Communication RFP - March 2024.pdf

Leading the Community to Achieve Educational Excellence

R. Michael Hubert, Ed.D., Superintendent �������� �

March 18, 2024

Request for Proposal (RFP) – Strategic Communications Services

Overview:

The Livingston Educational Service Agency (“Agency”) is seeking a full-service communications firm to help lead and execute innovate communication strategies that will bolster a positive image within the community and enhance engagement with both employees and the public. The firm will craft compelling narratives that echo the Agency’s vision and mission, catering to the diverse needs, motivators, and perspectives of various audiences.

The Agency desires a firm that will become an essential part of our leadership team and will play a pivotal role in elevating public and employee consciousness about the Agency’s essential services, ensuring the success of millage campaigns, and fostering robust engagement, all while amplifying the Agency’s brand in a favorable light.

Context:

Following a communications audit by the Association of Educational Service Agencies in 2019 (Attached), the Agency has undertaken numerous branding and communication endeavors. With the Communication Director's post remaining unoccupied for the past year, we are seeking to evaluate the benefits of engaging external communications expertise over appointing a new Director.

Engagement Details:

Dr. Michael Hubert, Agency Superintendent, is available to offer insights on the Agency's current communication climate and to address questions to help draft initial proposals. He is reachable at 517-980-2064 (cell) or via email at mike@livingstonesa.org.

Proposal Requirements:

Initial proposals, due to Dr. Hubert by 3:00 pm on Monday, April 1, 2024, should encompass:

1. Firm's ownership, history, and geographical location.

2. Team qualifications and credentials.

3. Breadth of services offered.

4. Case studies of thriving internal and external engagement campaigns.

5. Resumes and biographies of the designated service team.

6. Professional references.

7. Preliminary cost structure.

Selection Process:

Proposals will be reviewed on April 1st and 2nd, with the most compelling submissions invited for discussions (in-person or virtual) scheduled between April 3rd and April 9th.

Please prepare your proposals with innovation and the Agency’s aspirations at heart, ensuring your submission aligns with the requirements detailed above.

COMMUNICATION

AUDIT REPORT

APRIL 8, 2019

Prepared by:

Dorreen Dembski, DD Communication Services, as a service of

Association of Educational Service Agencies

Livingston ESA Internal and External Communication Audit Report April 8, 2019

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary of Livingston Educational Service Agency’s Internal and External Communication Audit 2

About the Process 2

Internal Communication: Summary of General Observations and Recommendations 3

External Communication: Summary of General Observations and Recommendations 5

Detailed Analysis: Internal Communication 9 Observation 1: Overall satisfaction with internal communication is good. 9 Observation 2: There is room for improvement with all staff groups. 10 Observation 3: It is important to connect LESA staff to LESA to strengthen brand identity. 10 Observation 4: The overall results indicate a need for a strategic communication plan. 12

Audit Recommendations: Internal Communication 16

Customer/Audience: Internal 16 Demographics of participants - internal 16

Content 16 Recommendation 1: Supervisor (department) communication is an area of improvement 16 Recommendation 2: Implement processes to support systemic communication. 18

Channels of Communication 19 Recommendation 3: Use e-mail, e-newsletters, and face-to-face more effectively. 21 Recommendation 4: Improve two-way channels of communication. 21 Recommendation 5: Consider an Intranet for staff information. 22

Consistency 23 Recommendations 1-5 infer consistency in implementation and content. 23

Detailed Analysis: External Communication 25

Overall Observations 25

Customer 25 Demographics of participants - External 25

Content 27 Recommendation 1: Create a directory of services in print and digital media. 28 Recommendation 2: Develop a content strategy for all media, using each for its intended best purpose. 28 Recommendation 3: Develop a brand identity 28 Recommendation 3a: Create publicly displayed, visually attractive, materials representing LESA beliefs, vision, mission, and services. 28 Recommendation 3b: Create a tagline and elevator speech. 29 Recommendation 3c: Staff as brand ambassadors 29 Recommendation 3d: Consider the development of a branded app for consistent parent communication. 29

Channels 30 Recommendation 4: Develop an e-newsletter about LESA services and successes 33 Recommendation 5: Reorganize the external website for targeted external audiences. 35

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 2

Executive Summary of Livingston Educational Service Agency’s Internal and External Communication Audit

About the Process Between December 2018 and April 2019, Dorreen Dembski, working as a communication consultant for the Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA), conducted a communication audit for the Livingston Educational Service Agency, Howell, Michigan. The audit included launch meetings, focus groups, interviews, a review of agency print and digital communication materials, and an internal and an external stakeholder, opt-in communication survey.

All communication audits begin with launch meetings between the consultant and agency leaders. Two launch meetings were conducted. The purpose of the launch meetings is to identify current communication processes, products and challenges; to identify stakeholders to involve in the audit process; and to clarify the audit process with the leadership team’s input.

