislative staff leadership in the standing committees turns over annually. Thus, NCSL staff are the institutional memory of committee activities. The lack of communication among legislative staff in leadership positions creates consternation regarding who to contact and when. This is an issue particularly in the fall, when the NCSL Staff Chair makes staff officer appointments. The entire process of appointments to standing committees—legislative staff officers as well as legislative staff members—is unclear. Standing committee staff officers may or may not have a connection to the LSCC. Turnover of standing committee staff officers occurs annually, so there is little chance for developing strong links between those individuals and staff section officers. This format is not as predictable as the format for officer selection used by the staff sections. Also, a legislative staff person can participate in a standing committee without attending a meeting, which also makes interpersonal connections and networking difficult. In general, staff section officers as a group know little about the benefits of participation with standing committees, with or without travel restrictions. Formulating Better Interaction with the Standing Committees To establish regular, periodic communication between the staff sections and the standing committees, the group identified the following recommendations. First, coordination between staff section officers and standing committee staff officers needs to be established. A time for information exchange and brainstorming discussions could occur in the newly created Staff Section Officers Group, which will meet on a quarterly basis. Second, the staff section-to-standing committee match-up information (“sister” groupings) needs to be shared with standing committee officers annually. Each staff section and standing committee needs to examine the information periodically and offer ideas for possible interaction. Finally, each staff section and each standing committee should further explore critical information relays, e.g. meeting agendas, resolutions, training, email/listserv contacts, to better coordinate activities and perhaps share resources. Summary The recommendations presented in this report are a product of many hours of discussion conducted by phone call, through email exchange and at Communication Task Force meetings. Throughout the year, as the group discovered avenues for improved communication, the discussion carried into other forums, including other task force meetings, the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee, and the standing committees. As a result, some of these recommendations may be already in process, while others still await implementation. Common grounds for improving communication and cooperation among legislative staff serving in these NCSL groups have been identified. Equally important is the recognition that certain activities performed by these groups cannot or should not be shared, due to professional standards, vast differences in organizational structure, or simple uniqueness of function.



Of all the recommendations contained in this report, the most notable improvement identified is a designated forum for discussion among legislative staff leaders, to identify and coordinate issues that lie beyond their individual staff section or standing committee duties that have the potential to benefit all staff. For further detail, see Recommendation 1 for each Improved Communication and Cooperation Among Staff Sections and Improved Communication and Interaction Between Staff Sections and the NCSL Standing Committees. Guidelines for specific procedures and timelines for deliverables need further consideration. Recommendations

I. Improved Communication and Cooperation Among Staff Sections

1. Formalize the Existing Staff Section Officers Group

Establish a Staff Section Officers Group for the purpose of networking and coordinating common interests and activities among all NCSL staff sections. The Group would consist of staff section appointees to the LSCC, which would meet at each LSCC meeting.

Organizing activities, including the election of a chair and a vice-chair, should be held annually at the first LSCC meeting of the year.

At a minimum, each meeting would include a discussion of recent outreach activities to other sections and the planning of professional development opportunities for the upcoming year.

2. Professional Skills Development Training

• Share venues (to achieve hotel/meal economies of scale) with no other carry-over responsibilities,

unless agreed to by participating staff sections. Recognize that sharing venues makes sense for some staff sections, while it may not make sense for other staff sections.

• Identify common content within training agendas or professional development seminars. • Hold joint sessions that focus on professional development at the Annual Meeting. • Revive staff section reports at the LSCC meeting, so long as new guidelines are specified to make the

information more useful.

3. Annual Meeting

• Make Annual Meeting schedules available early in the year so that all staff sections can see potential opportunities to co-sponsor sessions and identify potential conflicts. Be clear with session descriptions and scheduling deadlines.

• Encourage staff sections to co-sponsor sessions of common interest. • Enhance the familiarity of staff section members with the functions and activities of the standing

committees, by sharing agendas in advance, periodically monitoring NCSL Web site information, promoting session co-sponsorship, sharing thoughts of session topics and speakers, etc.

• Establish meetings or conference calls among staff section officers and standing committee officers to share information and identify common needs.

4. Internal Operations (including Web sites, newsletters, listservs, “pass-the-baton”)

• Have individual staff section officers contact the staff officers of their “sister” standing committees

(those committees with overlapping functions and interests). • In the standing committee orientation booklet, include a chapter for staff section information, officer

contacts and NCSL staff contacts. • Improve Web site navigation to provide better access to standing committee information, which is not

always clear. Include annual themes and session information if possible. • Improve the flow of information between staff sections and the standing committees, which should

ideally happen six weeks prior to scheduled meetings.



• Make paper copies of staff section and standing committee newsletters available at each standing committee/LSCC meeting.

5. Membership

• Keep current as possible the membership lists of individual staff sections. • Request that each staff section appoint an Outreach/Membership contact or committee, to streamline

the pathway for new members. • Recognize that dues are not common to every staff section and some staff sections have membership

categories that include lobbyists and/or private sector participants. • Use listservs to tap seasoned members for information and advice, while nurturing new members’

participation in skill development or issue research. • Further examine the benefits and drawbacks of regionalization. For some staff sections, regional

meetings are helpful. For others, there are pluses (e.g. drawing participation of members that don’t like to attend big meetings) and minuses (existing regions do not include all states, leaving some states out of regional opportunity).

II. Improved Communication and Interaction Between Staff Sections and

NCSL Standing Committees

1. Leader-to-Leader Communication

• Formalize points of communication between the staff section officers and standing committee officers, perhaps in the newly created Staff Section Officers Group. Similarly, formalize points of communication between individual staff sections and their sister standing committee(s). Create a checklist to track these contacts.

• Assign the duty of LSCC liaison (which could be an existing officer or a new appointee) to represent

staff sections at the steering committee of the standing committees. 2. Staff Section Actions • Seek ways to formalize coordination with sister standing committees, including consideration of

amending staff sections’ by-laws to require staff section officers to regularly communicate with standing committee officers.

• Periodically share agendas and topic information, followed by personal communication. Seek avenues

of co-sponsorship.

• Train staff section officers about the structure, functions and activities of the standing committees, including legislator-staff relationships, committee work product (resolutions, etc.), and meeting preparation.

3. Standing Committee Actions

• Share standing committee officer appointments with staff section officers as soon as the appointments

are made. • Train standing committee officers about the functions and activities of the staff sections (maybe staff

section video project could ease this training).

• Encourage standing committees to use staff sections as a resource for committee deliberations. Determine if the assignment of a liaison or liaisons is appropriate for each standing committee.



Value and Efficiency Task Force Craig Kinton, Chair Dave Henderson, Value Vice Chair Connie Hardin, Efficiency Vice Chair Overall Charge: Develop a blueprint for improving the value and efficiency of NCSL programs and services to legislative staff.

General Objectives: 1. Define the universe of programs and services to be considered. 2. Agree on possible milestones, interim deliverables, and completion dates.

Work Team Objectives:

Team 1: The Value Team

Improve the Value of NCSL Programs and Services to Legislative Staff (Value: Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit.) 1. Measure legislative staff satisfaction with selected NCSL programs and services. 2. Identify unmet needs or opportunities for enhanced programs and services for legislative staff. 3. Identify competing interests. 4. Identify opportunities to improve the value of programs and services for legislative staff. 5. Draft a value blueprint with recommendations.

Team 2: The Efficiency Team

Improve the Efficiency of NCSL Programs and Services to Legislative Staff (Efficiency: Acting with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.)

1. Review NCSL/LSCC program and service processes and identify opportunities for greater efficiency. 2. Identify opportunities to improve the utilization of meeting time and resources. 3. Identify opportunities to improve the utilization of time between meetings. 4. Draft an efficiency blueprint with recommendations.

Activities The Value and Efficiency Task Force was charged with developing a blueprint for improving the value and efficiency of NCSL programs and services to legislative staff. Subcharges included measuring satisfaction with programs and services and identifying unmet needs, competing interests, and opportunities to improve programs and services. The task force was also to consider efficiency opportunities, including the utilization of time during and between meetings. The initial task force was divided into two teams, the Value Team and the Efficiency Team. At the October 2003 meeting in Coeur d`Alene, Idaho, the task force brainstormed how to promote value and efficiency for legislative staff through NCSL. The task force members decided to organize around five areas and have each group consider both value and efficiency issues. The areas of pursuit included:



Survey. Work with the Communications Task Force to gather information on services valued by members.

NCSL Annual Meeting. Consider ways to improve the value and efficiency of The Annual Meetings.

LSMI. Solicit proposals and consider options for improving the program.

Staff Sections. Contact staff section leaders to gather information on value and efficiency concerns.

Meeting Efficiency. Consider ways to improve the efficiency of the Executive Committee/LSCC meetings. Survey Members of the Value and Efficiency Task Force worked with the Communications Task Force to provide suggestions on the survey sent to NCSL membership. At the January 2004 meeting in Denver, Colorado, the task force reviewed the results to determine the value and efficiency implications. Overall observations were that:

70 percent of those surveyed do not attend meetings. 68 percent are not aware that staff sections exist. 57 percent are not aware that standing committees exist.

These observations led to the conclusion that there are large knowledge gaps among legislative staff regarding the opportunities, services, and information available through NCSL. While this seems evident, it was also acknowledged that each state has legislative staff who are active in NCSL and knowledgeable about its services and opportunities. Given these conditions, the recommendation is to reconsider the marketing plan for NCSL and determine how to take advantage of the knowledge that members in each state already possess to better promote NCSL activities. Annual Meeting At the January 2004 meeting in Denver, the task force considered ways to improve the NCSL Annual Meeting. A review of the draft program for the 2004 meeting revealed that the first 1 ½ days of the meeting are devoted primarily to standing committee meetings. The task force discussed the fact that many legislative staff are involved in procedural or administrative aspects of the legislative process and often have little direct connection to policy issues. By design, the standing committees primarily focus on policy concerns. The task force recognized that the Legislative Effectiveness and State Government Committee has a sufficiently broad charge to be of interest to all staff sections. The recommendation is to work with the Legislative Effectiveness and State Government Committee to develop a program that could run concurrently with other standing committee activities. The purpose would be to develop a program that would target legislative staff who do not work directly with policy issues and that would complement the other activities of the Legislative Effectiveness and State Government Committee. In addition, given the large time blocks available on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, the recommendation is to consider a program offering that would run for a longer period and give the opportunity to delve more deeply into the selected subject area. Legislative Staff Management Institute (LSMI) At the initial meeting of the Value and Efficiency Task Force in October 2003, the task force decided to review the value and efficiency issues related to LSMI. Since 1990, LSMI has been NCSL’s premier staff development program for senior legislative staff. Since its inception, LSMI has been cosponsored by the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota was selected as the cosponsor through a bid process conducted by NCSL with the involvement of the LSCC in 1989. Recognizing that it had been 15 years since the initial LSMI cosponsor selection, the task force sought permission from LSCC to solicit new bids for LSMI. LSCC gave permission, and the task force assigned a group to work with NCSL to solicit proposals for co-sponsorship of future LSMI conferences.



