Evaluation of the Comprehensive  

Technical Assistance Centers  

OMB Clearance Request for Data Collection Instruments

Part B: Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

December 17, 2014

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. ED‐IES‐13‐C‐0059

Prepared by:

IMPAQ International
1

INTRODUCTION  

This document has been prepared to support the clearance of data collection instruments for

the National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers. The Institute of

Education Sciences (IES) within the U.S Department of Education (ED) is conducting this

evaluation. In the introduction to the supporting statement, we provide a description of the

Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers program, the evaluation questions and study

design. The remaining sections of this document respond to specific instructions of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for the preparation of a supporting statement.

This document describes a request for clearance of six data collection instruments for phase

one of the evaluation: 1) Design‐focused Interview Guide for Center Staff, 2) Implementation‐

focused Interview Guide for Center Staff, 3) Interview Guide for Technical Assistance (TA)

Recipients, 4) Center Staff Survey, 5) TA Recipient Survey, and 6) TA Event Observation Guide.  

A separate, phase 2 proposal will be submitted at a later date for clearance of outcomes‐

focused data collection instruments, including interview protocols for Comprehensive Center

Staff and TA recipients.  The outcome‐focused protocols and their related burden hours will be

submitted to OMB as a phase 2 package after the first data collection site visits are complete.    

The Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers

Title II of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (F.T AA, Section 203)1 authorized the

Comprehensive Center (CC) Program, a discretionary grant program establishing technical

assistance centers. The CCs were last awarded in 2012, to “provide technical assistance to State

educational agencies (SEAs) that builds their capacity to support local educational agencies

(LEAs or districts) and schools, especially low‐performing districts and schools; improve

educational outcomes for all students; close achievement gaps; and improve the quality of

instruction” (77 FR 33564)2.   

In 2012, the Department of Education awarded new five‐year grants to 15 Regional Centers and

7 Content Centers under the Comprehensive Centers program. The Regional Centers each serve

one to seven U.S. states, territories, and possessions. They provide technical assistance (TA)

that builds the capacity of SEAs to implement, support, scale up, and sustain initiatives that

help districts and schools improve student outcomes. The Regional Centers focus their work on

seven Federal priority areas:  

1. Implementing college‐ and career‐ready standards and aligned, high‐quality

assessments for all students;

2. Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders;

3. Turning around the lowest‐performing schools;

4. Ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool‐age children and their successful

transition to kindergarten;

                                                      

1 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/legislation.html   2 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/06/2012‐13735/applications‐for‐new‐awards‐comprehensive‐

centers‐program#h‐4  
2

5. Building rigorous instructional pathways that support the successful transition of all

students from secondary education to college without the need for remediation, and

careers;

6. Identifying and scaling up innovative approaches to teaching and learning that

significantly improve student outcomes; and

7. Using data‐based decision‐making to improve instructional practices, policies, and

student outcomes.

The Content Centers provide the Regional Centers and SEAs with in‐depth content knowledge

and expertise by providing information, publications, tools, and specialized technical assistance.

The 7 Content Centers are:

1. Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation

2. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders

3. Center on School Turnaround

4. Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

5. Center on College and Career Readiness and Success

6. Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity

7. Center on Innovations in Learning

The National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers

The National Evaluation is charged with examining and documenting how the individual CCs

intend to build SEA capacity (theories of action) and what types of activities they actually

conduct to build capacity. It will also explore and document the outcomes of the capacity

building efforts. It is designed to build on the previous evaluation of the CCs, which

documented the type, extent, and quality of services provided.   

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation will address broad questions in three areas:  

 Program Design: How did the CCs design their work? In addressing this evaluation

question, we seek to identify how the CCs designed their work as TA providers, including

the underlying theories of action driving the work. The evaluation will seek to surface

the theories of action and definitions of capacity building employed by CCs, as well as

describe CCs’ plans for assessing the needs of their constituencies and developing TA

work plans to address those needs.   

 Program Implementation: How did the CCs operate? In addressing this evaluation

question, we seek to identify the various strategies CCs used to build capacity, describe

the characteristics of those strategies, and document the extent to which CCs

implemented the TA as planned. We will also seek to identify the common challenges

and barriers CCs faced in building capacity, and ways they met those challenges.    

