U.S. Department of Education
The Department of Education (ED) is committed to serving and satisfying its customers. To this end, we have commissioned the CFI Group, an independent third-party research group, to conduct a survey that asks about your experience as a grant recipient of the [GRANT PROGRAM] and the ways we can improve our service to you.
CFI Group and ED will treat all information in a secure fashion. Your answers are voluntary, but your opinions are very important. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported in aggregate to ED personnel. This survey is authorized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Control No. 1090-0007, which expires on May 31, 2018, and will take about 15 minutes to complete.
If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Blanca Rodriguez at [email protected].
Please note that ALL questions on this survey (unless noted otherwise) refer to your experiences over the PAST 12 MONTHS.
Program
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WILL HAVE THE RESPONSE AUTOMATICALLY “PIPED IN” FROM THE RESPONDENT LIST. THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT SEE THE QUESTION Q1. THIS INFORMATION WILL DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE CORE AND CUSTOM QUESTIONS THE RESPONDENT WILL RECEIVE.
Note that individuals will be asked to respond based on their experiences with the program (e.g., OELA) vs. the individual research centers.
Q1. PROGRAM RESPONDENTS WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR:
Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)
Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program
National Professional Development Program
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE)
Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult Education
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors
Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
Indirect Cost Group/Financial Improvement Operations (ICG/FIO)
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)
Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions
Centers for International Business Education
Strengthening Institutions Program
Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation Programs
Upward Bound Program
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)
IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)
Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)
Striving Readers
High School Equivalency Program (HEP) – Migrant Education
Project Prevent
Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs)
Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)
22. Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities/ McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program
Student Support and Academic Enrichment
Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies – Title I
English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants)
Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs
27a. School Climate Transformation Grants/State Department of Education
27b. School Climate Transformation Grants/Local Education Agency
28a. Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program
28b. Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program
29. Alaska Native Education Program
30. Innovative Approaches to Literacy
31.
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects
Demonstration Grants
32. College Assistance Migrant Program
(CAMP)
33. Grants for State Assessments
34. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program
When answering the survey, please only think about your interactions with [GRANT PROGRAM].
ED Staff
[INTRO IF Q1=1-5, 11-34]
Please think about the interactions you have had with senior [PROGRAM OFFICE] officers (e.g. the Director of the program office that administers this grant program). [NOTE: Many of the customized questions ask about satisfaction with your individual program officer.]
[DO NOT ASK OSEP (programs 12-13) RESPONDENTS] PLEASE NOTE: This does not include technical assistance to states to build state capacity to implement education reforms, such as regional labs, national associations, contractors, etc.
[INTRO IF Q1=6-10]
Please think about the interactions you have had with senior [PROGRAM OFFICE] officers (e.g. the Director of the Office that administers this grant program). [NOTE: Many of the customized questions ask about satisfaction with your individual program officer.]
PLEASE ALSO NOTE: This does not include technical assistance to states to build state capacity to implement education reforms, such as regional labs, national associations, contractors – including those that service G5, grants.gov, etc.
[Q2-5 ALL PROGRAMS]
On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the senior [PROGRAM OFFICE] officers’ and/or other [PROGRAM OFFICE] staff’s:
If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Q2. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures
Q3. Responsiveness to your questions
Q4. Accuracy of responses
Q5. Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses
Q6. [DO NOT ASK OSEP PROGRAMS OR PROGRAMS 15,16] Consistency of responses with the [PROGRAM OFFICE] staff from different program offices
Q7. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 15,16] Collaboration with other [PROGRAM OFFICE] programs or offices in providing relevant services
Q8. [ASK IF Q7<6] Please identify a good example of collaboration across programs and/or offices that you would offer as a model for the [PROGRAM OFFICE].
Technical Assistance to States to Build State Capacity to Implement Education Reforms
[Q9-14 NOT ASKED OF THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS: 2,11,12,15,16,18,19,20,27b,28b,29,30,31,32,34]
Q9. Is this grant program administered by a State Department of Education?
1. Yes
2. No (SKIP TO Q15)
3. Don’t Know (SKIP TO Q15)
Q10. Please rate the extent to which the technical assistance services provided by ED STAFF have helped build your state capacity to implement education reforms like those listed below.Use a 10-point scale where “1” is “No impact” and “10” is “Very high impact”.
Priority 1 - Empowering Families and Individuals to Choose a High-Quality Education that Meets Their Unique Needs.
Priority 2 - Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education with an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers.
Priority 3 - Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and Skills.
Priority 4 - Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills that Prepare Students to be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive Individuals and Citizens.
Priority 5 - Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children with Disabilities and/or those with Unique Gifts and Talents.
Priority 6 - Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) Education, With a Particular Focus on Computer Science.
Priority 7 - Promoting Literacy.
Priority 8 - Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools.
Priority 9 - Promoting Economic Opportunity.
Priority 10 - Protecting Freedom of Speech and Encouraging Respectful Interactions in a Safe Educational Environment.
Priority 11 - Ensuring that Service Members, Veterans, and Their Families Have Access to High-Quality Educational Options.
Here are examples of technical assistance that ED STAFF might provide: non-regulatory guidance; frequently asked questions (FAQs); non-regulatory guidance/FAQ addenda; help desk; listserv; outreach; training (webinars, Director meetings, conference workshops); consultative services (teleconferences, on-site meeting, video conferences); peer-to-peer information sharing among grantees.
Q11. Please rate the extent to which the technical assistance services provided by ED-FUNDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS have helped build your state capacity to implement education reforms. Use a 10-point scale where “1” is “No impact” and “10” is “Very high impact”.
Examples of ED-funded technical assistance providers:
Regional labs
Comprehensive centers
Equity assistance centers
National associations
ED-funded contractors
Here are examples of technical assistance that ED-FUNDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS might offer: training (webinars, workshops, and conferences); consultative services (teleconferences, on-site meetings, video conferences); facilitation services; providing experts to teach skills and advise in their areas of specialization.
Given the technical assistance provided by both ED staff and ED-funded technical assistance providers, to what extent have you been able to accomplish the following RESULTS? Use a 10-point scale, where “1” is “No results” and “10” is “Very high results”.
Q12. Increased knowledge/awareness regarding key issues in education reform.
Q13. Higher quality implementation of this program.
Q14. Our state was able to develop, improve or support promising practices.
