Download:
pdf |
pdf
Evaluation of the Comprehensive
Technical Assistance Centers
OMB Clearance Request for Data Collection Instruments
Part A: Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission
December 17, 2014
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Education
Contract No. ED‐IES‐13‐C‐0059
Prepared by:
IMPAQ International
1
INTRODUCTION
This document has been prepared to support the clearance of data collection instruments for
the National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers. The Institute of
Education Sciences (IES) within the U.S Department of Education (ED) is conducting this
evaluation. In the introduction to the supporting statement, we provide a description of the
Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers program, the evaluation questions and study
design. The remaining sections of this document respond to specific instructions of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for the preparation of a supporting statement.
This document describes a request for clearance of six data collection instruments for phase
one of the evaluation: 1) Design‐focused Interview Guide for Center Staff, 2) Implementation‐
focused Interview Guide for Center Staff, 3) Interview Guide for Technical Assistance (TA)
Recipients, 4) Center Staff Survey, 5) TA Recipient Survey, and 6) TA Event Observation Guide.
A separate, phase 2 proposal will be submitted at a later date for clearance of outcomes‐
focused data collection instruments, including interview protocols for Comprehensive Center
Staff and TA recipients. The outcome‐focused protocols and their related burden hours will be
submitted to OMB as a Phase 2 package after the first data collection site visits are complete.
The Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers
Title II of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (F.T AA, Section 203)1 authorized the
Comprehensive Center (CC) Program, a discretionary grant program establishing technical
assistance centers. The CCs were last awarded in 2012, to “provide technical assistance to State
educational agencies (SEAs) that builds their capacity to support local educational agencies
(LEAs or districts) and schools, especially low‐performing districts and schools; improve
educational outcomes for all students; close achievement gaps; and improve the quality of
instruction” (77 FR 33564)2.
In 2012, the Department of Education awarded new five‐year grants to 15 Regional Centers and
7 Content Centers under the CC program. The Regional Centers each serve one to seven U.S.
states, territories, and possessions. They provide technical assistance (TA) that builds the
capacity of SEAs to implement, support, scale up, and sustain initiatives that help districts and
schools improve student outcomes. The Regional Centers focus their work on seven Federal
priority areas:
1. Implementing college‐ and career‐ready standards and aligned, high‐quality
assessments for all students;
2. Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders;
3. Turning around the lowest‐performing schools;
1
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/legislation.html
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/06/2012‐13735/applications‐for‐new‐awards‐comprehensive‐
centers‐program#h‐4
2
2
4. Ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool‐age children and their successful
transition to kindergarten;
5. Building rigorous instructional pathways that support the successful transition of all
students from secondary education to college without the need for remediation, and
careers;
6. Identifying and scaling up innovative approaches to teaching and learning that
significantly improve student outcomes; and
7. Using data‐based decision‐making to improve instructional practices, policies, and
student outcomes.
The Content Centers provide the Regional Centers and SEAs with in‐depth content knowledge
and expertise by providing information, publications, tools, and specialized technical assistance.
The 7 Content Centers are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation
Center on Great Teachers and Leaders
Center on School Turnaround
Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes
Center on College and Career Readiness and Success
Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity
Center on Innovations in Learning
The National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers
The National Evaluation is charged with examining and documenting how the individual CCs
intend to build SEA capacity (referred to as theories of action) and what types of activities they
actually conduct to build capacity. It is designed to build on the previous evaluation of the CCs,
which documented the type, extent, and quality of services provided.
Evaluation Questions
The evaluation will address broad questions in three areas:
Program Design: How did the CCs design their work? In addressing this evaluation
question, we seek to identify how the CCs designed their work as TA providers, including
the underlying theories of action driving the work. The evaluation will seek to surface
the theories of action and definitions of capacity building employed by CCs, as well as
describe CCs’ plans for assessing the needs of their constituencies and developing TA
work plans to address those needs.
Program Implementation: How did the CCs operate? In addressing this evaluation
question, we seek to identify the various strategies CCs used to build capacity, describe
the characteristics of those strategies, and document the extent to which CCs
implemented the TA as planned. We will also seek to identify the common challenges
and barriers CCs faced in building capacity, and ways they met those challenges.
Program Outcomes: What was the result of the CCs’ work? In addressing this
evaluation question, we seek to identify the extent to which CCs achieved their goals
and objectives, particularly as they relate to building their constituents’ capacity. We
3
will also explore the extent to which outcomes aligned with and supported the CCs’
theories of action, and identify factors that may have contributed to CCs’ success (or
failure) in achieving expected outcomes.