 Program Outcomes: What was the result of the CCs’ work? In addressing this

evaluation question, we seek to identify the extent to which CCs achieved their goals

and objectives, particularly as they relate to building their constituents’ capacity.  We

will also explore the extent to which outcomes aligned with and supported the CCs’
3

theories of action, and to identify factors that may have contributed to CCs’ success (or

failure) in achieving expected outcomes.    

Focus on Two Federal Priority Areas

As a way to focus the evaluation to gather data in depth rather than breadth, the evaluation

will limit data collection on the implementation and outcomes questions to two of the seven

federal priority areas: identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective teachers

and leaders, and ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool‐age children and their

successful transition to kindergarten. All of the Regional Centers have implemented projects

and strategies that address the effective teachers and leaders priority, so it clearly represents

an issue of nationwide focus. It is an area where most SEAs have significant needs for technical

assistance and capacity building, as many are newly moving into a role in which they are

choosing and implementing educator evaluation systems or supporting districts and schools as

they hire and evaluate their professional staff. This priority is also tied to school reform efforts

and large federal funding streams such as the Race to the Top initiative, the School

Improvement Grants, and the Teacher Incentive Fund.  

Early learning is a high‐profile issue, recently gaining renewed attention from SEAs, the

Department of Education, and President Obama. States vary in the attention and funding they

have historically given to early childhood education, from universal full‐day prekindergarten in

some states to no state‐supported pre‐K at all in others. Research evidence is clear, however,

that high‐quality early education leads to better student outcomes, thus leading states to

increase their focus on this issue. Given the overarching nature of the Great Teachers and

Leaders priority, and the recent policy focus on early learning efforts, we believe that focusing

on these two priorities will allow us to learn about how CCs developed SEA capacity in these

two areas and what difference it made.  

Data Sources

Data collection for this study will consist of surveys of TA recipients, interviews of SEA staff,

surveys and interviews of CC staff, and observations of TA events.

TA recipient surveys

 Purpose: To gather information about TA received in selected priority areas from the

CCs, understand the actions resulting from participating in TA, and examine outcomes

related to that TA

 Sample: All SEA and possibly district staff who received TA from the CCs in the selected

priority areas, along with Regional Center staff receiving TA from Content Centers  

 Timing: Once yearly, beginning in the first quarter of 2015 (following OMB approval)  

CC staff and SEA interviews

 Purpose: To gather information about the Centers’ capacity building efforts, theories of

action, program implementation, and outcomes;
4

 Sample: A purposeful sample of Center Directors, Managers, Evaluators, and TA staff;

Recipients of CC TA, including SEA and possibly LEA staff, and other CCs;   

 Timing: In coordination with site visits (projected to occur in Q2 2015).

CC staff surveys

 Purpose: To gather information from multiple CC TA staff about the nature, successes

and challenges of their work building SEA capacity or Regional Center capacity, and to

help identify high‐leverage projects for more detailed study;

 Sample: All Center staff providing TA;

 Timing:  Once yearly, beginning in the first quarter of 2015 (following OMB approval).

TA event observations

 Purpose: To obtain detailed data about the strategies that CCs used to support capacity

building and achieve planned outcomes;

 Sample: Observable services or events that are planned for the selected priority areas in

profiled projects, or projects that are potential profiled projects;  

 Timing: In coordination with site visits if possible, except for virtual events such as

webinars, which will be observed as they occur.

Evaluation reports

The evaluation will produce four reports. The first report will be an interim report focusing on

how the CCs designed their work as technical assistance providers. The report will describe the

CCs’ underlying theories of action and definitions of “capacity building,” and explain how the

Centers assessed their constituencies’ needs and developed work plans to address those needs.

This report will be available in the first quarter of 2016.

Two interim summative reports (projected date: first quarter 2017) will be produced to address

the program implementation and outcomes questions, one report for each of the two selected

priority areas. These reports will demonstrate how and to what extent the Comprehensive

Technical Assistance Center program has built state capacity in these priority areas. The reports

will include descriptions of the strategies used to build SEA capacity, common challenges faced

and ways the CCs sought to address them, the extent to which CCs achieved their goals and

objectives, factors that may have contributed to success (or failure) in achieving expected

outcomes, and the extent to which CCs’ outcomes aligned with and supported their theories of

action. The interim summative reports will also include six profiles of multi‐year projects, which

will be selected and analyzed to illustrate how the CCs have successfully worked to build

capacity related to project design and planning, implementation, and outcomes.   