[Q15-20 ALL PROGRAMS]
Please think about your experience using the [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s online resources. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:
Q15. Ease of finding materials online
Q16. Ease of submitting information to the [PROGRAM OFFICE] via the web (e.g., grant applications, annual reports, and accountability data)
Q17. Freshness of content
Q18. Ability to accomplish what you want on the site
Q19. Ease of reading the site
Q20. Ease of navigation
[Q21-22 ALL PROGRAMS]
Q21. Now think about how the [PROGRAM OFFICE] uses technology (e.g., conference calls, video-conferencing, web conferencing, and listservs) to deliver its services to you. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s effectiveness in using technology to deliver its services.
Q22. [ASK IF Q21<6] Please describe how the [PROGRAM OFFICE] could better use technology to deliver its services.
Q23. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 7,15,16,28b] Think about how the [PROGRAM OFFICE] is working with the states and local education agencies (LEAs) to develop an automated process to share accountability information. Please rate the quality of this assistance from the [PROGRAM OFFICE]. Use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent.”
Q24. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 7,15,16,28b] How effective has this automated process been in improving your state/LEA reporting? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective.”
Q25. What reporting system do you use for reporting accountability data? [PN: Make Multiselect]
EDEN/EDFacts
G5
Other electronic system (specify)
Do not use electronic system, submit hard copy
[PROGRAMS 3 AND 4 SKIP ENTIRE G5 SECTION – Qs 26-38]
[ASK Q26-Q28 IF Q25=‘G5’ AND PROGRAM NOT EQUAL TO 13,20,22,23,24,25,27b,33]
The Department is looking for insights on the Grants Management System (G5). By providing your feedback and ratings of the G5 system, the Department can understand how first-hand users experience G5 and how improvement efforts can maximize its usability in the future.
Q26. Here are examples of technical assistance that the G5 HelpDesk staff may provide. In the past 12 months, how often did you contact the G5 HELPDESK for assistance related to: (these will be rated Never, Once or Twice, Occasionally, Regularly) [PN: INCLUDE Not Applicable OPTION]
Unlocking your G5 account
Reactivating your G5 account
Viewing a Grant Award Notification
Requesting funds from a grant award
Submitting a refund to a grant award
Accessing, working on or submitting a Performance Report
Working in G5 as a peer reviewer (setting up a reviewer profile; or accessing, working on or submitting a Technical Review Form)
Creating a G5 account for the first time or adding a role to an existing account
Submitting a grant application through G5
Updating key personnel
Q27. Describe your best customer service experience during the past 12 months with the G5 HELPDESK ED analyst who worked with you. (Open end)
Q28. From your interaction with the G5 HELPDESK during the past 12 months, what is an area that you would recommend to improve the G5 HELPDESK delivery of service?
Performance Report Submission
Q29. [DO NOT ASK OF PROGRAMS 13,14,15,16,18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27b,28a,28b,32,33] Think about how your grant is currently submitting accountability data using the G5 Grants Management System. How efficient is the G5 system for completing and submitting a performance report? On a scale of 1 to 10 where “1” is “Not Very Efficient” and “10” is “Very Efficient,” rate your experience submitting the performance report.
Please think about your experience using the G5 Grants Management System. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:
Q30. Ease of finding FAQs and self-help guidance to complete your specific task in the G5 system
Q31. [DO NOT ASK OF PROGRAMS 13,14,15,16,18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27b,28a,28b,32,33]Ease of accessing and submitting a performance report
Q32. Ease of a Field Reader accessing a panel review, reviewing applications; and entering and submitting comments on a Technical Review Form
Q33. Effectiveness of G5 instructions to help you locate what you need
Q34. Ability to accomplish what you want on the site
Q35. Visual appearance of the G5 pages
Q36. Ease of navigation
Q37. Please describe how the G5 Grants Management System could better use technology to deliver its services on 2 of the items listed above (open ended).
Q38. [DO NOT ASK OF PROGRAMS 7,13,14,15,16,18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27b,28a,28b,32,33] How can the Performance report (data accountability) submission in G5 be improved?
Q39. How much of a reduction in federal paperwork do you expect over the next few years because of the [PRINCIPAL OFFICE]’s initiative to promote the use of technology in reporting accountability data (e.g. EDEN/EDFacts)? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very significant” and “10” is “Very significant.”
[ASK Q40-Q44 IF Q1=1-5, 11-34]
Documents
Think about the documents (e.g., publications, guidance, memoranda, and frequently asked questions) you receive from the [PROGRAM OFFICE].
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent, please rate the documents’:
Q40. Clarity
Q41. Organization of information
Q42. Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs
Q43. Relevance to your areas of need
Q44. Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face
[ASK Q45-Q54 IF Q1=6-10]
When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the information in the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very difficult” and “10” is “very easy”.
Q45. Program Purpose
Q46. Program Priorities
Q47. Selection Criteria
Q48. Review Process
Q49. Budget Information and Forms
Q50. Deadline for Submission
Q51. Dollar Limit on Awards
Q52. Page Limitation Instructions
Q53. Formatting Instructions
Q54. Program Contact
[ASK Q55-58 ONLY TO ALL TO ALL OESE PROGRAMS Q1=13-34]
Q55. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 15,16] How effective have the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE’s) technical assistance services been in helping you learn to implement your OESE-funded grant programs? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective.”
Q56. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 15,16] How useful have OESE’s technical assistance services been in serving as a model that you can replicate with your subgrantees? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful.” If you do not have subgrantees or this does not apply, please select “Not applicable.”
Q57. Describe your best customer service experience during the past 12 months with the ED staff who work on this program. (Open end)
Q58. Describe your worst customer service experience during the past 12 months with the ED staff who work on this program. (Open end)
[Q59-Q61 ALL PROGRAMS]
Now we are going to ask you to please consider ALL of [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s products and services.
Q59. Using a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Very dissatisfied” and “10” means “Very satisfied,” how satisfied are you with [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s products and services?
Q60. Now please rate the extent to which the products and services offered by [PROGRAM OFFICE] have fallen short of or exceeded your expectations. Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” now means “Falls short of your expectations” and “10” means “Exceeds Your expectations.”
Q61. Now forget for a moment about the products and services offered by the [PROGRAM OFFICE], and imagine the ideal products and services. How well do you think the [PROGRAM OFFICE] compares with that ideal? Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Not very close to the ideal” and “10” means “Very close to the ideal.”
Now please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement.
Q62. Overall, when I think of all of the [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s products and services, I am satisfied with their quality.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree
e. Does not apply
Closing
Q63. In the past 6 months, have you issued a formal complaint to the office that administers your grant to express your dissatisfaction with the assistance you’ve received from a staff member?
a. Yes
b.
No
Q64. Finally, please describe how the [PROGRAM OFFICE] can improve its service to you.
