1. John Kraman, Oklahoma SDE Nancy 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Data Standards and Documentation Clarity 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

8. Data Related Training SufficientNot SufficientWant More Information Data privacy and confidentiality 55.9%28.0%23.7% Data security55.827.123.8 File creation51.930.324.9 File submission53.529.724.3 Data element format & definition 46.837.628.0 Data access management46.734.627.5 Data reports and analysis46.334.029.3 Checking data quality or accuracy 42.235.332.6 Data sharing processes and agreements 37.936.334.6 Data/File correction process 37.342.730.3 Data exchange with other districts 31.940.536.8 8

9. 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

10. 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

11. Financial and Resources Biggest concerns Enough staff to manage collections82% (154) Time & resources for file creation,68% (124) validation & submission Data quality62% (115) Sustaining resources for district SIS61% (112) 11

12. 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

13. 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

14. SDE Response and Plans Data Governance Committees Update roles and responsibilities between SDE and OMES More internal capacity around data at SDE ??? 14