Evaluation of voting operations staff recruitment and training programs is necessary to provide a guide for future improvements. More importantly, if instituted as an integral and continuing part of recruitment and training processes, it can provide early warning of deficiencies and allow the chance to rectify these before voting day. As with all evaluations, a starting point should be the objectives and performance standards set as an essential part of the planning and management of recruitment and training programs. Such standards would cover performance in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, integrity, and service.
Evaluation of recruitment processes is oriented towards assessing whether recruitment methods are:
Are potential staff being targeted effectively in recruitment processes?
- are these processes too narrow in scope, or conversely too broad, to interest those with the right basic skills;
- are there particular, suitable occupational or community groups that could be specifically targeted;
- are more frequent recruitment messages required;
- are there advantages in maintaining continuing contact with staff from past elections?
Are the assessment selection criteria appropriate?
- do these adequately test the basic skill levels required for the specific voting operations tasks;
- were the criteria properly applied in selecting applicants?
Is voting operations employment sufficiently attractive to attract applicants with a suitable skills base? If it is not, are there any means by which conditions of service can be improved to induce applications? Such improvements need not be monetary. Consideration could first be directed towards cost-neutral solutions such as:
- increasing position prestige;
- arranging for voting operations staff training to be recognised for accreditation as a module of general educational qualifications;
- voting operations staff service providing future work preference for other public employment;
- ensuring prompt rather than increased payment.
However, consideration may also need to be given to whether payment rates are adequate to attract suitable staff.
Staff Performance Evaluation
Each voting operations official should be subject to performance evaluation. For voting station officials, this would be logically done by the voting station manager prior to the finalisation of activities at the voting station, and included with reports on voting activities. For voting station managers, roving officials, and other voting operations support staff, this could be prepared by the election manager for the electoral district.
These performance appraisals serve two functions: (1) as a formal recognition of the staff member's services which they may use in future employment, and (2) as a future recruitment reference for voting operations managers. Performance evaluations can indicate those staff who are suitable for re-employment or promotion to polling official positions of greater responsibility at future elections.
The appraisals should be based on objective criteria, which should be made known to staff at their training. A useful format is as a checklist of performance ratings (poor to excellent) against expected duties, punctuality, voter service qualities, which could be augmented by a general comment noting potential future capacities.
All staff should be given the right to review and comment on their performance evaluations before they are finalised.
Training Evaluation
There are two basic, interrelated orientations to evaluations of voting operations staff training:
- determining whether sufficient information has been understood by polling officials to enable them to carry out their duties competently on voting day, i.e., an assessment of individual learning (this issue is discussed in detail at Knowledge Assessment);
- determining whether the methods, information content, scheduling, and locations being used are appropriate to the skills transfer needs, i.e., an assessment of the training environment.
Implementation of continual evaluation programs during training is necessary so that knowledge levels of staff and effectiveness of training presentation methods can be assessed and any remedial measures put in place, if at all possible, prior to the commencement of their duties. Continual evaluation is especially important where cascade training models (see Training Methodology) are being used. Where multiple training sessions are scheduled, either in dealing with staff in a cascade manner or multi-day sessions, feedback on method appropriateness and coverage can be converted into improvement during the duration of the training program.
If staff knowledge is assessed as requiring further training input, additional training sessions may be the only answer for senior polling officials such as voting station managers. For more junior staff, the most cost-effective solution may be to ensure that briefing sessions in voting stations, prior to the opening of voting, thoroughly cover subjects where staff knowledge is lacking.
At the very least, such assessments will provide the basis for improving training activities for future elections.
Training Evaluation Methods
There are a number of methods by which such assessments can be implemented:
- integrated assessment programs implemented during training sessions, through the monitoring of group activities, and knowledge expressed during simulations and role plays;
- training session or home activities in the form of question and answer books that can be later collected and assessed by trainers;
- completion of evaluation forms by staff on completion of each training session;
- monitoring of and reporting on training sessions by voting operations managers;
- monitoring how staff perform on voting day.
While the last method is an important part of training evaluation, it is not recommended that it be the only method used. To wait until voting day to assess whether staff have sufficient knowledge may be useful in terms of assessing overall effectiveness of training methods and whether staff are suitable for future employment, but it is likely to allow inefficient staff performance during the election.
Integrated assessment programs and use of exercise completion to test staff knowledge are further discussed at Knowledge Assessment. Examples of home exercises to be completed by various categories of polling staff are at Polling Staff Workbook - New Zealand 1996, Polling Staff Answerbook - New Zealand 1996, Session Workbook, Senior Polling Staff, Australia, Home Workbook, Senior Polling Staff, Australia, Home Workbook, General Polling Staff, Australia, Home Workbook, Specialist Polling Staff, Australia, and Home Workbook, Electoral Visitors, Australia. Where staff complete such home exercises, it is important that they receive individual feedback on the accuracy and appropriateness of their answers to such exercises. Not to do so not only alienates staff, but runs the risk of their continuing to apply any incorrect understanding of procedures.
Feedback from Trainees
An important aspect of determining the appropriateness of training styles and methods, and gaining an impression of where staff may require further training for voting operations competencies, is to ask the staff themselves. This can be done formally at the conclusion of training sessions through completion of questionnaires addressing such issues as:
- the appropriateness and comfort of the venue and its facilities, ease of transportation access, length of sessions, breaks, opportunities for questions;
- the relevance of the material presented and any areas in which trainees believe they require more information or practice;
- the appropriateness of the styles and methods of training delivery used--which were effective in imparting information to the trainee and which were not effective (for example, use of lecture formats, role playing, demonstrations, expert presenters, small and large group exercises);
- an overall self-assessment of competence in the required duties;
- suggestions for improving future training sessions.
An example of this type of evaluation questionnaire is in the section entitled 'Training Evaluation' at Presiding Officer/Assistants Training Program, Bangladesh. It is important that where these are completed by trainees, there is feedback to them from trainers as to how their suggestions and comments have been analysed and what future improvements will be implemented.
To augment this formal information gathering, trainers should actively engage in continual evaluation communication with the trainees, for example, during meal breaks and at the commencement and close of each session to determine where knowledge gaps still exist and trainees' preferences for presentation styles.
Independent Assessments
Evaluation of training sessions by staff independent of the training process can also identify where improvements, particularly in delivery style and facilities need to be made. This additional method should always be used where contractors, rather than electoral management body staff, are used for training purposes, and at least a sample of training sessions at the lower levels of a cascade training structure. (For an example of a simple checklist for such evaluation of individual training sessions, see Training Observation Checklist - New Zealand 1996.)
