eGrants Survey Results

<= ![endif]>

Summary

This s= urvey was useful in increasing communications with grantees and determining where we should concentrate our resources in the continuing development of eGrants. =

&= nbsp;

Areas of Excellence: <= span style=3D'font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>Grantees are overwhelmingly posit= ive in their assessment of Grant Administrators. “Support staff are awesome = to work with,” is a common comment. In general, grantees are happy with = the eGrants system, and appreciate its ease, speed and convenience. Most think = that the navigation is adequate, and that the system is flexible and works as ex= pected.

&= nbsp;

Areas for Improvement:= Grantees would like additional training, on LIBRs, in general, and whenever there are improvements to the system. Some grantees also mentioned that they would like training to keep = pace with their turnover rates. Grantees would also like to see improvements to = the help process, including faster response times, better help desk help, and e= mail notification when problems are corrected.

&= nbsp;

While = some progress has been made in formatting grantee reports, grantees would like to see this effort continued.

&= nbsp;

Grantees preferred development pl= ans for eGrants: Gra= ntees would like to see eGrants expanded to include the submission of narratives,= the application process, and capital grants. They are comfortable enough with t= he system to want to use it for all of their grant management with the state.<= o:p>

1. eGrants On-line Survey -= - - -= - - -= - - -= - - June/July 2008

The Gr= ants Management Project is a department-wide effort to increase the efficiency a= nd effectiveness of DHSS grant-making processes. To further the goals of increasing customer satisfaction and improving communications with grantees, a survey was devel= oped to determine user-friendliness, staff interactions, customer satisfaction, = and training needs of the users of eGrants.

&= nbsp;

On June 9, 2008, 700 email invitations were sent out to the CEOs, CFOs and Pro= ject Directors of over 300 agencies who have received DHSS grants.=

&= nbsp;

A tota= l of 136 surveys were submitted.

&= nbsp;

2. eGrants Usage and Interaction &n= bsp;

Basic agency information and usage statistics

1.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> How many people are in your organization statewide?

<= ![endif]>

Grantees fall into one of three categories, with 15% governmental entities, 15% tribal entities, and 70% non-profit. This is the first time that a survey has been taken of the size= of DHSS grant recipients. While the information exists in the grant proposals, there isn’t an efficient way to extract it. While one could assume th= at recipients of large grants are large agencies, the converse does not necess= arily hold. In FY08, approximately 210 grants out of 630 grant award totals were $50,000 or less, which is about 30%. (A more accurate mid-point would be $65,000).

&= nbsp;

Of the agencies that had multiple respondents, 10 disagreed on the size of their agency. There may be perfectly logical explanations for this discrepancy. In municipal, tribal and village associations as well as larger corporations, respondents were unclear whether to count just their sub-unit or the organization as a whole. This does, however, underscore the subjective natu= re of the responses. Also, predictably, larger agencies were more likely to ha= ve multiple respondents than smaller agencies.

2. Approximately how many staff in your agency use eGrants?

The re= sponses ran from zero to 50. Both the average and median are 3. For agencies with 3= 0 or fewer staff, the average is 2; for agencies over 30 staff, the average is 4. Two agencies indicated no-one uses eGrants; three agencies didn’t res= pond to this question. =

3. Approximately how many times per quarter do they use eGrants?

Averag= e usage is approximately 7 times per quarter. However, when you take the number of staff and multiple it by the number of times eGrants is used per quarter, o= ne can identify the heavy users – 12 respondents indicated more than 100 uses of eGrants per quarter. Further research is necessary to correlate the= se findings with training needs and help requests.

4. What is the make-up of your staff’s experience with eGrants?

<= ![endif]>

Expert – completely familiar with eGrants and at ease using it&= nbsp;

Intermediate – their knowledge of eGrants is adequate for the job

Beginner – need help wi= th all tasks related to eGrants &nb= sp;

Most a= gencies consider their staff at least 50% at the intermediate stage or above. The m= ost frequent response was 100% intermediate. And only five agencies indicated that their staff is 100% beginners. (An additional 10 indicated that there staff is mo= stly beginners. All other respondents indicate that there are staff experts who presumably can mentor the newcomers to eGrants). This indicates we should concentrate our training on the more advanced features of the program.=

&= nbsp;

