0920-0840 LGBTQ Inclusivity Toolkit Demonstration Project Post-Pil

Form Approved

OMB No. 0920-0840

Expiration Date: 07/31/2024

LGBTQ Inclusivity Toolkit Demonstration Project

Post-Pilot Feedback Interview Guide

Public reporting burden of this collection of information is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 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 current valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to CDC/ATSDR Information Collection Review Office, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS D-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; ATTN: PRA (0920-0840).

LGBTQ Inclusivity Toolkit Demonstration Project

Post-Pilot Feedback Interview Guide

During this interview, we’ll ask about your experience using the LGBTQ inclusivity toolkit. LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning. We are interested in how the toolkit helped identify gaps in existing LGBTQ inclusivity strategies and how the guidance was, or wasn’t, useful to you in implementing and adopting or strengthening LGBTQ inclusivity strategies. Please answer to the best of your ability, and feel free to ask questions at any time. 

Post-Pilot Feedback Interview Guide

1. CORE QUESTION: After using the toolkit, what is your overall feeling of whether it achieves the purpose of providing guidance for districts and schools in starting or increasing LGBTQ inclusivity work?

SECONDARY QUESTION: What were your thoughts about the toolkit itself?

For example:

• Ease of reading and following the sections

• Visual appeal of the toolkit

• Usefulness as a tool to engage other staff

• Concerns about the toolkit (content, format)

• Suggestions to make the toolkit easier to understand or use

2. CORE QUESTION: In what ways was the district assessment section useful, or not useful, in assessing your district’s level of LGBTQ inclusivity?

SECONDARY QUESTION: How did your district conduct the assessment?

• Which staff were involved?

• How were the results used to develop the action plan?

SECONDARY QUESTION: Do you have any suggestions for how to make the assessment more useful as a tool, or starting place, for LGBTQ inclusivity work?

3. CORE QUESTION: From your Action Plan, I see that you worked on [insert category]. To what extent were the Action Plans steps and goals completed? (Go through each goal)

• Which strategies did you improve or implement related to this goal?

• How did it go?

• Was the toolkit useful as a resource to refer to as you implemented your Action Plan? If yes, how so? If it wasn’t useful in this way, what would have helped you to implement your Action Plan that wasn’t in the toolkit?

4. CORE QUESTION: How did your district and your school work together to use the toolkit to carry out your action plan?

SECONDARY QUESTION: How was the toolkit useful or not useful in preparing you to disseminate or share strategies from the district-level to the school-level?

5. CORE QUESTION: What kind of challenges, if any, did you encounter getting support or approval to adopt or further LGBTQ inclusivity strategies? For example, where there any challenges due to level of staff support or due to the social and political climate in your community or district?

• Did anything in the toolkit help reduce these challenges? If so, please describe how the toolkit helped reduce these challenges.

• What other types of tools or support would have been useful to help you overcome these challenges?

6. CORE QUESTION: How do you think implementation of the Action Plan and use of the toolkit impacted the climate in your district and schools?

For example, changes in:

• Administrator, staff, or student commitment to LGBTQ inclusivity

• Staff or administrator participation in LGBTQ inclusivity efforts, discussions, or activity planning

7. CORE QUESTION: Were there any content areas missing from the toolkit that you think would have improved the usability or utility of the toolkit?
   
   

8. CORE QUESTION: In addition to those we have already discussed, were there any areas where you think the toolkit can be strengthened? If so, what were they?