On February 6-7, 2019, Dembski was on-site at LESA’s main office, and conducted five (5) focus groups and seven (7) meetings to interview key stakeholders. Additionally, she was asked to interview two people by phone but was only successful in contacting one of the two, completing a total of eight (8) interviews.

An opt-in survey was implemented to collect input from a larger group of internal and external audiences. It collected answers to closed questions, and open-ended comments.

As information was collected, Dembski followed-up with clarifying questions to Agency Administrator Dr. Mike Hubert, as needed. Dembski also presented draft internal audit findings to a group of key agency administrators to hear their questions and explore the findings. She presented the external results to Dr. Hubert.

All sources of information were analyzed before making observations or making recommendations. A note about open-ended comments from the survey, focus groups and interviews: One participant may make several similar comments in response to various open-ended questions. Therefore, this analysis looks for trends between interviews, focus groups, closed-ended results, and comments, and compares the answers to what is known through research about best practice in communication to make recommendations from the data.

Consequently, the auditor does not recommend that LESA use any one set of data – such as the

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 3 survey report – in isolation or look at the data without an analysis grounded in the context of what constitutes effective communication practices.

Note: We live in the information age. Communication is more complex than ever. Further, while abbreviated here, each of these recommendations are complex in and of themselves.

For maximum effectiveness, a strategic communication plan requires a person or team who is (are) assigned to the role such as director of communication.

While all members of the organization remain accountable for communication and contributing to its success, a strategic, organizational-wide communication effort requires coordination and measurement of its effectiveness by an individual(s) who possesses the skills and knowledge in the field of communication to lead the group in this operation.

Internal Communication: Summary of General Observations and Recommendations Overall satisfaction with internal communication is good. There was a high recognition of efforts to improve. There are many positive ratings in the internal survey. The most encouraging is the internal net promoter score. LESA’s internal survey asked how many staff would recommend its services, and the overall result is 93%. This is an extremely high rating.

Despite the good ratings in overall satisfaction and the excellent net promoter score, evidence in the comments and rankings is present, indicating improvement for each staff group. This is particularly noticeable because from the launch meetings and interviews, the question arose from LESA leadership:

If LESA could just do a better job communicating with the transportation area, would that improve communication overall?

The audit work did not find that to be true. LESA internal communication is good, yet there were plenty of suggestions for improvement from all staff groups, and this indicates room for improvement via strategic communication effort overall.

Another question was posed repeatedly to the auditor:

How do we connect all staff, especially those working in districts, to the LESA organization?

When the auditor asked that question in staff interviews and focus groups, the question back to the auditor was: Why should LESA focus on that? Why is that important?

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 4

The net promoter score from staff is excellent. Yet, there is a contradictory result in the net promoter score from school district staff: How likely would they be to refer LESA to families seeking services, here the score is much lower at 21%. That fact alone is why internal communication remains critical. AN EXCELLENT REPUTATION IS BUILT FROM THE INSIDE OUT.

LESA is starting from a position of strength, based on its internal net promoter score. Now the emphasis must be on building positive brand identity with external audiences. A key to that lies in the hands of staff. (Brand identity is an external communication recommendation later in the report.)

Internal respondents report noticing the effort to better communicate while the overall results indicate the need now to focus the efforts via a systemic, strategic communication plan. The overall results indicate a need for a strategic communication plan that would address the essential elements of internal communication, including a content strategy. Strategic communication will make the entire effort more effective. It will answer what to do, and for which stakeholder groups, rather than taking a random approach to content. That plan should address the essential elements of internal communication, and especially using a content strategy that presents information that is timely, relevant, and helps people do their jobs more effectively.

THE AUDIT MAKES FOLLOWING FIVE (5) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERNAL COMMUNICATION IMPROVEMENT, WHICH

MAY TRANSLATE LATER, INTO GOALS AND/OR STRATEGIES FOR AN INTERNAL COMMUNICATION PLAN. THESE ARE AS

FOLLOWS:

Internal Communication Recommendation 1: Supervisor/department communication Supervisor (department) communication is an area of improvement, and specifically that communication should be more focused on the characteristics of effective communication, in order to move the results in future internal communication surveys from neutral to agree or strongly agree on how well the agency delivers on internal communication.

A strategic communication approach will make the entire effort more effective on two key measures: effective organizational communication and effective communication for employee engagement. The characteristics of effective organization communication are consistency, timeliness, relevancy and two-way. Characteristics for employee engagement include people know their job and expectations; they know the organization’s strategic vision; they know how their job contributes to the organization strategic plan, and they feel recognized for doing so.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 5

Internal Communication Recommendation 2: Systemic communication approach Implement processes to support systemic communication. Improve understanding amongst leaders that communication is an “all-hands-on-deck” operation: No one person can do it alone, and that it is everyone’s responsibility. That said, the effort will need coordination and monitoring.

Internal Communication Recommendation 3: Use the right tool for the job In order to improve communication satisfaction overall, use email, e-Briefs (e-Newsletters), and face-to-face according to their best purposes of each channel, and with a content strategy. This may require training.

