ACSI CSBG Eligible Entity Survey

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: docx | pdf | html

OMB Control No: 0970-0382
Expiration date: 07/31/2018

Office of Community Services (OCS)
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
Satisfaction Survey 2017

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. The results of this survey will also provide data to the State CSBG Lead Agency that can be used in developing the State Plan and for reporting purposes.  

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.   

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 aggregated reports for research and evaluation purposes only.  

This survey will take no more than 30 minutes and will be open through July 14, 2017.   It is authorized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Control No 0970-0382 which expires 07/31/18.
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

Written Response 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  


Written Response 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

Written Response 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

Written Response 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

Written Response 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

Written Response 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. 
Written Response 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.





























THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average and approximately 30 minutes per response for eligible entities, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please send to: [email protected].