A final report will be produced in September 2018. The final report will summarize findings

documented in the interim reports and update findings based on new data. The report shall

provide a full summary of lessons learned on the CCs’ efforts to build capacity.

   
5

DESCRIPTION OF STATISTICAL METHODS (PART B)

1. Describe the potential respondent universe (including a numerical estimate) and any

sampling or other respondent selection method to be used.  Data on the number of

entities (e.g., establishments, state and local government units, households, or persons)

in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample are to be

provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the strata in the

proposed sample.  Indicate expected response rates for the proposed sample.  Indicate

expected response rates for the collection as a whole.  If the collection had been

conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.

As described in the introduction above, the study team has purposively selected two of the

seven Federal priority areas of the 22 Comprehensive Centers (CCs), and proposed to include

the universe of CC staff and TA recipients who are heavily involved with CC activities in those

priority areas. See Exhibit 1 for a more detailed description of sampling by instrument.

The two selected Federal priority areas are

1. Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders,

and  

2. Ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool‐age children and their successful

transition to kindergarten.  

The selection of two priority areas in no way implies that the Department has a preference for

these areas over others, or that the CCs or states should shift the focus of their efforts to these

areas. Rather, this narrowing of focus allows us to target our resources in such a way that we

are able to learn more about specific capacity‐building activities and outcomes.

The target population, which includes the 22 CCs and their state education agency constituents,

is small. Furthermore, each CC is unique, as it serves a different set of constituents with

different capacity building needs. Sampling within this small population might not involve some

of the work of some CCs. However, focusing on only two of the seven Federal priorities means

that our data collection efforts will target projects related to these priorities, thus reducing

burden on respondents. Therefore, in the interest of data quality with this small population,

statistical methods to identify a probability sample from a larger respondent universe will not

be used.

Project Profiles

There is one additional sample selection component within this study. We will profile a small

number of projects in depth to illustrate how capacity building can be implemented. Profiles of

up to three successful projects will be developed within each of the selected Federal priority

areas. We will employ a purposeful selection process to identify projects for these profiles as

follows:
6

 In the surveys in 2015 and in the first data collection site visits (Q2 2015), site visitors

will collect information from CC staff about the projects within the selected priority

areas that might be appropriate for project profiles. These may be multi‐year, high‐

leverage projects that serve multiple state departments of education and/or that

address critical capacity needs. One project per key priority area will be identified for

consideration at each Regional Center and at the relevant Content Centers.

 Site visitors will conduct observations of events delivered as part of these projects

during the site visits if feasible given cost and availability of staff.

 In mid‐2015 the evaluators will identify the six most promising projects based on:

o State department of education feedback, via the surveys and interviews, on the

effectiveness or outcomes of the projects, and

o Evidence from CC staff interviews as to the projects’ progress in meeting their

benchmarks, goals, and objectives.

Evaluators will gather details on these projects through documents and continued interviews

and observations through the first quarter of 2017 (see timeline in Exhibit 1). Stakeholders

outside of the CCs and state education agencies, such as partner organizations and school

districts, may be considered for additional interviews if needed to develop a thorough

understanding of the implementation and outcomes of a given project.

2. Describe the procedures for the collection of information, including:

 Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection.

 Estimation procedure.

 Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification.

 Unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures, and

 Any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce

burden.

The data collection procedures are discussed below. Exhibit 1 includes each instrument, its

purpose, its administration time, its estimated sample, and the research questions addressed.

All instruments are on yearly data collection cycles except for the observations, which will take

place on an ongoing basis beginning in the second quarter of 2015, or upon OMB approval, as

relevant observable activities are identified.
7

Exhibit 1. Instruments, Purpose, Timing, Sample, and Research Questions

Instrument Purpose Administration

timing

Estimated sample Major research questions

addressed

1. Design‐

focused

interviews with

CC staff  

Understand

design/theory of

action/capacity

building model  

Q2 2015 All CCs’ leadership staff;

estimated total of 88

respondents (average of 4

per CC)

1. How did CCs define capacity

building? Did their definitions

change over time? If so, how?