Internal Communication Recommendation 4: Improve two-way communication Improve two-way channels of communication to create a culture of openness, sharing and two-way communication.

Internal Communication Recommendation 5: Consider an Intranet Consider an Intranet as an additional digital communication channel for all staff to create more consistency and community in your organization.

External Communication: Summary of General Observations and Recommendations The greatest challenge for LESA external communication efforts is to implement a highly effective internal communication strategy that emphasizes the staff’s role as brand ambassadors. A very significant outcome of the external audit is related to internal communication. External respondents to the survey and focus groups are getting their information from LESA staff. This then reiterates that staff need to be literal fonts of accurate information in order to be good conveyors of information.

Secondly, based on the audit results, the challenge for LESA external communication efforts will be to make your communications highly relevant and highly engaging to each target audience using, engaging formats, such as graphics, video, social media, etc. In other words: Why should they care to hear from you and how will you reach them?

Teacher communication to parents was the greatest strength of external communication audit.

This is a very positive result and should be celebrated because knowing about their child’s school experience is the number one communication priority of parents. Celebrate that result with your staff. However, leaders report having no way of monitoring the communication to assure its effectiveness across all staff.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 6

Again, convey to staff the importance and weight that their communication has to external stakeholders, and assist them in achieving that goal by providing the right tools and training.

Another audit result, gathered primarily from the focus groups and the consultant’s review of materials, is that the external communication work ahead is about brand identity. This will be a multi-year project. Brand identity is made up of these components:

o Core values – this information should be present in all documents so that people begin to recognize your brand by your values. In LESA, you call these “Core Beliefs”;

o Brand stories;

o Brand characteristics (that customers can rely on, such as responsiveness, or knowledge, and especially great outcomes for kids.)

Tools that will help with your brand identity work include creating a tagline for the agency, developing a service directory, and using visuals and storytelling in your public facing materials, including the LESA website, print and electronic newsletters, and social media. For this to be effective, LESA staff must spend time finding the brand stories that display publicly the services you offer and the stories that reinforce the existing positive perceptions about your agency. Tell stories about staff, since they are highly valued. To find the stories, it will take everyone. To tell the story it takes experts, dedicated to that job.

Further, if we cross reference this sentiment with the internal communication results, we see that a practical tactic that would help immediately is creating a directory of services, presented across both print and digital channels. It isn’t the only thing that needs to be done, but it came up time and again, so this is “low hanging fruit.”

Also related to internal communication is that staff must clearly understand that they are important to external satisfaction. Therefore, establish clear expectations about behaviors that support your core values, and which define your brand experience.

Specific areas that staff need to improve and that are related to communication are:

• Responsiveness to customers (room for improvement noted in question 13, especially with local school districts.)

• Availability of people to provide real-time communication, especially with local school districts.

• Clear articulation of all the services offered by LESA.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 7

Another broad–and most likely–ongoing effort should be to improve the understanding about the importance of the relationship between LESA staff to local school district staff. The low net promoter score from local district staff should be further investigated because it is an outlier to some degree. As is often the case when we conduct a survey, the results ask more questions. This is the case with the net promoter score from school district staff. It indeed raised questions in the mind of the leadership team when it was discussed with them.

THE AUDIT MAKES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION IMPROVEMENT, WHICH MAY

TRANSLATE LATER, INTO GOALS AND/OR STRATEGIES FOR AN EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION PLAN. THESE ARE AS

FOLLOWS:

External Communication Recommendation 1: Create a directory of services Create a directory of services for print and digital media. At the focus groups with external audiences, the number one recommendation was to increase awareness of the organization’s scope of services.

External Communication Recommendation 2: Develop targeted content strategy Develop a content strategy for all channels for targeted external audiences that is related to brand identity and scope of services.

External Communication Recommendation 3: Develop a brand identity As discussed above, developing and communicating about your brand is a tall order, and it has within it several sub-recommendations:

3a: Create publicly displayed, visual materials about LESA beliefs, vision, and mission.

3b: Create a tagline and elevator speech.

3c: Staff as brand ambassadors.

3d: Consider the development of a branded app for parent communication.

More on this topic is discussed in a later section.

External Recommendation 4: Develop an e-newsletter about LESA services and successes An e-newsletter about LESA services and successes should be developed for external audiences.

Local school district staff may need a more targeted e-newsletter that includes professional development opportunities, information about how to help students access your services, etc.

Or the e-newsletter may need to contain sections of content directed to each audience.

Regardless, consider the relevancy of its content to the target audience.

External Communication Recommendation 5: Reorganize the external website

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 8

If you adopt the internal strategy to use your website for external audiences as proposed in the internal communication results, then reorganize your external website to prioritize this content to present and explain:

a. Directory of services

b. Brand stories

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 9

Detailed Analysis: Internal Communication Four general observations about internal communication based on audit work are as follows.

Observation 1: Overall satisfaction with internal communication is good.

