Form 752 2015 752 OCS_CSBG_ACSI Survey of Eligible Entitites

Office of Community Services (OCS)

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

Satisfaction Survey 2015

Introduction

As part of its revised performance management framework, and in line with its shared oversight and monitoring responsibilities, the Office of Community Services (OCS) is seeking feedback from Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) eligible entities to better understand and determine where to best focus our training and technical assistance efforts for the State CSBG Lead Agencies. This requires learning about your State CSBG Lead Agency’s efforts this past year in developing and implementing the State Plan.

Please note that the results of this survey will not be used by OCS for policy or funding decisions in CSBG. Instead, the results will guide OCS’ training and technical assistance efforts and will provide baseline data to the State CSBG Lead Agency that can be used in developing next year’s State Plan.

Your participation, while voluntary, is critical for OCS to understand how well the State CSBG Lead Agencies, as part of the CSBG Network, are delivering services to local eligible entities, like yours, and to identify areas for improvement and opportunities for training and technical assistance. The results of this survey will be provided to the CSBG Lead Agencies and the eligible entities early in 2016.

This survey is being administered by CFI Group, an independent third-party research group. Your answers will remain anonymous and neither the State CSBG Lead Agency nor OCS will see your responses. CFI Group will provide OCS and the Lead Agencies with reports, aggregated at the state level, for research and evaluation purposes only.

This survey will take approximately 10-12 minutes and will be open through October 2nd, 2015. It is authorized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Control No 1090-0007 which expires 5/31/18.

Development of the CSBG State Plan

Please think about the development of the most recent CSBG State Plan as it relates to the following areas. Using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate:

1. Extent of your involvement in the process of developing the State Plan

2. Caliber of the opportunities provided to you to participate in developing the State Plan

3. Degree to which the State Plan reflects your input

Open-Ended Questions

4. How could the process of the developing the State Plan be improved?

5. What training and technical assistance for developing the State Plan would you recommend OCS provide to the State CSBG Lead Agency?

Distribution of Funds

Please think about when funds were made available to you by the state as it relates to the following areas. Using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate:

6. Degree to which the state’s distribution of funds ensured there was no interruption of services delivered to clients

7. Quality of the state’s process for executing grant awards

Open-Ended Question

8. What technical assistance would you recommend OCS provide to the state regarding its grant award process?

Use of Remainder/Discretionary Funds

The CSBG Act allows the state to use a portion of its block grant for discretionary purposes. Please think about how the state used its CSBG Remainder/Discretionary Funds as it relates to the following areas. Using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate:

9. Transparency of how discretionary funds were used and distributed

10. Degree to which the use of discretionary funds was responsive to network needs

Open-Ended Question

11. What technical assistance would you recommend OCS provide to the state regarding its use of discretionary funds?

Training and Technical Assistance

Please think about the Training and Technical Assistance provided by the State CSBG Lead Agency or a state-funded provider(s) as it relates to the following areas. Using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate:

12. Effectiveness of training provided by the state or state-funded provider(s)

13. Effectiveness of technical assistance provided by the state or state-funded provider(s)

14. Responsiveness of the State CSBG Lead Agency’s staff to your request for technical assistance

15. The overall amount of training and technical assistance provided

Open-Ended Question

16. What training and technical assistance needs do you want OCS to address?

17. What, if any, additional training and technical assistance needs do you want the State CSBG Lead Agency to address?

Monitoring and Corrective Action

Please think about the monitoring activities conducted by the State CSBG Lead Agency as it relates to the following areas. Using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate:

18. Consistency of monitoring across the state CSBG Network

19. Adherence to the established monitoring plan for the on-site visit

20. Usefulness of monitoring visits

21. Clarity of feedback provided in the monitoring report

22. Timeliness of feedback provided in the monitoring report

23. Clarity of the state’s Corrective Action/Quality Improvement Plan Process

Open-Ended Questions

24. What, if any, suggestions do you have for how the State CSBG Lead Agency could improve its monitoring process?

25. What technical assistance would you recommend OCS provide to the State CSBG Lead Agency regarding its grant monitoring process?

Linkages and Communication

Please think about the State CSBG Lead Agency’s activities creating linkages within State government to facilitate the efforts of eligible entities; and, its communication efforts as it relates to the following areas. Using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate the following.

26. Awareness of the State CSBG Lead Agency’s efforts to create linkages

27. Sufficiency of the CSBG Lead Agency’s linkages with other state partners

28. Effectiveness of the partnerships created in the State to meet the needs of the eligible entities

29. Sufficiency of information provided by the State CSBG Lead Agency to keep you informed

30. Usefulness of the feedback received from the State CSBG Lead Agency about work plans, performance and monitoring activities

31. Frequency of communication from the State CSBG Lead Agency

32. Clarity of communications from the State CSBG Lead Agency

33. Responsiveness of the State CSBG Lead Agency’s staff to your requests for information

34. Consistency of the responses received from the State CSBG Lead Agency’s staff

Open-Ended Questions

35. What kinds of information, if any, would you like to receive from the State CSBG Lead Agency that you are not now getting?

36. What technical assistance would you recommend OCS provide to the CSBG Lead Agency regarding its communication efforts?

Overall Satisfaction

37. Overall, how satisfied are you with the services provided by the State CSBG Lead Agency as it relates to CSBG? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 10 is very satisfied?

38. How well do the services from the State CSBG Lead Agency meet your expectations? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means falls short of expectations and 10 means exceeds expectations.

39. How do the services from the State CSBG Lead Agency compare to an ideal grant awarding agency? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not very close to the ideal and 10 means very close to the ideal.

Outcome Behaviors

40. How confident are you that the State CSBG Lead Agency is fulfilling its mission of supporting eligible entities in their mission of helping low-income individuals out of poverty? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not very confident and 10 means very confident.

41. How much do you trust the CSBG State Lead Agency to work with you to meet your organization’s needs? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not very trusting and 10 means very trusting.

Open-Ended Question

42. What more could OCS do to help the states and eligible entities meet the needs of low-income people in the state?

Thank you very much for providing your input.