2014 Focus Groups Report Columbia, SC • Dallas, TX • Denver, CO • Louisville, KY • Phoenix, AZ • Tampa, FL

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 II. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 III. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 6

A. Best Practices & Curriculum ............................................................................................... 6 B. Marketing & Outreach ...................................................................................................... 11 C. Program Operations.......................................................................................................... 14

IV. Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 18

VI. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 21 VII. Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 25

A. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 25 B. Discussion Questions ........................................................................................................ 27 C. Demographics ................................................................................................................... 29

3

Executive Summary

Highlights Team members traveled 11,444 miles over the course of eight weeks to conduct focus groups at six locations – collecting input from district offices and resource partners on opportunities to improve the Boots to Business Program. The feedback received from these sensing sessions was run through several analysis matrixes and the following six areas were identified as the most pressing issues facing the program: o Follow-Up Contact / Data

on Participants o Command / TAP

Personnel Engagement o Curriculum Upgrade o Need for Funding o Instructor Policy (Who

May Teach) o Trouble Getting Into

8-Week Course Three of these issues are currently being addressed and three will be addressed in the upcoming year. Generally, the focus groups reported the district offices and resource partners were engaged and felt that the program filled a vital role.

In 2013, the U.S. Small Business Administration rolled out an entrepreneurial training track for separating servicemembers as part of the revamped Transition GPS program. This track was funded by Congress in January of 2014 and a focus group project was launched to secure fresh input from the field for scale-up and resource allocation. Over a period of about two months, the focus group team conducted a series of site visits – meeting with the district offices and the resource partners who deliver this training in the following locations:

(1) Columbia, SC (2) Dallas, TX (3) Denver, CO (4) Phoenix, AZ (5) Tampa, FL (6) Louisville, KY

The feedback received from these sensing sessions was run through several analysis matrixes and the most pressing program issues which emerged were:

o Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants – Instructors wanted access to the contact information on program participants to provide additional counseling and mentoring and determine outcomes.

o Command / TAP Personnel Engagement – The district offices and resource partners felt that engagement of base personnel was critical to the success of the program, driving program participation.

o Curriculum Upgrade – The focus groups universally felt that significant curriculum upgrades were needed as the material used in the two-day class has become somewhat dated.

o Need for Funding – The district offices and resource partners emphasized the need for funding to offset the significant additional costs associated with delivering the program.

o Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) – There appeared to be confusion about the agency’s current policy regarding who is permitted to deliver the two-day class on bases.

o Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course – Instructors noticed that their students experienced significant problems getting into the eight-week course at the end of the year.

4

Three of these issues are currently being addressed by the Office of Veterans Business Development (OVBD) and three of them will be addressed in the coming year. The recommendations to address these issues include:

Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants OVBD will engage a contractor to compile follow-up data collected on program participants and conduct a longitudinal study – eventually transitioning to an automated system using DOD CAC Card readers in the classrooms.

Command / TAP Personnel Engagement OVBD will work with local district offices to develop a strategy to better engage command / TAP personnel on each base.

Curriculum Upgrade OVBD will conduct an extensive curriculum review process involving ten to twenty-five percent of the district offices and resource partners delivering the program – establishing a permanent e-mail and review committee process for future periodic revisions.

Need for Funding OVBD is already in the process of putting the grants in place to provide funding for delivery of the program by local resource partners. These mechanisms will be in place by the time this report is released.

Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) OVBD is currently developing a standard operating procedure which will incorporate the best outside instructor practices vetted by various local district offices. OVBD will also work with OGC to put together a standard memorandum of understanding for these outside instructors.

Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course OVBD has already opened additional eight-week courses and all of the servicemembers on the current waiting list will be enrolled in an ongoing course by June. In the future, information on the eight-week course will be more readily accessible on the instructor resources page and servicemembers will have to wait no longer than thirty days to enroll in the course upon completion of the two-day class.

Generally, the focus groups found the participants were engaged and they felt that the program filled a vital role. Although there were some concerns in certain areas, the biggest factor impacting differences of opinion seemed to be the district office’s relationship with its local resource partners. When that dynamic was good, instructors were excited and felt empowered to add content to enrich the program. When there were opportunities for improvement in that dynamic, instructors wanted to invest their time and energy on other programs they were involved with.

5

Introduction

Program Background

Ever since the transition assistance program was created back in 1990, an important component of it was information on the programs available through the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to those seeking to start their own businesses.1 The Office of Veterans Business Development (OVBD) has been intimately involved in providing that information to servicemembers since it was directed to do so by Congress in 2008.2 When Congress passed the VOW to Hire Heroes Act in 2011 requiring all separating servicemembers to participate,3 it quickly became evident that the transition assistance program would need to be revamped. The Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force identified the need to create a formal nationwide entrepreneurship training program to handle the increased flow of servicemembers. SBA used its existing authority4 to meet its responsibility to train and educate veterans5 by overseeing the participation of its resource partners. After conducting a series of pilots, SBA helped rolled out the revamped Transition GPS program last year. The agency’s resource partners provided 403 classes on 140 military installations throughout the United States and they trained 6,120 participants – setting these separating servicemembers on the pathway to realizing the American Dream of self-employment and small business ownership.

Problem Statement

In January of 2014, Congress provided $7 million in funding for the Boots to Business track. As OVBD began developing the processes to deliver these classes on a broader scale, a focus group project was launched to secure fresh input from the field for scale-up and resource allocation.

1 10 U.S.C. § 1142 (b) (13), Pub. L. 101-510. 2 15 U.S.C. § 657b (d) (1), Pub. L. 110-186. 3 10 U.S.C. § 1144 (c), Pub. L. 112-56. 4 15 U.S.C. § 637 (b) (17), Pub. L. 105-135 and Pub. L. 108-447 and 15 U.S.C. § 648 (n) (1), Pub. L. 110-186. 5 15 U.S.C. § 657b (d) (1), Pub. L. 110-186.