NCSL issued a request for proposals (RFP) in November 2003. NCSL sent the RFP to approximately 35 graduate schools of public policy and public administration throughout the United States. As specified in the RFP, the criteria used by the workgroup to evaluate the proposals were as follows:

Overall qualifications including demonstrating a sound understanding of the legislative environment and the role of staff

Curriculum Cost Housing and meals Classroom facilities Location

NCSL received three responses to the RFP from the following:

1. The Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota 2. A joint proposal by the LBJ School of Public Affairs of the University of Texas at Austin and the George

Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University 3. A joint proposal by the University of Southern California and the California State University–Sacramento

(USC/UCS) The work group conducted site visits to each potential cosponsor during February and March 2004 to review the proposed curriculum, examine the proposed housing and classroom facilities, and discuss the proposals with cosponsor representatives. Each of the potential cosponsors submitted viable bids. While the proposals differed (at times substantially) in terms of curriculum and vision for legislative staff development, each would provide useful training for senior legislative managers. Each of the work group members, however, rated the USC/UCS proposal the highest. The task force recommends that NCSL approve a contract with USC/UCS to host LSMI for the 2005–2009 period. In addition, we recommend that LSCC adopt a resolution thanking the Humphrey Institute for their long-standing service to NCSL. We also recommend that the contract be re-bid in 2009 for the 2010–2014 period; that a work group be established to work with the cosponsor to fine-tune the curriculum and monitor the initial 2005 institute; that certain steps be taken to market LSMI; and that consideration be given to forming a future work group to develop strategies for strengthening nationwide training opportunities for legislative staff. Staff Sections The Staff Section Work Group conducted a phone survey of staff section leaders to collect information about the quantifiable data that is used by staff sections to measure utilization of certain NCSL services and to solicit input for opportunities to increase the value or efficiency of the staff sections. Information collected regarding the utilization of NCSL resources and services is provided as attachments to this report. See Attachment B. The results of the phone survey confirmed interest in the promotion and facilitation of more collaborative opportunities, including joint meetings of staff sections to promote efficiencies and programs that are more diverse. The surveys also identified an interest in the use of technology to make presentation materials more readily available for those who cannot attend meetings and to identify resources and materials that could be posted to the Web through the NCSL site to enhance the value of available materials. Meeting Efficiency Consideration of LSCC/Executive Committee meetings led to three proposals to improve the efficiency of these meetings. At the October 2003 meeting, a motion was made and approved by the LSCC to direct the NCSL staff officers to advocate that future LSCC/Executive Committee meetings be held in cities that are easy to travel to and that offer reasonably priced accommodations. A second proposal was to begin LSCC meetings early in the morning on the first day to maximize the time available for task force work. Another proposal was to organize a roundtable discussion for staff section officers to occur simultaneously with the NCSL subcommittee meetings. Staff section officers do not normally participate in the Executive Committee subcommittee meetings, and utilization of this time would provide an additional opportunity for an exchange of information.



Both proposals regarding the utilization of time during the Executive Committee meetings were adopted for the January meeting and appeared to be successful. Recommendations The Value and Efficiency Task Force offers the following recommendations to improve the value and efficiency of NCSL programs and services to legislative staff. Marketing

Review the marketing plan for NCSL, and consider using active NCSL members in each state to promote NCSL activities. Orientation materials that active members could use to provide training to their state’s legislative staff would add value to this activity.

Annual Meetings

Develop program offerings for the first day of the Annual Meeting (possibly in conjunction with the Legislative Effectiveness and State Government Committee) specifically designed to be of interest to legislative staff who may not have an interest in standing committees’ policy issues.

Provide programs of longer duration that allow for more in-depth coverage of topics than is afforded by

the traditional 90-minute time slots. Executive Committee/LSCC Meetings

Direct the NCSL staff officers to advocate that future meetings be held in cities that are easy to travel to and that have reasonably priced accommodations. (Motion was made and adopted by LSCC at October 2003 meeting.)

Begin LSCC meetings earlier on Fridays to allow task forces or work groups more time.

(Recommendation was made at the October 2003 meeting and implemented with success at the January 2004 meeting.)

Establish roundtable discussions for the chairs and vice-chairs of each staff section during executive

committee meetings. Utilize the time slots allocated to the subcommittees of the NCSL executive committee, a time traditionally open for staff section leadership. Designate a chair with responsibilities for developing discussion topics or agendas for the meetings. (Recommendation was made at the October 2003 meeting and piloted at the January 2004 meeting.)

Legislative Staff Management Institute (LSMI)

Approve a contract with the University of Southern California/California State University-Sacramento to host the LSMI for the 2005–2009 period.

Adopt a resolution thanking the Humphrey Institute hosting LSMI from 1990 through 2004, and asking the

Institute to consider ways to retain the value of its service, which could include publishing a book of study cases used in LSMI that legislative staff could use nationwide.

Adopt a resolution expressing the intent of this LSCC to re-bid the contract in 2009 for the 2010–2014

period to help ensure that LSMI continues to provide a superior training opportunity.

Form a continuing work group to work with the California cosponsor to fine-tune the curriculum and monitor the initial 2005 LSMI.

Adopt the following steps to improve marketing for LSMI:

a. Request that NCSL staff write a marketing article on LSMI that all staff sections would include in their newsletters (this should be revised and run annually).



b. Request that NCSL staff write a State Legislatures article on LSMI. c. Include a brief message on LSMI at the Annual Meeting staff lunch. d. Develop a brochure on LSMI for alumni to help them market the program in their home state

legislatures. Professional Development Conference

Pilot a joint professional development conference for multiple staff sections. Target the first joint conference for the fall of 2006.

Establish a task force of participating staff section officers to work with NCSL staff to determine the

conference site, select plenary session speakers, and make other decisions as necessary. Web Content

Explore the use of the Web and other technologies to make presentation materials more readily available for staff who cannot attend meetings. The available materials should span the rich variety of NCSL’s organizations, forums, staff sections, special meetings, research projects, and other resources.

Periodically survey legislative staff to identify resources and materials to post to the Web to enrich the

content of the NCSL site.



Support and Outreach Task Force Susan Swords, Chair Pat Saville, Support Vice Chair Sharon Crouch Steidel, Outreach Vice Chair Overall Charge: Develop a blueprint for enhancing core support for NCSL, reaching out to nonparticipating groups, and providing benefit to staff that cannot directly participate in NCSL programs.

General Objectives: 1. Define the universe of support and outreach issues to be considered. 2. Agree on possible milestones, interim deliverables, and completion dates.

Work Team Objectives:

Team 1: The Support Team

Improve the Level of Support for NCSL Activities (Level of Support: Having the will and approval needed to stay directly involved in NCSL staff sections, standing committees, NCSL governance, or special programs.) Purpose: Strengthen the will and approval among legislative leadership to be directly involved in NCSL activities and governance. Strengthen core support among legislative leadership and executive management of legislative agencies to foster direct involvement of staff in NCSL staff sections, standing committees, governance and special programs. 1) Conduct a “situation analysis” of the current environment.

a) Assess the factors limiting the will of legislators and legislative staff to become or stay involved in NCSL activities.

b) Assess the factors that would contribute to improved leadership support for direct participation of legislators and staff in NCSL activities during lean times as well as good. i) If they are not involved, why not? ii) What would it take for them to become more involved or active? iii) If they are involved, what keeps them coming back? iv) What are the “success stories” that could help define the message that we want to send

regarding NCSL’s value to the states? 2) Develop marketing strategies

a) What has already been done in recent years to increase involvement? i) Recent surveys on what members find useful ii) The NCSL strategic plan iii) Past work products of LSCC and NCSL task forces

b) How do we convey value to leadership and management? i) What’s the message we want to send? ii) What strategies could we devise to get this message across iii) Who would carry out these strategies?

3) Draft a support blueprint with recommendations.



Team 2: The Outreach Team

Improve NCSL Outreach to Non-participating or Under-participating Legislative Staff. (Outreach: Any effort to bring groups and individuals either into direct participation in NCSL programs or to the active use of services that provide an acceptable virtual benefit.) Purpose: Develop efforts to bring groups and individuals either into direct participation in NCSL programs, or to the active use of methods that provide an acceptable virtual benefit. 1) Identify the groups in need of more contact

a) Review previous research on outreach and participation. b) Bring forward 2002-2003 Strategic Planning Task Force work on reaching non-participating and

under-served groups. 2) Identify the kinds of information and services that are needed by these groups.

a) What information and services would be of greatest benefit? b) What would let them realize NCSL’s benefit? c) How can we do a better job of bringing NCSL services to them?

3) What is technologically feasible? a) Now? b) Later? c) Maybe further into the future?

4) Draft an outreach blueprint with recommendations.

Support Team Activities To accomplish its objectives the team completed the following activities:

1. Surveyed legislators and legislative staff on the NCSL Executive Committee and LSCC. 2. Identified states that are less active in NCSL and interviewed people to find out why. 3. Reviewed previous research and survey information on why people participate in NCSL and what they

want from NCSL. 4. Reviewed NCSL’s current efforts to market the organization to legislators and legislative staff.

Recommendations Overview Relatively early in our discussions, the team decided to break up our findings into two categories: legislators and legislative staff. As part of this, two surveys were designed. In compiling our findings we looked at key questions and responses. It was determined that legislators do not participate in NCSL for the following reasons:

• Travel costs • Lack of awareness of what NCSL offers • Competition from other organizations such as ALEC, CSG and SLC • Bad press from accusations of going on junkets • Term limits–losing institutional involvement • The impression that NCSL is a partisan organization

Staff had similar reasons for lack of participation:



• Travel ban from budget constraints • Lack of time; number of meetings • Lack of awareness of what NCSL offers • Public perception of travel to conferences, especially in bad economic times • Competition from other organizations

The survey also indicated that the staff strongly disagreed with the negative statements about the quality of NCSL products and services. We also looked at services and activities used by legislators and staff. We found that legislators use State Legislatures magazine, the Annual Meeting and standing committee offerings, and Legisbriefs. Legislators are less likely to use technology; consequently, person-to-person contact works better. Staff members use State Legislatures magazine, staff section programs and seminars, Legisbriefs and the NCSL website. We discussed actual techniques to be used for reaching legislators and staff and again we agreed the methods would differ for each group. Developing Support Among Legislators

• Give legislators tools to represent NCSL accurately and effectively. These tools would include talking points that stress NCSL’s mission and success stories, such as NCSL’s fight to get money from federal tax cuts returned to states. This “toolbox” could be used for legislators to “talk up” NCSL to colleagues within their own states, or to legislators in other states.

• Encourage NCSL’s officers to make visits to states with less active legislators. This helps counter the view that NCSL is a partisan organization.

• Encourage other leadership to make visits to states with leadership of the same party. • Make telephone contact with leadership in “troubled spots” finding out what they might want and need

from NCSL. • Exploit opportunities like Back to School Week to reach legislators and to help get them involved. • Create photo opportunities, perhaps at the Annual Meeting along with other meetings, where legislators can

be photographed with well-known people. • Continue to send information to new legislators. NCSL does two mailings, one in November and one in

early January that include training tapes and other NCSL information. • Target issue information to legislators with interest in those issues. Send partisan topics to those in each

respective party; i.e., forward information on conservative-oriented legislation to conservative legislators. • Continue to obtain feedback from legislators. Ask general open-ended questions about services, such as

“What do you want?” Use surveys for focus groups at the Annual Meeting, the fall and spring meetings of the Standing Committees and Leader to Leader meeting.

Developing Support Among Staff

• Get “underserved” or “under participating” staff groups information that would help them. The staff survey recently conducted by the Outreach Team can help us pinpoint what they need and use.

• Create NCSL Ambassadors Program. Find staff willing to advocate for NCSL in their states. Assemble tool kits to provide them with information to get the message across. Target information to that state where appropriate. Legislative IT staff can help figure out the best “point of contact.”

• Encourage the Women’s Legislative Network to include legislative staff in their activities. • Include more photos of legislative staff in State Legislatures magazine. • Write articles about legislative staff for State Legislatures magazine. • Continue to address the responses, particularly the complaints, submitted in the Outreach Team’s staff

survey. • Expand the base of the Leadership Staff Section to include district office/personal staff. • Expand staff involvement with NCSL through the use of telephone contact and the Web site.


• Establish committees in each staff section (membership, outreach) whose responsibility it is to update their membership list. This information should be forwarded to NCSL regularly to keep NCSL’s database updated. (Note: staff sections have said maintaining this information is difficult.)


Involving Former Legislators and Staffers

An additional suggestion which could be adapted for both legislators and staff is to create formal groups of people who perhaps have retired from their positions or are no longer an NCSL officer. These “alumni “ could continue to help orient newer staff and legislators, serve as a resource to current members, and in general, provide the benefit of their years of experience.

Marketing Message for Legislators One of our objectives was to develop marketing themes. We discussed the messages we wanted to send to legislators and staff about NCSL. We worked off of the three-line mission statement from the NCSL Strategic Plan:

To improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system

1. Our marketing message for legislators began with NCSL’s role in ensuring that states have a voice in the

federal system and that NCSL represents states’ interest in a bipartisan fashion. 2. There are potential cost savings to states that use NCSL’s services. Legislator feedback from the surveys

reinforces that NCSL helps state legislatures function more effectively through resource building and training.

3. Networking opportunities are unparalleled and are very important to legislators. NCSL offers updated information on legislation and issues from all the states and US territories.

4. The team stressed that participation in NCSL means a return on your investment. Along with this, the team discussed some of the pros and cons of pointing out that each state pays dues.

Marketing Message for Staff Our themes for legislative staff were similar.

1. Participating in NCSL offers networking opportunities along with the availability of updated information compiled from across the nation.