Focus on Two Federal Priority Areas
As a way to focus the evaluation to gather data in depth rather than breadth, the evaluation
will limit data collection on the implementation and outcomes questions to two of the seven
federal priority areas:
1. Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders,
and
2. Ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool‐age children and their successful
transition to kindergarten.
These two priority areas were purposefully selected. First, effective teachers and leaders is a
topic area in which all of the Regional Centers have ongoing projects. In addition, this is a topic
area where most SEAs have significant TA and capacity building needs, as many are choosing
and implementing educator evaluation systems or supporting districts and schools as they hire
and evaluate their professional staff. This priority is also tied to school reform efforts and large
federal funding streams such as the Race to the Top initiative, the School Improvement Grants,
and the Teacher Incentive Fund.
The second priority area, early learning, is another high‐profile topic which has recently gained
increased attention. In response to federal initiatives and research findings on the benefits of
high‐quality early education, many states have increased their funding for state‐supported early
childhood education programs over last few years. This evaluation is well poised to examine the
role that the CCs play in supporting state efforts in this priority area.
Given the overarching nature of the effective teachers and leaders priority, and the recent
policy focus on early learning efforts, we believe that focusing on these two priorities will allow
us to learn about how CCs develop SEA capacity (and in the case of Content Centers, both SEA
and Regional Center capacity) in these two areas and what difference the CCs’ efforts have
made. Further, we believe that SEAs’ capacity building needs and the CCs’ approach to
providing TA in these two priorities may differ across Centers in meaningful ways. These
differences are likely to produce different types of capacity building outcomes (i.e., the needs
and approach to building capacity to develop great teachers and leaders may be different than
the needs and approach to building capacity related to early learning initiatives). Thus, by
selecting these two priorities, we may learn more about the variety of needs and the ways the
CCs address those needs, as well as their outcomes.
The selection of two priority areas in no way implies that the Department has a preference for
these areas over others, or that the centers or SEAs should shift the focus of their efforts to
these areas. Rather, this narrowing of focus allows us to target our resources in such a way that
we are able to learn more about specific capacity building activities and outcomes.
4
Data collection for this study will consist of surveys of TA recipients, interviews of SEA staff,
surveys and interviews of CC staff, and observations of TA events.
TA recipient surveys
Purpose: To gather information about TA received in selected priority areas from the
CCs, understand the actions resulting from participating in TA, and examine outcomes
related to that TA
Sample: All SEA and possibly district staff who received TA from the CCs in the selected
priority areas, along with Regional Center staff receiving TA from Content Centers
Timing: Once yearly, beginning in the first quarter of 2015 (following OMB approval)
CC staff and SEA interviews
Purpose: To gather information about the Centers’ capacity building efforts, theories of
action, program implementation, and outcomes;
Sample: A purposeful sample of Center Directors, Managers, Evaluators, and TA staff;
Recipients of CC TA, including SEA and possibly LEA staff, and other CCs;
Timing: In coordination with site visits (projected to occur in Q2 2015).
CC staff surveys
Purpose: To gather information from multiple CC TA staff about the nature, successes
and challenges of their work building SEA capacity or Regional Center capacity, and to
help identify high‐leverage projects for more detailed study;
Sample: All Center staff providing TA;
Timing: Once yearly, beginning in the first quarter of 2015 (following OMB approval).
TA event observations
Purpose: To obtain detailed data about the strategies that CCs used to support capacity
building and achieve planned outcomes;
Sample: Observable services or events that are planned for the selected priority areas in
profiled projects, or projects that are potential profiled projects;
Timing: In coordination with site visits if possible, except for virtual events such as
webinars, which will be observed as they occur.
Evaluation reports
The evaluation will produce four reports. The first report will be an interim report focusing on
how the CCs designed their work as technical assistance providers. The report will describe the
CCs’ underlying theories of action and definitions of “capacity building,” and explain how the
Centers assessed their constituencies’ needs and developed work plans to address those needs.
This report will be available in the first quarter of 2016.
Two interim summative reports (projected date: first quarter 2017) will be produced to address
the program implementation and outcomes questions, one report for each of the two selected
priority areas. These reports will demonstrate how and to what extent the Comprehensive
5
Technical Assistance Center program has built state capacity in these priority areas. The reports
will include descriptions of the strategies used to build SEA capacity, common challenges faced
and ways the CCs sought to address them, the extent to which CCs achieved their goals and
objectives, factors that may have contributed to success (or failure) in achieving expected
outcomes, and the extent to which CCs’ outcomes aligned with and supported their theories of
action. The interim summative reports will also include six profiles of multi‐year projects, which
will be selected and analyzed to illustrate how the CCs have successfully worked to build
capacity related to project design and planning, implementation, and outcomes.