November 2009

November 2011

July 2012

Executive Order No.

13518

Veterans Employment

Initiative Established

Public Law No. 112-56

VOW to Hire Heroes Act

Signed

Operation Boots to Business

Pilot Tested

Transition GPS

Revamped Transition Program

Announced

November 2012

January 2013

Operation Boots to Business

Initiative

Rolled Out in CONUS

January 2014

Operation Boots to Business

Program Fully

Funded

6

Results

Team members traveled 11,444 miles over the course of eight weeks to conduct focus groups at six locations – collecting input from district offices and resource partners on opportunities to improve the Boots to Business Program. Each focus group kicked off with opening remarks, introductions, and a fifteen-minute background presentation on the Boots to Business program. There were two 45-minute blocks of directed discussions. The first session focused on Baseline Questions, Program Status, and Demand Trends; Instructors, Best Practices, and Curriculum. The second session focused on Marketing and Outreach Needs; Program Practices, Polices, and Performance Assessment. Based upon the feedback received from the focus groups, a histogram was generated for the three major areas that emerged: Best Practices & Curriculum, Marketing & Outreach, and Program Operations. These charts show the issues that were raised at each site. The narrative in the “Feedback” section summarizes the key points under each issue. The issues were then assigned values based upon the number of times each of them came up during the focus groups. +1.5 points were assigned each time that comments supporting an issue were raised in a focus group and -0.5 points were assigned each time that mixed comments or comments contradicting an issue were raised in a focus group.

Best Practices & Curriculum

1. Case Studies / Real Life Examples [9]

There was considerable feedback on incorporating more real life examples into the course. One of the recurring themes was that instructors with business experience could weave some of

Sout

h Ca

rolin

a

Texa

s

Colo

rado

Arizo

na

Flor

ida

Kent

ucky

BEST PRACTICES & CURRICULUM1 Case Studies / Real Life Examples • • • • • • 92 Decision Points, Attributes / Self-Assessment • • • • • 7.53 Franchises Information • • • • • 7.54 Practical Exercises • • • • 65 Pro Forma Financials • • • • 66 Multiple Presenters • • • 4.57 Small Business Owner Guest Speakers - Veterans • • • 4.58 Steps to Starting a Business (Class Needs to Follow a Roadmap) • • • 4.59 Update Videos (Real Life Examples, Last Year's Participants) • • • 4.5

10 Feasibility Analysis - Not Useful o • • o • o 311 Financial Literacy / Credit • • 312 Impressed with Curriculum o • o • o • 313 Information on Other Financing Options • • 314 Nonprofit Ventures • • 315 SBA Facilitator • • 316 Legal Entity Material Needs Revision • • o 2.517 Business Insurance • 1.518 Length of Class - Too Long o • o • o 1.519 Too Much Contracting Material o o -1

BEST PRACTICES & CURRICULUM

KEY: • = Comments supporting issue; o = Mixed comments or comments contradicting issue.

7

their own personal stories into the class. Guest speakers also added great value. Several focus groups also noted that case studies could also be used when guest speakers might not be available. [SC, TX, CO, AZ, FL, KY]

2. Decision Points, Attributes / Self-Assessment [7.5]

Several focus groups indicated that the class is structured for someone who has already decided to start a small business. However, the participants are at different points along that continuum. Generally, the consensus was that about 1/3 are just starting to explore the idea of self-employment / small business ownership, while another 1/3 already have a well-developed business concept. Everyone else is someone in between. One focus group noted that there seemed to be a correlation with time-in-service. One-term servicemembers were more likely to be just starting to explore the idea while retiring career servicemembers were more likely to already have well-developed business concepts. However, the general consensus expressed in one form or another was that the class needs to include tools that help them decide whether it is the right decision for them (i.e. decision points, an entrepreneur attributes profile / self-assessment). [TX, CO, AZ, FL, KY]

3. Franchises Information [7.5]

Many instructors noted that there is only a little information in the class about franchises. However, this opportunity is probably one of the best fits for participants – as veterans are used to receiving a detailed plan and executing it well. More material on franchises should be incorporated into the curriculum. [SC, TX, CO, KY] Although one district didn’t specifically bring up franchises, the instructors noted that a lot of people would come into the class thinking “you were going to tell me what to do” – a mindset which is often cited as a reason to explore franchises. [FL]

4. Practical Exercises [6]

There was considerable feedback on making the class more interactive. Instructors felt that lecture was the least effective method of teaching. They suggested using a variety of practical exercises to get the class engaged. Some instructors put participants’ business concepts up on the board and invited the class to help develop them. [AZ] Other instructors used a similar concept with a Lean Canvas – an 11”x17” paper for each participant’s business concept posted on the walls with sections that the class helps fill out. [CO] There was also StratPad, an interactive computer program that allowed participants to plug information into framework for a business plan / financial statements. [TX] One district used the feasibility analysis – calling a participant up to the front of the class for each section and inviting others in the class to offer suggestions. [KY]

5. Pro Forma Financials [6]

Building pro forma financials was regularly cited to be both, the most important part of business planning and the most difficult / time-consuming part to teach. The pro forma financials section was originally included in the test pilot version of the class and then it was taken out. Several

8

instructors indicated that more material on developing pro forma financials should be incorporated into the curriculum – with one indicating that the current module on economics was really difficult to teach. [SC, TX, AZ, KY]

6. Multiple Presenters [4.5]

One of the best practices is to have multiple presenters involved in the delivery of the class to keeps participants’ interest up. [TX, AZ, KY] Although this topic didn’t come up in all of the focus groups, it appeared that most of the districts were using this approach when possible.