Discussion

• From open-ended survey results asking respondents about strengths in current communication, 18 mentioned “ok, good, great, or satisfied”. When asked about areas to improve, 14 said no problem.

• In the focus groups and open-ended survey respondents, the results indicate that the staff members who participated recognize an increased emphasis on communication, especially through email and e-Briefs, with two groups mentioning face-to-face meetings with Dr. Hubert.

• Timely communication received 15 responses to open-ended question 1:

This result included references from respondents that emergency communication was done well, too (such as for snow days). Additionally, it was stated over and over that everyone in the agency was responsive (internally). (Note: When we cross-reference this to external analysis, timeliness is an area of improvement.)

• There appears to be a need for some sort of internal community building within the agency.

• The results in Table 1 indicate that internal communication is good or average, with a slight dip in LIPSA, teaching assistants, and specialized transportation.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 10

Table 1: Overall how well does LESA communicate with staff members? 5 is extremely well and 1 is extremely poor. (Internal survey question 11.)

Ranking Overall Percentage

Administrator/ Supervisor Percentage

(n=10)

Classified Percentage

(n=14)

LIPSA

Percentage

(n=73)

Teacher Assistants

Percentage (n=13)

5 10% 20% 14% 8% 8% 4 41% 50% 50% 37% 38% 3 37% 20% 21% 41% 46% 2 9% 10% 14% 11% 0% 1 2% 0% 0% 1% 8%

Observation 2: There is room for improvement with all staff groups.

Discussion

LESA internal communication is good, but there is room for improvement with each staff group as shown above, and also results from the external survey show this as well. (This is discussed later in the report.)

From the launch meetings and interviews, these questions arose from LESA leadership: If LESA could just do a better job communicating with the transportation area, would that improve communication overall? In summary, Dembski does not agree. All internal stakeholders are important to brand identity and organizational effectiveness.

Observation 3: It is important to connect LESA staff to LESA to strengthen brand identity.

Discussion

Another question posed repeatedly to the auditor from the launch meetings and individual interviews was how to connect all staff, especially those working in districts, to the LESA organization. To find out, the auditor asked participants. During interviews and focus groups, that question posed a sort of conundrum for the participants, and they asked in turn, questions like:

Ranking Overall

Regional Transportation Collaborative Percentage

(n=7)

Specialized Transportation

Percentage (n=6)

Early Childhood Percentage

(n=11)

*Other Percentage

(n=5)

5 10% 0% 17% 9% 20% 4 41% 57% 17% 55% 40% 3 37% 29% 33% 27% 40% 2 9% 0% 17% 9% 0% 1 2% 14% 0% 0% 0%

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 11

“Why is that important?”

“How does that improve LESA?”

“Shouldn’t they feel connected to where they do their work?”

The answer to why connecting LESA staff to the LESA brand is important, doesn’t seem obvious and in fact, from the staff answers to Question 17 below, it seems as if there is no problem. The problem isn’t seen until we asked the same question of external stakeholders. Would external stakeholders refer LESA to families seeking services? There, we see a significant dip in net promoter score that needs further exploration. (This is discussed in depth in the external communication detailed analysis.)

In order for a positive reputation to permeate into the community, it must first exist internally, and it does, as indicated below in table 2. However, staff appear to already be brand ambassadors. For them to be effective external brand ambassadors, there must be an excellent internal culture of communication that permeates from them to the districts they serve. They must speak highly of the organization.

In summary, LESA’s net promoter score from staff is excellent. This is crucial to external brand.

LESA is starting from a position of strength for INTERNAL brand identity and should use that fact in future promotional work. It is important to recognize that they need to carry that message externally.

Table 2: (Internal survey question 16) … how likely would you be to recommend LESA to someone who was new to the area and considering services for a family member? Answer choices were “very likely, “Likely,” “Neither likely nor unlikely,” “Unlikely,” “Very unlikely,” and “Don’t know”

Response Overall

Administrator/ Supervisor Percentage (n=10)

Classified Percentage (n=14)

LIPSA

Percentage (n=73)

Teacher Assistants Percentage (n=13)

Very likely 73% 90% 79% 72% 62% Likely 22% 10% 14% 25% 31% Neither Likely nor unlikely

3% 0% 7% 0% 0%

Unlikely 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Very unlikely <1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Don’t know 1% 0% 0% 1% 8%

Response Overall

Regional Transportation Collaborative Percentage (n=7)

Specialized Transportation Percentage (n=6)

Early Childhood Percentage (n=11)

*Other Percentage (n=5)

Very likely 73% 29% 83% 91% 80% Likely 22% 43% 0% 9% 20%

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 12

Neither Likely nor unlikely

3% 29% 17% 0% 0%

Unlikely 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Very unlikely <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Don’t know 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Your scores are excellent in this regard. This is critical to external brand. Your internal communication efforts should strive to support this positive employee recommendation (or net promoters). This is a huge celebration for your organization. You are starting at a position of strength.

