SASA WEBGRAM State Title I Directors July 27, 2011 Topic: 2011 Grantee Satisfaction Survey Patricia A. McKee Acting Director Student Achievement and School.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Title I, Part A and Section 31a At Risk 101
Advertisements

MSCG Training for Project Officers and Consultants: Project Officer and Consultant Roles in Supporting Successful Onsite Technical Assistance Visits.
URUGUAY’s efforts to address synergies among the Conventions Workshop on synergies and cooperation with other conventions 2-4 July 2003 Espoo, Finland.
Marina Taylor Title I Director Aberdeen School Dist. #58 November 10, 2011.
Toolkit Series from the Office of Migrant Education Webinar: SDP Toolkit August 16, 2012.
ESEA Program Review Russ Sweet Preparing for ESEA Program Reviews of Titles I-A, II-A, VI-B (REAP), and X Summer 2014.
OVERVIEW OF ClASS METHODS and ACTIVITIES. Session Objectives By the end of the session, participants will be able to: Describe ClASS team composition.
Indian Affairs, January 9, 2013 introducing BUDGET FORMULATION FY 2015.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title I, Part D—Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children.
Title III National Professional Development (NPD) Program Grantee Performance Reporting: A Webinar for FY2011 and FY2012 Grantees February 28, 2013 Prepared.
1 Office of Community Services Division of State Assistance COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) Office of Community Services Division of State Assistance.
Strategies for Developing Efficient and Effective Annual Count Processes Stephanie Lampron, DeAngela Milligan, and Marcia Calloway.
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY SSIP Implementation Support Activity 1 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.
Center for Health Care Quality Licensing & Certification Program Evaluation 1 August 2014 rev.
Grants Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR) Overview
Federal Consulting Group August 2004 Department of Labor Civil Rights Center 2004 Satisfaction Study - Recipients.
1 EEC Board Policy and Research Committee October 2, 2013 State Advisory Council (SAC) Sustainability for Early Childhood Systems Building.
1 Monitoring Review: What Every New Coordinator Should Know Victoria Rankin and Greta Colombi, NDTAC.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY15 of Education Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Federal Programs Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III,
Organization Mission Organizations That Use Evaluative Thinking Will Develop mission statements specific enough to provide a basis for goals and.
Who? The Office for Victims of Crime works to provide leadership and enhance the Nation's capacity to assist crime victims in ways that will promote justice.
Policy: SCWDC WS Training Delivery Design: Group.
Federal Program Monitoring and Support Division Charlotte Hughes, Director Donna Brown, Section Chief.
Serving English Language Learners with ESEA Title III, Part A Funds.
Indistar Summit – Coaching with Indistar February 2012 Presenters: Yvonne Holloman, Ph.D. Associate Director, Office of School Improvement Michael Hill.
ACADEMIC SERVICES DIVISION. ACADEMIC SERVICES In other words, Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of your charter.
Meeting the Educational Needs of Diverse Learners DeAngela Milligan and Sarah Bardack.
1 ND Topical Call Series: NDTAC Resources to Meet Technical Assistance Needs (Call 3) 22 September 2015 – Katie Deal.
SD Secondary Career & Technical Education (CTE) Perkins Updates – July 2013.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patrick McMenamin, Administrator Categorical Program Monitoring.
Module 4 Evaluating Services to Binational Migrant Students Designing an Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of State and Local Binational Services 1.
STRENGTHENING HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (HBCU) PROGRAM.
HIV/AIDS BUREAU 2012 Grantee Satisfaction Survey: Response and Results Tracy Matthews Clinical Unit, Director Department of Health and Human Services Health.
The Power of Monitoring: Building Strengths While Ensuring Compliance Greta Colombi and Simon Gonsoulin, NDTAC.
A Catalyst for Program Improvement Federal Monitoring: Added Value.
Program Evaluation NCLB. Training Objectives No Child Left Behind Program Series: Program Evaluation To provide consistency across the State regarding.
0 Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities PERFORMANCE MEASURES Craig Stanton Office of Planning, Evaluation,
Successful Practices Network CTE Technical Assistance Center Work Plan 1.Improve CTE data collection to create an accurate picture.
TITLE I, PART D STATE PLANS John McLaughlin Federal Coordinator for the Title I, Part D Program NDTAC Conference May
Statewide System of Support The Ohio Story: Federal Response.
Using Individual Project and Program Evaluations to Improve the Part D Programs Dr. Herbert M. Baum.
1 Division of Public Schools (PreK -12) Florida Department of Education Florida Education: The Next Generation DRAFT March 13, 2008 Version 1.0 Office.
Federal Support for World-Class Schools Gwinnett County Public Schools 4/18/13.
Consolidated District Reviews and Monitoring Preparing for Desk Monitoring of Titles I-A, I-D, II-A, VI-B (REAP), and X Summer 2013.
Presented by: Jan Stanley, State Title I Director Office of Assessment and Accountability June 10, 2008 Monitoring For Results.
What to Expect When You Are Expecting Consolidated Monitoring: Every Step of the Way Office of Federal Programs Oklahoma State Department of Education.
ESEA Consolidated Monitoring Office of Federal Programs December 10, 2013.
Consolidated State Performance Report & Survey to Generate Title I Neglected and Delinquent Funds for Subpart 1 State Agencies Neglected,
1 New Coordinator Orientation Lauren Amos, Katie Deal, and Liann Seiter.
1 ND Community Call Teal Community 27 October 2015.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY14 Oklahoma State Department of Education Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III, VI and X.
WHAT A GREAT IDEA!! Focusing on Results and Using IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Part D Investments to Support Improved Outcomes for.
Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) Chris McLaughlin Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability Virginia Association.
1 Restructuring Webinar Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary.
The Day in the Life of OFPSI staff By: Dr. Shawnrell Blackwell Director of Federal Programs & School Improvement (OFPSI) Petersburg City Public Schools.
Data Collection & Management: Observational Data Plan (ODP) & Data Management Plan (DMP) Sarai Piazza Craig Conzelmann.
ACF Office of Community Services (OCS) Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Survey of Grantees Satisfaction with OCS Survey of Eligible Entities Satisfaction.
OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
1 Office of Community Services Division of State Assistance COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT Office of Community Services Division of State Assistance Update.
CHARTER SCHOOLS PROGRAM MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION CONTRACT SOLICITATION NO.: ED-OII-15-R-0014.
1 Welcome! Choose a photo from the table that appeals to you or represents you in some way. Write the answers to the following questions on a 3×5 notecard.
SPDG Bidders’ Webinar TA&D Resources 6/01/2011
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
Monitoring LEA Implementation of SIG Interventions:
Perfect Together: Aligning and Leveraging SEAs and Parent Centers in Shared Work Helen Post and Kim Fratto January 10, :30 pm – 3:45 pm ET (11:30-12:45.
Monitoring-Stakeholder Engagement
An Introduction to Evaluating Federal Title Funding
Presentation transcript:

SASA WEBGRAM State Title I Directors July 27, 2011 Topic: 2011 Grantee Satisfaction Survey Patricia A. McKee Acting Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs

2 The 2011 Survey has been ed to States! Please assist us by completing the online survey. On July 7, the CFI Group ed the survey to program contacts in each state. The survey should take about minutes to complete.

The Survey is part of ED’s Organizational Assessment We review the results of the annual survey to:  Identify areas for improving the quality of service we provide;  Provide critical information for identifying areas we need to build the capacity of our staff to better serve the field; and  Link customer satisfaction with expectations and desired outcomes for our work with the field, including providing technical assistance, preparing guidance documents, conducting onsite monitoring, and the manner we communicate with you on an ongoing basis.

4 Knowledge of legislation, regulations, policy... Responsiveness to questions Accuracy of responses Sufficiency of legal guidance Consistency of responses with ED staff Collaboration with other ED offices 3. ED/ Staff Coordination ________________________ 4. ED-Funded Technical Assistance Grantee Satisfaction Model DriverSatisfaction Measure Effectiveness of OESE in helping you to implement grant programs Usefulness of OESE’s technical assistance 6. OESE’s Technical Assistance (New in 2010) 5. Online Resources Ease of finding materials Ease of submitting materials Clarity Organization Sufficiency of detail Relevance Comprehensiveness Effectiveness in using technology to deliver services ED’s automated process to share information Effectiveness in improving state’s reporting Expected reduction in federal paperwork 2. Documents 1. Technology

5 Background Information SASA Programs included in the 2011 Survey:  Title I, Part A, Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs  School Improvement Grants (SIG)  Title III English Language Acquisition Grants  Title I, Part D Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Programs (NEW)  Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities (NEW)

6 What did States tell us in the 2010 Survey? Upward trend of grantee satisfaction with ED: 2008 – 2 point improvement 2009 – 3 point improvement 2010 – 4 point improvement Grantee satisfaction with ED = 72 points Federal government average = 69 points OVERALL RESULTS – ED

Federal Government ACSI Recipients What did States tell us in the 2010 Survey?  The Customer Satisfaction Index for Title I was: State Title I Directors Grantee Satisfaction with ED OVERALL RESULTS – Title I 74

Title I, Part A Detailed Results ED/SASA funded Technical Assistance rated solidly at 82, and recipients noted that technical assistance from Title I was useful. Recipients rated ED/Staff Coordination highly overall at 88. Recipients felt ED staff was knowledgeable (91) and provided them with accurate responses to questions and information (91).

Title I, Part A Detailed Results Recipients noted that information on Title I monitoring was available (80) and useful (81). SASA was thought to use technology effectively to provide information (80) and to enhance communication (81). Two problematic areas noted for Title I were the area of online resources (65) and the ease of finding materials online (51).

10 How have we used the results?  We continue to explore new opportunities to provide up-to-date information to the field through the better use of technology, such as Webinars and video-conferencing.  We are working on redesigning SASA Webpage to facilitate ease of locating information and resources online.

11 A Final Note Please take time to complete the 2011 Grantee Satisfaction Survey. Your honest and unbiased answers to the survey will help us know how we are doing in meeting our customer’s needs and areas where we need to improve to do a better job.

Thank you for taking time today to listen our