Facilitator’s Observation: Currently, the class is delivered in three ways: (1) Turn-Based: Where no resource partner is particularly closer or further away than any other, they take turns sharing the burden of delivering the class. [CO]; (2) Geography-Based: When resource partners are located in different parts of the state, they divide up the bases in the state. Some bases are covered by more than one instructor who share the burden. Others are covered by one person. [SC, TX, KY]; (3) Subject Matter Expert-Based: When there is strong buy-in and the dynamic between the district office and the resource partners is really good, the resource partners break up the modules between themselves and become subject matter experts on a particular area. [AZ]

7. Small Business Owner Guest Speakers – Veterans [4.5]

The use of veteran small business owners as guest speakers has been identified as a best practice – particularly for Module #1. They immediately connect with separating servicemembers. Their military experience provides immediate creditability. And, they give separating servicemembers the impression that they can do it. [CO, AZ, FL]

8. Steps to Starting a Business (Class Needs to Follow a Roadmap) [4.5]

Several focus groups noted that there is no clear blueprint for how the modules fit together and instructors felt that participants need to leave the class with a clear understanding of the “steps to starting a small business.” Some instructors also suggested incorporating a roadmap with a graphic on how each module plugs into a business plan. The graphic could be a watermark on the presentation slides which constantly tracks where the class was. [SC, CO, AZ]

9. Update Videos (Real Life Examples, Last Year's Participants) [4.5]

Some of the videos are starting to get a little outdated. So, some of the instructors suggested that updating them should be one of the program’s top priorities. An instructor noted that one video, in particular, was dated 2004 – with a joke about the former president which goes over poorly with the class because it was so outdated. There was a lot of differing opinions about what would make good videos. Some people said that they liked big examples like Google and Starbucks because participants can identify with those brands. Others said that they needed to be more generic and down-to-earth because participants needed a smaller scale operation (they could see themselves in, not a wild success story. Some people suggested making videos of

9

veteran business owners or, better yet, last year’s program participants. One person suggested using some of SBA’s video vignettes. [TX, AZ, KY]

10. Feasibility Analysis – Not Useful [3]

There was mixed opinion on the feasibility analysis. Some districts felt that it wasn’t a good tool and it needed to be scrapped. [TX, CO, FL] Others thought that it was effective. [AZ, KY] One district had mixed opinions on it. [SC] Some instructors felt the feasibility analysis wasn’t as effective of a tool when they are just starting to explore the idea of self-employment / small business ownership. However, one district used the feasibility analysis as the centerpiece of their course to tie everything together – choosing one participant to go through it at the end of each day as a test to determine whether the entire class would be “honor graduates” of the program. [KY]

11. Financial Literacy / Credit [3]

Some instructors are doing a lot of financial literacy education / credit counseling. [TX, CO] They indicated that this needs to be incorporated more into the class content – perhaps, replacing the section where we are discussing SBA loans. [TX, CO]

12. Impressed with Curriculum [3]

There was mixed opinion on the quality of the curriculum. Some people thought it was excellent. [TX, AZ, KY] Others thought the curriculum was terrible and it needed to be scrapped. [CO, FL] One district had mixed opinions. [SC]

Facilitator’s Observation: The biggest correlation here seems to be the district office’s relationship with its local resource partners. Although there are definitely good suggestions for substantive curriculum improvements coming from the field, the attitude toward the program is really more of a reflection of that dynamic. The curriculum is really just a framework. Where that dynamic is good and the instructors are excited, they will feel empowered to add content to enrich the program.

13. Information on Other Financing Options [3]

Closely related to the point about financial literacy / credit, some focus groups also noted that the class has a lot of content about SBA loans, but this vehicle may not be the best fit for the participants. It is principally good for business expansion. Many participants are not ready to apply for an SBA loan and/or the cost of getting that capital is too great. Other sources of financing (i.e. angel investors, crowd funding, and microlending) need to have a more prominent place in the curriculum – as these vehicles are more appropriate to where the participants are in the start-up business cycle. [CO, FL]

14. Nonprofit Ventures [3]

In a couple focus groups, the instructors noted that there was no information about nonprofit entities. They felt this was a disservice to the veterans because there were several participants who were starting nonprofit ventures when they left the service and the only thing they could

10

do was point them in another direction. One instructor noted that nonprofit ventures made up about 20% of new starts. [SC, KY]

15. SBA Facilitator [3]

When possible, a best practice was using the VBDO (or another SBA representative) as a class facilitator. This person introduced each resource partner and provided a sense of continuity throughout the class. [AZ, KY]

Facilitator’s Observation: This practice appears to be one of the driving forces behind the district office’s relationship with its local resource partners. If a subject matter expert-based delivery model is desired, there has to be buy-in from the local District Director to make it happen. The VBDO is always there and the resource partners see that. Where an SBA Facilitator is present, the District Director has set the tone – saying, “We’re going to make this happen. OVBD has always been good to us and given us resources when they could. And, this is an important mission – serving veterans. So, we’re going to do it with or without resources.” In the focus groups, its appearance also correlated with two districts where the program seemed to be going the best.