2. NCSL is “one-stop shopping” for information on issues and legislation for staff, and NCSL is the one organization that provides professional development for legislative staff. “Nobody does it better than NCSL.”

3. For staff that cannot travel, use of the Web site becomes an important tool for staff education and development.

4. NCSL also offers staff the chance to use their experience in a number of ways: mentoring less experienced staff members, providing technical experience on a variety of NCSL-sponsored research projects, and providing input on shaping the content of professional development seminars based on an individual’s field of expertise. In other words, it may be just as useful to say to a staff person, “Think about what you have to offer” as “Think about what we can offer you.”

Through NCSL, both legislators and staff can be more effective. NCSL can promote itself through continuous education of legislators and staff on the merits of this exceptional organization, and also by offering outstanding programs at meetings and on the internet. Areas for Future Study

1. Research on NCSL members’ wants and needs should take place on a regularly scheduled basis. (“Members” here refers to both legislators and staff.) Surveys similar to those sent out by both teams of this task force should continue to solicit input on the services that are valued, those that should receive less emphasis, and the impressions of NCSL’s efforts and services. (See also the recommendation for an NCSL marketing plan which is contained elsewhere in this report.)

2. Continued effort should also be made to reach out and survey states that are less active in NCSL. This should be approached from two viewpoints: to build stronger relationships with members in those states, and to obtain information on why there is less interest in participating in NCSL.



3. Continue evaluating the organization’s ability to carry out the recommendations contained in this report. We asked the question early on, “Who would carry out these strategies?” It may be more productive to create an ongoing working group, containing a cross-section of members from the staff sections and the standing committees, who would help NCSL staff with these initiatives.

Outreach Team Identifying Under-Participating Legislative Staff To identify staff in need of additional outreach, the Outreach Team first discussed work conducted by past task forces. The 2002 Strategic Planning Task Force identified one such group: members’ personal staff. We followed up on this group’s work by coordinating with NCSL staff to develop a staff section page for personal staff on the NCSL Web site. This new staff area home page was released as part of the redesigned NCSL Web site in Spring 2004. To date, there have been more than 500 visits to this new section of the Web site. While this cannot be considered a high level of activity, it does indicate solid interest, so focused efforts should continue to promote this page to the suitable legislative employees. As an additional part of this task, the Outreach Team developed a comprehensive survey that reviewed all existing NCSL services and areas of interest for legislative staff. Since we agreed that it is currently difficult to identify legislative staff not participating in NCSL, the team decided to send this survey electronically to any legislative staff that had contacted NCSL for a service in recent years. As a result, this survey was sent out electronically to 12,998 legislative staff. A summary of the 1,116 responses received is included in this report as Appendix A. After reviewing the results, the team also agreed that staff in mid-level to lower-level positions in the legislature were the staff groups that participate in NCSL the least. There was some speculation that staff new to the legislature are not aware of NCSL and what it offers. It was also discussed that staff are not aware that they are members of NCSL by virtue of their employment. Further analysis of the survey data was conducted by Karl Aro to provide a better demographic breakdown of respondents and their familiarity with NCSL services. His report follows as Appendix B. It was apparent from the results that staff remains unfamiliar with the standing committees. In fact, 87percent of respondents have never used services provided by Standing Committees, and 57percent were unaware of the function of the Standing Committees. Further, there is a growing number of staff who do not attend NCSL meetings and whose primary contact with NCSL is through the Web site. Actions Completed and Recommendations Promotional Email A Web page is under construction to promote NCSL services to legislative staff. These services are being presented via this Web page as part of a summary report on the survey sent out earlier this year. It is anticipated that a link to the promotional page will be available from the NCSL homepage. In addition, an email will be sent to all staff originally identified in the initial survey that includes a link to this page. Staff will be encouraged to share the page with those who may not have received the email as a means of continued publicity for the services available from NCSL. This project is planned for completion by the 2004 Annual Meeting. Web Site Issues After reviewing the survey responses, the Outreach Team focused on areas of the Web site related to MyNCSL, personal staff and the standing committees. A new Web site design was released in early March. Some promotional activity has already taken place to highlight the new design via articles, emails to staff and members, and links on the Web site itself. Ongoing efforts should continue to promote the new features of the Web site, as this is the most obvious tool available to engage non-traveling staff. Promotional materials on the new Web site will also be available at the Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City.



First time visitor's Link – It was suggested that a link be placed on the home page for first-time visitors that would give them an overview of how to navigate the Web site. It may also be possible to place this type of link under the help menu. First time visitors could then use the interactive page described above to help introduce them to the type of information available throughout the Web site. The benefits of this type of link should be weighed against the valuable ‘screen real estate’ on the home page before proceeding with this link. Personal staff page on Web site –The personal staff section page is now available on the NCSL Web site and has generated moderate interest. Methods for promoting this section of the Web site should be explored more thoroughly as a means for engaging this under-participating staff group. 'Cross-pollinating' issues – Our survey also showed that staff remain largely unfamiliar with the work done by standing committees. As a means for actively demonstrating where there are overlapping interests between staff sections and the standing committees, NCSL should develop a method for populating the Contents bar on staff section pages as well as the individual standing committee pages with links to information of interest to both groups. For example, if the Legislative Effectiveness and State Government Committee publishes a report on guidelines for writing Appropriate Computer Use policies, a link to this report should automatically be placed on the NALIT and ASLCS pages. Whether this can be an automated function remains to be seen. At a minimum, NCSL staff should be trained to provide this type of cross-referencing throughout the NCSL Web site. NCSLnet News and MyNCSL A large number of the Outreach Team was not familiar with this web feature. Doug Sacarto signed up all Outreach and Support Team members to automatically receive the NCSLnet News emails on a daily basis. Based on recommendations from the 2003 Technology Task Force, links were added to the beginning of these emails to show the subject areas included that day. This enhancement should assist recipients in seeing at a glance what topics are covered in each email. The Outreach Team further reviewed the functionality of MyNCSL. Since many task force members were unfamiliar with all the features available, a ‘How-To’ guide was created to walk them through each feature of MyNCSL. Once members used this tool to review the MyNCSL pages, they were able to get a more comprehensive view of MyNCSL’s capabilities. The help document used by the Outreach team follows this report as Appendix C. This type of notification tool has been identified as a critical service for NCSL. Through feedback from staff and legislators on past Web site review committees as well as current task members, it was clear that this is a service which is necessary to keep NCSL as the leader in legislative issues. Most users indicated a preference for receiving this type of delivered information rather than having to visit the Web site on a daily basis. However, the percentage of registered users receiving these emails is significantly low. This suggests that many users are unfamiliar with the service, or have difficulty understanding how to set up their notifications. We recommend that efforts continue to increase use of this service, concentrating on the following areas:

1. Develop a Help document similar to the one used by the Outreach Team this year so that all users will have a reference for navigating MyNCSL.

2. Add an option to “add all news” to the MyNCSL pages for those staff that want daily, comprehensive

reports.

3. Using a page similar to the promotional page developed this year; create an interactive Web page that would assist users in the creation of their notification profile. It is envisioned that a person would answer a series of questions that would help identify their specific interests in NCSL. Based on their answers, a results screen would show the types of services they could take advantage of with NCSL. The page would go a step further by giving the user the option to sign up for those services before exiting the page. For example, if a user indicates that he is a jJournal clerk, the results page would take him to an overview page for ASLCS, and give him the option to sign up for the ASLCS list serve. A link to this page could be sent out via email to targeted staff and members as a way to guide them through the type of electronic services



that are available through NCSL. The task force plans to work with NCSL on the creation of a mass email to be sent out in late spring.

Increase Level and Types of Staff Development The Outreach Team discussed the possible need to expand the types of staff development offered. An example is to provide seminars on specific topics, such as proofreading. There was some discussion on how these types of training opportunities could be provided to non-traveling staff. The team generally agreed that Webcasting and computer-based training materials should be made available through the Web services offered by NCSL. Due to the broad scope of this topic, we did not devote adequate time to it during this conference year. It is recommended that this subject be pursued in upcoming years, concentrating on the following:

1. Determine the type of Webcasting that is possible through NCSL, and how this technology can be used to engage a broader audience of NCSL members.

2. Promote consistent dissemination of meeting materials to individual staff section pages, including

Webcasts of meeting sessions and presentation slides where available.

3. Explore, perhaps through the Steering Committee, the type of specific training NCSL could offer that would be useful to legislative staff.

Develop a methodology for using active NCSL staff members, in conjunction with NCSL state contacts as cheerleaders to promote NCSL within their states. NCSL’s existing state contact program is an area ripe for focus when it comes to outreach. NCSL has an excellent pool of staff resources, already assigned to states, who have responsibility for visits and relationship-building with state legislative staff and legislative members. We believe this program area can be adapted and expanded with relatively minor adjustments and little cost to improve and enhance NCSL's overall outreach goals. There was a general consensus that LSCC and the Executive Committee as a group are under-utilized in efforts to promote NCSL services at the state level. Certainly, these are people who are dedicated to NCSL and are committed to NCSL’s goals and objectives. However, it was surprising to learn the number of staff in our task force who were not aware of their NCSL state contact, or the role of the state contact for their individual state. We recommend that the issue of NCSL's state contact program be carried forward into future years for further development and exploration as an outreach tool. Such further development and exploration should concentrate on the following:

1. Standardize and formalize, where appropriate, the service level provided by NCSL state contacts so that states have consistent expectations and experiences with the program.

2. Standardize and formalize the relationship between NCSL state contacts and "NCSL-active" state

legislative staff/members to attain mutually beneficial outreach goals.

3. Explore the feasibility of a mentor program to allow for more consistent relationships and experiences between state contact staff and active NCSL legislative staff and legislator members. This would be especially important because of turnover of those in state contact positions, in LSCC and Executive Committee positions, and in leadership or upper management positions within the states. Such a mentor program could possibly cut across all of those various roles to encourage interaction and participation.

4. It may be helpful and appropriate to share results of state contact meetings/visits (state reports) among state

contacts and among NCSL and NCSL-active legislative staff/members.

5. Are state contact responsibilities flexible enough to allow for differences in state service-level expectations due to inherent environmental realities? (e.g. term-limit and non-term limit states; large and small states; full-time and part-time legislatures; geographic differences)



6. Develop formal and standard media presentation tools on "What is NCSL?” Materials could be distributed so they can be employed by NCSL-active legislative staff/members in new staff orientation programs and new member orientation programs within the state, or used in conjunction with the NCSL state contact visits. Perhaps the media presentations can be developed to specifically target the differences in participation between legislative members and legislative staff.

Collaboration Software The Support and Outreach Team has been using collaboration software in order to coordinate all efforts of the task force. This type of technology is a useful tool for engaging staff from around the country and encouraging direct participation in a project. It does not require a coordination of varied schedules, as each member can access the site and contribute to the work product at any time. Once in place, this type of software does not require specialized skills to tailor individual work groups or to add content to the web pages. The implementation of this type of collaboration software within NCSL should be pursued.