NOTE: EACH RESPONDENT WILL ONLY RECEIVE 1 SET OF CUSTOM QUESTIONS CONCERNING THEIR PROGRAM
Again, only think about your interactions with of [GRANT PROGRAM] when answering the following questions.
After custom question section DISPLAY: Thank you again for your time. To complete the survey and submit the results, please hit the “Finish” button below. Have a good day!
ONLY IF Q1=1 NATIVE AMERICAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL PROGRAM ASK 1-10 BELOW
How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer?
a. At least weekly
b. Monthly
c. Quarterly
c. Yearly
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or technical assistance?
How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Every few months
e. Never
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?
How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or use the NEXUS newsletter?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Every few months
e. Never
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the NEXUS newsletter?
How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Every few months
e. Never
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?
What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year? (open end)
What recommendations do you have of the program staff to assist you in administering your grant effectively? (open end)
ONLY IF Q1=2 National Professional Development Program ASK 1-10 BELOW
How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer?
a. At least weekly
b. Monthly
c. Quarterly
c. Yearly
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or technical assistance?
How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Every few months
e. Never
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?
How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or use the NEXUS newsletter?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Every few months
e. Never
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the NEXUS newsletter?
How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Every few months
e. Never
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?
What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year? (open end)
What recommendations do you have of the program staff to assist you in administering your grant effectively? (open end)
ONLY IF Q1=3 Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Ed (AEFLA) ASK 1-8 BELOW
1. Think about the National Reporting System as a way to report your state’s performance data to OCTAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the NRS’s ease of reporting using the NRS Web-based system.
2. Think about the training offered by OCTAE through its contract to support the National Reporting System (NRS). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the usefulness of the training.
Think about the national meetings and conference offered by OCTAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the information provided at these conferences and institutes on the following:
3. Being up-to-date
4. Relevance of information
5. Usefulness to your program
Think about the national activities offered by DAEL. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is,” Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the activities on the following:
6. Usefulness of the products in helping your state meet AEFLA program priorities.
7. How well does the technical assistance provided through the national activities address your program priorities and needs? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “does not address needs very well” and “10” means “addresses needs very well.”
8. What can DAEL do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance/program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 4 Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & Technical Ed ASK 1-10 BELOW
1. Think about the Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) as a way to report your state’s performance data to OCTAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the CAR’s user friendliness.
If you were monitored by OCTAE within the last year, think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to your Perkins grant. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the federal monitoring process in:
2. Identifying and correcting compliance issues in your state
3. Helping you to improve program quality
Think about your formal interactions with OCTAE last year. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the effectiveness of these sessions in helping you to improve your Perkins administration, implementation, and accountability systems.
4. Office Hours
5. New State Director’s Orientation
6. Quarterly State CTE Directors Webinars
7. Personal Communications (telephone calls and e-mail correspondence)
8. Think about the Perkins Collaborative Resource Network (PCRN) administered by OCTAE. On a 10-point scale,
where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate PCRN’s usefulness to your program.
9. Think about the Perkins State Plan Portal as a means to submit your annual revisions, budgets, and performance levels. On a 10-point scale, where 1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the user-friendliness of the portal.
10. What can OCTAE do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance and program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=5 Indirect Cost Group/Financial Improvement Operations (ICG/FIO)
For questions 1-4, please answer on the following scale: 1- Always, 2- Most of the time, 3-Sometimes and 4- Never
Did the cost negotiator demonstrate knowledge of applicable regulations and guidance regarding indirect cost rates?
Did the cost negotiator provide timely responses to request for technical assistance (i.e., general and indirect proposal specific questions)?
Were timely indirect cost rates issued for an adequate indirect cost rate proposal?
Was the cost negotiator professional and courteous during the indirect cost rate proposal review?
What is the experience level of your staff preparing the indirect cost rate proposal?
Inexperienced – Less than 2 years
2-4 years
5-7 years
More than 7 years
Please rank the top six indirect cost areas that would be most beneficial to your staff’s training needs?
Preparation of the Indirect Cost rate proposal
Restricted Rate Calculations
Subawards and Subcontracts
Subrecipient Indirect cost rates
Exclusions
Calculations of LEA Indirect rates
Other, please specify (PN: “Other” not required in ranking)
Have your indirect cost proposals been submitted timely by the due date of six months after the end of the fiscal year?
a. Yes
b. No
If no, please explain the reason why.
Has the indirect cost group provided the technical assistance needed during reviews when the required documentation was not submitted in the original submission?
a. Yes
b. No
If no, please explain the reason why.
[IF Q8=YES] how satisfied were you with the timeliness of our services?
a. Satisfied
b. Very Satisfied
c. Extremely Satisfied
Nonprofits only: Have you had your indirect cost review performed based on our low risk procedures and if so, how timely was the issuance of the indirect cost rate agreement?
a. Within 30 to 60 days from receipt of proposal
b. Within 60 to 90 days from receipt of proposal
c. Within 90 to 120 days from receipt of proposal
d. Question does not apply to me
During a site visit, did your staff receive sufficient technical guidance and answers to their questions which resulted in better understanding of the indirect cost process and review?
a. Yes
b. No
c. N/A
If the most recent indirect cost rate agreement was not received in a timely manner, did your organization contribute to the delay in any of the following ways?
The organization was unable to respond to the Cost Negotiator’s inquiries due to other priorities within your organization.
The organization was understaffed during the time of the most recent indirect cost rate proposal review or had new staff needing assistance from management on their responses.
All of the above
Not applicable
How would your organization rate the customer service received during a desk review or site review conducted by the Indirect cost group negotiators?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
How can the indirect cost group partner with your organization in assuring that submissions are complete and submitted on time and indirect cost rate agreements are issued timely?
ONLY IF Q1=6 Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions ASK 1-12 BELOW
1. How long have you been working on the current grant? (Choose one that most closely approximates the amount of time.)
a. Less than one year
b. 1-2 years
c. 2-3 years
d. 3-4 years
e. 4 or more years
Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the Hispanic Serving Institutions Division. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the Hispanic Serving Institutions Division according to the following:
2. Responsiveness to questions
3. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures
4. Ability to resolve issues
5. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication
6. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues
7. Which best describes how often you interact with Hispanic Serving Institution Division staff?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. A few times a year
e. Once a year
f. Less than once a year
8. When you interact with Hispanic Serving Institution Division Staff what is the quality of the customer service provided to you?
a. Excellent
b. Very Good
c. Average
d. Fair
e. Poor
9. What type of support from the program office would help you implement your grant? (open end)
10. Please provide at least one specific suggestion for how we can improve this program. (open end)
11. Please provide at least one example how this grant is making a positive contribution towards achieving the mission of the institution. (open end)
12. Please provide at least one example of how the grant increases student persistence toward degree attainment. (open end)
ONLY IF Q1=7 Centers for International Business Education ASK 1-6 BELOW
In considering the support you have received from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) CIBE staff responsible for overseeing your grant, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas.