16. Legal Entity Material Needs Revision [2.5]

In one focus group, some instructors felt that there was too much material about the legal entities that could be used – particularly since no start-up will form a C corporation. The information needs to be tailored to where the participants are in the start-up business cycle. The information also needs to be more state specific. Certain legal entities operate under different sets of rules in specific states. [CO] One instructor said that there needs to be much more information about a partnership agreement, in particular. [FL] In another focus group, one of the attorneys who teaches this section said that he usually provides a general overview of the topic and then gives participants the questions they should ask an attorney to help them determine if they need one. He didn’t think state specific information could be provided. [KY]

17. Business Insurance [1.5]

One instructor indicated that a major weakness of the curriculum was a lack of any information about business insurance. However, the issue did not come up in other focus groups. [FL]

18. Length of Class – Too Long [1.5]

There was mixed opinion on the length of the class. Some people thought it was too long and there was a lot of material that could be scraped to cut it down to a one-day workshop. [CO] Others thought it was too short and that an optional take-home assignment with a follow-up day of one-on-one counseling might have value. [AZ] The rest were somewhere in between. [SC]

Facilitator’s Observation: Again, the biggest correlation here seems to be the district office’s relationship with its local resource partners. When that dynamic was good, instructors were excited and felt empowered to integrate their counseling and mentoring efforts into the

11

program. When there were opportunities for improvement in that dynamic, instructors wanted to invest their time and energy on other programs they were involved with.

19. Too Much Contracting Material [-1]

There was no clear consensus about how much contracting material should be included in the class. In one focus group, some of the resource partners thought that it took too much time. However, district office personnel stressed the importance of it. Generally, everyone agreed that it depended upon the composition and location of the class – whether government contracting played an important role in the local economy, as it does in certain places in the United States. [SC] In another group, the district felt like they needed to spend more time on it because their district wasn’t as adept with government contracting and there was a lot of opportunity for growth in that area – particularly with veterans. [KY]

Marketing & Outreach

1. Base Newspaper [6]

The base newspaper was seen as a good source of marketing and publicity because it specifically targeted the population of program beneficiaries. At one of the focus groups, a person had worked in public affairs earlier in their career and they emphasized the role the base newspaper played in reaching servicemembers. [SC, TX, FL, KY]

2. Direct Email [4.5]

Direct email was seen as a good source of marketing and publicity because it specifically targeted the population of program beneficiaries. Generally, the resource partners have expressed a lot of interest in collecting e-mail addresses so they can provide follow-up counseling and mentoring. However, it is also seen as a good tool for reaching the entire group of separating servicemembers as a whole. [SC, AZ, KY]

Sout

h Ca

rolin

a

Texa

s

Colo

rado

Arizo

na

Flor

ida

Kent

ucky

MARKETING & OUTREACH1 Base Newspaper • • • • 62 Direct Email • • • 4.53 Local Champions (City Mayor, College President, News Editor) • • • 4.54 Spouses / Dependents • • • 4.55 Video Not Being Shown • • • 4.56 Corporate Partners / Veteran Friendly Companies (i.e. USAA) • • 37 Local Earned Media • • 38 SBA Marketing (OCPL Publicity - Videos, Small Business Week) • • 39 Social Media • • 3

10 Speaking at Main Transition GPS Event • • 311 Separated Veterans • • o 2.512 Program Annual Report • 1.513 Word Not Getting Out • • o o o 1.5

MARKETING & OUTREACH

KEY: • = Comments supporting issue; o = Mixed comments or comments contradicting issue.

12

3. Local Champions (City Mayor, College President, News Editor) [4.5]

In many districts, the program’s success in certain areas has been due in part to the support of a local champion (i.e. city mayor, college president, newspaper editor, etc.) who has took a liking to the program’s mission and decided to invest outside time, energy, and resources to help support the program. Many instructors noted that they would not have been able to absorb the travel expenses or facility costs on their own and they strongly recommended that district offices (and the agency as a whole) reach out to local community leaders to identify, recognize, and cultivate these champions. [SC, TX, AZ]

4. Spouses / Dependents [4.5]

Spouses and dependents were not aware of the program and they should be – as these people are both, eligible beneficiaries of the program and key influencers of servicemembers. Starting a business is also a family decision. So, it is important to get them involved early. Several people also suggested that this group needs to be specifically targeted since they are not privy to the same channels of communication. [SC, TX, KY]

5. Video Not Being Shown [4.5]

The resource partners did not think the 10-minute video was being shown to servicemembers. One focus group even noted that base transition assistance personnel at one site were unaware of the program until recently and they asked the instructors for copies of the 10-minute video. [SC, TX, AZ]

6. Corporate Partners / Veteran Friendly Companies (i.e. USAA) [3]

Several people mentioned reaching out to corporate partners and / or veteran friendly companies. These entities might be willing to use their networks and resources to help market and publicize the program – particularly some of the entities with an interest in fostering their customer’s financial security (i.e. insurance, banking). People also suggested specifically targeting entities like USAA and Navy Federal – who have developed their own marketing and publicity campaigns to serve the same populations our program helps. [TX, AZ]

7. Local Earned Media [3]

The use of local earned media was mentioned during two focus groups. Some district offices and resources partners would like to see boilerplate press releases that they can use to target local media outlets. [SC, FL]

8. SBA Marketing (OCPL Publicity - Videos, Small Business Week) [3]

The use of SBA’s marketing vehicles was mentioned in several focus groups. The instructors were particularly interested in OCPL produced publicity like videos and press releases, as well as recognition during the agency’s Small Business Week. [TX, AZ]

13

9. Social Media [3]

The use of social media was an important topic during two focus groups – as the instructors didn’t feel like traditional print media was as good of a vehicle for reaching servicemembers. TAP Personnel on at least one base were using e-mail lists to contact transitioning personnel and advise them of upcoming classes. [TX, KY]

10. Speaking at Main Transition GPS Event [3]

In places where the VBDO had taken the time to connect with base transition assistance personnel and speak during the Main Transition GPS Event, they’d saw some increased response (approximately 10% of the larger group of separating servicemembers) but not as much as they might’ve hoped. [AZ] On another base, TAP personnel publicized upcoming classes themselves during the main Transition GPS events. [KY]

