In determining the appropriate methodology for voting operations training, the resources required to be used for developing and presenting training programs need to be carefully identified when conducting election needs assessments and in training planning
Factors that will need to be considered include the internal training capacities of the electoral management body, the training structure adopted and the quality and availability of external training resources. Available training presentation resources may well be the major determinant of the training structure itself.
There are a number of alternative presentation resources that can be used to provide effective training, each requiring different models for managing training quality and ensuring on-time delivery. Given the large numbers of staff to be trained in a short time period, and the potential consequences of training failure, engagement of sufficient training presentation resources is a key issue to be addressed early in election planning.
Use of In-House Resources
Permanent electoral management bodies may maintain in-house professional training facilities, though as training per se is not really a core professional business of electoral management. In less public-sector dependent environments there are arguments that this may be better left wholly to professional training organisations.
Where such internal training units exist, their orientation is likely to be more towards training program development and training of permanent officials. It would generally be excessively wasteful to maintain permanently a training force sufficient to train all voting operations staff.
However, through their knowledge of training techniques and voting procedures, in-house trainers have a major supervisory role invoting station official training presentation. They can be most effectively used to provide:
• first level "train the trainer" sessions for other electoral management body staff, or other persons recruited for training roles;
• quality monitoring of the voting station official training program, through attendance at samples of training sessions and review of session evaluations
In this fashion in-house trainers' expertise can have a wider influence on training activities than if they were fully occupied in session presentations to voting station staff. The basic problem is one of available time. For maximum effectiveness, the bulk of voting operations official training will be compressed into a short period before voting day. Permanent in-house training capacities will generally not effectively cope with the number of sessions required in the time period.
Where electoral management bodies or their agents (such as local government administrations under some systems) have a permanent regional or local area staff presence, these may also be used as front line resources in voting station official training roles, following their being trained as trainers (for such permanent election-related staff, training as trainerscan be more effective as an ongoing program).
In general, using wherever possible trainers who already have experience with elections is preferable to using external professional trainers, as long as these staff can demonstrate presentation capacities and their other election preparation duties do not suffer due to commitments to training presentations.
Training Delivery by Other Sources
Where resources outside the electoral management body are to be involved in training, which would be in most environments where there are no permanent electoral management authorities with regional or local presence, a basic decision on management of training delivery has to be taken. Is it to be?
• wholly contracted out as a package to a professional training institution;
• managed by the electoral management body but using additional resources hired specifically for training purposes;
• a combination of the above two approaches, with training functions contracted out in regions with institutional training strength allowing the electoral management body to concentrate its training management capacities in other areas.
Wherever external persons or organisations are engaged to conduct voting operations training, it must be crystal clear to them that they are bound by the official code of conduct, and all persons engaged in training should be prepared to formally adhere to this code.
Lack of neutrality in training can raise suspicions about the impartiality of voting operations officials themselves or, worse, provide them with malicious information that may adversely affect their implementation of voting procedures.
Contracting Out for Training Functions
There are some advantages in contracting training delivery out as a package. It removes one day-to-day management function from a crowded period in the election timetable, and it can provide a fully professional training force.
It may be the only feasible way to mobilise and manage sufficient training resources, particularly in a simultaneous training structure For cascade structures, it can be the most appropriate method for training higher levels. However, there are also significant disadvantages that need to be carefully considered before adopting it. Contracting all training to other organisations may threaten perceptions of election integrity, particularly if contracted out to state-connected educational institutions in environments where there is suspicion of the neutrality of state institutions.
It will also require rigorous performance monitoring to ensure that training is being undertaken with the facilities and in the manner required.
Potential Training Contractors
The types of bodies that could be considered for conducting voting operations officials training are:
• government institutions, such as training boards, technical training institutions, other educational authorities;
• private sector professional groups;
• community groups, such as non-governmental civic organisations with an interest and expertise in civic education and human rights issues, or even churches.
Where such institutions are community or regionally based, a joint consortium approach may be useful, bringing different training organisations under one coordinating umbrella for the purpose of voting operations training. This may be required to achieve the necessary coverage but will heighten the need to monitor consistency and quality of training services provided.
International Assistance
Training development and implementation may also be seen as an appropriate priority for international election assistance in less developed countries.
However, such assistance may do little to build a sustainable training capacity unless its focus is to train local staff as trainers and support their performance, and international staff are not simply used to conduct all training.
Employment of Additional Staff for Training Purposes
Direct employment of additional staff by the electoral management body for training purposes can provide greater control over training processes.
Such staff, however, are likely to be less-experienced in conducting adult training, and training trainers by electoral management body staff or professional trainers will generally still need to address training presentation skills.
The varied experience levels of such staff will also require strict monitoring of training presentations. Groups from which trainers could be recruited could include:
• school teachers and other educational workers;
• civic or voter education workers;
• members of civic education-oriented community and professional groups;
• senior voting operations officials, in particular voting station managers.
Use of educators and community professionals may be more appropriate for mobile or regional team training structures and simultaneous training models.
Use of senior voting operations officials is a cost-effective method for training the majority of voting station officials where cascade structures are used. Their training duties will also enhance their own knowledge levels by making them more aware of the totality of functions within the voting station environment.
Number of Trainers Conducting Each Training Session
Even working with relatively small training groups, it is preferable, wherever affordable and the training resources are available, to assign a minimum of two trainers as a training team to each training session. This can serve a number of purposes:
• provides more intense guidance and faster organisation for simulation and group activities;
• different personalities provide changes in presentation styles and enhance attention spans;
• particularly where mobile training teams are travelling to various locations, provides back-up in case of illness;
• can assist in maintaining trainer energy and completion of sessions within the assigned times.
Where training capacity building is an objective, it may be useful for training teams to include a "trainee" trainer--for example, an outstanding polling official--being groomed for future training responsibilities.
Presenters who are experts in their technical field can also be useful to assist with training presentations. Introductions to training sessions from senior electoral officials can reinforce the importance of training to participants.
Appearances during relevant segments by security experts, communication facility managers, and procedures drafters can enhance the image of the information presented. This can assist effective training, particularly in providing variations in presentation style during training sessions, but need not be essential.
Training of Observers, Party Representatives, Security Forces
Training of observers and party or candidate representatives is the responsibility of their organisations. However, it can be highly useful for the electoral management body to be involved in both preparing technical reference materials and providing expert presenters for observer and party/candidate representative training.
This can assist in ensuring that correct legal, procedural, and operational information is used in training by these organisations. (For further discussion of these issues, see Training for Parties and Candidates and Training for Observers.)
For security forces, the electoral management body has a role to play in developing specific programs and materials, training trainers within security forces in election procedural issues, presenting relevant sessions, and in monitoring security force election training.
However, responsibility for conduct of election training of security personnel is better left to security forces management. (For further discussion of these issues, see Security Force Training.)