Administrators 100% Classified: 93% excellent LIPSA: 96% excellent Teacher Assistants: 100% excellent Regional Transportation Collaborative: 72% -excellent Specialized Transportation: 66% - very good Early Childhood: 91% - excellent Other: 100% - excellent

Observation 4: The overall results indicate a need for a strategic communication plan.

Discussion

There was no evidence presented that a strategic communication plan exists. There were frequent comments from veteran staff and Board members that LESA has been talking about a communication plan for a long time. A strategic communication plan, implemented by a professional, will make the entire effort more effective. It will answer what do you need to do, what messages to send, and when. It will replace the random content strategy with a strategic content strategy that considers what is relevant to each intended audience.

The following two survey questions, with results represented in tables 3 and 4, were directed at assessing the characteristics of effective internal communication.

The key characteristics of effective internal communication for employee engagement are: I know how to do my job; I understand where my organization is headed; I know how I contribute to the big picture; I feel recognized for my efforts when I do so.

The areas highlighted in yellow indicate areas that might be targeted for improvement in the internal communication plan, especially for the goal of moving the scores from neutral to agree/strongly agree.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 13

Table 3: (Internal Survey Question 6)

Next, how much do you agree with the following statements related to how LESA communicates with staff members. Please answer on a scale of 5 (Strongly agree), down to 1 (Strongly disagree).

Answer choices were “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Neutral,” “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree.”

The combined percentages for the overall “Strongly agree/Agree” responses are shown below.

Results also are shown, using a 5-point weighted scale, with 5 points for each “Strongly agree,” response, down to 1 point for each “Strongly Disagree.” response. It is important to remember that 5.00 (“Strongly Agree”) would require all respondents with an opinion to say, “Strongly Agree.” As such, a better measure is how much above or below 4.00 (“Agree”) the result is.

Statement “Strongly agree/ Agree”

“Neutral”

“Disagree/ Strongly disagree”

Overall 5-point score

Administrator/ Supervisor

(n=10)

Classified (n=14)

LIPSA

(n=73)

Teacher Assistants

(n=13)

I have the information I need from LESA to do my job well.

66% 24% 10% 2.24 1.90 1.86 2.29 2.46

I know what LESA's strategic plan entails.

65% 27% 7% 2.18 1.60 2.43 2.03 2.62

I know how my job contributes to LESA achieving the strategic plan.

58% 31% 12% 2.38 2.10 2.36 2.36 2.31

I am recognized for doing my work well.

41% 33% 26% 2.79 2.90 2.36 2.86 3.00

Statement “Strongly agree/ Agree”

“Neutral”

“Disagree /Strongly disagree”

Overall 5-point score

Regional Transportation Collaborative

5-point score (n=7)

Specialized Transporta tion 5-point score (n=6)

Early Childhoo d 5-point score

(n=11)

*Other (n=5)

5-point score

I have the information I need from LESA to do my job well.

66% 24% 10% 2.24 1.86 2.50 2.27 2.20

I know what LESA's strategic plan entails.

65% 27% 7% 2.18 2.43 3.17 2.00 2.60

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 14

Table 4 (Internal survey question 7) Now, please, indicate how much you agree with each of these statements about characteristics of communication you receive from LESA. Answer choices were “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Neutral,” “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree.” The combined percentages for the overall “Strongly agree/Agree” responses are shown below. Results also are shown, using a 5-point weighted scale, with 5 points for each “Strongly agree,” response, down to 1 point for each “Strongly Disagree.” response. It is important to remember that 5.00 (“Strongly agree”) would require all respondents with an opinion to say, “Strongly agree.” As such, a better measure is how much above or below 4.00 (“Agree”) the result is.

I know how my job contributes to LESA achieving the strategic plan.

58% 31% 12% 2.38 2.86 2.83 2.27 2.40

I am recognized for doing my work well.

41% 33% 26% 2.79 3.00 2.83 2.64 2.20

Statement “Strongly agree/ Agree”

“Neutral”

“Disagree

Strongly disagree”

Overall 5-point score

Administrat or/

Supervisor 5-point score

(n=10)

Classifie d

5-point score

(n=14)

LIPSA

5-point score

(n=73)

Teacher Assistants

5-point score

(n=13)

Consistency – I feel that I regularly hear from LESA.

64% 30% 6% 2.19 2.20 2.14 2.07 2.62

Relevancy – the information that I receive from LESA is relevant to my job.

49% 31% 19% 2.63 2.20 2.29 2.70 2.62

Timely – I feel as if the information is proactive and/or timely, so that I feel in the know.

56%

28% 15% 2.43 2.20 2.14 2.48 2.92

Two-way – I feel as if I have opportunities to provide input and respond to information I receive.

41% 40% 19% 2.68 2.50 2.64 2.85 2.23

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 15

Statement “Strongly agree/ Agree”

“Neutral”

“Disagree

Strongly disagree”

Overall 5-point score

Regional Transportati on Collaborativ e 5-point score (n=7)

Specialize d

Transport ation

5-point score (n=6)

Early Childho od 5-point score

(n=11)

*Other 5-point score (n=5)

Consistency – I feel that I regularly hear from LESA.