11. Separated Veterans [2.5]

Recently separated veterans were not aware of the program. Although they may or may not be eligible beneficiaries, there was discussion of providing the service to them if there was excess capacity – since they might have missed the rollout of the new Transition GPS program. They are also key influencers of servicemembers who know how to reach other veterans. Several people suggested specifically targeting local veterans service organizations. [SC, TX] However, in one focus group, participants noted that, under current military policy, separated veterans were not eligible to participate in the program unless they were within the six-month window. Thus, targeting those veterans might not be the best strategy. [KY]

12. Program Annual Report [1.5]

One focus group discussed generating an annual report for the program – highlighting the accomplishments. In particular, they felt this product could be provided to Members of Congress and used to facilitate local earned media. However, the suggestion was not raised in other focus groups. [AZ]

13. Word Not Getting Out [1.5]

There was no consensus on whether word of the program was getting out to the servicemembers. Some instructors noted that they encountered a lot of people who were unaware of the program. [SC, TX] However, some districts noted rapid growth. [CO] In one district where the VBDO reached out to larger groups of separating servicemembers, there was a sense that the word was getting out. [AZ] In another district, there was mixed opinion: Base personnel seemed confident that the servicemembers were being informed. However, people in the local community felt like there were still gaps in coverage – particularly amongst spouses, female servicemembers, and recently separated veterans. [KY]

14

Program Operations

1. Curriculum Upgrade [9]

(See the “Curriculum” section for more details.)

2. Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants [9]

The instructors consistently expressed the desire to collect the data necessary to have follow-up contact with the program participants. They felt the training was good, but individualized counseling and mentoring was the best way to really have an impact. [SC, TX, CO, AZ, FL, KY]

3. Need for Funding [9]

All of the focus groups emphasized the need for funding. The program was originally rolled out in several places through a jobs act grant. Now that this funding source had dried up, the resource partners were losing the ability to cover travel expenses. Some districts had come up with innovative temporary solutions – relying on the support of a local champion (i.e. city mayor, college president, newspaper editor, etc.) who has took a liking to the program’s mission and decided to invest outside time, energy, and resources to help support the program. However, this was not a sustainable approach and gaps in coverage were starting to appear. [SC, TX, CO, AZ, FL, KY]

4. Access to Capital – Major Issue [7.5]

Access to capital was regularly cited as the biggest obstacle to veterans starting a small business. The instructors said that SBA loan programs did not meet the needs of most of the program’s participants – as banks typically extend loans under the program only to expand existing

Sout

h Ca

rolin

a

Texa

s

Colo

rado

Arizo

na

Flor

ida

Kent

ucky

PROGRAM OPERATIONS1 Curriculum Upgrade • • • • • • 92 Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants • • • • • • 93 Need for Funding • • • • • • 94 Access to Capital - Major Issue • • • • • 7.55 Command / TAP Personnel Engagement • • • • • 7.56 Demand Increasing (Moderate) • • o • • o 57 Align Metrics of SBA / Resource Partners to Program • • • 4.58 Information on 8-Week Course • • • 4.59 Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course • • • 4.5

10 Guard / Reserve (Significant Modification Needed) • o o • • 3.511 Base Access • • 312 Feedback for Instructors (Survey Data) • • 313 Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) • • 314 Marketing / Publicity • • o • o o 315 Other SBA Training / Counseling (Gatekeeping) • • 316 SBA Direct Lending • 1.517 Slidedeck / Thumbdrive • 1.518 Incubators o o o o -2

PROGRAM OPERATIONS

KEY: • = Comments supporting issue; o = Mixed comments or comments contradicting issue.

15

businesses, not to start new ventures. Participants in one focus group noted that servicemembers also often never develop a banking relationship with a local entity because of moving with the military – which hurts their chances of securing a business loan. Other sources of financing (i.e. angel investors, crowd funding, and microlending) need to be developed – as these vehicles are more appropriate to where the participants are in the start-up business cycle. [SC, CO, AZ, FL, KY]

5. Command / TAP Personnel Engagement [7.5]

Several districts have seen good results when they engaged with local base commands and transition assistance personnel. Since the armed forces are a hierarchal organization, a lot of instructors feel that participation might be better driven by getting these people on board rather than trying to market and publicize to the entire population of servicemembers. One focus group which included TAP personnel noted that command engagement was vital because it directly affected servicemembers’ abilities to attend the program. [SC, TX, AZ, FL, KY]

6. Demand Increasing (Moderate) [5]

Most of the instructors felt that demand was steadily increasing at a moderate rate. Class size had doubled or tripled since the program was initially rolled out. However, it has been fairly steady at a slowly rising rate since then. They really couldn’t predict what numbers to expect. However, with successfully marketing and publicity efforts, they thought participation could beyond current classroom facility capacity. [SC, TX, AZ, FL] One focus group characterized it as rapid growth – indicating that participation could double in the next year and the district wasn’t prepared to handle it. [CO] However, another focus group predicted a decline – as one of the major units on their installation was slated to be eliminated in the upcoming year. [KY]

7. Align Metrics of SBA / Resource Partners to Program [4.5]

Several of the district offices and the resources partners expressed concern that the metrics used to evaluate their performance were not properly aligned. The program took a lot of time and resources. However, the weight of these training and counseling activities was relatively light. So, when they devoted the time and resources necessary to execute the program, it impacted their overall performance – ultimately affecting their funding. [CO, AZ, FL]

8. Information on 8-Week Course [4.5]

Several focus groups mentioned that their instructors still had no idea of what was taught in the eight-week course. They asked if it was possible to allow resource partners to audit the course. Many instructors also seemed unaware that there was any information about the eight-week course on the instructor resources page. [CO, FL, KY]

9. Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course [4.5]

Several instructors noted that participants had problems getting into the 8-week course. There was a waiting list and several of them were waiting several months to enroll in the next available course. [SC, CO, KY]

16

10. Guard / Reserve (Significant Modification Needed) [3.5]

There were mixed opinions on delivery of the class to the Guard / Reserve components. Some districts were already delivering it to these units and it seemed to work well. [TX, CO] Other districts found that the class had to be condensed into smaller blocks of time and they have had limited success. [SC, AZ, FL] There was some discussion that the class might best be offered during reservists’ two-week annual training period during the summer.