Marketing Plan for NCSL The Support and Outreach Task Force recommends that NCSL prepare a comprehensive marketing plan with sufficient resources and authority to see that it is professionally implemented. Our recent research and discussion have led us to the following reasons for this recommendation: A marketing plan is an important complement to NCSL’s strategic plan, and would support and enhance its implementation. In 2001, the NCSL Executive Committee adopted a strategic plan for the organization. This plan redefines NCSL’s mission and outlines its objectives, among them strengthening participation in NCSL, bolstering public support for the legislative institution, and improving the delivery of information to legislators and the public. A number of strategies and tactics were developed in support of this mission and objectives. While these are important for the ideas they contain and the framework they provide for NCSL’s direction, they need the support of cohesive marketing to make them reality. Taking into account the goals laid out in the strategic plan, NCSL would develop a member needs assessment on which to base a marketing plan. This plan would identify these needs and provide the strategies to fulfill them, utilizing the standard elements of good marketing: research and analysis, promotion, and distribution and delivery of services. A plan with a membership orientation increases the perceived value of NCSL by its membership and helps ensure the long-term viability of NCSL. Currently, NCSL does carry out a number of marketing activities. However, these activities seem to function independently of one another, and are not part of any one coordinated strategy. While NCSL departments make great effort to promote their services and products, these efforts are decentralized and do not benefit from an overall marketing strategy. There are actually quite a few marketing activities that take place within NCSL. At the beginning of each year, NCSL staff reach out to new legislators with information on NCSL and material helpful to newly elected representatives. Meetings and Seminars staff promote the professional development opportunities made available through NCSL, as part of their responsibilities. NCSL has one marketing staff person who sells NCSL products to non-members. State assignment staff are responsible for reaching out to legislators and staff in particular states and for promoting NCSL’s value within those states. Above and beyond the promotions done for NCSL’s core activities like the Annual Meeting, the Issues Forum, professional development seminars and research services, there are other efforts which market the Trust for Representative Democracy and its projects, as well as the NCSL Foundation. (A summary of these activities can be found in the appendix of the Support Team report.) These are all worthwhile efforts for inarguably valuable services. It’s debatable, however, whether they are as effective as they could be if they were organized under one strategy. Most advertising and marketing experts would agree that consistency is important when marketing and promoting any entity. Organizing NCSL’s marketing efforts within one plan of action fosters that consistency, which can be even more beneficial for NCSL’s image. It helps everyone stay on the same page when it comes to marketing NCSL, and puts across a unified message of NCSL’s value and mission. An overall plan also provides a suitable background to evaluate marketing strategies



and practices to see whether they are achieving the desired results, not least because those results must lead toward an agreed-upon set of goals understood by everyone who works for the organization. Research done under the aegis of a marketing plan would benefit and strengthen NCSL’s ability to serve its customers. Periodically, NCSL undertakes marketing research to determine the level of satisfaction with its services. Many times, this is an outgrowth of a particular initiative which may be the responsibility of a task force. The most recent surveys of this type were done by the Support and Outreach Task Force. The Support Team sent out paper-based surveys to active legislators and staff to determine their views of NCSL, and in particular, why they think others in their states are not participating. The Outreach Team electronically distributed a more wide-ranging survey to a database of 12,000 legislative staff asking them to evaluate many aspects of NCSL’s services, including its responsiveness, its products and its seminars and meetings. These are important examples of the marketing research that needs to be carried out on a regular basis, and within the guidelines of a marketing plan that determines the type of information that is needed. NCSL must constantly assess the needs and wants of its members to ensure that it is providing necessary services and not wasting effort or resources on functions that no longer have an impact. It’s a large undertaking, but an extremely crucial one that must be done to give NCSL useful data on what’s successful and what needs changing within its services. This can be especially imperative with the advent of term limits. The mandated turnover in some states means that NCSL already has to be on its toes to find and reach new legislators. While NCSL staff does a very good job of apprising these members of available services and trying to “bring them into the fold,” their efforts could be even more effective if they were part of an overall marketing plan with research methods that also obtain more feedback from freshman legislators on a consistent basis. Similarly, the turnover among legislative staff has to be monitored so NCSL knows who it needs to reach among legislative employees, and whom to survey about its successes and failures. Additional examination of the results of the survey done by the Outreach Team shows a correlation between years of service and increased familiarity with many of NCSL’s offerings. Newer staff are shown to be less familiar with the organization and its work. Staff sections, the standing committees and NCSL should be working in tandem to find and attract newer staff members, and again, marketing strategies could help develop the best ways to do that. More research also needs to be done on NCSL’s competitors. While there is some awareness of the other organizations that vie for the time and attention of legislators and staff, further in-depth research should be done to track what they provide and how they are structured to deliver these offerings. It would be informative to explore their services and perhaps even compare their programming to what is available through NCSL. Good marketing takes into account who the competitors are and what they’re up to. What resources will it take to create and implement a marketing plan? In our estimation, at least one professional has to be devoted to this endeavor, full time. Fundamentally, someone with relevant experience has to shepherd a plan’s creation and implementation for it to have any chance at success. The different elements of NCSL’s current marketing efforts have to be evaluated and pulled together within the context of that plan. As with any other initiative, good communication is crucial. Since a marketing plan has to be “enforced” (for lack of a better term) within the organization, the position should be at a sufficient level of seniority to adequately supervise its execution. This is the person who should be responsible for seeing that other staff are informed of the elements of the plan, and that they understand the importance of its success. NCSL leadership must also make it clear that they support the marketing plan and its implementation.



Appendices

• Summary of Survey • Memorandum on current NCSL marketing efforts • Memorandum on past market research about NCSL • Memorandum about states less active in NCSL

APPENDIX A Survey results (to be inserted next week) APPENDIX B Staff familiarity with NCSL services as relates to years of service in the legislature To further focus outreach efforts to legislative staff, it is helpful to examine the relationship between the awareness and perceived usefulness of NCSL services to tenure in the legislature. To some extent, tenure can be used as a proxy to identify generational differences in the perception of the value of services to legislative staff provided by NCSL. Because of the structure of the survey, years of service could only be compared with more limited set of the data. However, despite this shortcoming several observations are made. First, with respect to familiarity with all of the services listed in the survey, it is clear that awareness of the services increases with years of service. Awareness of staff sections, the Annual Meeting, State Legislatures magazine, professional development seminars, responses to information requests, the Web site, and the standing committees shows a relatively constant progression toward greater awareness. The awareness of consulting services and LegisBriefs seems to increase at the steepest rate as tenure increases. Familiarity with cross-cutting seminars also increases as years of service increase. However, the Seminar for Legislative Staff Executives shows the slightest increase in awareness. This may be because of the infrequency with which the seminar is conducted (every other year) or its limited target group. This suggests that if the SLSE is judged to provide real value and is to be continued it should be marketed more broadly. Similarly, the Legislative Staff Management Institute shows a relative spike in awareness when service time reaches 11-20 years. It can be surmised that this correlates with certain career developments within the legislative institutions. The data also suggests that marketing these programs to those with slightly fewer years of service could result in more interest and greater participation. When comparing the usefulness of standing committee services with length of service, it appears that perception of the usefulness of printed information does not increase greatly as length of service increases. This also seems to be the case for the use of committee sponsored email discussions. There does appear to be a somewhat significant increase in usefulness of Annual Meeting sessions, stand-alone meetings, and personal contacts that correlates positively with length of service. In these areas it appears that if there is a relatively large jump in the mean response it occurs in the 2 to 5 year range. The data suggest that length of service and familiarity with and usefulness of NCSL services are positively correlated to greater or less degrees, but positively nevertheless. In turn, this would suggest that greater efforts need to be spent on relatively new legislative staff. With partisan and nonpartisan staff there is very little difference with respect to the familiarity of NCSL services. Two areas in which there is some difference are consulting services and professional development seminars. However, nonpartisan staff are somewhat more familiar with cross-cutting services.



When looking at how partisan and nonpartisan staff view the usefulness of standing committee services, generally nonpartisan staff indicate a greater value. The one exception is printed information, such as newsletters, issue briefs on state or federal policy issues.



Task Force Members

Strategic Issues Task Force

Chair: Jim Greenwalt, Minnesota

Vice Chair: Judy Hall, Oregon

Karl Aro, Maryland

Martha Carter, Nebraska

Ann Cornwell, Arkansas

Nancy Cyr, Nebraska

Mac Gordon, Mississippi

David Harrell, Oregon

JoAnn Hedrick, Delaware

Dave Henderson, Oregon

Dina Hidalgo, California

Mary Janicki, Connecticut

Todd A. Jewell, Pennsylvania

Connie Johnson, Oklahoma

Craig Kinton, Texas

Stephen Klein, Vermont

John Massey, Utah

Steve Miller, Wisconsin

Lori Rigby, Delaware

Pat Saville, Kansas

Susan Clarke Schaar, Virginia

Gary VanLandingham, Florida

NCSL Staff: Brian Weberg

Staff Communication Task Force

Chair: Kathy Schill, Minnesota

Vice Chair: Guy Cherry, Maryland

Michael Adams, Colorado

Colin "Michael" Calvert, Nebraska

Marsha Conley, Pennsylvania

Barbara Fellencer, Pennsylvania

Jack Hailey, California

Connie Hardin, Tennessee

D'Ann Mazzocca, Connecticut

Arthur McEnany, Louisiana

Richard Merkel, Ohio

Norman Moore, Arizona

Michael Nugent, Idaho

Pamela Ray, New Mexico

Clarence Russ, Louisiana

Larry Sheingold, California

Sharon Crouch Steidel, Virginia

Susan Swords, New Jersey

Maryann Trauger, North Dakota

Kate Wade, Wisconsin

Roderick N. Welsh, Texas

NCSL Staff: Rich Jones



Value and Efficiency Task Force

Chair: Craig Kinton, Texas

Team 1

Team 1 Vice Chair: Dave Henderson, Oregon

Judy Hall, Oregon

David Harrell, Oregon

Todd A. Jewell, Pennsylvania

Richard Merkel, Ohio



Roderick N. Welsh, Texas

Team 2

Team 2 Vice Chair: Connie Hardin, Tennessee


Mac Gordon, Mississippi



Norman Moore, Arizona

Michael Nugent, Idaho

Lori Rigby, Delaware


Kathy Schill, Minnesota

Kate Wade, Wisconsin

NCSL Staff: Diane Chaffin, Ron Snell

Support and Outreach Task Force

Chair: Susan Swords, New Jersey

Team 1

Team 1 Vice Chair: Pat Saville, Kansas

Guy Cherry, Maryland

Marsha Conley, Pennsylvania

Ann Cornwell, Arkansas

Nancy Cyr, Nebraska

Barbara Fellencer, Pennsylvania




Larry Sheingold, California

Team 2

Team 2 Vice Chair: Sharon Crouch Steidel, Virginia


Karl Aro, Maryland

Martha Carter, Nebraska


Dina Hidalgo, California

Mary Janicki, Connecticut


John Massey, Utah

Arthur McEnany, Louisiana

Maryann Trauger, North Dakota

NCSL Staff: Rich Jones, Karl Kurtz



LSCC Special Projects Subcommittees

Standing Committee Protocols

Karl Aro, Maryland



Gary S. Olson, Michigan



NCSL Staff: Julie Bell, Mary Fairchild, Carl Tubbesing

New Officer Orientation



NCSL Staff: Ron Snell

Staff Information Booth


NCSL Staff: Ron Snell

NCSL Services for Personal Legislative Staff


Dave Henderson, Oregon

Susan Swords, New Jersey

NCSL Staff: Rich Jones

Fifty State Bill Status/Web Site Review


Pat Saville, Kansas

Sharon Crouch Steidel, Virginia

NCSL Staff: Karl Kurtz, Gene Rose, Doug Sacarto

Diversity Project-Recruitment/Participation





Staff Salary Survey

Connie Hardin, Tennessee

Craig Kinton, Texas




Attachment A Report of the 2003-04 LSMI Work Group

The Value and Efficiency Task force assigned this group the task of selecting a future cosponsor for the Legislative Staff Management Institute (LSMI). The work group conducted a bid process to solicit potential cosponsors and made site visits to the three finalists. The work group’s key goals were to maintain and strengthen LSMI as a vital legislative staff training program. The work group recommends that the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee approve the proposal submitted by the University of Southern California and the California State University, Sacramento, to cosponsor LSMI for the 2005-2009 period. Background The Legislative Staff Management Institute has been held each year since 1990 as NCSL’s premier staff development program for senior legislative staff. Since its inception, LSMI has been cosponsored by the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota was selected as the cosponsor through a bid process conducted by NCSL in 1989. The LSMI has received very positive evaluations by participants since its creation. However, in recent years LSMI has experienced difficulty in attracting enough participants to fill the 25 slots in the program. LSMI was shortened from 13 days to 8 days in 2003 to help address this situation, but all slots were still not filled. Recognizing that it had been 15 years since the initial LSMI cosponsor selection, the work group decided to seek permission to re-bid LSMI for the 2005-2009 period. The LSCC approved this proposal at the 2003 Coeur d’Alene meeting. Bid Process A request for proposals was issued in November 2003 and sent to approximately 35 graduate schools of public policy and public administration throughout the U.S. Three potential cosponsors responded to the RFP:

1. The Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota; 2. A joint proposal by the LBJ School of Public Affairs of the University of Texas at Austin and the George

Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University; and 3. A joint proposal by University of Southern California and the California State University, Sacramento

The work group conducted site visits to each potential cosponsor during February and March 2004, to review the proposed curriculum, examine the proposed housing and classroom facilities, and discuss the proposals with cosponsor representatives. The work group wishes to thank each potential cosponsor for their hospitality during this process. As specified in the RFP, the criteria used by the workgroup to evaluate the proposals were:

Overall qualifications including demonstrating a sound understanding of the legislative environment and the role of staff;

Curriculum; Cost; Housing and meals; Classroom facilities; and Location.