64% 30% 6% 2.19 2.57 2.17 2.27 2.00

Relevancy – the information that I receive from LESA is relevant to my job.

49% 31% 19% 2.63 3.14 2.67 2.45 3.20

Timely – I feel as if the information is proactive and/or timely, so that I feel in

56%

28% 15% 2.43 2.43 2.50 2.09 2.40

Two-way – I feel as if I have opportunities to provide input and respond to information I

41% 40% 19% 2.68 3.00 2.67 2.36 2.60

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 16

Audit Recommendations: Internal Communication The four characteristics of effective communication are customer, content, channels, and consistency. The audit assesses each of these characteristics for internal and external stakeholders.

Customer/Audience: Internal Every communication effort begins with who is your audience? Is your content and methods of communication correctly targeted for your intended audiences?

Discussion

Demographics of participants - internal

Demographics: Staff Online Survey Number of respondents – 148

Administrator/Supervisor – 10 Classified – 14

LIPSA – 73

Teachers Assistants – 13 Regional Transportation Collaborative – 7 Specialized Transportation – 6 Early Childhood – 11 Other – 5 The five “Other” responses were “Bus Driver,” “Student support services,” “Sub,” “Teacher” and “Preschool aide.”

Did not respond – 9

Interviews:

Two meetings with administrative team; one in-depth meeting with Jenn Damon; one questionnaire with probing questions to Dr. Hubert, email exchanges with Dr. Hubert. Phone interview: 1 staff member who couldn’t attend focus group Six interviews, one-on-one or two people simultaneously, with similar responsibilities.

On-site focus groups: Two staff focus groups, and a conversation with the Board of Education.

Content Is the message relevant, meaningful, and in terms of internal communication – is communication contributing to employee engagement?

Recommendation 1: Supervisor (department) communication is an area of improvement

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 17

Supervisor and department communication are areas of improvement, and specifically that communication should be more focused on the characteristics of effective communication.

Moving people from neutral to agree or strongly agree on characteristics of effective communication will require a strategic communication plan.

Rationale drawn from qualitative data is as follows:

In the area of strengths, that Dr. Hubert’s efforts are named 18 times, while supervisor communication is mentioned 6 times, or 1/3 the frequency. If we make an assumption that Dr.

Hubert’s communication is about the general news and events happening at LESA, the quantitative score of 3.02 (good) from question 5 substantiates the open-ended responses.

This was noticeable because generally, employees have much more contact with their supervisors, and therefore I would expect supervisor/department communication to be mentioned more frequently. However, a word of caution here: The question specifically stated “agency” communication, so that is a good reason for the difference in frequency. Therefore, I cross referenced other questions, and came to the same conclusion.

When we consider other open-ended responses to question 2, there also is an indication that there is a need to improve departments’ communication so that it is equitable, timely, relevant and consistent. Here are ways to improve, according to the respondents:

• More timely and specific information about logistics: 14 (responses in question 2) o Think about day-to-day changes, calendar, meeting reminders, etc.

Whose responsibility is it? Logistic communication is a department/supervisor responsibility.

• Agency changes, policies, protocols: 5 (responses in question 2)

Whose responsibility is it? Agency leadership.

• Improve consistency of information: 5 (responses in question 2)

• Clarify expectations of the job: 3 (responses in question 2)

Whose responsibility is it? Again, these topics may come from “the top” but how these topics impact a person’s job must be reinforced at the department level.

From question 5 of the survey, the respondent group that identified themselves as “administrator or supervisor”, generally ranked how well LESA communicates slightly lower than other groups, and in particular, ranked how LESA communicates about financial decisions at 1.89 or fair to poor, which was the lowest score. Consequently, they may have inadequate information to share, or

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 18 they may not know how to share it. This is worth further discussion. From the interviews, prevalent reliance on “Mike’s emails” as the way the agency sends information was noted. In one interview, the auditor heard about a newsletter that the department creates for all staff, and that this was valued.

Recommendation 2: Implement processes to support systemic communication.

Improve understanding amongst leaders that communication is an “all-hands-on-deck” operation. No one person can do it alone, and that it is everyone’s responsibility, and implementation of a systemic approach can support that effort. While there are many strengths to the current communication program, improvement is noted.

Specifically, from the open-ended responses to question 5, we see various areas suggested for improvement to process and content, and the suggestions with the highest frequency are:

• Accept feedback, input, create a process for asking for input and listen to staff’s input: 15 (responses to question 2) – This is an agency, but this is also supervisors/administrators’ responsibility.

• More timely and specific information about logistics: 14 – (responses to question 2) Supervisors/administrators’ responsibility.

• Provide more information about what the agency does (outside of the respondents’ immediate work area): 12 (responses to question 2) – Agency responsibility.

TIP: Communication is a key factor in building relationships and teamwork within an organization. In the most general terms, agency organizational communication is about the strategic vision, mission and direction. Department communication ties it all together so that the team is pulling in the same direction at the department level, and thereby improvement is seen throughout the organizational level, as a system.