11. Base Access [3]

Some of the instructors still had difficulties gaining base access. Security at each installation was determined by the base commander. So, this issue was handled on a case-by-case basis. Some of the solutions discussed included having an escort meet the instructors at the gate and moving the classes to a facility right outside the gate. [TX, CO]

12. Feedback for Instructors (Survey Data) [3]

Some participants noted that instructors should have access to the class survey data. They said that every other training and counseling program they had been involved in provided feedback to them so that they could improve their teaching style. [CO, KY]

13. Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) [3]

In at least one district, the policy on who may teach the class was a major issue. The district office didn’t think it had enough instructors to meet the demand for the course – using solely the resource partners. Their understanding was that they were not allowed to use outside instructors. [CO] However, other districts were already incorporating outside instructors and a veteran small business owner was the standard instructor for Module 1. The VBDO apparently screened these instructors – getting to know each one personally and establishing an informal understanding with them before he let them teach the first module. It was noted that a more formal policy and a memorandum of understanding template would be useful. [AZ]

14. Marketing / Publicity [3]

(See the “Marketing” section for more details.)

Facilitator’s Observation: Although the discussion questions developed by the Program Manager led the focus groups to discuss marketing and publicity extensively, it is important to note that there was mixed opinion within the focus groups about the value of a formal marketing / publicity campaign. Several focus groups had ideas about how a marketing / publicity campaign might be conducted. [SC, TX, AZ] However, there were also some comments which indicated that the participants left that to the base personnel. And, there were many comments supporting the assertion that attendance was best drive through command / TAP personnel engagement – as word of mouth was the primary way servicemembers decided to take the class. [CO, FL, KY]

17

15. Other SBA Training / Counseling Instead [3]

Two focus groups felt that the program should take a backseat to other training and counseling programs that the resource partners offered. Some participants also noted that some SBDCs and SCORE chapters required their prospective clients to attend their workshops (at a modest cost) before they were given one-on-one counseling and mentoring. They noted that servicemembers would have to go through these workshops even after participating in the program. [CO, FL]

16. SBA Direct Lending [1.5]

One focus group suggested that SBA should consider direct lending again as a means of providing better access to capital. However, the suggestion was not raised in other focus groups. [CO]

17. Slidedeck / Thumbdrive [1.5]

One focus group suggested that changes needed to be made to the slidedeck. They noted that there was nothing in the slidedeck for Module 8. So, participants often started packing up and preparing to go home at the end of Module 7. They suggested having some blank write-in slides as a placeholder. They also suggested putting the slidedeck on a thumbdrive for participants to have a takeway. This thumbdrive could be loaded with additional local resources. [TX]

18. Incubators [-2]

Most of the districts had some form of business incubators and / or accelerators in their areas and these entities were briefly discussed. These incubators tended to be focused on specific industries and there none that were specifically targeted at veteran entrepreneurs. However, incubators were never raised as a significant issue by any of the focus groups. [SC, TX, CO, KY]

18

Analysis

Cause / Effect Matrix

A cause / effect matrix was a bit difficult to generate – as the data collected during the focus groups didn’t naturally correspond to specific inputs and outputs. Performance metrics also have not been formally established for the program yet. However, the program could be evaluated along seven dimensions:

o Class Offerings: The total number of training events conducted measured by the number of classes and the number of based covered.

o Attendance: The total number of servicemembers who participate in the program. o Persistence: The total number of servicemembers who persist through the program measured

by the number who complete the class and go on to the eight-week course and the number who complete the eight-week course.

o Satisfaction: The satisfaction levels of program participants measured at the end of the two-day class and the eight-week course.

o Follow-Up Contact: The number of servicemembers who pursue follow-up contact with the agency measured by the number who come in for counseling / mentoring and other training and by the number who apply for SBA loans.

o Reputation: The reputation of the program measured by surveys amongst key stakeholders – servicemembers, resource partners, transition assistance personnel, and public officials.

o Economic Impact: The impact on the economy measured by new companies started, success of those companies after five years, jobs created those companies, and total economic value created by those companies.

These dimensions were incorporated into a cause / effect matrix to assess the impact each of the operations issues might have upon the seven performance metric dimensions. The issues identified in

Clas

s Offe

rings

Atte

ndan

ce

Pers

isten

ce

Satis

fact

ion

Follo

w-U

p Co

ntac

tRe

puta

tion

Econ

omic

Impa

ct

OPERATIONS ISSUESCommand / TAP Personnel Engagement 9 9 9 1 3 9 1 41 6.8Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants 1 1 9 3 9 3 9 35 5.8Marketing / Publicity 1 9 9 1 3 9 1 33 5.5Curriculum Upgrade 1 1 3 9 3 3 9 29 4.8Need for Funding 9 3 1 1 1 9 1 25 4.2Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course 3 3 9 3 3 3 1 25 4.2Align Metrics of SBA / Resource Partners to Program 9 1 1 1 3 3 1 19 3.2Demand Increasing (Moderate) 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 19 3.2Guard / Reserve (Significant Modification Needed) 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 17 2.8Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) 9 1 1 3 1 1 1 17 2.8Access to Capital - Major Issue 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 15 2.5Base Access 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 11 1.8Feedback for Instructors (Survey Data) 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 1.5Incubators 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 1.5Other SBA Training / Counseling (Gatekeeping) 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1.5SBA Direct Lending 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 1.5Slidedeck / Thumbdrive 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 1.5Information on 8-Week Course 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1.2

OPERATIONS ISSUES

19

the curriculum and marketing sections were really deeper dives into two of the major operations issues. So, cause / effect matrixes were not done for those sections. The issues were then assigned values in each column based upon the correlation between the issue and the performance dimension. Where there was a direct correlation and the issue was a driving force behind the metrics associated with a particular dimension, a 9 was assigned. Where there was an indirect correlation (i.e. the issue might have some effect but was not a direct, driving force), a 3 was assigned. Where there was little or no correlation between the issue and the metrics associated with a particular dimension, a 1 was assigned. The values were then totaled and averaged to produce the score in the final column – representing the importance of each issue to the overall success of the program.