A final report will be produced in September 2018. The final report will summarize findings
documented in the interim reports and update findings based on new data. The report shall
provide a full summary of lessons learned on the CCs’ efforts to build capacity.
PART A. JUSTIFICATION
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any
legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a hard copy
of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the
collection of information, or you may provide a valid URL link or paste the applicable
section3. Specify the review type of the collection (new, revision, extension,
reinstatement with change, reinstatement without change).
Title II of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (Section 204)4 requires that the
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), a component of the
Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), provide for ongoing independent evaluation
of the Comprehensive Centers. The statute establishes the following specific goals for the
evaluation: to analyze the services provided by the Centers; to determine the extent to which
each of the Centers meets the objectives of its respective plan; and to determine whether the
services offered by each Center meet the educational needs of SEAs, local educational agencies
(LEAs), and schools in the region.
In October 2013, IES contracted with IMPAQ International to evaluate the Comprehensive
Technical Assistance Centers. This is a new data collection.
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a
new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received
from the current collection.
The evaluation will provide the Department of Education and the CCs with a formative report
about how the CCs designed and carried out their work, and summative reports on program
implementation and outcomes. In doing so, the evaluation seeks to inform CC staff, the
Department of Education, and the larger field about the capacity building strategies and
3
4
Please limit pasted text to no longer than 3 paragraphs.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/legislation.html
6
outcomes of the CCs’ work. The evaluation will inform ED’s staff as they support the CC and the
CCs themselves as they implement their work.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms
of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the
basis for the decision of adopting this means of collection. Also describe any
consideration given to using technology to reduce burden.
Electronic technology will be used whenever possible to reduce the time burden on
respondents. TA recipient and CC staff surveys will be administered online using an automated
survey administration and data collection system. Online surveys are a proven, cost‐effective
data collection methodology that take less time to complete than paper or telephone surveys.
In addition to enabling respondents to complete the survey at a time of their choosing, this
method will allow the project team to monitor the survey response rate in real time and send
customized, timely reminder emails.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information
already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2
above.
This study will yield unique data to evaluate the CCs. The evaluation will make use of data and
documents already collected, produced, or maintained by the CCs and their local evaluators.
Whenever possible, information will be collected and reviewed prior to interviews in order to
avoid unnecessary interview questions. This study involves questions in surveys and interviews
that are distinct from those asked by local evaluators.
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe
any methods used to minimize burden.
One CC is operated by a small business entity, and several CCs have small business partners.
The evaluation team will minimize burden on these entities by scheduling interviews at the
convenience of staff and coordinating data collection schedules with local evaluators to avoid
multiple collections.
6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not
conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to
reducing burden.
Failure to collect the data proposed through this study would breach the legislative mandate in
Title II of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (Section 204) that requires NCEE to
provide for ongoing independent evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers. It would also
prevent ED from gaining an in‐depth understanding of what capacity building strategies CCs are
using and the outcomes of the CCs’ work. Understanding the strategies that the CCs implement
and whether the CCs achieved their expected outcomes will enable federal policy makers and
program managers to monitor the program and provide useful guidance to CCs.
7
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be
conducted in a manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in
fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any
document;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government
contract, grant‐in‐aid, or tax records for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and
reliable results than can be generalized to the universe of study;
requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and
approved by OMB;
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established
in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies
that are consistent with the pledge, or that unnecessarily impedes sharing of data
with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential
information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to
protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
None of the special circumstances listed apply to this data collection.
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the
Federal Register (FR) of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting
comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public
comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in
response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour
burden.
Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the
availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping,
disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded,
disclosed, or reported.
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or
those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years ‐ even if the
collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be
circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances
should be explained.
The 60 day FR notice was published on October 1, 2014 and the 30 day FR notice will be
prepared and published as required. To date, there has been one comment, in support of the
evaluation. The study team consulted with members of its technical working group (TWG) in
developing the data collection instruments and data collection plans.
8
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees with meaningful justification.
There are no payments or gifts associated with this study.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If personally identifiable information
(PII) is being collected, a Privacy Act statement should be included on the instrument.
Please provide a citation for the Systems of Record Notice and the date a Privacy Impact
Assessment was completed as indicated on the IC Data Form. A confidentiality statement
with a legal citation that authorizes the pledge of confidentiality should be provided.5 If
the collection is subject to the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act statement is deemed sufficient
with respect to confidentiality. If there is no expectation of confidentiality, simply state
that the Department makes no pledge about the confidentially of the data.