5. How would you rate the user-friendliness of the eGrants?

<= /b>	Agree	<= /b>	Neutral=	<= /b>	Disagree

eGrants has flexibility.	13.5% (17)	26.2% (33)	42.1% (53)	8.7% (11)	9.5% (12)
The software does exactly what I want it to do.	10.2% (13)	22.7% (29)	41.4% (53)	20.3% (26)	5.5% (7)
The toolbar and menu navigation is easy to do	23.4% (30)	42.2% (54)	24.2% (31)	9.4% (12)	0.8% (1)
Finding the options that I want in the menus and toolbars are easy.<= /span>	18.9% (24)	36.2% (46)	30.7% (39)	11.8% (15)	2.4% (3)

<= /o:p>

The us= er-friendliness of eGrants, as rated by the grantees, is actually pretty good. The lowest positive rating was 33% for “The software does exactly what I want it= to do.” In all categories, there was at least a 75% rating of neutral or better. Software navigation is particularly highly rated.

3. Service and Staff &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

1. How are we meeting your needs?

=	Excellent	Good	Average	Poor	N/A

Please rate your satisfaction with the Grants and Contracts Support Team's kn= owledge and technical ability in handling your questions.	38.2% (47)	33.3% (41)	14.6% (18)	4.9% (6)	8.9% (11)
If you have had difficulty with eGrants, was it resolved satisfactorily?<= o:p>	35.8% (44)	22.8% (28)	14.6% (18)	7.3% (9)	19.5% (24)
If you have had difficulty with eGrants, was it resolved in a timely mann= er?	31.1% (38)	23.8% (29)	16.4% (20)	10.7% (13)	18.0% (22)
Please rate the Grants & Contracts Support Team on learning and meeting y= our needs.	37.4% (46)	32.5% (40)	19.5% (24)	4.9% (6)	5.7% (7)

&nbs= p;

The majority of respondents are pleased with the Grants and Contracts Support Team’s technical knowledge and ability to identify problems. Almost= 20% of the respondents indicated that they have had no difficulties with eGra= nts, and no need for help or assistance from G&CST. The area that could benefit from additional attention is the resolution time. In order to imp= rove in this area, we will add an estimated time of completion and aging funct= ion to the help tracker under development.&n= bsp;

2. Please provide one way that Grants & Contracts Support Team can improve the service that we provide to your agency.

There = were 72 responses. Most suggestions were for increased speed: faster response time for problem= s, faster turn-around time on payments, faster Program Manager approvals, and faster server speed. A number of requests were for improvements already identified and in progress or already completed: the elimination of the parent/child grant configuration for ILP and STAR grants, an area for notes, and functional key word search. A number of agencies wanted expansion of eGrants capabilities that are more long-term in their implementation: the ability to submit narratives on-line, and email notification of grant payments.&= nbsp; One out of eight agencies felt that their G&ST staff couldn̵= 7;t be better. A number of agencies indicated that additional training would be helpful.

&= nbsp;

All ag= ency suggestions for improvement will be shared with the eGrants .NET rewrite te= am, and a plan will be developed to inform the grantees on progress of eGrants development.

4. Training & Support Need= s &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

1. Please rank the sources of eGrants education and information you wou= ld find most useful for your agency. 1 =3D Most Important, 10 =3D Least Import= ant

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Ranking
CDs	8
Books or manuals	4
On-Line Manuals	6
On-Line Videos	9
On-Line Desktop Videoconference	7
Multi-pa= rty Teleconference	10
Telephone/email to Grants Administrator	1
Telephone/email to Help Desk	2
Multi-agency Training Provided by State	3
In House Training	5

= ;

Most agencies find a phone call or email the most useful way of accessing the eGrants information that they need, despite the indications from the prev= ious responses that they consider the Help Desk to take too long to respond. A= lso training, either group or individual, is desired.

2. What kind of training do you think your staff would most benefit f= rom?

&nbs= p;	Resp= onse Percent	Rank= ing
Desktop fundamentals		20.6%	6
eGrants access/Managing Users		36.3%	5
Cumulative Fiscal Reports		45.1%	2
Line Item Budget Revisions		50.0%	1
Amendments and Modifications		41.2%	4
Managing Users		15.7%	7
General Overview of eGrants		45.1%	3

eGrants started with statewide training in the spring and continued through the fal= l of 2007. Two levels of training were offered; one for grantee staff and one for power users. There have been two grantee trainings in 2008 in Anchorage; one that focused on new users and agencies with additional training needs, and a workshop at the annual Prevention and Early Intervention meeting. According= to the results of this survey, grantees feel they would benefit from specific training on the more technical aspects of eGrants.

LIBRs = were identified by half of the respondents as the area in which their staff would most benefit in additional training, followed closely by CFRs and a general overview of eGrants.