2. What theories of action did CCs

use to guide their general capacity‐

building work? Did the theories

change over time? If so, how?

3. How did CCs assess the needs of

their constituencies?

2.

Implementation‐

focused

interviews with

CC staff  

Understand program

implementation,

including key

strategies,

partnerships,

successes and

challenges, in the two

priority areas

Q2 2015 and

Jan‐Feb 2016  

Leadership and staff who

work on projects in

selected priority areas;

estimated total of 132 (6 in

each CC)

4. What strategies did CCs employ to

achieve their outcomes?

5. To what extent did CCs implement

technical assistance to their

constituencies as planned?

6. To what extent and how did CCs

collaborate with each other?

3. Outcomes‐

focused

interviews with

CC staff*  

Understand technical

assistance outcomes,

including longer term

outcomes, and follow

up on projects

identified for profiles  

Jan‐Feb 2017

Note: this

protocol will be

developed after

the first site visit

and is not

included in this

package for

review

CCs with work in the two

selected priority areas;

staff who work on projects

in those areas; estimated

total of 88 respondents (4

per CC)  

7. To what extent did CCs achieve

their goals and objectives?

4. Interviews

with TA

recipients

Understand CCs'

implementation

strategies  and

outcomes, including

how CCs and SEAs

work together in the

two selected priority

areas

Q2 2015, Jan‐

Feb 2016 and

2017

Note: the

protocol for the

last interview

will be

developed after

the first site visit

and is not

included in this

package for

review

State education and

Regional Center staff

identified by CCs as key

contacts or participants in

key CC projects in the

selected priority areas;

Estimated total of 88

(average of 4 per CC)   

4. What strategies did CCs employ to

achieve their outcomes?

5. To what extent did CCs implement

technical assistance to their

constituencies as planned?

7. To what extent did CCs achieve

their goals and objectives?
8

5. CC staff online

survey

Understand CC staff

individual roles and

perceptions of

projects in the two

priority areas,

including how

projects build

capacity

Q1 2015, Nov

2015, Nov 2016

All CC staff and partners

who provide TA in the

selected priority areas;

estimated total of 264

(average of 12 per CC)

4. What strategies did CCs employ to

achieve their outcomes?

5. To what extent did CCs implement

technical assistance to their

constituencies as planned?

7. To what extent did CCs achieve

their goals and objectives?

6. TA recipient

survey

Investigate how

technical assistance

recipients, including

state education staff

and other participants

as relevant, perceive

and use the services

they receive, and how

these services have

helped them build

capacity

Q1 2015, Nov

2015, Nov 2016

TA recipients in the

selected priority areas;

estimated total of 440

respondents (about 20 per

CC)

7. To what extent did CCs achieve

their goals and objectives?

7. TA event

observations

Provide observational

data about the

strategies that CCs

used to support

capacity building and

achieve planned

outcomes. Will inform

project profiles.

On an ongoing

basis beginning

in Q2 2015, as

relevant

observable

activities are

identified

Observable events of TA

activities in the two

selected priority areas;

estimated total of 10

observations per year,

with one CC staff member

providing background

information about each

event

4. What strategies did CCs employ to

achieve their outcomes?

5. To what extent did CCs implement

technical assistance to their

constituencies as planned?

7. To what extent did CCs achieve

their goals and objectives?

*Phase 2 OMB submission

CC staff interviews (instruments 1‐3)

CC staff will be interviewed as part of yearly site visits to each CC, taking place in early 2015,

2016, and 2017. There are three separate interview protocols because the evaluation team will

be focusing on different evaluation questions, and therefore asking different interview

questions during site visits as the work of the CCs progresses. Instrument 1 is a protocol for

interviewing CC leaders in a group setting during the site visits about how they design their

work with constituents (see Appendix A). It will be administered once in the second quarter of

2015. Instrument 2 (see Appendix B) focuses on the implementation of the technical assistance

work, and will be administered in a group setting in the 2015 and 2016 site visits. Respondents

for Instrument 2 will include staff members who are working on projects in the two selected

federal priority areas. Instrument 3 will be administered in the 2017 site visits. It will be

addressed in a later OMB submission.  