Every effort will be made to ensure that the responses of the TA recipients and CC staff who are
surveyed and interviewed will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law as well as by
the design of the evaluation. Survey data will be stored on the evaluation contractor’s server
that is protected by a firewall that monitors and evaluates all attempted connections from the
Internet. Personal information (name, telephone number, and e‐mail address) on each survey
response will be maintained in a separate data file apart from the survey data so that
individuals outside of the evaluation team cannot link particular responses to individual
respondents. Once the contract is completed, all personal information on each survey
respondent will be destroyed. The entire survey database will be encrypted so that any data
stored will be further protected. Finally, access to any data with identifying information will be
limited only to evaluation team members directly working on the survey. Survey findings will be
presented at a level of aggregation such that it will not be possible to link specific responses to
individual respondents.
Everything that is discussed during interviews will be used only for the purposes of this study.
Information collected for this study comes under the confidentiality and data protection
requirements of the Institute of Education Sciences (The Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183). Responses to this data collection will be used only for
research purposes. The reports prepared for this study from the survey data will include
information that is summarized and aggregated and should not associate responses with a
specific Center, state, district or individual. Findings from the interview data will also be
reported in summary form and individuals will not be identified by name. However, due to the
5
Requests for this information are in accordance with the following ED and OMB policies: Privacy Act of 1974,
OMB Circular A‐108 – Privacy Act Implementation – Guidelines and Responsibilities, OMB Circular A‐130 Appendix I
– Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals, OMB M‐03‐22 – OMB Guidance for
Implementing the Privacy Provisions of the E‐Government Act of 2002, OMB M‐06‐15 – Safeguarding Personally
Identifiable Information, OM:6‐104 – Privacy Act of 1974 (Collection, Use and Protection of Personally Identifiable
Information)
9
uniqueness of each Center and descriptions of particular projects in the reports, some Centers
and/or states may be identifiable to readers. Also, respondents’ roles and the Center they work
with may be identified in the report, which may lead to individuals’ being identified. Other than
this situation that we will make respondents aware of, we will not provide information that
identifies respondents to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.
Interview notes or recordings will not be shared with ED staff or anyone else outside the study
team. Paper copies of interview notes will be secured in a locked file cabinet. Electronic copies
of notes will be stored in a SQL Server database located in the contractor’s access‐controlled
server room.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private. The justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the
questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to
be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken
to obtain their consent.
There are no data of a sensitive, personal, or private nature being collected in the surveys or
interviews.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours and estimated monetary burden for respondents
for each instrument to be administered in this study. Exhibit 2 displays the estimates of
annualized costs by respondent type. Because of the site development work previously
accomplished, and given that under their cooperative agreement the CCs are required to
provide data for evaluation purposes, the evaluation team anticipates a 100 percent response
rate for the CC staff interviews and a 90 percent response rate for the CC staff surveys. Based
on our experience, we expect an 80 percent response rate for the TA recipient surveys and an
80 percent response rate for the SEA staff interviews.
The CC staff survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete, including the time for
reading our introductory letter and directions. The TA recipient survey will take about 15
minutes to complete. Interviews with Center and SEA staff and will last about 60 minutes. We
plan to do a maximum of 10 TA observations per year from 2015 – 2017. For each observation,
we anticipate the burden time to be 10 minutes for CC staff to provide us with any pertinent
information or answer questions we might have about the observation (e.g., what are the
objectives of the event being observed?). The total burden hours are estimated at 996. To
estimate the time required for each type of data collection, we consulted with fewer than 10
IMPAQ staff members or CC staff members.
CC staff respondents are private sector employees in nonprofit or for‐profit companies, or in
universities. TA recipient respondents are employees of a state department of education or a
local education agency such as a school district.
10
Data Collection Activity
Design‐Focused
Interviews with CC staff
Implementation‐Focused
Interview with CC Staff
Interviews with TA
recipients
CC Staff Survey
TA Recipient Survey
TA Observation
Totals
Total
Sample
Size
Estimated
Response
Rate
Number of
Respondents
Number of
Administrations
Total
Time
Estimated
Total Hour Hourly
Number of Estimate (in
Monetary Cost of
Burden
Rate
Responses
hours)
Burden
88
100%
88
1
88
1
88
$45
$3,960
132
100%
132
2
264
1
264
$45
$11,880
88
80%
70
2
140
1
140
$45
$6,300
264
440
10
90%
80%
100%
238
352
10
3
3
3
714
1056
30
0.33
0.25
0.17
235
264
5
$45
$45
$45
$10,575
$11,880
$225
2292
996
$44,820
Exhibit 1: Estimated Burden Hours
Note: The outcomes‐focused interview protocol will be developed after the first site visit and is not included in this
package. The burden table will be updated when the outcomes‐focused protocol is sent for review.