&= nbsp;

These = findings will be taken into consideration in the development of the future grantee training module.

3.&n= bsp; How often should the State offer eGrants training?

<= ![endif]>

&= nbsp;

The ma= jority of respondents felt that training should be available on a more widespread = and regular basis, with 46% requesting training be offered annually and 45% whenever improvements or changes are made to the system.<= /p>

&= nbsp;

In the comments section, a number of grantees mentioned the high turnover rate= for smaller agencies necessitates more frequent trainings.

5. Customer Satisfaction &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

1. What particular feature of eGrants do you most like?

&= nbsp;

Since = this question was open-ended, responses tended to over-lap. Primarily, grantees like the fact = that eGrants is fast and easy, and that it provides one point for the location of all grant information.

&= nbsp;

The fa= vored features of eGrants are ease of use (28) and speed (6). Grantees like the fact that eGrants speeds up the grant process, and that it is easy to use. eGrants is= web based, and one of the determining factors in speed is the available bandwid= th at the grantees end. This is something we have no control over, other than ensuring our servers are able to handle the heavy traffic flows that result from all grantees submitting quarterly reports more or less simultaneously. Providers who only have dial-up services are disadvantaged in access to eGrants.

&= nbsp;

Anothe= r set of favored features of eGrants is the central location of grants and grant information (16) and tracking (9). Having one site where all grant informat= ion is available is convenient for the project directors, fiscal departments and management.

&= nbsp;

The fi= nal set of features mentioned is on-line submission (18) and the auto-calculation feature (5). Grantees have be= come well acclimated to submitting their grant information on-line, and particul= arly like the fact that eGrants automatically calculates amendments, LIBRs, and percentages remaining in grant lines.

&= nbsp;

2. What particular feature of eGrants do you least like?

78 res= ponded. 42 didn’t have a particular feature that was their least favorite, bu= t of those that did clustered around four key areas.

&= nbsp;

Eight = felt that the navigation wasn’t intuitive. Improving the flexibility and maneuverability of the system will be prioritized in future grantee updates= .

&= nbsp;

The ot= her two areas of concern were printing and access. Reports are not formatted to replicate what is seen on screen, and have limited options, and some grante= es that only access eGrants four times a year have trouble remembering the myAlaska username and password. Modification of grantee reports and a myAla= ska “cheat sheet” can be provided to grantees on a shorter timetable, to coincide with the .NET rollout. <= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

3. Please provide one way we can improve eGran= ts service to your agency.

&= nbsp;

There = were 64 responses to this question, with 11 being “No comment” or no im= provement necessary. Of the remainder, they fell into seven categories. The most mentioned comment was split evenly between increase training/improve help, = and increase the scope of eGrants to encompass the ability to submit quarterly narrative reports, RFPs, and service standards reports on-line. There were = 14 responses in each of those two categories.

&= nbsp;

The th= ird category of improvement was suggestions for operational improvements, inclu= ding several that we have already implemented or are in the process of implement= ing, such as a notes field for CFRs, making the categories align with the grant proposal categories, and eliminating the parent/child grant configuration.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The fourth category, with six vote= s, was to increase the speed of everything: faster processing of LIBRs, faster response to trouble tickets, faster notification of need for corrections se= nt back to the grantee.

&= nbsp;

The fi= nal three categories were to add capital grants to eGrants, which is in process= , to improve the grantee reports, and to improve navigation in eGrants.

&= nbsp;

4. Do you have any additional comments you would like to add?

Positi= ve additional comments outnumbered constructive additional comments 2 to 1. Positive comments ranged from “eGrants is a step in the right direction,“ to “I love eG= rants!” On the whole, grantees feel that eGrants is a “great improvement, on = the whole, from the paper world we used to live in.”

&= nbsp;

Constr= uctive additional comments remarked on, as well as displayed, the need for more training. The comments will be saved for use in the next stage of training development.

Summary

Grante= es are overwhelmingly positive in their assessment of Grant Administrators, are ha= ppy with the eGrants system, and appreciate its ease, speed and convenience. Mo= st think that the navigation is adequate, and that the system is flexible and works = as expected.

&= nbsp;

Grante= es would like additional training, and to see improvements to the help process, including faster response times, better help desk help, and email notificat= ion when problems are corrected. While some progress has been made in formatting grantee reports, grantees would like to see this effort continued.

&= nbsp;

In the= future, grantees would like to see eGrants expanded to include the submission of narratives, the application process, and capital grants. =