Exceeds expectations—provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations—provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations—provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If Not applicable—services not requested, please select “N/A”.
Timeliness to answering questions
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures
Ability to resolve your issue
Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication
Providing reliable and accurate technical assistance
International Resource Information System (IRIS) Help Desk response
IRIS System User Manuals
IRIS Frequently Asked Questions
Have you utilized the CIBE performance data that is publically available on the IRIS website (https://iris.ed.gov)?
Yes
No
[If Q2 = yes, ask Q3: If Q2=No, skip to Q4]
If yes, does the quality of the data:
Exceeds expectations—provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations—provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations—provides lower than anticipated levels of support
Is not useful—provides no support
What additional service could the program provide that would help you? (Check all that apply.)
Post more information online
Post sample applications online
Post frequently asked questions online
Offer webinars with technical assistance on program requirements
Offer webinars on reporting through IRIS
Share more program performance data from other centers
Other (please specify)
Are the CIBE selection criteria still relevant for identifying institutions of higher learning that strengthen curriculum development, research, and training on issues of importance to U.S. trade and competitiveness?
Yes
No
[If Q5=No, ask Q6]
Please list suggestions for future selection criteria.
ONLY IF Q1=8 Strengthening Institutions Program ASK 1-12 BELOW
Think about your experience with receiving technical support from the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) Division staff. On a 10-point scale where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent” please rate the SIP staff according to the following:
a. Responsiveness to questions
b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures
c. Ability to resolve issues
d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication
e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues
Overall were you satisfied with the service provided by the representative?
On a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent,” please rate the quality of:
a. Post-award guidelines
b. Performance reports (base your answer on the extent of data collection, analysis and reporting required and the relevance of data and analyses to your project activities and outcomes).
Briefly describe the reason(s) for your rating of the above listed post award guidelines and the performance reports. (Open end)
What recommendations would you like to offer to Program staff to assist you in administering your grant effectively? (Open end)
What topics would you like to have discussed during meetings and conferences either in person or by phone? (Open end)
About what topic(s) or purpose(s) do you most often contact Program staff? (Open end)
What additional services would you like the Department of Education SIP Program Office make available to you? (Open end)
Please describe how the Department of Education could better use technology to deliver its services. (Open end)
How can we improve our SIP website, including links, to help you identify program resources and meet your technical assistance needs? (Open end)
11. Over the last year of your current grant, have you received consistent information from the SIP Program Office?
a. Yes
b. No
ONLY IF Q1=9 Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation Programs ASK 1-12 BELOW
1. How long have you been working on the current grant?
(Choose one that most closely approximates the amount of time.)
a. Less than one year
b. 1-2 years
c. 2-3 years
d. 3-4 years
e. 4 or more years
Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation Programs. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the Hispanic Serving Institutions Division according to the following:
2. Responsiveness to questions
3. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures
4. Ability to resolve issues
5. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication
6. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues
7. Which best describes how often you interact with Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation Programs staff?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. A few times a year
e. Once a year
f. Less than once a year
8. When you interact with Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation Programs Staff what is the quality of the customer service provided to you?
a. Excellent
b. Very Good
c. Average
d. Fair
e. Poor
What type of support from the program office would help you implement your grant? (open end)
10. Please provide at least one specific suggestion for how we can improve this program. (open end)
ONLY IF Q1=10 Upward Bound ASK 1-8 BELOW
In interacting with the U.S Department of Education (ED) Upward Bound (UB) program specialist responsible for overseeing your grant, please rate service/support in the following areas on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means Poor and 10 means Excellent. If a service area does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulation, policies and procedures, including updated programmatic knowledge as necessitated by HEOA (Higher Education Opportunity Act).
Responsiveness to your inquiries (by email, telephone, letter etc.).
Ability to assist you in interacting with institutional officials, if necessary in the resolution of critical internal programmatic issues.
Knowledge of the annual performance report.
Ability to assist with questions about the completion and submission of the report.
Processing of administrative action request, including change in key personnel and budget revisions, within 30 days.
In interacting with the U.S Department of Education (ED) Upward Bound (UB) program specialist responsible for overseeing your grant, please rate the service /support in the following areas on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means Poor and 10 means Excellent. If you did not receive information or feedback in an area please select “N/A”.
Compliance Issues
Fiscal Issues
Grant Management Issues
Evaluation Issues
No-Cost Extension Issues
Annual Performance Report
Project Director’s Meeting at COE
In interacting with the U.S Department of Education (ED) Upward Bound (UB) program Annual Performance Report (APR) helpdesk responsible for assisting you with technical issue on the website, please rate the service /support in the following areas, again using a 1 to 10 scale.
Assistance with technical Issues
Assistance with the website
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor “ and “10” is “excellent”, please rate the technical assistance provided by the program specialist assigned to your grant on the following:
Technical Assistance
Timeliness of responses
Clarity of information
Usefulness to the program
Think about your experience seeking information from the Upward Bound Program website http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioubpound/index.html. Using a 10 point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent; please rate the website on the following:
Organization of information
User friendliness
Do you have any suggestions for simplifying the Annual Performance Report process?
How frequently would you like to have in-person meetings, webinars or other means of technical assistance?
Quarterly
Annually
Bi-annually
Please name area(s) in the Upward Bound program that the technical assistance or individualized support received helped you improve?
ONLY IF Q1=11 IDEA - State Directors of Special Education (Part B) ASK 1-17 BELOW
1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?
At least weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Yearly
My State Lead does not contact me
Assistance from OSEP Staff and other Professional Resources
Think about the technical assistance and support provided by state Contacts from the Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the staff’s:
2. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and other required submissions
3. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when appropriate)
4. What improvements can you suggest regarding support from MSIP state contacts?
Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as Dear Colleague letters, Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s newsletter, topical webinars, etc.
5. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?
6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?
How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on evidence in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)
An OSEP-funded TA provider
An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)
Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)
Conferences where research is presented
Books
Journal Articles
Personal interaction with peers
IDEAS that work website
The Department’s new IDEA website
osep.grads360.org
17. Describe the impact it might have on the State if OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval process. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=12 IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program ASK 1-17 BELOW
Assistance from OSEP Staff
Think about the technical assistance and support provided by state contacts from the Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the staff’s:
1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?
