John Kraman, Oklahoma SDENancy J. Smith, DataSmith Solutions

Thursday, 2/14/2013

Oklahoma Data Pipeline Project Needs Assessment Survey: Process and Findings

26th Annual Management Information Systems [MIS] Conference

Oklahoma Landscape

• 670,000 overall enrollment• 537 districts• Range between 40 and 40,000+ in enrollment• State law forced switch in 2011 to a

centralized IT• OMES versus SDE• WAVE, EWIS, EDFacts, upcoming projects

2

Needs Assessment Survey

• Electronic survey of all districts• Disseminated by SDE and CCOSA• Open September – December 2012• Six Sections:– Technology– Data standards and documentation– Data-related training– Data governance– Communication– Financial – staff, resources, costs

3

Follow-up Engagement

• Voluntary participation via– Follow-up phone calls– Follow-up emails– In-person focus groups

• Two focus groups in late November– Included superintendents and technology staff– In-person in Oklahoma City, not at SEA

4

Participation in Survey

• Responses from 259 of 537 districts (48.2%)• 184 provided district name• 173 distinct districts (multiple responses from 11 districts)• 108 superintendents (out of 175 who provided role or

title)• District Size of 173 districts:

– 0-500 = 72 respondents– 501-1,000 = 44– 1,001-5,000 = 44– 5,001-10,000 = 7– >10,000 = 6

5

Technology• Trouble uploading or submitting files:

– WAVE: 62% sometimes or frequently (122)

– EDFacts: 44% sometimes or frequently (108)

• Problems center on

– Confusing error messages (65%, n=122)

– Delays with submission (51%, n=95)

– Data or file correction process (65% n=155)

• Areas that rarely or never cause problems

– data element formatting (19%, n=36)

– file size limits (15%, n=29)

– interoperability standards and processes (12%, n=23)6

Data Standards and DocumentationClarity of documentation about

– File submission: 38% good or excellent (77)– File formatting: 36% good or excellent (73)– File due dates: 36% good or excellent (83)

Usefulness of documentation about– File submission: 53% useful or very useful (107)– File formatting: 52% useful or very useful (104)– File due dates: 53% useful or very useful (107)

Ease of access to documentation about– File submission: 34% easy or very easy (68)– File formatting: 34% easy or very easy (67)– File due dates: 33% easy or very easy (67)

7

Data Related Training Sufficient Not Sufficient Want More Information

Data privacy and confidentiality

55.9% 28.0% 23.7%

Data security 55.8 27.1 23.8

File creation 51.9 30.3 24.9

File submission 53.5 29.7 24.3

Data element format & definition

46.8 37.6 28.0

Data access management 46.7 34.6 27.5

Data reports and analysis 46.3 34.0 29.3

Checking data quality or accuracy

42.2 35.3 32.6

Data sharing processes and agreements

37.9 36.3 34.6

Data/File correction process

37.3 42.7 30.3

Data exchange with other districts

31.9 40.5 36.8

8

Data Governance

• 95% of respondents indicated that they don’t participate in SDE data governance or advisory committees (190)

• 76% are unaware of SDE data governance activities (151)

• 63% indicated their districts have designated data stewards responsible for specific elements (124)

• 43% indicated that their districts have a designated data coordinator (83)

9

Communication re: Data Requirements

• 56% find current communication informative (107)

• 52%: helpful (99)

• 51%: disseminated to right people (95)

• 43%: clear (82)

• 41%: frequent enough (78)

• 37%: detailed enough (71)

• 34%: timely (66)

10

Financial and Resources

Biggest concerns

• Enough staff to manage collections 82% (154)

• Time & resources for file creation, 68% (124)

validation & submission

• Data quality 62% (115)

• Sustaining resources for district SIS 61% (112)

11

Financial and Resources

“What services or resources do you wish SDE could provide to reduce your costs?” • 44%: Improved access to SDE data and

reports (n=83) • 38%: A statewide SIS (n=71) • 35%: Improved interface or portal for use

with file uploads (n=65)

12

Synopsis

• Better management of existing processes and documentation• Better communication, specifically about changes to data

requirements, new tools, and upcoming plans• Fewer last minute changes to collections• Do a few things well rather than trying to do lots of big

changes at once• More transparency about processes and governance• More engagement from field to ensure process and

communication management meets LEA needs and understanding

• Partnership and clear definition of roles and responsibilities between SDE, OMES and LEAs

13

SDE Response and Plans

• Data Governance Committees• Update roles and responsibilities between SDE

and OMES• More internal capacity around data at SDE• ???

14