For all of the CC staff interviews, the evaluation team will work with a coordinator from each CC

who will help schedule the site visits. The evaluation team will provide guidelines for the

selection of participants in interviews, and will follow recommendations from CCs regarding
9

staff to be included in each interview. Each site visit team will consist of an evaluator from

IMPAQ (the site liaison) and a consultant from a subcontractor. The evaluators have expertise

in the study design and evaluation methods, while the consultants have expertise in technical

assistance to state and local education agencies. Having the two visitors work as a team during

the site visits will enhance the accuracy of the data gathered. The use of experienced

interviewers, coupled with careful preparation, will guide the specific wording of each question

and probe on the protocol, to ensure the interviews are customized appropriately to address

the unique situations of each interviewee. The same pair of visitors will attend all site visits of

the CCs to which they are assigned, and both site visitors will attend all interviews if possible.

However, site visitors may conduct interviews separately if this is necessary to collect

information from all respondents. Because of this, and to ensure accurate notes, each interview

will be audio recorded if the interviewees permit. The IMPAQ evaluator (site liaison) for each

site will have ultimate responsibility for completing and submitting the specified set of standard

deliverables on the checklist for each site visit.  

Throughout the process of data collection and reporting, the contractors will make all efforts to

protect the privacy of respondents participating in the site visits. The study team will not

identify by name any of the interviewees, nor will the study team attribute quotes by name,

although the study team will identify the names of states and CCs in final reporting.

The study leaders will train the site visit teams so that all team members share a consistent

understanding of the study, the research questions, the interview questions and probes, and

the data collection needs.  Prior to each wave of site visits all site visitors will convene in

Washington, DC and Oakland, CA for a half‐day training session. The session will address the

research questions, site visit logistics and activities, site pre‐ and post‐visit communication, data

collection procedures on site (including a review of the interview protocols), and data handling.

The site visit task leaders will develop a site visitor guide with a checklist that will outline all

tasks the site visitors need to perform before, during, and after each visit. During the months of

site visits there will be regular meetings of the site visitors and study leaders to discuss issues

and concerns.  

Technical assistance recipient interviews (instrument 4)

Prior to each visit, site visitors will ask Center staff to identify the key SEA representatives they

have worked with on each major project within the two selected priority areas (up to two

projects per priority area). State education agency representatives may include Chief State

School Officers and their deputies, division leaders, and middle managers and technical staff

within divisions, as relevant to the projects. Evaluators will contact the respondents and

conduct these interviews in person, if feasible in conjunction with site visits to the centers, or

by telephone. These interviews (see Appendix C) will include questions about planning, needs

identification, and ongoing communication between the Centers and the state education

agencies, implementation of projects in the selected priority areas, and outcomes of these

projects.
10

CC staff online survey (instrument 5)

The CC staff survey (see Appendix D) will be administered once per year via online survey

software prior to the site visits, starting in Q1 2015. The survey includes questions about

technical assistance implementation in projects under the two selected federal priorities. Each

CC’s list of projects will be unique to that CC’s work plan, but the questions asked about the

projects will be the same from survey to survey. The survey addresses the kinds of technical

assistance involved in each project, the role of the respondent, challenges and supporting

factors, staff members and collaborators on each project, and perceptions of capacity building.

It also asks for suggestions for projects suitable for project profiles.

IMPAQ staff will contact each of the CCs to obtain the list of respondents for each site. The

evaluation team will provide guidelines for the selection of survey respondents (people who are

involved in technical assistance with projects in the two selected federal priority areas), and will

follow recommendations from CCs regarding staff to be included in each survey. Participants

will receive a survey link via email.  

The study team will not identify by name any of the survey respondents, nor will the study

team attribute quotes by name.

Technical assistance (TA) recipient online survey (instrument 6)

The TA recipient survey (see Appendix E) will be administered once per year via online survey

software, starting in Q1 2015. It will be addressed to state education agency staff, as well as to

school district staff and other relevant stakeholders who are direct recipients of TA from CCs.

The survey includes questions about technical assistance received from CCs during past 12

months under the two selected Federal priorities. Similar to the CC staff survey, the list of TA

activities provided by each CC will be unique, but the questions asked about the TA will be the

same from survey to survey. The survey addresses specific TA received, actions taken as a result

of the received TA, and statements about individual and organizational capacity built under the

two selected federal priorities. It also asks for the most helpful aspects of TA, challenges

encountered, and specific plans to use TA in upcoming months.