Department level communication provides the information people need to do their jobs, while helping clarify each person’s role in achieving that strategic direction, and then recognizing staff for their contributions.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 19

Channels of Communication Is the organization using the right channels to reach the target audience, and is communication two-way?

Discussion

From the survey and focus groups, the top channels for agency information are currently email and e-briefs. It was also reported during individual interviews that these two are also the most widely used for communication, so that result makes sense. The use of these two channels of communication by the organization was strongly substantiated by question one, what are the current communication strengths? The top three responses from the open-ended results are:

Email 24 (responses in the open-ended question 1)

And in particular:

o Relevant o I get what I need o Equitable, inclusive

EBriefs 20 (responses in the open-ended question 1)

Described as consistent (monthly), thorough in question 1, in question 2 areas to improve included length and relevancy.

Dr. Hubert’s communication 18 (responses in open-ended question 1)

And in particular o Dr. Hubert’s communication improvement efforts;

o Face-to-face visits;

o Meetings in local districts.

Substantiating these results, refer to closed-ended question 8:

o 89% of respondents frequently receive their agency information from email sent directly to them.

o 55% frequently use the superintendent’s e-brief for agency information.

From the focus groups:

• Face-to-face meetings with Dr. Hubert are effective and appreciated.

• E-briefs are well-received, appear to be very consistent and inclusive of all staff.

• In particular at face-to-face meetings with Dr. Hubert, staff are hearing about the strategic plan, the communication is equitable and inclusive.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 20

• Website is not useful to staff.

Then the question becomes, are these the best ways to communicate?

Results from survey question 8 attempts to answer that question and reveal that generally, yes, these two ways – email and e-brief - are generally the ways that staff currently get information, too.

A few outliers are specialized transportation, that appears to go all over for information, but with six responses, it is hard to draw a conclusion; and administrators/supervisors whose second most frequent source of information is word of mouth.

Regarding administrators/supervisors ranking word of mouth so high: the results may indicate that they consult each other for information, but since we can’t be sure, these results should be discussed to evaluate that meaning more closely. If the word of mouth that they refer to is not within their administrative meetings, for example, then that would be an area for consideration for improvement.

Table 5: Please rate how frequently you consult each of the following sources, when you are looking for LESA news? Answer choices were “Frequently, “Sometimes,” “Rarely,” “Never” and “Don’t know.” The percentages for “Don’t know” are not shown below.

Yellow: Most frequently consulted source of information for the targeted group. Green: Second most frequently consulted source of information for the targeted group.

News Source Overall “Frequently

Overall “Sometime s”

Overall “Rarely

Overall “Never”

Administrator Supervisor “Frequently” % (n=10)

Classified/ “Frequently” % (n=14)

LIPSA/

“Frequentl y” % (n=73)

Teacher Assistants/ “Frequentl y” % (n=13)

The Superintend ent's E-brief

55% 31% 11% 3% 50% 71% 58% 54%

Social media 11% 29% 30% 30% 10% 0% 11% 15% Information sent directly to you via email

89% 9% 1% 0% 90% 92% 90% 100%

Word of mouth, or what you hear from your co-workers

43% 44% 11% 3% 70% 64% 41% 25%

LESA

website

25% 44% 23% 9% 30% 29% 18% 31%

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 21

From the review of materials, survey responses and comments, and interviews, the following recommendations about channels of communication emerges:

Recommendation 3: Use e-mail, e-newsletters, and face-to-face more effectively.

In order to improve communication satisfaction overall, use email, e-Briefs (e-Newsletters), and face-to-face according to their best purposes and with a content strategy. This may require training.

Tips: According to communication research, email is best used for efficiency and equity. It does not replace face-to-face.

According to best practices in e-newsletter construction: Make the e-newsletter “skimmable” – use headlines, subheads, brief introductions of text to longer articles, etc. Less content sent more frequently will increase consistency. Embed quick videos as a way to improve.

Recommendation 4: Improve two-way channels of communication.

News Source Overall “Frequentl y”

Overall “Sometim es” %

Overall “Rarely”

Overall “Never”

Regional Transportati on Collaborativ e/ “Frequently” % (n=7)

Specialized Transportati on/ “Frequently” % (n=6)

Early Childhood/ “Frequentl y” % (n=11)

*Other/ “Frequently % (n=5)

The Superintende nt's E-brief

55% 31% 11% 3% 29% 50% 64% 20%

Social media 11% 29% 30% 30% 14% 50% 9% 0% Information sent directly to you via email

89% 9% 1% 0% 71% 67% 100% 80%

Word of mouth, or what you hear from your co-workers

43% 44% 11% 3% 14% 33% 36% 40%

LESA

website

25% 44% 23% 9% 29% 50% 27% 40%

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 22

• During the interviews, I learned that face-to-face meetings are appreciated for building relationships, and that appears to help with deepening an understanding of the Agency’s Strategic Plan, too. Continue and enhance this practice.