Results The work group found that each of the potential cosponsors submitted viable bids. While the proposals differed (at times substantially) in terms of curriculum and vision for legislative staff development, each would provide useful training for senior legislative managers. However, the joint USC/UCS proposal received the highest rating from each of the team members. The work group believes that selecting the California cosponsor would enable NCSL to



offer a superior executive training program for senior legislative staff, as well as reinvigorate LSMI. Some senior legislative staff who formerly attended the program when it was hosted by the Humphrey School may wish to attend the “new LSMI” in Sacramento. The California proposal As proposed, LSMI would be held in Sacramento in summer or early fall starting in 2005. Participants would be housed in the Hyatt Hotel (rated four-star), directly across from the California state capitol and in the center of the Sacramento dining/entertainment district. Training sessions would be held at the USC Sacramento Center, located approximately nine blocks from the hotel. The proposed curriculum for the program is attached. The core faculty has extensive work experience with and understanding of the legislative process. Other sessions would be provided by a variety of guest faculty that include former legislative members and staff, as well as private trainers who have received consistently strong evaluation ratings for similar programs. The proposed cost for tuition, room and board would be $1,950, the same as the current price at the Humphrey Institute. This price may change slightly based on final negotiation of details with the cosponsor. Recommendations The work group respectfully recommends that LSCC take the following actions.

1. Approve a contract with the University of Southern California/California State University-Sacramento to host LSMI for the 2005-2009 period.

2. Adopt a resolution thanking the Humphrey Institute for its service to NCSL by hosting LSMI from 1990

through 2004, and asking the Institute to consider ways to retain the value their service, which could include publishing a book of study cases used in LSMI that legislative staff could use nationwide.

3. To help ensure that LSMI continues to provide a superior training opportunity, re-bid the contract in 2009

for the 2010-214 period.

4. Form a continuing work group to work with the California cosponsor to fine tune the curriculum and monitor the initial 2005 Institute.

5. Adopt the following steps to improve marketing for LSMI:

a. Request NCSL staff to write a marketing article on LSMI that all staff sections would include in their newsletters (this should be revised and run annually);

b. Request NCSL staff to write a State Legislatures article on LSMI; c. Include a brief message on LSMI at the Annual Meeting staff lunch; and d. Develop a brochure for LSMI that can be given to alumni to help them market the program in their

home state legislatures.

6. Consider forming a future work group charged with developing strategies for strengthening nationwide training opportunities for legislative staff, including examining the role of staff section professional development conferences, NCSL issue seminars, and the Seminar for Legislative Staff Executives (SLSE), as well as the potential to provide increased training opportunities through technologies such as distance learning and Web conferences.

Respectfully submitted, The LSMI Work Group

Gary VanLandingham Kathy Schill Steve Miller Karl Kurtz (ex officio)



Staff Section

Fall '03 (Paid) Conference Attendance

Listserv Subscriptions

Website Hits Newsletter Rec's for Value and Efficiency Other Notes

NLPES 194 332 146/wk 3 times/yr

1) Continue to explore and develop new uses of technology to connect legislators and staff offices for both policy development and professional staff development. 2) Actively promote and facilitate staff section cooperation and coordination for professional development seminars, including the Annual Meeting.

Oct-Nov '03 avg weekly Website hits

NALIT 90 193 124/wk22/wk on web;

300 sub'sDeveloping a "mentor" program to match more active member states with those that have been less-active. Sep-Nov '03 website info

NALFO 52 48-117/wk 1400 sub's

1) Develop a range of programs for long-time Senior Analysts to prepare them for management positions. 2) Place conference documents on the Web and develop CDs (for purchase) for staff not able to attend conferences. 3) Find ways for staff sections to work together.

Active listserv. For example, a question during the fall session generated 26 responses.

RACSS 46 145 48-128/wk3 times/yr; 1400-

1500 sub's

Lexis/Nexis sponsorship of newsletter; Sep-Nov 03 website info.

LINCS 55 3 times/yr

1) Joint meeting w/ other staff sections for economies of scale and a more diverse program. 2) Combine pds w/ a specialized "boot camp" for section, e.g., new staff boot camp.

NCSL posting of newsletter to Web is desired

NLSSA 80 140 79/wk 3 times/yr

1) Keep members more informed of changes in membership on NCSL Task Forces and NLSSA involvement w/ those Task Forces. 2) More consistent communication among members between the meetings of the NLSSA.

Budgets and travel restrictions "may" play a role in limiting attendance at meetings. Oct-Nov '03 website info

LSSS/legal 47

LSS 72

ASLCS 179 115 120/wk 3 times/yr

LRL 13 88 82/wk225 mailed 4

times/yr

Intermittent surveys of members to determine what they'd like on Web site.

43


Appendix XX Legislative Staff Perspectives on NCSL Services Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee Support and Outreach Task Force January 2004 Following are the results of a national survey of state legislative staff regarding services provided by NCSL. The survey was conducted between November 19 and December 16, 2003. An online questionnaire was sent electronically to 12,994 legislative staff for whom NCSL has valid e-mail addresses. The mailing list represents about one-third of all state legislative staff in the country. This population of potential respondents has a bias toward legislative staff who are involved with NCSL because the people who are on NCSL’s list are ones who have registered for the NCSL Web site, attended a meeting, submitted an information request or obtained a publication. In other words, staff who have never been involved with NCSL were not contacted or included in the survey. Reponses were received from 1,116 staff from all 50 states, a response rate of 8.6 percent.

Demographics: Who Responded to the Survey?

Table 1: Respondents by State State Names on NCSL List Responses Percent Alabama 80 7 8.8%Alaska 236 16 6.8%Arizona 368 22 6.0%Arkansas 116 9 7.8%California 666 37 5.6%Colorado 319 25 7.8%Connecticut 273 32 11.7%Delaware 138 2 1.4%District of Columbia 111 14 12.6%Florida 605 73 12.1%Georgia 190 18 9.5%Hawaii 225 21 9.3%Idaho 83 9 10.8%Illinois 379 15 4.0%Indiana 230 13 5.7%Iowa 189 22 11.6%Kansas 182 21 11.5%Kentucky 335 20 6.0%Louisiana 300 27 9.0%Maine 207 9 4.3%Maryland 300 21 7.0%Massachusetts 312 9 2.9%Michigan 555 19 3.4%Minnesota 535 37 6.9%Mississippi 107 17 15.9%Missouri 271 7 2.6%Montana 74 11 14.9%Nebraska 138 24 17.4%

44


State Names on NCSL List Responses Percent Nevada 165 18 10.9%New Hampshire 115 10 8.7%New Jersey 356 21 5.9%New Mexico 151 6 4.0%New York 615 33 5.4%North Carolina 218 16 7.3%North Dakota 42 8 19.0%Ohio 515 31 6.0%Oklahoma 226 15 6.6%Oregon 326 10 3.1%Pennsylvania 787 51 6.5%Puerto Rico 48 9 18.8%Rhode Island 33 1 3.0%South Carolina 166 8 4.8%South Dakota 47 4 8.5%Tennessee 291 21 7.2%Texas 880 47 5.3%Utah 188 17 9.0%Vermont 82 8 9.8%Virginia 289 25 8.7%Washington 456 22 4.8%West Virginia 165 15 9.1%Wisconsin 576 38 6.6%Wyoming 50 8 16.0%State total 14,311 999 7.0%Other 195 117 Less invalid addresses (1,512)Total 12,994 1,116 8.6%

Table 2: Respondents by Staff Function Which of the following best describes the function that you perform as a staff person? (Choose the one that most closely fits your responsibility.) Count Percent of Total

Respondents Research or committee staff 266 24% Performance evaluation or auditing 159 15% Fiscal analysis 152 14% Legal services 125 11% Personal staff to a legislator 99 9% Leadership or caucus staff 75 7% Top manager of an office or agency 67 6% Clerk's or Secretary's office (legislative administration)

53 5%

Public information or media relations 30 3% Information technology 26 2% Library 25 2% Services and security (Sgt.-at-arms' offices) 22 2%

45


Table 3: Level of NCSL Activity In the last 3 years, how many NCSL meetings of any kind have you attended outside your own state? Meetings 0 50% 1 - 4 40% 5 - 8 6% 9+ 4%

General Questions about NCSL

Table 4: Importance of NCSL Activities How important is each of the following NCSL activities to you? Mean Not

Important Somewhat Important

Important Very Important

News and information on public policy issues 3.4 3% 9% 35% 53%Networking with legislators and staff in other states 3.1 6% 21% 36% 39%Strengthening the legislative institution 3.0 8% 19% 40% 34%Professional development of legislative staff 3.0 12% 19% 34% 37%Educating the public about state legislatures and representative democracy

2.7 11% 28% 39% 24%

Representing the states before the federal government

2.7 16% 27% 35% 24%

Table 5: Familiarity with NCSL Services How familiar would you say you are with each of the following NCSL services to legislative staff?

Mean Not familiar Somewhat familiar Familiar Very familiar State Legislatures magazine 3.2 6% 12% 37% 46%Web site 3.1 3% 17% 44% 36%Responses to information requests 2.9 12% 20% 37% 32%Annual meeting 2.8 13% 23% 32% 32%LegisBriefs 2.7 18% 23% 31% 29%Legislative staff sections 2.6 14% 30% 33% 23%Professional development seminars 2.6 18% 31% 30% 21%Standing committees on policy issues 2.3 23% 37% 30% 10%Consulting services for individual states 2.0 39% 30% 22% 10%

Table 5a: Familiarity with NCSL Services by Level of Activity Meetings Attended Last 3 Years

0 (Less Active) 1 - 4 (Active) 5+ (Very Active) Legislative staff sections 2.3 2.9 3.7 Annual meeting 2.4 3.1 3.9 State Legislatures magazine 3.1 3.3 3.8 Professional development seminars 2.1 2.9 3.4 Consulting services for individual states 1.9 2.1 2.7 LegisBriefs 2.6 2.7 3.3 Responses to information requests 2.8 2.9 3.3 Web site 3.1 3.1 3.5 Standing committees on policy issues 2.1 2.3 3.0

46


Annual Meeting

Table 6: Annual Meeting Attendance The last three NCSL annual meetings were held in San Francisco (2003), Denver (2002), and San Antonio (2001). How many of these meetings did you attend? 0 70% 1 16% 2 8% 3 8%

Table 7: Importance of Annual Meeting Aspects [Of those who have attended at least one recent annual meeting] How important is each of the following aspects of NCSL's annual meeting to you?

