OSS Performance Review Customer Service Survey

Office of State Support

Performance Review

State Educational Agency Customer Service Survey

Following the completion of a performance review, the OSS surveys State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to gather data on the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process. State feedback is used by the OSS regarding how to most efficiently and effectively administer future performance reviews. Responses are collected electronically.

1. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the OSS performance review Process:
    

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Somewhat Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree	I am not sure
The State was provided with sufficient time and information necessary to plan and prepare for the review.
The information shared with the State describing the review was clear, concise, and easy to follow.
OSS State contacts were knowledgeable and provided accurate and timely information throughout the review process.
The OSS was sufficiently responsive to the State’s scheduling needs.
The document request accompanying the self-assessment was sufficiently clear to allow the State to identify and collect all needed documentation.
The online platform to submit documentation was easy to use.
The OSS responded to questions about documentation requests in a timely manner.
The amount of time to complete the self-assessment and submit documentation was adequate.
The OSS did a good job of communicating timely updates in advance of the review.
The review process helped my State assess how well we are accomplishing Federal program goals.
The review process helped my State identify grant implementation challenges.
The review process helped my State identify strategies to address grant implementation challenges.
Overall, I was satisfied with the review experience.

2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the OSS performance review Protocols:

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Somewhat Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree	I am not sure
The questions in the self-assessment were clear and easy to understand.
The questions in the self-assessment were accurately aligned with the statutory or regulatory requirements.
The questions in the self-assessment adequately covered cross program requirements, where applicable.
The self-assessment provided sufficient space for a response (where needed).
The suggested supporting documentation was appropriate for each area (e.g., Comparability Area: Sample comparability reports comparing Title I schools to non-Title I schools, etc.).
The SEA interview questions (i.e., on-site or desk review questions) were clear and understandable.
The on-site or desk review schedule allowed for sufficient time to discuss each topic.
The range of topics covered and the number of the questions asked during the on-site and desk review was reasonable given the purpose and scope of the review.
The topics covered during the on-site or desk review align with the organizational structure your agency employs to manage and oversee Federal programs.
The OSS addressed any concerns and provided needed clarification relating to the questions asked in the self-assessment and the on-site/desk review protocols in timely way.
The self-assessment and on-site/desk review protocols encouraged cross-program connections and coordination within our agency.

3. Would you recommend OSS use a similar process and protocol for reviews in the upcoming fiscal year?

• ( )Yes

• ( )No

• ( )Undecided

 

4. Satisfaction means many things. Overall, how SATISFIED are you with the OSS review based on your experience? (1 = very dissatisfied; 7 = very satisfied)

• ( ) 1

• ( ) 2

• ( ) 3

• ( ) 4

• ( ) 5

• ( ) 6

• ( ) 7

5. Considering all of your EXPECTATIONS for the performance of the OSS review, to what extent has the performance of the OSS fallen short of your expectations or exceeded your expectations? (1 = fallen short of my expectations; 7 = exceeded my expectations)

• ( ) 1

• ( ) 2

• ( ) 3

• ( ) 4

• ( ) 5

• ( ) 6

• ( ) 7

6. Imagine the IDEAL OSS review for you and your agency. How well do you think OSS review process compares with your ideal? (1 = very far from my ideal; 7 = very close to my ideal)

• ( ) 1

• ( ) 2

• ( ) 3

• ( ) 4

• ( ) 5

• ( ) 6

• ( ) 7

Open-Ended Responses:

7. What do you feel are the key strengths of the approach used for this review?

8. What do you feel are the key weaknesses of the approach used for this review?

9. What are the key improvements you feel that OSS could make to its performance review process to reduce the overall burden of the reviews for the State?

10. Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts you have about performance review.

Thank you again for your time and valued feedback!

Public Burden Statement:

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1880-0542 Note: Please do not return the completed Qualitative Feedback Survey to this address.

4