Frequency / Importance / Resources Required Matrix

The values assigned in the histogram and the cause / effect matrix were then combined with another value representing the resources required. Each of the issues were assigned a value of 1, 3, or 9 (with 9 being the highest) representing the resources required to address the issue. 1 was assigned to issues that could not be addressed by the program management and would require significant resources / outside assistance from other agencies and / or significant shifts in policy by public officials. 3 was assigned to issues that could be resolved by program management but would require some effort. 9 was assigned to issues that could be addressed relatively quickly by the program management by simply making a policy change or placing an order.

Freq

uenc

y

Impo

rtan

ce

Reso

urce

s

OPERATIONS ISSUESFollow-Up Contact / Data on Participants 9 5.8 3 157.5Command / TAP Personnel Engagement 7.5 6.8 3 153.75Curriculum Upgrade 9 4.8 3 130.5Need for Funding 9 4.2 3 112.5Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) 3 2.8 9 76.5Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course 4.5 4.2 3 56.25Marketing / Publicity 3 5.5 3 49.5Demand Increasing (Moderate) 5 3.2 3 47.5Information on 8-Week Course 4.5 1.2 9 47.25Align Metrics of SBA / Resource Partners to Program 4.5 3.2 3 42.75Guard / Reserve (Significant Modification Needed) 3.5 2.8 3 29.75Access to Capital - Major Issue 7.5 2.5 1 18.75Base Access 3 1.8 3 16.5Feedback for Instructors (Survey Data) 3 1.5 3 13.5Slidedeck / Thumbdrive 1.5 1.5 3 6.75Other SBA Training / Counseling (Gatekeeping) 3 1.5 1 4.5SBA Direct Lending 1.5 1.5 1 2.25Incubators -2 1.5 1 -3

OPERATIONS ISSUES

20

The values in the three columns were then multiplied to produce a final weighted score for each issue.

Final Weighted List Based upon the weighted scores generated from this analysis, the issues could be separated by three natural breaks into tiers:

Most Pressing Program Issues

o Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants o Command / TAP Personnel Engagement o Curriculum Upgrade o Need for Funding o Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) o Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course

Significant Program Issues

o Marketing / Publicity o Demand Increasing (Moderate) o Information on 8-Week Course o Align Metrics of SBA / Resource Partners to Program

Other Program Issues

o Guard / Reserve (Significant Modification Needed) o Access to Capital - Major Issue o Base Access o Feedback for Instructors (Survey Data) o Slidedeck / Thumbdrive o Other SBA Training / Counseling (Gatekeeping) o SBA Direct Lending o Incubators

21

Recommendations

With the understanding that this report only reflects the anecdotal evidence observed at six locations where the focus groups were conducted, the following areas have been identified as the most pressing program issues which should addressed in the upcoming year. Some of these issues are already being worked on by OVBD. Others have previously been identified, but no formal plan has been established yet. These recommendations offer a potential way forward as the program continues to grow and develop and OVBD embarks on the path of continuous assessment, reevaluation, and improvement.

Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants In each focus group, the instructors have repeatedly brought-up the need for follow-up contact with the program participants – emphasizing that any training that we provide is helpful, but the most useful services that we can provide to someone starting a business is one-on-one counseling and mentoring. The instructors also anticipate that external stakeholders will want detailed statistics on outcomes when they assess program’s overall performance over the course of the next few years. OVBD has been working with DOD to obtain access to certain data in a separating servicemember’s military record through a system of CAC card readers in the classrooms. However, it may be several years before that solution is fully implemented. In the meantime, OVBD has a duty to the servicemembers going through the program right now to ensure that they are receiving the support and assistance that they need. And, OVBD should also anticipate that external stakeholders will not be content to wait for detailed statistics on outcomes until a system of CAC card readers is in place. However, when the program was originally rolled out, OVBD put several procedures in place to capture data on the class participants. On each sign-in sheet, servicemembers supply a personal e-mail address which provides a means of follow-up contact. However, these sign-in sheets have not been organized and catalogued up to this point due to a lack of resources and staffing. And, there are also some concerns about whether this data is being collected legally – as the forms being used were never officially approved by OMB or DOD. In the short term:

(1) OVBD needs to ask OGC for a ruling on whether the sign-in sheets are acceptable documents and determine if any upgrades need to be made to those forms.

(2) Over the course of the next year as OVBD puts various ID/IQ support contracts in place to assist with administration and management of the program, one of the first task orders should be collecting these sign-in sheets and entering the data into a spreadsheet to be distributed both to OVBD and to the local district offices.

(3) Using this data, OVBD should commission a longitudinal study. As part of this study, the firm should develop an e-mail to reach out to the program’s participants and determine where the participants went, what happened to their entrepreneurial interest, and what follow-on services may be required – supplying that information both to OVBD and to the local district offices.

22

Over the long term:

(1) Continue working with DOD to obtain access to certain data in a separating servicemember’s military record through a system of CAC card readers in the classrooms.

(2) Integrate that data into the longitudinal study – replacing the data from paper sign-in sheets currently being utilized.