IMPAQ staff will ask each of the CCs for the list of specific TA activities delivered in past 12

months and for the contact information for their TA recipients (including SEA staff, LEA staff

and other as applicable). The evaluation team will provide guidelines as to what constitutes a

TA activity (such as a workshop, webinar, consultation, product, and toolkit). TA recipients will

receive survey links via email.

The study team will not identify by name any of the survey respondents, nor will the study

team attribute quotes by name.

   
11

Technical assistance event observations (instrument 7)

Observations of TA events will provide detailed data about the strategies that CCs use to

support capacity building and achieve planned outcomes. These data will inform research

questions about differences in strategies between CCs, characteristics of strategies, and the

extent of collaboration with other CCs. Follow‐up data on the capacity building outcomes of the

event may be obtained through the TA recipient surveys and interviews, particularly for events

that are part of the projects to be profiled.

In preparation for each observation, observers will gather information from the CC staff leading

the event or extant documents in order to identify:

 Goals of the event/needs to be addressed

 How these goals relate to the CC’s theory of action, workplan, and relevant strategy or

project plan  

 Intended audience

 Expected outcomes of the event

 As relevant, other background on the planning or preparation for the event  

A structured protocol for the observations, including questions to be addressed prior to the

event, is included as Appendix F.

During the meetings/site visits with CCs, or in follow‐up calls as needed, the evaluators will ask

CC staff members to identify observable services or events of profiled projects (or potentially

profiled projects) that are planned for the two selected Federal priority areas in the coming

year. These events may include webinars, stakeholder meetings (virtual or in‐person), and in‐

person training events, workshops, or presentations. When possible, observations will be

conducted in conjunction with site visits. Observations of webinars or other virtual events will

be conducted as they are scheduled. Observations will focus on a convenience sample of high‐

leverage activities that may illustrate the capacity building process. For example, rather than

observing training events where individuals impart knowledge to other individuals, we will

attempt to observe more dynamic events, such as roundtables or cross‐state events and

planning sessions, where we might be able to observe how the CCs work with their constituents

and how the constituents respond.  

Emails will be sent to respondents to inform them and request participation in surveys and

interviews.  Email templates can be found in Appendix G.  

3. Describe methods to maximize response and to deal with issues of non‐response.  The

accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to be adequate for

intended uses.  For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be provided

for any collection that will not yield “reliable” data that can be generalized to the universe

studied.
12

The evaluation team has designed instruments so that they are easy to understand and place as

little burden on participants as possible, which will encourage response.  

CC staff interviews and surveys

In Winter 2013, IMPAQ evaluators conducted brief phone calls with CC leadership to introduce

themselves and the goals of the overall evaluation.  In spring/summer 2014, site liaisons and

consultants visited each CC to introduce themselves and to have informal conversations about

the work of the CCs. We believe these interactions have resulted in cooperative relationships

between CCs and evaluators. This spirit of cooperation and the eagerness of CCs to have their

work understood by a larger audience are likely to result in high response rates for interviews

and surveys.

Site liaisons will have the opportunity to plan the list of CC staff survey participants with CC

directors or their designees. Once the participant list is selected, the evaluation team will notify

intended respondents via email several days prior to the survey release, in order to let them

know to expect an upcoming online survey link. Approximately one week after the survey links

have gone out, IMPAQ staff will begin to follow up with any nonrespondents. This will initially

involve email reminders to respondents, followed by telephone calls.

Interviews will take place in a group setting during site visits, unless scheduling difficulties

necessitate individual interviews. Site liaisons will identify the lists of participants in advance

with CC directors. Site liaisons and consultants will then interview identified participants in

person during site visits. In the event that some identified CC staff members are participating in

site visits via videoconferencing or teleconferencing, site visitors will conduct the interviews

using these technologies. If some CC staff members are not able to participate in site visits at

all, but should be included in interviews, site visitors will (with the help of CC directors) plan

follow‐up calls or videoconferences with them to conduct the interviews.  

The evaluation team anticipates a 100 percent response rate for the interviews and a 90

percent response rate for the CC staff surveys.