At least weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Yearly
My State Lead does not contact me
2. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and other required submissions.
3. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when appropriate)
4. What improvements can you suggest regarding support from MSIP state contacts?
Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as Dear Colleague letters, Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s newsletter, topical webinars, etc.
5. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?
6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?
How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on evidence in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)
An OSEP-funded TA provider
An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)
Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)
Conferences where research is presented
Books
Journal Articles
Personal interaction with peers
IDEAS that work website
The Department’s new IDEA website
osep.grads360.org
17. If OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval process, how helpful would that be to the State? Please use the scale below where 0 is Not Helpful and 5 is Very Helpful.
ONLY IF Q1=13 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants ASK 1-10 BELOW
Customer Service
Think about the support you have received from the Office of State Support (OSS) program staff regarding [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] (e.g., responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements, connecting you to resources). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of OSS program staff in supporting your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]:
Provides timely responses to State requests and questions
Demonstrates understanding of my State’s specific context (e.g., educational policies and priorities, governance structure, etc.)
Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Implementation Support
Think about your participation in OSS performance review and technical assistance activities (e.g., quarterly progress checks, fiscal review, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, collaboration calls, communities of practice). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
Helps my State assess how well we are accomplishing [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] goals
Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Helps my State address grant implementation challenges
Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague letters, flexible uses of funds)
Supports the establishment and strengthening of cross-program connections and coordination within my State
Think about services offered by OSS in the previous year (e.g., opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of non-regulatory guidance , support transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act, review of State Plans) to support your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
What services provided by OSS have been most helpful or effective? (Please cite specific examples) (open ended)
How can OSS services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of your State as you implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]? (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)
ONLY IF Q1=14 21st Century Community Learning Centers ASK 1-10 BELOW
How long have you served as the 21st CCLC State Director?
Less than two years
More than two years
I am not the state director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for this program for less than two years.
I am not the state director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for this program for more than two years.
Please rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Education staff on 21st CCLC program grant administration issues and on program administration issues as they assist the states. Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being Poor and “10” being Excellent.
Rate the effectiveness of the 21st CCLC program’s national leadership conferences, meetings, and technical assistance webinars that are sponsored by the US Department of Education staff and contracted staff on a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent.”
SEA Coordinator’s meeting
Webinar on April 21st
Webinar on Evaluation
Webinar on Sustainability
Y4Y Technical Assistance
21st CCLC Preconference
New Director’s Tool Kit
For any event that you rated less than 10, please provide the name of the event and tell us what improvements we can make to increase the effectiveness for you. (Open-ended)
How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and contracted staff in preparing for monitoring activities (monitoring calls, virtual reviews, onsite monitoring reviews? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful”.
Rate the effectiveness of the 21st CCLC program’s information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and contracted staff in preparing for monitoring activities on a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent.”
Biannual Monitoring calls
Virtual monitoring reviews
Onsite monitoring reviews
Onsite monitoring technical assistance
New Director’s Tool Kit
For any activity that you rated less than 10, please provide the name of the activity and tell us what improvements we can make to increase the effectiveness for you. (Open-ended)
How likely are you to recommend the 21st CCLC program’s You for Youth (Y4Y) website at https://y4y.ed.gov/ to your State’s grantees as a technical assistance resource? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being not at all likely and “10” being extremely likely.
Would you prefer 21st CCLC program in-person meetings to include SEAs only OR SEAs,Center-level staffs, and other entities?
SEAs only
SEAs, center-level staffs, and other entities
Center-level staffs
Other entities
What technical assistance topics can the 21st CCLC program provide at meetings to support the states more effectively? (Open-ended)
ONLY IF Q1=15 Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) ASK 1-10 BELOW
Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.
Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?
Yes
No
[IF Q1=a] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective rate the effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.
Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance?
Yes
No
[IF Q3=a, ASK Qs 4-6] On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”; rate the Impact Aid Program staff’s:
Responsiveness to answering questions
Supportiveness in helping you complete your application
Knowledge about technical material
7. Have you attended any Webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the Section 8002 program, application submission, or the review process.
a. Yes
b. No
8. [IF Q7=a] Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you understand your responsibilities in submitting data?
a. Yes
b. No
8a. [IF Q8=a] Please explain. (Open end)
9. How was the quality of the interaction with Impact Aid program staff members during the review process? Please use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent.”
10. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=16 Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) ASK 1-17 BELOW
Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.
Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?
Yes
No
[IF Q1=a] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective rate the effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.
Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance?
Yes
No
4. [IF Q3=a] On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent; rate the Impact Aid Program staff’s performance in answering your questions and helping you to complete your application.
5. Did you contact the G5 Helpdesk for technical assistance?
Yes
No
6. [IF Q5=a] On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent; rate the G5 Helpdesk’s performance in resolving your problem.
7. Have you participated in any Webinars or meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the Section 8003 program and the review process?
Yes
No
[IF Q7=a] Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you to understand your responsibilities in completing the application or submitting data?
Yes
No
[IF Q8=b] Please explain. (Open end)
Has your school district been contacted by the Impact Aid Program in the past year regarding a monitoring or field review of your application?
Yes
No
[IF Q10=a] Did the letter you received provide sufficient explanation of what and how you need to prepare your documents for the review?
Yes
No
[IF Q11=b] Please explain. (Open end)
Did you receive timely communications regarding the outcome of the review?
Yes
No
[IF Q13=b] Please explain. (Open end)
Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent to rate the Impact Aid staff members on the following.
15. Ease of reaching the person who could address your concern
16. Ability to resolve your issue
17. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can improve customer service. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=17 Striving Readers ASK 1-9 BELOW
Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from your SRCL program officer. On a 10-point scale where “1” not very helpful and “10” means very helpful please rate your program officer on:
1. Responsiveness to questions.
2. Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues.
3. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication.
4. The quality of information or feedback received from SRCL program officer.
5. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other pertinent information
6. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.
7. Your satisfaction with the face-to-face SRCL Program Director’s National Convening.
8. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and contracted staff (TA Liaisons) in preparing to implement your SRCL grant activities (developing individualized technical assistance plan, responding to issues that arise, etc)?
9. What technical assistance topics can the SRCL program provide during meetings and SRCL Communities of Practice events to support the states more effectively? (Open-ended)
ONLY IF Q1=18 High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - Migrant Education ASK 1-10 BELOW
As it relates to the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), please rate the following using a 10 point scale, where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent.
1. Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff
2. Timely resolution of questions by program staff
3. Clarity of information provided by program staff
4. Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical assistance (e.g., webinars, policy documents, meetings, conference calls)
5. Usefulness of the updated technical assistance resources pages on the HEP ed.gov website.
6. What additional topics would you like discussed during HEP meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program? (Open end)
7. What could the HEP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? (Open end)
8. What could the HEP team do to improve the structure or format of technical assistance? (Open end)
9. Please share any comments on how the HEP team can better support your work. Please include any ideas that the HEP team may use to better support your work as it relates to your project’s specific needs. (Open end)
10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical assistance in form and/or content the HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=19 Project Prevent Grant Program ASK 1-7 BELOW
Think about the one-on-one communication (via phone or email) with your Federal project Officer. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate your Federal Project Officer on the following:
1. Responsiveness to questions about Project Prevent Grant Program requirements and applicable Department of Education (EDGAR) and other federal regulations
2. Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to emails
3. Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or guidance regarding the development, revision and reporting of budgets, the collection of GPRA data, and the submission of annual performance
4. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other pertinent information
Think about the technical assistance, including meetings, written guidance, webinars, and presentations that you receive from the P2 technical assistance team. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the following:
5. Relevance and usefulness to your project and program activities
6. Frequency of communication
7. Use of technology to deliver services
ONLY IF Q1=20 Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies ASK 1-8 BELOW
Think about the particular ways in which you have received technical support and/or assistance from the Office of Indian Education (OIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of technical assistance in:
1. Responsiveness of OIE staff in answering questions and/or information requests.
2. Timeliness of OIE staff in providing information to meet your Title VI application and APR deadlines.
3. Quality of support and technical assistance provided by OIE staff on Title VI program implementation.
4. Comprehensiveness of guidance documents OIE provides, e.g. Getting Started; Frequently Asked Questions, website links and EASIE Community website.
Think about the application process when applying for a grant through the Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the EASIE System on the following:
5. Ease of using the EASIE system when applying for a grant.
6. Quality of training via webinars provided by the EASIE system and grant application process.
7. Think about the Title VI formula grant requirements. Select two topics around which you have greatest need for technical assistance:
a. Establishing parent committees
b. Expanding membership of parent committees
c. Verifying student information
d. Using the EASIE system
e. Allowable uses of funds
f. General grant program requirements, deadlines and milestones
g. Using the G5 system
Open ended questions for your comments:
8. What professional development training or conferences do you or your staff attend locally, regionally or nationally to improve the performance of your programs (i.e. State Conferences, National Associations, Federal Program Conferences, etc.)? (Open end)
9. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your technical assistance and program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=21 Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part C ASK 1-7 BELOW
1a. If you are a new MEP Director (new as of May 2014), what technical assistance opportunities have been most helpful for implementing your program?
1b. What could OME add or change to improve technical assistance to new MEP Directors?
The purpose of the Coordination Work Group (CWG) is to meet with the Office of Migrant Education to collect feedback from their respective districts to identify, discuss, and work on program coordination and program implementation issues that directly affect efforts to improve the educational opportunities and academic success of migrant children.
2a. How do you feel about the usefulness of the CWG for collaborating on topics of technical assistance and program operations?
I am satisfied with collaboration through the CWG.
I am not satisfied with collaboration through the CWG.
2b. [IF 2a=b] Please provide specific suggestions to improve collaboration through the CWG. [open end]
3a. Which of this year’s technical assistance webinars were most useful to you? [BI: leave old values in, trend variable]
a. CSPR Series
b. MSIX: ISA/MOU
c. MSIX: Managing Worklists
d. MSIX: Accounts Management
e. Subgranting
f. Evaluation Exemplars
g. I did not participate in a webinar this year
3b. Please indicate why this webinar was helpful and/or how we could improve our webinars in the future.(open end)
4. Please check up to three technical assistance topics that you will need in the future, in order to improve the performance of your MEP. (Check boxes with the maximum of three to be selected for the topics below) [PN: Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]
a. Child Eligibility
b. Comprehensive Needs Assessment
c. Continuation of Services
d. Fiscal Requirements
e. Interstate Coordination
f. Parental/Family Engagement
g. Priority for Services
h. Program Evaluation
i. Quality Control
j. Records Exchange
k. Recruitment
l. Re-interviewing
m. Service Delivery Models
n. Service Delivery Plan
o. Subgrant Formulas
p. Service Delivery Strategies (Instructional and Support)
q. Subrecipient Monitoring
r. Other, please specify [ANCHOR at bottom]
Which resources have you accessed via the RESULTS webpage in the last year? [choice]
Legislation Information
Policy Questions
Tools & Curriculum
Webinars
Stories from the field
State contacts
None of the Above
6. What is the most useful method for OME to communicate pertinent information, such as new developments or policy, to you (e.g. webinars, in-person presentations, listserv, program office calls, etc.) (Open end)
7. Please share any comments on how OME can better support your work as a MEP state director. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=22 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program – McKinney-Vento ASK 1-11 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual US Department of Education program staff for the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, including coordination with activities arranged by the technical assistance contractor, National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE), or independently.
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is Poor and “10” is Excellent, please rate the TA provided by the US Department of Education and NCHE staff on the following:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION TO SHOW USDE and NCHE
US Department of Education
Responsiveness in answering questions.
Knowledge of technical material
NCHE
1a.Responsiveness in answering questions.
2a.Knowledge of technical material
On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the TA efforts provided by the US Department of Education and NCHE staff in helping you with the following:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
US Department of Education
Meeting program compliance requirements
Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results
Developing cross-agency collaborations
NCHE
3a. Meeting program compliance requirements
4a. Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results
5a. Developing cross-agency collaborations
On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the quality and usefulness of the TA methods provided by NCHE:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION TO SHOW QUALITY AND USEFULNESS
Quality
Direct one-on-one TA calls
Webinars
State Coordinators meeting
Website
Products
Usefulness
6a.Direct one-on-one TA calls
7a.Webinars
8a. State Coordinators meeting
9a. Website
10a.Products
Please respond to the following open-ended question regarding your thoughts on how to improve the assistance and monitoring you receive.
What can the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program office do over the next year to meet your state’s TA, program improvement and coordination needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=23 Student Support and Academic Enrichment ASK 1-9 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual by US Department of Education (ED) program staff for the Title IV, Part A program.
