WSU presenter: budget simulator drew 696 submissions after targeted email and text outreach

A WSU researcher presenting to Sedgwick County staff on June 23 said the county's second annual budget simulator generated 696 completed submissions, up from 294 the previous year, after the county combined a public web link with targeted outreach including 50,000 emails and 25,000 text messages.

The presenter said overall page views rose to 17,317 from 14,809 last year and that average time spent on the simulator page was 4 minutes 41 seconds. For the email campaign, the presenter reported about 45,000 recipients remained subscribed, 9,240 opened the message, 773 clicked the survey link and 196 completed the simulation. The text campaign reached 25,000 numbers; 353 recipients opted in on the first wave and 62 completed that wave, with a follow-up wave producing 38 additional submissions.

Commissioners and staff questioned representativeness and data validity. The presenter acknowledged selection bias — people who click social media links or respond to emailed invitations are self-selected — and said the county's responses exceed the commonly cited scientific sample-size threshold (384) for a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of error given Sedgwick County's population. The presenter nevertheless urged caution in interpreting the sample because randomized response could not be guaranteed for all outreach channels.

On content and design, the presenter noted a key change this year: the simulator started with an overall surplus rather than a deficit. That framing appeared to affect participant choices; most respondents left county spending at the current level, while some were willing to increase service levels instead of reducing taxes. The presenter also said the simulator this year offered five granular service levels for departments (1–5), with department staff describing concrete outcomes tied to increased funding; video focus areas influenced preferences, with the county zoo receiving noticeably more support after a zoo-focused video.

Staff and commissioners requested additional analysis before finalizing any inferences. They asked for platform-specific view counts (YouTube, Facebook analytics), average completion time restricted to respondents who finished the survey, and comparisons of respondent demographics to census benchmarks to identify possible skews by age, race, education and income. The presenter agreed to include these items in a post-adoption analysis and to produce a "taxpayer receipt" for respondents who left contact emails showing how the adopted budget affects an estimated county portion of property tax for a household.

The presenter estimated roughly 30% of respondents provided an email address and said staff can send the taxpayer receipt once the budget is adopted. Commissioners asked for clarity about geographic distribution; the presenter reported the top three ZIP codes by submissions were 67212, 67205 and 67037. The county's analytics staff said they can break out platform-specific video views and internal metrics on request.

Next steps: staff asked the presenter to include comparisons to Sedgwick County demographic benchmarks and to seek additional tracking support from the platform vendor so the county can better distinguish time-on-page for completed submissions versus brief page opens.