TA recipient surveys and interviews

Based on our experience, we expect an 80 percent response rate for the TA recipient surveys.

We will take the following steps to maximize response rate. Evaluators will rely on CC staff to

identify TA recipients with whom they have worked or who have participated in CC‐organized

events such as workshops and webinars and to provide us with their contact information. Once

we send surveys to recipients, several rounds of email reminders will be sent to any

nonrespondents. If these are not successful, we will proceed with phone or mail follow‐up to

boost the overall response rates.

Regarding the TA recipient interviews, evaluators will ask CCs for the contact information of key

TA recipients in projects in the two selected priority areas. Evaluators will contact the TA

recipients using the following procedures: 1) All identified SEA recipients will receive an initial

contact via email, requesting their participation in a one‐hour interview, and providing an
13

overview of the scope and purpose of the evaluation. The general purpose of the interview and

the topics to be covered will also be described. 2) If there is no response within a week,

evaluators will follow up by telephone within one week of sending each email. 3) If the first

telephone call does not reach the respondent or does not accomplish scheduling the interview,

evaluators will continue to follow up through a combination of email and telephone. If in‐

person interviews cannot be arranged during a site visit, telephone interviews will be arranged

to accommodate the respondents’ schedules within the next two months. We expect that this

flexibility will result in a response rate of 80%. If a respondent is unreachable or completely

unavailable for an interview, evaluators will ask the relevant CC for names of alternate TA

recipients who might serve as replacements or representatives.

4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken.  Testing is encouraged as

an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize burden and improve

utility.  Tests must be approved if they call for answers to identical questions from 10 or

more respondents.  A proposed test or set of tests may be submitted for approval

separately or in combination with the main collection of information.

Study team members have pre‐tested drafts of the interview protocol questions with up to nine

respondents from CCs. Responses to the questions were collected by site liaisons via interview

notes and used to make revisions to the instruments in terms of wording, flow, length, and

order of questions. The interview protocol notes were also used to inform the construction of

the survey items.

5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical aspects of

the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or other persons

who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.

The following individuals and organizations are involved in data collection, analysis, and

consulting on statistical aspects of the study design.

Responsibility Organization Contact Name Telephone

Number

Co‐Principal Investigator

and Project Director

IMPAQ International Cheri Fancsali 443‐259‐5406

Co‐Principal Investigator IMPAQ International Phyllis Weinstock 510‐597‐2423

Associate Education

Research Scientist

Institute of

Education Sciences,

ED

Amy Johnson 202‐208‐7849

Research Scientist Institute of

Education Sciences,

ED

Joy Lesnick 202‐219‐2013

Technical Working Group

Member

Consultant Margaret Goetz 609‐737‐2464
14

Technical Working Group

Member

Consultant Thomas Adams 530‐848‐9728

Technical Working Group

Member

Consultant Constancia Warren 212‐367‐4595

Analytic Support IMPAQ International Kelley Akiya 510‐597‐2411

Task Lead, Site Liaison IMPAQ International Andrea Beesley 443‐832‐2313

Task Lead, Site Liaison IMPAQ International Anne Chamberlain 443‐259‐5215

Analytic Support IMPAQ International Maria DiFuccia 202‐774‐1948

Task Lead, Site Liaison IMPAQ International Michaela Gulemetova 202‐774‐1956

Analytic Support IMPAQ International Ashley Hunt 202‐774‐1949

Site Liaison IMPAQ International Kay Magill 510‐597‐2418

Site Liaison IMPAQ International Nada Rayyes 510‐597‐2422

Analytic Support IMPAQ International Eliana Saltares 202‐774‐1972

Site Liaison IMPAQ International Raquel Sanchez 510‐282‐4794

Site Liaison IMPAQ International Linda Toms Barker 808‐934‐9297

Technical Assistance

Expert, Site Visitor Consultant Michelle Feist 804‐252‐5714

Technical Assistance

Expert, Site Visitor Consultant Deborah Jonas 503‐381‐4164

Technical Assistance

Expert, Site Visitor Consultant Leslie Rennie‐Hill 410‐206‐0394

Technical Assistance

Expert, Site Visitor Consultant Paul Smith 541‐543‐9179

Technical Assistance

Expert, Site Visitor Consultant Michelle Swanson 804‐252‐5714