1 / 12

SASA WEBGRAM State Title I Directors July 27, 2011

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 . The 2011 Survey has been e-mailed to States!.

axel
Download Presentation

SASA WEBGRAM State Title I Directors July 27, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SASA WEBGRAMState Title I DirectorsJuly 27, 2011 Topic: 2011 Grantee Satisfaction Survey Patricia A. McKee Acting Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs

  2. The 2011 Survey has been e-mailed to States! On July 7, the CFI Group e-mailed the survey to program contacts in each state. The survey should take about 20-25 minutes to complete. Please assist us by completing the online survey.

  3. 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. Grantee Satisfaction Model Driver Satisfaction Measure 1. Technology 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 Clarity Organization Sufficiency of detail Relevance Comprehensiveness • ED/ Staff Coordination • ________________________ • 4. ED-Funded Technical Assistance 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 5. Online Resources Ease of finding materials Ease of submitting materials 6. OESE’s Technical Assistance (New in 2010) Effectiveness of OESE in helping you to implement grant programs Usefulness of OESE’s technical assistance

  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? OVERALL RESULTS – ED • 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

  7. Recipients Federal Government ACSI 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 What did States tell us in the 2010 Survey? OVERALL RESULTS – Title I • The Customer Satisfaction Index for Title I was: 74 State Title I Directors 74 72 Grantee Satisfaction with ED

  8. 2010 Title I, Part A Detailed Results 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). ED/SASA funded Technical Assistance rated solidly at 82, and recipients noted that technical assistance from Title I was useful.

  9. 2010 Title I, Part A Detailed Results SASA was thought to use technology effectively to provide information (80) and to enhance communication (81). Recipients noted that information on Title I monitoring was available (80) and useful (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.

  12. Thank you for taking time today to listen our SASA WEBGRAM!

More Related