Because some individuals will give more than one response per year (all CC staff and TA
recipient participants will be surveyed and a subset will also be interviewed and/or observed),
the total number of respondents is estimated to be 590. Annually, we anticipate that
participants will provide 764 responses. The annual burden hours are estimated to be 332.
Exhibit 2: Estimate of Annualized Costs by Respondent Type (Total for 3 Years and Per Year)
Res pondent Type
Tota l Cos t
Annua l i zed
Cos t
CC Sta ff
$26,640
$8,880
TA Reci pi ents
$18,180
$6,060
Total
$44,820
$14,940
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers
resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden
shown in Items 12 and 14.)
There are no direct costs to respondents other than that of their time of participation. There
will be no start‐up or ongoing financial costs incurred by respondents.
11
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a
description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of
hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff),
and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of
information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a
single table.
The estimated cost for this study, including development of a detailed study design and data
collection instruments, management of a Technical Working Group, preparation of a
justification package, data collection, data analysis, and report preparation, is $7,861,244 for
the five years, or an average of $1,572,244 per year. Estimated cost includes staff and
consultant time, travel, and operational expenses.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments. Generally, adjustments in
burden result from re‐estimating burden and/or from economic phenomenon outside of
an agency’s control (e.g., correcting a burden estimate or an organic increase in the size of
the reporting universe). Program changes result from a deliberate action that materially
changes a collection of information and generally are result of new statute or an agency
action (e.g., changing a form, revising regulations, redefining the respondent universe,
etc.). Burden changes should be disaggregated by type of change (i.e., adjustment,
program change due to new statute, and/or program change due to agency discretion),
type of collection (new, revision, extension, reinstatement with change, reinstatement
without change) and include totals for changes in burden hours, responses and costs (if
applicable).
This request is for a new information collection. Because this is a new collection, there is a
program change (due to agency discretion) of 332 burden hours to report.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation
and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide
the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the
collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
16.1 Tabulation
The timeline for project data collection and reporting is in Exhibit 3. Data collection will begin in
2015 as soon as OMB approval is obtained and conclude in the fourth quarter of 2017. No
complex analytical techniques will be used. For quantitative survey and observation data, we
will use descriptive statistics and analysis of variance.
12
Exhibit 3: Timeline of Data Collection and Reporting
Tasks and Activities
Surveys (TA recipient and CC staff)
Administer TA recipient and CC staff surveys
Interviews (TA recipient and CC staff)
Conduct interviews of TA recipients and CC
staff
Observations
Conduct observations of profiled projects as
opportunities arise
Formative report
Draft report on Center designs/ theories of
action
Final report on Center designs/theories of
action
Summative reports
Draft reports on implementation and
outcomes
Final reports on implementation and
outcomes
Draft final summative report
Final summative report
Year 1
2013
2014
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Year 2
Q4
Year 3
2015
Q2 Q3
Q1
Q4
Q4
Q1
2017
Q2 Q3
Q4
Year 5
2018
Q1 Q2 Q3
*
*
Apr
Sep
13
Year 4
*
*Or upon OMB approval
Q1
2016
Q2 Q3
16.2 Publication
The evaluation will produce four reports. The first report will be an interim report focusing on
how the CCs designed their work as technical assistance providers. The report will describe the
CCs’ underlying theories of action and definitions of “capacity building,” and explain how the
Centers assessed their constituencies’ needs and developed work plans to address those needs.
This report will be available in early 2016.
Two interim summative reports (projected date: March 2017) will be produced to address the
program implementation and outcomes questions, one report for each of the two selected
priority areas. These reports will demonstrate how and to what extent the Comprehensive
Technical Assistance Center program has built state capacity in these priority areas. The reports
will include descriptions of the strategies used to build SEA capacity, common challenges faced
and ways the CCs sought to address them, the extent to which CCs achieved their goals and
objectives, factors that may have contributed to success (or failure) in achieving expected
outcomes, and the extent to which CCs’ outcomes aligned with and supported their theories of
action. The interim summative reports will also include six profiles of multi‐year projects, which
will be selected and analyzed to illustrate how the CCs have successfully worked to build
capacity related to project design and planning, implementation, and outcomes.
A final report will be produced in September 2018. The final report will summarize findings
documented in the interim reports and update findings based on new data. The report shall
provide a full summary of lessons learned on the CCs’ efforts to build capacity.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
The OMB approval number and expiration date will be displayed or cited on all information
collection instruments.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the Certification of
Paperwork Reduction Act.
There are no exceptions taken to item 19 of OMB Form 83‐1.
14
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2014-12-18 |
| File Created | 2014-12-17 |