Mean Not Important

Somewhat Important

Important Very Important

Networking with legislators and legislative staff from other states

3.2 4% 19% 30% 48%

Personal growth and enrichment 3.2 3% 12% 47% 39%Policy information gained through the program 3.1 5% 18% 41% 36%Visiting and enjoying an interesting city 2.6 9% 34% 42% 15%Information and contacts gained through the exhibit hall

2.2 22% 44% 27% 9%

Development and adoption of NCSL policy positions

2.1 24% 46% 23% 7%

Table 8: Satisfaction with Annual Meeting [Of those who have attended at least one recent annual meeting] How satisfied are you with NCSL's annual meeting? Mean 3.1 Not Satisfied 1% Somewhat Satisfied 18% Satisfied 54% Very Satisfied 28%

Table 9: Reasons for Annual Meeting Non-participation [Of those who have not attended an annual meeting] why have you not participated in NCSL's annual meeting? (Check all that apply.) Reason The legislature won't pay my travel 53%Other 31%I'm too busy 15%My supervisor doesn't support my involvement in this activity 14%It doesn't seem relevant to my work 12%I wasn't aware that NCSL offers this service 7%I prefer the meetings of other organizations 6%I'm not interested in interstate activities in this area 2%

47


Staff Sections and Professional Development

Table 10: Usefulness of Staff Section Services NCSL has 10 professional organizations (sections) for legislative staff that provide services to staff working in particular legislative fields. Thinking back over the last three years, how useful have you found each of the following services provided by staff sections? Mean Did not use Not useful Somewhat

useful Useful Very

useful Staff section Web page 2.6 40% 3% 23% 23% 12%National directory of legislative staff in a particular field 2.5 46% 3% 18% 21% 13%Staff section newsletter 2.4 46% 4% 21% 20% 9%Professional development seminars sponsored by a staff section

2.4 58% 2% 7% 16% 19%

E-mail discussions (listservs) sponsored by a staff section

2.4 51% 3% 17% 18% 13%

Sessions sponsored by a staff section at NCSL's annual meeting

2.1 64% 1% 8% 15% 13%

Table 10a: Usefulness of Staff Section Services by Level of Activity Meetings Attended Last 3 Years 0 (Less Active) 1 - 4 (Active) 5+ (Very Active)Sessions sponsored by a staff section at NCSL's annual meeting

1.3 2.7 4.2

Professional development seminars sponsored by a staff section

1.3 3.1 4.3

E-mail discussions (listservs) sponsored by a staff section 1.9 2.7 3.7Staff section newsletter 1.9 2.7 3.7National directory of legislative staff in a particular field 2.2 2.7 3.7Staff section Web page 2.3 2.8 3.6

Table 10b: Usefulness of Staff Section Services by Staff Function Fiscal

analyst Info tech

Ldrs or caucus

Legal srvcs

Clerk or Secy

Librarian Perf eval

Personal Public info

Research Srvcs

Security

Top mngr

Annual Meeting sessions

2.2 2.7 1.9 2.3 3.6 2.2 2.0 1.1 2.4 1.8 3.5 3.0

Professional devel seminars

2.3 3.1 2.1 2.8 4.0 3.2 2.2 1.3 2.8 2.0 3.8 3.0

Listservs 2.4 2.8 1.7 2.2 3.6 3.8 2.8 1.4 2.7 2.2 3.9 2.6Newsletter 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.4 3.6 3.6 2.6 1.5 2.8 2.2 4.0 2.7National directory 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.3 3.5 4.0 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.6 3.9 3.1Web page 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.3 3.6 3.4 2.7 2.0 2.8 2.7 3.9 2.7

Table 11: Non-Participation in Staff Sections Did you answer "Did not use" to 5 or more of the above questions about legislative staff sections? Yes 32% No 68%

48


Table 11a: Reasons for Non-Participation in Staff Sections [Of those who have not used five or more of the staff section services] Please indicate why you have not used staff section services. (Check all that apply.) Reason I wasn't aware that NCSL offers these services 68%The legislature won't pay for my travel 22%These services don't seem relevant to my work 21%Other 13%I'm too busy 11%My supervisor doesn't support my involvement in this activity 9%I prefer to use other organizations for similar services 2%I'm not interested in interstate activities in this area 1%

Table 12: Familiarity with Cross-cutting Seminars NCSL offers several cross-cutting professional development programs for legislative staff regardless of their areas of specialization. How familiar are you with each of these programs? Mean Not familiar Somewhat familiar Familiar Very familiar Skills Development Seminar 2.0 47% 21% 19% 13%Legislative Staff Management Institute 1.8 51% 6 14% 10%Seminar for Legislative Staff Executives 1.5 67% 20% 10% 4%

Table 12a: Familiarity with Cross-cutting Seminars by Level of Activity Meetings Attended Last 3 Years 0 (Less Active) 1 - 4 (Active) 5+ (Very Active) Skills Development Seminar 1.6 2.3 2.9Legislative Staff Management Institute 1.5 1.9 2.9Seminar for Legislative Staff Executives 1.3 1.6 2.3

Table 12b: Familiarity with Cross-cutting Seminars by Staff Function Fiscal

analyst Info tech Ldrs or

caucus Legal srvcs

Clerk or Secy

Librarian Perf eval Personal Public info

Research Srvcs Security

Top mngr

Skills Development 2.3 1.6 1.7 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.5 LSMI 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.5 SLSE 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.2

49


Standing Committees

Table 13: Appointments to Standing Committees Legislative staff are eligible to participate in NCSL's 15 policy committees under its Standing Committees, formerly the Assembly on State Issues (ASI). Have you ever been appointed to serve as a member of a committee of NCSL's Standing Committees (or ASI)? Yes 13.0% No 87.0%

Table 14: Usefulness of Standing Committee Services The services of the Standing Committees (or ASI) are not limited to members of the committees. Thinking back over the last three years, how useful have you found the following committee services? Mean Did not use Not useful Somewhat

useful Useful Very

usefulPrinted information (newsletters, issue briefs or other publications) on state or federal policy issues sponsored by a committee

2.6 40% 2% 27% 22% 10%

Personal contacts ("networking") with legislators or legislative staff in other states as a result of committee participation

1.9 68% 2% 11% 11% 9%

Sessions at NCSL's annual meeting on state or federal policy issues sponsored by a committee

1.8 71% 1% 9% 13% 6%

E-mail discussions (listservs) sponsored by a committee 1.7 70% 3% 14% 10% 4%Stand-alone (separate from the annual meeting) meetings of the Standing Committees (or ASI)

1.5 80% 3% 7% 7% 3%

Table 15: Non-participation in Standing Committees Did you answer "Did not use" to 4 or more of the above questions about NCSL's Standing Committees? Yes 58% No 42%

Table 15a: Reasons for Non-participation in Standing Committees [Of those who answered “did not use” to four or more of the Standing Committees questions] Please indicate why you have not used services provided by the Standing Committees (or ASI). (Check all that apply.) Reason I wasn't aware that NCSL offers these services 57%The legislature won't pay for my travel 29%These services don't seem relevant to my work 26%I'm too busy 11%Other 11%My supervisor doesn't support my involvement in this activity 9%I'm not interested in interstate activities in this area 4%

50


Web Site, Information and Consulting Services

Table 16: Frequency of Web Site Usage How often do you use NCSL's Web site (www.ncsl.org)? Mean 2.3 Never or almost never 22% About once a month 42% Several times a month 26% Once or twice a week 10% Daily 1%

Table 16a: Frequency of Web Site Usage by Level of Activity Meetings Attended Last 3 Years 0 (Less Active) 1 - 4 (Active) 5+ (Very Active)Never or almost never 26.6% 19.0% 7.3%About once a month 43.2% 43.0% 30.3%Several times a month 22.1% 28.3% 38.5%Once or twice a week 7.4% 8.8% 22.0%Daily 0.7% 0.9% 1.8%

Table 17: Usefulness of Web Site [Of those who did not answer “Never or almost never” to the above] How useful is NCSL's Web site to you for each of the following purposes? Mean Did not use Not useful Somewhat

useful Useful Very

usefulGet information or news on policy or legislative management issues

3.7 6% 3% 30% 39% 22%

Find information about NCSL and its activities or events

3.7 11% 2% 20% 41% 26%

Contact NCSL staff 3.6 14% 5% 19% 37% 26%Find Web sites of other state legislatures or links to useful organizations

3.5 14% 3% 22% 37% 24%

Obtain contact information for legislators or staff in other states

2.6 42% 3% 20% 23% 12%

Look for employment or job information 1.6 75% 5% 10% 7% 4%

51

http://www.ncsl.org)/


Table 18: Reasons for not Using Web Site [Of those who responded “Never or almost never” to use of the Web site] Why do you not use NCSL's Web site? (Check all that apply.) Responses NCSL's Web site doesn't seem relevant to my work 30% It's hard to find things on NCSL's Web site 26% I would rather contact NCSL in person for information 26% I'm too busy 20% I wasn't aware that NCSL offers this service 18% Other 16%

15% I'm not interested in interstate information 1% I prefer to get my information from other organizations

Table 19: Contacting NCSL for Information During the last six months, how many times would you say that you have contacted NCSL via telephone, e-mail, online information request, fax or letter to obtain information? Mean 2.5 Never 25% Once or twice 33% 3-4 times 21% 5-6 times 10% 7 or more times 12%

Table 19a: Contacting NCSL for Information by Level of Activity Meetings Attended Last 3 Years 0 (Less Active) 1 - 4 (Active) 5+ (Very Active)Never 33.6% 20.8% 1.8% Once or twice 33.6% 35.5% 13.8% 3-4 times 18.3% 23.5% 21.1% 5-6 times 8.0% 10.4% 17.4% 7 or more times 6.5% 9.7% 45.9%

Table 20: Satisfaction with Information Request Responses [Of those who contact NCSL for information] Thinking over all of your recent requests for information, how satisfied are you with the responses that you received from NCSL? Mean 3.2 Not Satisfied 4% Somewhat Satisfied 15% Satisfied 45% Very Satisfied 37%

52


Table 21: Reasons for not Contacting NCSL for Information [Of those who do not contact NCSL for information] Why do you not contact NCSL for information? (Check all that apply.) Responses I can get the information I need from the Web 38%This service doesn't seem relevant to my work 28%Other 25%I wasn't aware that NCSL offers this service 21%I'm too busy 12%I prefer to get information from other organizations 12%I'm not interested in comparative state information 2%

Table 22: Use of Consulting Services NCSL provides consulting services on policy or legislative management issues including testifying before committees, drafting legislation, evaluating legislative services, and strategic planning and facilitation. During the last three years, how often have you been involved with any such consulting services provided by NCSL in your state? Not at all 82% Once 10% More than once 8%

Table 23: Satisfaction with Consulting Services [Of those who were involved in consulting services] How satisfied were you with the consulting services? Mean 3.3 Not Satisfied 3% Somewhat Satisfied 11% Satisfied 45% Very Satisfied 42%

Publications

Table 24: Reading State Legislatures NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures, is published 10 times a year. How often do you read at least one article in an issue? Mean 3.2Never 8%Seldom (once or twice a year) 13%Occasionally (3-6 times a year) 27%Regularly (almost every issue) 52%

Table 25: Satisfaction with State Legislatures [Of those who did not answer “Never” to the above] How satisfied are you with State Legislatures magazine? Mean 3.0 Not Satisfied 1% Somewhat Satisfied 19% Satisfied 57% Very Satisfied 22%

53


Table 26: Reading LegisBriefs NCSL's LegisBriefs are concise, 2-page briefs published 8 times per year (6 briefs per issue) on policy issues facing state legislatures. During the last three years, have you read at least one LegisBrief? Yes 75% No 25%

Table 27: Experience with LegisBriefs [Of those who have read LegisBriefs] Which of the following describe your experience with LegisBriefs? (Check all that apply.) Responses I see LegisBriefs occasionally when someone passes one on to me 43%I read most of the ones I see 42%I receive all LegisBriefs (6 per mailing, 8 times a year) 39%I file them for future use 30%I forward them to others in the legislature 20%I throw them away without reading them 1%

Table 28: Satisfaction with LegisBriefs How satisfied are you with LegisBriefs? Mean 2.9 Not Satisfied 2% Somewhat Satisfied 22% Satisfied 57% Very Satisfied 19%

Disseminating Information from Meetings

Table 29: Meeting Products for non-Meeting Attenders If NCSL holds a meeting on a subject in which you are interested but you are unable to attend, how valuable would it be to have each of the following resources available to you in electronic format (e.g., Web, CD-ROM, DVD) from the meeting? (Check all that apply.) Mean Not valuable Somewhat

valuable Valuable Very

valuableCopies of handouts, speeches and PowerPoint presentations in electronic format

3.0 6% 21% 43% 30%

A written summary or proceedings of the meeting 2.8 11% 26% 40% 23%A Web- or computer-based training module on the subject matter

2.6 17% 27% 37% 19%

Web conferencing--live (at the time of the meeting), remote participation via telephone and Web

2.3 27% 30% 25% 18%

A video recording of the sessions 2.1 36% 33% 21% 11%An audio recording of the sessions 1.9 43% 33% 16% 8%

54


Table 30: Paying for Meeting Materials Yes Uncertain No Would you or your legislature be willing to pay a small fee (less than $100) to obtain these resources from meetings that you are unable to attend?