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the technical assistance provided by ED staff on the following:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
US Department of Education
1. Responsiveness in answering questions.
2. Knowledge of technical material
On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of the technical assistance efforts provided by ED staff in helping you with the following:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
US Department of Education
3. Meeting program compliance requirements
4. Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results
5. Developing cross-agency collaborations
6. State Coordinators meeting
7. Website
8. Products
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
9. What can the Title IV, Part A program office do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance, program improvement and coordination needs?
ONLY IF Q1=24 TITLE I PART A – IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES (LEAs) ASK 1-10 BELOW
Customer Service
Think about the support you have received from the Office of State Support (OSS) program staff regarding [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] (e.g., responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements, connecting you to resources). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of OSS program staff in supporting your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]:
Provides timely responses to State requests and questions
Demonstrates understanding of my State’s specific context (e.g. educational policies and priorities, governance structure, etc.)
Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Implementation Support
Think about your participation in OSS performance review and technical assistance activities (e.g., quarterly progress checks, fiscal review, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, collaboration calls, communities of practice). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
Helps my State assess how well we are accomplishing [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] goals
5. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Helps my State address grant implementation challenges
Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague letters, flexible uses of funds)
Supports the establishment and strengthening of cross-program connections and coordination within my State
Think about services offered by OSS in the previous year (e.g., opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of non-regulatory guidance , support transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act, review of State Plans) to support your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
What services provided by OSS have been most helpful or effective? (Please cite specific examples) (open ended)
10. How can OSS services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of your State as you implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]? (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)
ONLY IF Q1=25 English Language Acquisition State Grants/Title III State Formula Grant Program
ASK 1-10 BELOW
Customer Service
Think about the support you have received from the Office of State Support (OSS) program staff regarding [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] (e.g., responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements, connecting you to resources). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of OSS program staff in supporting your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]:
Provides timely responses to State requests and questions
Demonstrates understanding of my State’s specific context (e.g. educational policies and priorities, governance structure, etc.)
Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Implementation Support
Think about your participation in OSS performance review and technical assistance activities (e.g., quarterly progress checks, fiscal review, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, collaboration calls, communities of practice). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
Helps my State assess how well we are accomplishing [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] goals
5. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Helps my State address grant implementation challenges
Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague letters, flexible uses of funds)
Supports the establishment and strengthening of cross-program connections and coordination within my State
Think about services offered by OSS in the previous year (e.g., opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of non-regulatory guidance , support transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act, review of State Plans) to support your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
What services provided by OSS have been most helpful or effective? (Please cite specific examples) (open ended)
How can OSS services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of your State as you implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]? (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)
ONLY IF Q1=26 Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs ASK 1-23 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual ED program staff for the Title I, Part D program, including coordination with activities arranged by the technical assistance contractor, the National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth (NDTAC), or independently.
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the technical assistance provided by the US Department of Education and NDTAC staff on the following:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION TO SHOW USDE and NDTAC
US Department of Education
1. Responsiveness in answering questions.
2. Knowledge of technical material
Technical Assistance Center (NDTAC)
3. Responsiveness in answering questions.
4. Knowledge of technical material
On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of the technical assistance efforts provided by the US Department of Education and NDTAC staff in helping you with the following:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
US Department of Education
5. Meeting program compliance requirements
6. Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results
7. Developing cross-agency collaborations
Technical Assistance Center (NDTAC )
8. Meeting program compliance requirements
9. Assisting you (as state coordinators) build your capacity to impact performance results
10. Developing cross-agency collaborations
On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the quality and usefulness of the TA methods provided by NDTAC:
Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.
FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION TO SHOW QUALITY AND USEFULNESS
Quality
11. Direct one-on-one TA calls /emails or written communication s
12. ND Community calls (including topical calls)
13. Webinars
14. State Coordinators meeting
15. Website
16. Products
Usefulness
17. Direct one-on-one TA calls/emails or written communication s
18. ND Community calls/emails or written communication s
19. Webinars
20. State Coordinators meeting
21. Website
22. Products
23. What can the Title I, Part D program office do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance, program improvement and coordination needs?
ONLY IF Q1=27a School Climate Transformation Grant Program – State Department of Education ASK 1-8 BELOW
Think about the one-on-one communication (via phone or email) with your Federal Project Officer. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate your Federal project Officer on the following:
1. Responsiveness and accuracy in responding to questions regarding School Climate Transformation Grant Program requirements
2. Responsiveness and accuracy in providing guidance related to Department of Education grant administrative regulation, including budget issues, reporting, grant requirements, and other Federal regulations
3. Timeliness in responding to emails and returning phone calls
4. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other pertinent information
Think about your project’s technical assistance, including meetings, written guidance, webinars, and presentations that you receive from your technical assistance provider. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the following:
5. Quality of technical assistance received
6. Relevance and usefulness to your project and program activities
7. Frequency of communication
8. Use of technology to delivery training and technical assistance
ONLY IF Q1=27b School Climate Transformation Grant Program – Local Education Agency ASK 1-2 BELOW
1. How satisfied are you with your program officer (e.g., knowledge, timeliness, clarity, ability to resolve issues, understanding of my specific needs, quality of feedback received, professionalism/courtesy)? (open ended question)
2. What topics would you like to have our technical assistance efforts focus on over the coming year? (open ended question)
ONLY IF Q1=28a Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural Low-Income School Program ASK 1-8 BELOW
1. How could we make the November 2017 REAP Web-X more beneficial to you? What additional information is needed? (Open end)
Please rate the following using a 10-point scale, where "1" means poor and "10" means excellent. (Q2 & Q3 only)
2. Accessibility and responsiveness of REAP program staff
3. Clarity of information provided by REAP program staff
4. How frequently would you like to have webinars or other means of technical assistance? (Open end)
5. What could the REAP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? (Open end)
6. Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you will need in the future in order to improve the performance of your RLIS grant. (Check boxes with the maximum of 3 to be selected for the topics below) [PN: Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]
Use of grant funds
Use of G5 (i.e., grantee information, grant award notice (GAN), available funds, drawdown of funds, etc.)