• Create a culture of accepting and responding to input.

Notice the word culture is used, rather than climate. Communication culture is something that is easily described by all, “that’s how it is done here.” Communication climate is “today we collected input” and can change with the “wind”. You are striving for a culture of communication that is two-way. This will sustain employee satisfaction with communication and increase employee engagement over time. Communication is a respectful act.

• Improving employee engagement is important, especially when we consider the teacher/employee shortages, etc.

• From the open-ended question 2, areas to improve, the recommendation emerges to create a “community” feel for all-agency, work alike, and department communication including:

o Time (place) for staff-to-staff sharing/collaboration: (8 responses to question 2).

o Again, I refer to this result –

Feedback, input, create a process for asking for input and listen to staff’s input: 15 (responses to question 2)

Recommendation 5: Consider an Intranet for staff information.

To to create more consistency and community in the agency’s communication work, there needs to be a one-stop spot. Currently, your website houses much of your human resource, employee information. There we find the e-brief, too, also designed for the internal audience. There doesn’t appear to be a digital place for the agency to store and share, like an intranet provides.

• When considering the website responses from the focus group (the website is not useful) against how frequently it is consulted by staff, 79% of respondents consult the website frequently or sometimes, this is an indication that the current website content is not useful to staff, but that perhaps an intranet targeted at staff audience would be a better route.

• From the survey, the open-ended responses about how to improve, when considered together indicate the need to build community within the organization. Here’s what they said:

Accept feedback, input, create a process for asking for input and listen to staff’s input: 15

Create a “community” feel for all-agency, work alike, and department communication:

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 23 o Time for staff-to-staff sharing/collaboration: 8 (responses to question 2) o Provide more information about what the agency does (outside of the respondents’ immediate work area): 12 (responses to question 2) o They gave ideas about that too, such as:

§ Staff directory and or agency services § Staff spotlights § Staff news § Community programs, opportunities that all can take advantage of, etc.

• The open-ended responses indicated there is a need to improve departments’ communication so that it is equitable, timely, relevant and consistent. Depending on its design, an intranet can also be a place where departments can improve communication, too.

Here are ways to improve, according to the respondents:

o Agency changes, policies, protocols: 5 (responses to question 2) o Clarify expectations of the job: 3 (responses to question 2) and mentioned in focus group.

o Improve consistency of information: 5 (Reponses to question 2) mentioned in interviews.

Consistency Is communication timely, reliable, and meeting the needs of the target audience? The fourth characteristic of effective communication is consistency.

Discussion

The recommendation for a strategic communication plan is further supported by the data found in the survey about consistency.

o At an agency level, information appears to be consistently sent via e-briefs on a monthly basis.

o In the closed-ended question about consistency, the average result was 2.19 on a 5-point scale. This is an area (or data point) for improvement.

o In the focus groups, the auditor heard over and over that all agency personnel are responsive when contacted for information and this is very much appreciated.

Recommendations 1-5 infer consistency in implementation and content.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 24

There is not a specific recommendation about consistency. It should be inferred that to be effective, it is crucial that both the message and the frequency of communication is current and constant.

What does this mean? There are two meanings related to consistency:

1. Research on effective e-communication strategy indicates that people are busy therefore, less content, on a more frequent basis is easier to digest. Frequency is important factor to improve communication effectiveness and satisfaction.

2. Consistency can also mean that the message is consistent – or conveys the same information - across all channels. A strategic content strategy should include deliberate conversations about what information needs to be distributed where, and to whom, and what will be said. This is called a content strategy, and it is an important tool for consistency across channels.

Prepared for Livingston ESA by DD Communication Services, as a service of AESA 25

Detailed Analysis: External Communication As was done in the Internal Communication Audit report, this report reviews characteristics of effective communication in terms of customer, consistency, content, and channels.

Overall Observations

In general, there was less detailed information available about external communication and more questions than answers. This is most likely the reason for the communication audit in the first place.

There is an articulated visual brand guide and that is good. However, visual branding and brand identity are two distinctly different things. Visual branding relates to the logo, the brand colors, and how to apply those assets to communication products (stationary, website, etc.).

Brand identity is related to what experiences the external customer has with the agency, as delivered by internal staff. This is a common occurrence when organizations tackle branding.

They first tackle the visual brand. However, the experience is what the customer attributes to the organization – good or bad. This is very important work for long-term organizational success.

Consequently, this audit recommends work on the brand identity.

However, before taking a deep dive into that work, there is a piece of low hanging fruit: a service directory. That too, is discussed in detail.

Finally, if the internal recommendation is accepted to initiate an Intranet, then the external website should be re-evaluated to serve the external audiences only.

Customer The customer of the external survey was as follows:

Demographics of participants - External

External Stakeholder Online Survey Number of respondents – 136

With a local school district – 54 With a county or community organization – 10 A parent – 72

Age group:

18-24 – 0 25-34 – 9

Prepared for…