14% 75% 12%

Other Demographics Table 31: Where do you work? In the state capitol or an adjacent building 96%In a legislative district office 2%In another legislative office outside the capital city 2%

Table 32: How long have you worked for the legislature? One year or less 2% 2 - 5 years 29% 6 - 10 years 19% 11 - 20 years 27% More than 20 years 23%

Table 33: Do you consider yourself to be partisan or nonpartisan staff? Partisan 25% Nonpartisan 75%

Table 34: Which of the following NCSL positions have you held at any point in your career? (Check all that apply.) Member of the NCSL Executive Committee 4% Officer or member of an executive committee of a staff section 11% Staff chair or vice chair of a committee (Standing Committees or ASI) 7% None of the above 85%

How Can NCSL Improve its Services? The questionnaire included one general, open-ended question, Do you have any comments that would help NCSL improve its services to legislative staff? We received 111 responses to this question. Thirty-six of theme dealt with improvements in the Web site. Since we are in the midst of a revamp of the Web site, we are not including these comments. Comments on other topics are included below in their entirety (complete with typos) except for tallies of nearly identical responses. The responses have been grouped by topic. Information Services 1. Respond in a timely fashion to telephone requests for information—4. 2. Urgent responses to requests are much more important to me than the quantity of information 3. Certain staff in Washington DC do not respond at all to legislative inquiries. For those select few, they need to

reevaluate what the purpose of their job is. 4. I am a Senior staffer and find calling NCSL for info almost totally useless. I can find what I need faster on the

web, without all the "attitude" and delays I get from your staff. Your website is the only NCSL resource that is useful to me at all. When calling for info, I have been told that your staff "would have to check and see" if I was "high enough up the food chain" (direct quote) to be entitled to a call back. Now that we have the Internet, responses like that can make NCSL irrelevant. Sorry, but it's true.

5. The only time I tried to obtain information through our state contact was the one time I had no response from NCSL staff (about 3 years ago). Also, it's ocassionally frustrating to be directed to the voice mail of staff who

55


are not in the office or going to be in the office for some days. 6. I am often frustrated by the lag time between the time I make a general request on the website and the time I

receive a response. This is really only an issue when I don't know the name of the NCSL staffer who is assigned to this issue and use the general information request form. I usually don't hear from whomever receives my request until they have completed their research, which is problematic if I need to change my request in the meantime. This is also frustrating in the summer when the person who receives my request is on vacation and doesn't respond to me for weeks at a time. I would find it helpful if the name of the NCSL staffer who receives my request could contact me to let me know that they have received my request and that they hope to have the information by a certain date, rather than waiting until they have compiled all the information. That way I don't have to worry that my request has been overlooked if I don't hear anything for a few weeks or I can contact the staffer directly with a reminder email. I would not be offended if a staffer told me that he or she was busy at the time, but would get back to me at a later date. Just being in the loop is what is most important to me.

7. Return calls and emails 8. As staff, I find staff development the most useful NCSL service. Your folks do a great job. However, NCSL

staff could improve its response time for information requests. If information is not readily available, NCSL staff has failed to provide promised info on several occassions.

9. I have sent several, at least 5, requests for information over the last few months. I have received one response. In that case, I had some general information on the subject but needed more detail. The response was simply the general information I already had except that it was six years old. I still await some form of response for several other issues. If they can't help me find the resources I need, at least tell me so.

10. For me the most valuable NCSL service tends to be providing information upon request about what other states are doing in a particular subject area. I've had mixed results in getting this information. Sometimes I get good information. Other times NCSL has not been able to provide much help, even in cases in which I later found relevant information elsewhere; e.g. Governing magazine or CSG organizations.

11. Recently (i.e., over the past year), when we have called NCSL for research information, it has taken 5-10 days for anyone to get back with us. During the interim (between legislative sessions) that's not a big deal, but when we have legislators and aides desperate for info that NCSL has said they'll send or said they'll get back in touch with us about, it's very frustrating, both for us and the legislator's office.

12. Response time for requests for information over the phone or via e-mail is sometimes slow to nonexistent. But the material NCSL maintains on its web site is very useful.

13. You should impress upon staff that it reflects better on your organization if they return your calls. I called and was referred to a Josh (?) in Denver about an issue and he never called me back.

14. Prompt acknowledgment to email requests so we will know message was received and material will be sent - hopefully electronically or more info needed.

15. Unfortunately, since the environmental field in California is usually on the cutting edge of policy, I've already known about the information available, so my experiences have not been incredibly helpful. That being said, I've actually learned about some more services, so I may try and get more information in the future from NCSL.

16. Yes, many times elected members ask for the legislation in other states, by issues, and by states it would be nice to have copies of legislation drafts.

17. A database that will allow a user to search all state legislatures at once for specific legislation. 18. I wrote some comments above regarding not just gathering information, but analyzing it and presenting it in a

consistent form. 19. More emphasis on policy innovations that are working in the changing fiscal and political environments 20. I find NCSL's information to be somewhat slanted with a bias towards a liberal or Democratic viewpoint. 21. More information, less opinion. 22. With the exception of one staffer, NCSL staff's research work has been inadequate and incomplete. This is

particlarly true when NCSL staff has not researched a particular issue and I ask to get information on how other states handle the issue.

23. Your staff should use multiple sources to obtain information not just contact one staff source and think that represents what is actually occurring - sometimes I have found your information slanted to a particular partisian view - which later I found was a result because your staff only talked to one particular side - i.e. talking only to the Governor's budget office (obvioulsy the office will represent the view point of the party of the Governor).

24. Ideally, NCSL would be a on-stop-shop to find links or information on comparative statistics or policies in the states.

25. Iclude the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in your studies and publications. It is really unfortunate that full dues paying member is not treated as one.

56


Meetings and Committees 26. Make the annual meeting more useful and attractive to staff. As it stands, there's not enough content to get them

interested, and with limited travel funds, many of us don't attend. On the other hand, the PDS (NALIT in my case) is superb!

27. Cut down on the number of meetings that I have to send my NCSL active employees to. Four a year is a lot of time out of the office. More should be done over the internet or telephone.

28. More tools specific training. Also, more networking for staff outside of HHS issues. It feels like the only real NCSL staff network is for human services.

29. The NYS legislature funds very little out-of-state travel, and none of the meetings have been local. Web connections, or more local meetings/outreach with information would be helpful

30. Standing committees need to send information about the results of their meetings to staff (and members) who cannot attend. Otherswise they get no benefit from membership. With travel limits, many appointed members (and most staff) cannot attend.

31. I want more sessions from our section LPES at the annual meeting, we only have two and that is not enough to justify going or sending staff. You keep asking what number of sessions I have attended but I send staff and if I am do not feel they are worth the cost then pehaps they do not go. Lets have more from our sections.

32. The only problem or concern in regards to the Annual Meeting. There are, too, many sessions at the same time and it is hard to make a decision on which one to go to. I try catching about half of each one, but then I am really losing out on both sessions. I'm not sure how to solve this concern, but it is voiced by many staff and legislators when we talk about the Annual Meeting. Also, more information needs to be given out about committee sections and how to get on a list for a particular subject.

33. Your survey did not include any questions about participating in task forces and/or working groups. I do not feel that there are very many opportunities for legislative staff to be involved in committee work -- NCSL staff seem to be the drivers.

34. Do not schedule staff sections against staff sections at the Annual Meeting program. This keeps people from attending sessions which they wish to attend!

35. I've been to two NCSL related meetings (one annual meeting, one staff meeting). For my use, every session I attended suffered from the same flaw: the material was directed at too broad an audience to be useful. I'm sorry to be saying this, but I have yet to attend a meeting session that has improved my ability to do my job in the least and that seems to be a common sentiment among staff I've talked to.

36. There are too many meetings at the annual meeting. And I don't believe that anyone should be able to nominate themselves for an award.

37. Do does one get appointed to a committee? 38. Encourage or assign more Chairman to your standing committees. Think they would participate more.

(confidential) 39. Hoping that NCSL would probably have a program (grant)for legislative staffers that are not able to attend

because of financial situation, i.e. airfare, fees, etc. THANK YOU! 40. positioning of staff section time slots during the annual meeting continue to be problematic. Allow staff sections

to provide sessions opposite standing committee timeslots or concurrent sessions. 41. Find more ways to lower cost to attend meetings. More Effective Marketing of NCSL Services 42. I think that NCSL probably has lots of resources that I am unaware of. Perhaps a mailer or catalog of available

information and services would be helpful. 43. Yes, make it easier to get on the mailing lists. It is entirely too difficult. 44. alternatives when unable to attend conferences. 45. Continue to market your services and products by reaching out to as many key staff as possible. Keep contact

lists current. 46. advertise advertise advertise Who are you, what do you do, how can it help me do my job? The information isn't

getting past the gatekeeper here. 47. A short "what we can do for you" document issued in a regular publication, mailed separately to everyone on

your mailing list, or even highlighted on your website would be very helpful. It seems that every time we hire someone new and try to tell them you are a good resource, we can never quite explain what information we can get from you or how. Each person's experience is different.

48. Possibly sending out a written brief on the services that NCSL provides to legisltive staff. 49. Update calednar better. Before the end of each year, next year's schedule, even if tentative, should be listed.

Encourage legislators to be supportive of staff branches and support staff participation.

57


50. It would be most helpful if those of use who can't attend NCSL meetings could get summaries of the meetings, minutes, handouts, etc. It would also be helpful for us to receive copies of all LegisBriefs and State Legislatures and other publications either in print or electronically. We don't get these on a regular basis unless someone shares them with us. Is there any type of electronic notification put out by NCSL that provides information on what is available on a regular basis?

51. Maybe an email summary of NCSL services when a staffer registers 52. Make sure we know what is available. Help with expenses. 53. It would be good to receive more information that describes the essence of this organization. what is it? who

does it serve? What is it's mission, goals, objectives? Etc. 54. Do you provide any information to legislative staff leaders and legislators about information technology

management? 55. About once a year someone from NCSL visits for 1 hours with the entire staff and hands out a brochure and

asks "are there any questions" then they leave. That's it. For the money teh state pays you would think we would have more contact.

56. Our legislature lacks staff development training. It would be nice to have the Colorado office travel to some of the surrounding states and put on mini forums for staff.

57. More frequent monitoring of individual state sessions to cue staff and members about available assistance or informational resources -- more frequent, regular visits by NCSL resource staff, especially in cases where there are professional state legislative staff are relatively inexperienced or minimal in number.

58. SINCE THERE ARE SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE LEGISLATIVE STAFF; I THINK THE STAFF SHOULD BE A PART OF THE MAILOUT AS WELL.

59. Provide more education as to the services and staff sections NCSL offers. 60. Are the Legisbriefs available online? I think that the fiscal policy staff are very helpful. The more info available

online the better - work you do for other states (comparisons etc.) should be posted if it's not confidential. 61. NCSL is an excellent organization; unfortunately, our legislature has not made good use of NCSL's services and

is not really tapped into NCSL. Maybe it would help to have an NCSL liaison to each legislature (in fact, this may already be the case and I may just be unaware).

62. Encourage elected officials to allow staff to take advantage of NCSL's services. 63. NCSL continually demonstrates its interest in developing staff skills and opening communications between

states. Limits to using the services result from the restrictions placed on participation by our legislature. Not all legislative staff are able to attend conferences or seminars, which furthers a disinterest in NCSL services.

Compliments 64. NCSL staff have been very helpful in research projects in the past. 65. NCSL staff has ALWAYS responded to me when I needed help. The responses were helpful, timely, and

professional. Your recent staff cuts have somewhat increased the length of time for receiving help. 66. I am very pleased that there are plans for a training session for "editors." 67. I have many "favorites" on the NCSL staff, including: Brian Weberg, Brenda Erickson, Jeanne Mejeur, Rich

Jones, Jenny Drage Bowser, and so many others. 68. I am a huge fan of NCSL. The problem is with or organization not allowing most of us to attend NCSL

conferences. I could not do my job as well as I do without the help of NCSL. 69. unsure -- my impression of NCSL info is that it is very general/summary in nature and not very helpful for my

work; however, NCSL staff (esp. Julie Bell) has helped my Senator do many education workshops with which she was very pleased

70. I have been extremely satisfied with NCSL. The Internet has made our lives as researchers much easier so we rely less on the NCSL staff but whenever it becomes necessary, I have found the staff's response time impressive. I regret that many of us cannot attend the annual meetings and other staff development events but fiscal conditions in the state make that difficult at this time.

71. Thanks - All of this, I believe,is more important, and more valuable, than many people realize. I hope to be able to attend LSMI at some point in my career.

72. I am very thankful for NCSL's services. They have helped me many times in my research. I particularly use the website for a lot of my research. Kepp up the good work!

73. information-information-information...about issues-what is happening in washington-we always need this and use it a lot with our legislators and staff. thanks for the great work on the information side-do as much as possible.

74. Just thanks for all your help. 75. Keep at it. Especially termed out states with inexperienced staff.

58


76. I have received fast, reliable information from the NCSL regarding some legislative issues. I greatly appreciate your services.