Use of Max.gov
Providing Technical Assistance to Grantees
REAP Eligibility Data and Estimating Award Amounts
Consolidated grant application process
Grant eligibility data review & submission
Fiscal accounting procedures
Monitoring RLIS grantees
Use of grant funds for administrative costs
Reporting and use of data
Other (please specify)
7. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online resources, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/index.html and http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/index.html in order to make your experience more useful? (Open end)
8. What recommendations would you like to make to the REAP program staff to assist you in administering your grant effectively? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=28b Rural Education Achievement Program/Small, Rural School Achievement Program ASK 1-7 BELOW
Please rate the following using a 10-point scale, where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent. [Q1 & Q2 only]
1. Accessibility and responsiveness of REAP program staff
2. Clarity of information provided by REAP program staff
3. How frequently would you like to have webinars or other means of technical assistance? (Open end)
4. What could the REAP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? (Open end)
5. Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you will need in the future in order to improve the performance of your SRSA grant. (Check boxes with the maximum of 3 to be selected for the topics below) [PN: Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]
a. Use of funds
b. Use of G5 (i.e., grantee information, grant award notice (GAN), available funds, drawdown of funds, etc.)
c. Grant application process
d. EDGAR
e. REAP flexibility
f. Reporting and use of data
g. Eligibility Data and Estimating Award Amounts
h. Other: [Type in response]
6. How can we improve the content and navigation of our REAP online resource, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/index.html in order to make your experience more useful? (Open end)
7. What recommendations would you like to make to the REAP program staff to assist you in administering your grant effectively? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=29 Alaska Native Education Program ASK 1-9 BELOW
How long have you served as the ANE Project Director?
Less than one year
More than one year
I am not the ANE Project Director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for this program for less than one year.
I am not the ANE Project Director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for this program for more than one year.
Please rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Education staff on ANE program grant administration issues and on program administration issues as they assist your grant project. Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”
When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the information in the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very difficult” and “10” is “very easy.”
Program Purpose
Program Priorities
Selection Criteria
Review Process
Budget Information and Forms
Deadline for Submission
Dollar Limit on Awards
Page Limitation Instructions
Formatting Instructions
Program Contact
Has your program officer initiated technical assistance or conducted a Quarterly Monitoring Call with you or anyone on the ANE staff during the past 3-6 months?
Yes
No
[IF Q4=YES] Where and how did the technical assistance or support take place (Select all that apply)
Project Directors’ meeting sponsored by the Department
Conference call/email exchange with your Program Officer
Program Officer
Other Program (or the Department) staff site visit
Monitoring contractor (Please specify)
National association meeting (Please specify)
Other (Please specify)
How helpful is the information on the ANE website? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful.”
What technical assistant topics can the ANE program provide at Project Directors’ meetings to support the implementation of your grant projects more effectively? (Open-ended)
How easy is it to navigate the web-based annual performance report process? Please use a 10-point scale with ”1” being “not very easy” and “10” being “very easy.”
What suggestions do you have for improving the annual performance report process? (Open-ended)
ONLY IF Q1=30 Innovative Approaches to Literacy ASK 1-9 BELOW
Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the IAL program specialist. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate your program specialist on:
1. Responsiveness to questions.
2. Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues.
3. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication.
4. The quality of information or feedback received from IAL program staff.
5. Knowledge of and ability to assist with the submission of the IAL annual performance report.
6. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the representative.
7. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other pertinent information
8. What, if any, improvements have you seen in IAL over the last year? (open end)
9. Please provide at least one specific suggestion for how we can improve this program. (open end)
ONLY IF Q1=31 Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants ASK 1-8 BELOW
As it relates to the Native Youth Community Projects (NYCP) program, please rate the following using a 10 point scale, where “1” means “Poor” and “10” means “Excellent”
1. Accessibility and timely responsiveness of program staff
2. Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical assistance
3. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical assistance
4. Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources on the OIE web site.
5. Assign the priority, 1 being highest and 6 being lowest, that you would assign to the following technical assistance topics:
Data Collection
Performance Reporting
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Capacity Building
Parent Engagement
Partnerships
Cultural Relevance
Allowable Costs and Budgeting Flexibilities
6. What could OIE staff do to improve the structure (i.e., presentations, group discussions, individual project sharing, etc.) or format of technical assistance (i.e., on-site meetings, webinars, conference calls, etc.)? (Open end)
7. What professional development training or conferences do you or your staff attend locally, regionally or nationally to improve the performance of your programs (i.e., State Conferences, National Associations, Federal Program Conferences, etc.)? (Open end)
8. Please share any comments on how OIE staff can better support your work. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=32 College Assistance Migrant Program ASK 1-10 BELOW
As it relates to the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), please rate the following using a 10 point scale, where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent.
1. Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff
2. Timely resolution of questions by program staff
3. Clarity of information provided by program staff
4. Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical assistance (e.g., webinars, policy documents, meetings, conference calls)
5. Usefulness of the updated technical assistance resources pages on the CAMP ed.gov website.
6. What additional topics would you like discussed during CAMP meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program? (Open end)
7. What could the CAMP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? (Open end)
8. What could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or format of technical assistance? (Open end)
9. Please share any comments on how the CAMP team can better support your work. Please include any ideas that the CAMP team may use to better support your work as it relates to your project’s specific needs. (Open end)
10. What other federal programs providing you technical assistance in form and/or content the HEP/CAMP team should consider as a model? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=33 Grants for State Assessments ASK 1-10 BELOW
Customer Service
Think about the support you have received from the Office of State Support (OSS) program staff regarding [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] (e.g., responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements, connecting you to resources). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of OSS program staff in supporting your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
Provides timely responses to State requests and questions
Demonstrates understanding of my State’s specific context (e.g. educational policies and priorities, governance structure, etc.)
Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Implementation Support
Think about your participation in OSS performance review and technical assistance activities (e.g., quarterly progress checks, fiscal review, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, collaboration calls, communities of practice). On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
Helps my State assess how well we are accomplishing [PROGRAM NAME from Q1] goals
Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]
Helps my State address grant implementation challenges
Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., new provisions under ESSA, dear colleague letters, flexible uses of funds)
Supports the establishment and strengthening of cross-program connections and coordination within my State
Think about services offered by OSS in the previous year (e.g., opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of non-regulatory guidance , support transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act, review of State Plans) to support your State’s implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].
What services provided by OSS have been most helpful or effective? (Please cite specific examples) (open ended)
How can OSS services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of your State as you implement [PROGRAM NAME from Q1]? (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)
ONLY IF Q1=34 Javits Program ASK 1-7 BELOW
Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the Javits program specialist. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate your program specialist on:
1. Responsiveness to questions and timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues.
2. The quality of information or feedback received from Javits program staff, including webinars.
3. Knowledge of and ability to assist with the submission of the Javits interim performance report.
4. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the representative.
5. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other pertinent information.
6. What topics would you like discussed during Javits meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program? (Open end)
7. Please share any comments and/or ideas on how the Javits team can improve its support of your project-specific work. (Open end)
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-20 |