Other 77. There is very little money available for staff development, if it's free, it's used. 78. I would encourage an effort to better service the needs of conservative or Republican staff. 79. It needs to be more relevant 80. IS THERE AN AGENDA FOR THE THOSE THAT SERVICE THE LEGISLATORS LIKE THE

ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO BE INVOLVED IN 81. Encourage NLSSA to start offering more programs on services in addition to security issues. 82. Unfortunately, we can no longer place long distance phone calls from the Massachusetts Legislature. It would

be very helpful if I could receive a list of staff with their email addresses and areas of expertise. I have used your services in the past to help me find out whether other states have filed particular legislation and you have been very helpfult to me. Most of my work is concentrated on electric and gas deregulation, and energy and telecommunications policy.

83. Get more input from a broader cross-section of staff in the nation about issues and services. If you only get input from those that are very involved with NCSL staff sections you get a certain bias. Many staff use and need NCSL information but either becuase they can't or don't enjoy travel or don't care to get information via a meeting format their input is excluded.

84. I have tried to paricipate in NCSL international programs but have not found the staff to be aggressive enough at securing opportunities. I talked with SUNY people overseas doing intl legislative consultation and (did not tell them, but) got a strong feeling that state legislative staff could blow them out of the water with our expertise. I wish NCSL could do more here.

59


Appendix XX List of States Less Active in NCSL

December 12, 2003 Rich Jones, NCSL Below is a somewhat subjective list of states that are less active in NCSL than others. These are states where we have limited representation on the NCSL Executive Committee or in the Standing Committees. Fewer members of these states have attended the annual meeting and meetings of the Standing Committees and we generally do not see or hear much from them. Some of these are states that we have targeted for officer visits and increased monitoring because of questions about dues payments. However, all of these states paid dues in fiscal year 2003 (one or two at a reduced level) and we expect dues from all of them in fiscal year 2004. In some cases, staff from these states have been more active than members, one chamber is more supportive than the other is or only one or two people from that state are active. Talking to people in these states may provide insights as to why they do or do not participate. It may also be helpful to talk with people from these states who are active for insights into why others from their state are not. I would be happy to provide further information about these states or other states that you may want to focus on for interviews.

State Comments

Massachusetts NCSL officers visited the legislature in March as part of the Spring Forum. The leaders are supportive of NCSL. Senator Moore is on the NCSL Executive Committee. The annual meeting often conflicts with the end of their legislative session. Generally, while supportive, we see more limited participation from Massachusetts legislators and staff than other similar states.

Michigan We have had greater participation in the past. Speaker Stephens visited Lansing in 2003 partially because of a concern over dues. Obviously, Gary Olson has been very active.

Minnesota While staff and members participate in NCSL activities the level of participation has been lower in recent years than in the past. Members of the House have been less active than senators.

Missouri The Senate has been more active than the House. Senator Rauschenberger visited Missouri in 2003 to help bolster support in the House.

Montana We have support among the staff and legislators. Because of tight budgets, short sessions and term limits many legislators do not attend meetings. We have had more success lately but this is a state that we watch closely. Speaker Stephens visited the legislature in 2003.

New Hampshire They have been less active recently than in past years. Questions about the dues were raised in 2003.

Rhode Island In recent years, we have had more support in the Senate than the House. Kevin Madigan has served on the NCSL Executive Committee. Senate leaders have been supportive and a House member is an office of NCSL’s Economic Development Committee.

South Carolina We have had more limited involvement from staff and legislators in recent years than in the past.

West Virginia Members of leadership staff, ASLCS and NLPES have been active lately and one or two legislators participate in the standing committees. Budget problems and travel bans have limited participation in meetings.

Wisconsin Staff and legislators participate in NCSL activities but the level of participation in recent years has been lower than it has in the past. In general, senators participate more than representatives.

60


Appendix XX

Summary of Past Market Research December 19, 2003 Rich Jones, NCSL This memorandum summarizes the results of some recent market research related to NCSL and its services. This includes focus groups, telephone interviews, mailed questionnaires and questionnaires distributed at meetings. In addition to the information presented here, NCSL compiles data on satisfaction with its meetings and holds other discussions with legislators and staff about our services. 1. NCSL Strategic Plan – 2001 As part NCSL’s strategic planning process, a focus group was conducted with the NCSL officers. Some of its findings include: • NCSL is a bipartisan, non biased organization • It is a trusted source for information • It is inclusive, flexible and able to respond to change • NCSL helps legislatures solve problems objectively • Strong advocate on federal issues • Too big, to impersonal to get arms around for members • Challenge to market our diverse portfolio • NCSL is marketing to a diverse constituency • There is confusion over our service and advocacy opportunities (name brand confusion) 2. NCSL Communication Strategy – 1998 As part of a redesign of NCSL’s logo and the look of its publications, NCSL hired Pacific Visions Communications to interview active and nonactive legislators and legislative staff and conduct a meeting with key stakeholders. This was done in 1998. The key findings from this effort include: • NCSL is viewed as a credible and respected source of information. • NCSL is a strong advocate for the states at the federal level. • Inactive members had difficulty defining the purpose and mission of NCSL. • NCSL is a complex organization with a wide variety of services • It would be helpful to personalize NCSL in each state and bring NCSL to the states. • Personal contact is the best means of communication between NCSL and state legislatures. • Current members should be used to communicate and reach out to others in their state. • Emphasize that NCSL is a bipartisan organization. • “In general, participants felt that NCSL is a top notch, professional organization that should focus on raising its

visibility among legislators and the general public.”, Stakeholder Interview Findings Report, Pacific Visions Communications, May 1998.

3. Assessment of NCSL’s Forum for Health Policy Leadership - 2001 NCSL’s Forum for Health Policy Leadership contracted with Georgetown University and T. Baugh and Company to conduct interviews and a focus group with health policy leaders in the states to assess how they viewed the Forum. They interviewed randomly selected legislators (97), legislative staff (98) and executive branch staff (97) who are experts on health policy. They also conducted a focus group with two legislators and six legislative staff. The key findings from this effort include: • 93 respondents named NCSL as an organization they trust for information on health policy. NCSL was named

more frequently than any other source. • NCSL had 100% name recognition • 87% said NCSL was bi-partisan or nonpartisan.

61


• 70% said NCSL was unbiased. • 70% heard of the Forum. • 80% of legislators more frequently read hard copy reports compared with 52% of legislative staff and 64% of

executive branch staff. Younger folks in all groups were more inclined to read electronic reports. • Summaries and briefs are most useful • Legislative staff want both long and short reports • Legislative staff are more likely to attend national meetings; legislators stick closer to home. • Staff appreciate the ability to contact colleagues in other states when faced with a particular issue. They value

the role NCSL plays in maintaining networks and facilitating their ability to contact staff in other states. • Having NCSL maintain networks is a more efficient and effective process than trying to maintain these contacts

on their own. Several contacts said that the networks change daily and NCSL keeps them up to date. 4. Surveys at NCSL Information Booth at Annual Meetings – 2001 NCSL gathered information on meetings, publications and electronic information sources through surveys of people who visited the NCSL information booth. This was done at the 2000 and 2001 annual meeting. This is in addition to broader surveys of attendees that have been conducted at each of the recent annual meetings. Below are some of the findings from the 2001 annual meeting. • Reasons for attending the annual meeting (ranked by importance with 5 being most important):

• Network with other legislators and staff – 4.5 • Positive experience with past NCSL meetings – 4.5 • Timely issues discussed – 4.3 • Availability of travel funds – 3.5 • Meeting locations – 3.1 • Serve on an NCSL committee – 2.8

• Effectiveness of receiving information from electronic sources (5=most effective): • Email – 4.4 • Telephone – 4.0 • Fax – 4.0 • NCSL website – 3.4

• Use of electronic information sources (5=very frequent use): • Web – 4.5 • Email – 4.4 • Telephone – 4.5 • Fax – 4.4

• Effectiveness of methods of presenting information (5=most effective) • Printed issue briefs – 4.3 • Presentations at meetings – 4.3 • Electronic issues briefs – 4.2

• Effectiveness of methods of distributing information (5=most effective) • Email – 4.5 • Meeting presentations – 4.2 • U.S. mail – 4.1

• Overall impression of NCSL (5=very favorable). Asked on all three surveys. • 4.6 (Meeting survey) • 4.7 (Products survey) • 4.3 (Electronic information survey)

• Total responses • 64 legislators • 87 legislative staff

62


Appendix XX

LSCC Key Legislator Survey 1. Familiarity with NCSL and its Services a. Extremely familiar 13 b. Very familiar 14 c. Familiar 6 d. Somewhat familiar 3 e. Not at all familiar 0 2. How often do you use NCSL services or participate in NCSL activities. a. Daily 0 b. Weekly 15 c. Monthly 17 d. Annually 4 e. Never use or participate 0 3. Types of services and activities used a. Information request service 15 b. State Legislatures magazine 30 c. NCSL Standing Committees 34 d. NCSL Annual Meeting 31 e. NCSL State Federal Relations 10 f. Legislators Back to School Week 19 g. Women's Network 6 h. NCSL Legisbriefs 26 i. NCSL web site 19 j. NCSL seminars 20 k. NCSL consulting services 6 l. NCSL Executive Committee 15 m. Foundation for State Legislatures 2 n. NCSL list serves 6 4. Reasons why you use NCSL s and participate in activities. (5=strongly agree; 1=strongly disagree) a. NCSL provides high quality research 4.44 b. NCSL produces high quality publications 4.35 c. NCSL holds high quality meetings 4.37 d. NCSL has a high quality web site 3.97 e. NCSL offers opportunities to network with other legislators 4.51 f. NCSL is a source of balanced objective information 4.16 g. Funds are available for travel to NCSL 3.31 h NCSL offers opportunities to learn about actions taken by other states 4.54 i. NCSL is the primary source of training programs for legislators 3.49 j NCSL offers opportunities to network with other legislators 4.40 k. Legislators and staff participate equally in NCSL activities 3.66 l. Legislative leaders in my state support my participation in NCSL 4.16 5. Reasons others in the state do not use NCSL services or participate in its activities. (5=strongly agree; 1=strongly disagree) a. Legislators are unaware of NCSL services 3.06 b. Legislative leaders do not support NCSL 2.28 c. NCSL is a partisan organization 2.41 d. NCSL offers poor quality research 1.65 e. NCSL produces poor quality publications 1.61 f. NCSL conducts poor quality meetings 1.57 g. Networking with other legislators is of limited value 1.83

63


64

h. My state can not fund travel to NCSL meetings 3.03 i NCSL's web site is of poor quality 1.86 j. The media is critical of travel to NCSL meetings 3.08 k Information about other states is of limited value 1.80 l. Legislators are too busy to attend NCSL meetings 2.56 m. Legislators participate in activities sponsored by other organizations 3.69 n. Most legislators in my state use NCSL services and participate in NCSL activities 2.88 o. I don't know why they do not use NCSL 2.96 7. Value of resources that could be provided if you are unable to travel to NCSL meetings. (5=very valuable; 1=no value) a. Real time audio webcast of the meeting 2.79 b. Unedited audio recording of the meeting 2.82 c. Undedited video recording of the meeting 2.86 d. Written summary of meeting sessions 3.60 e. CD with audio recording of the meetings and handouts 3.32 f. Legisbriefs based on meeting sessions 3.84 8. Outcomes of participating in NCSL activities a. My state saved money as a result of information presented at an NCSL meeting 6 b. My state saved money as a result of information contained in an NCSL publication 4 c. My state passed legislation as a result of information presented at an NCSL meeting. 14 d. My state passed legislation as a result of information contained in an NCSL publication 6 e. My state has more effective policy as a result of actions based on recommendations 10 made by NCSL as part of a technical assistance project f. My legislature operates more effectively as a result of actions based on recommendations 6

made by NCSL as part of a technical assistance project g. I am a more effective legislator as a result of training received through NCSL 26 h. I used NCSL's web site to get information to help me with my legislation. 14 I talked to over 100 school children about my state legislature through NCSL's Back to School Week 14 9. Respondents tenure in the legislature a. 1-2 years 2 b. 3-5 years 6 c. 6-10 years 6 d. Over 10 years 23 10. Respondents gender and partisian affiliation a. Male 27 b. Female 9 c. Democrat 13 d. Republican 21 11. Total number of responses 37

Blueprints for Progressseries of blueprints for the future. These blueprints represent the best...

Documents

Transcript of Blueprints for Progressseries of blueprints for the future. These blueprints represent the best...