Command / TAP Personnel Engagement Although there was mixed opinion within the various focus groups about the value of a formal marketing / publicity campaign, the instructors emphasized the importance of command / TAP personnel engagement. Several instructors noted that the support of the chain of command and the NCO support channels largely determined program participation. Servicemembers had to rely upon the goodwill of their commanders and their NCOs to be able to attend the sessions and word of mouth was often the primary factor which determined whether servicemembers decided to take the class. Many districts relied exclusively on TAP personnel to publicize the program. OVBD has been putting together a communications contract which will include many of the traditional media outreach techniques such as promotional videos and print advertising. While these strategies may positively impact the program’s overall reputation with external stakeholders and indirectly drive some servicemember participation, they may not be accurately targeted at the intended principal beneficiaries of the program. The program may be better served by focusing on internal lines of communication on bases such as:

o Face to face meetings with base transition assistance program personnel; o Flyers for transition assistance program offices; o Appearances at main Transition GPS training events; o Earned media articles in the base newspaper; o Announcements on transition program e-mail listserves and social media outlets; o Appearances at monthly CG/Garrison Commander and SGM meetings; and o Face to face meetings with spouse and family support program personnel.

All of these efforts are fairly intensive grassroots efforts and the VBDOs in many district offices are already tasked with a lot – coordinating the delivery of the program through the bases and the local resource partners. So, OVBD may need to consider a contract for traveling field representatives or expanding the programmatic support and assistance available through VBOCs.

Curriculum Upgrade A recurring issue that was identified prior to the focus groups was the need for a curriculum upgrade. Although the class was originally developed by Syracuse University, it was revised by a panel of resource partners during an extensive vetting process prior to the program’s rollout. Since that time, there have been no major changes and some of the material has become outdated. These focus groups delved into the curriculum to a certain extent, identifying some areas for improvement. However, this was an abbreviated process. The scope of this project did not include a comprehensive curriculum review. More than thirty minutes of discussion at six sites is required. And,

23

OVBD will have to develop two-pronged approach: (1) Addressing immediate needs for upgrades and (2) establishing a formal process for future reviews. In the short term:

(1) Over the course of the next year as OVBD puts various ID/IQ support contracts in place to assist with administration and management of the program, one of the first task orders should be collecting the participant surveys and entering them into a usable spreadsheet that can be distributed both to Syracuse University, OVBD, and to the local district offices.

(2) OVBD should determine what percentage of the district offices and the resource partners they which to engage in a curriculum review process – a sample of ten percent (10%) to twenty-five percent (25%) of the districts delivering the program would probably be sufficient.

(3) Intensive curriculum review sessions should be held at two or three locations across the United States – where small groups of these reviewers are flown in by OVBD and go through the slidedeck section-by-section over a two-day period.

(4) The raw feedback from these sessions should be provided to Syracuse University and OVBD for incorporation into a revised edition of the two-day class.

Over the long term:

(1) OVBD should designate a standard process to receive regular feedback on the curriculum such as by e-mail.

(2) Each year, the feedback received from the participant surveys and from e-mail should feed into a review process conducted by a committee of district offices and the resource partners.

(3) OVBD should also establish a process for immediate changes to the curriculum (i.e. when a program like Patriot Express sunsets).

Need for Funding The instructors universally noted that funding was the biggest issue facing the program. When asked what the team’s top priority should be when they returned to Washington D.C., all of the focus groups said that providing funding for delivery of the program was the #1 issue. While it would been nice to have a program announcement ready when the budget was approved in January, OVBD is currently putting together the resource partner grants and it is anticipated that the mechanisms will be in place by the time this report is released. However, since this vehicle will not provide any funding retroactively for classes that have already been delivered, OVBD should also consider augmenting the resource partner grants already in place for general entrepreneurial training programs – as these were the original vehicles used to deliver the program through the existing infrastructure.

Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) The focus groups uncovered evidence supporting the fact that there were mixed impressions of the current policy regarding who was allowed to teach the two-day class. Some districts thought that only district office personnel and resource partners were permitted to teach the course. Others occasionally tapped outsiders like local community college professors, attorneys and lenders, and veteran small business owners.

24

Although a certain degree of uniformity might have been provided by releasing a procedural notice, the differences from district to district have allowed some these practices to be vetted. OVBD is currently working on a standard operating procedure which will provide official guidance on this policy. As it is expected to include provisions to permit instruction by certain outsiders like local community college professors, attorneys and lenders, and veteran small business owners, a standard memorandum of understanding needs to be created by OVBD and OGC – as this practice has only been governed by informal “handshake understandings” between the outside instructor and the VBDO in the past.

Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course Several focus groups noted that there were problems getting into the eight-week course. At the end of the year when funding dried up while OVBD was waiting on a budget, a lengthy waiting list developed. Some of the instructors were unfamiliar with the eight-week course. However, those who were familiar with it felt like we lost creditability when separating servicemembers couldn’t get into the follow-on course – as they lose interest and go on to other pursuits when they have to wait several months for an slot in the next course. OVBD has addressed this issue, funding is now in place, and additional courses have been scheduled. All of the servicemembers on the current waiting list will be enrolled in an ongoing class by June. However, in the future, OVBD establish a policy that all servicemembers will have access to the eight-week course within thirty days of completing the two-day class. It should also address current issues with the instructor resources page – making the information on the eight-week course more easily accessible.

25

Appendix

A. Methodology

Project Design

In the initial project charter, the Program Manager provided the following guidelines for the focus group project:

Purpose

Refresh input from field and RPs to inform B2B scale-up and resource allocation

Process

Standardized and collaborative approach Face to face

Product

Ranked list of B2B improvement issues Program SOP Report out to all participants

The focus group project was originally structured as a series of in-person site visits combined with a series of telephone conferences – to collect input from a wide variety of sources. However, after consultations with other stakeholders, it was decided that the telephone conferences would not be feasible. The Program Manager wanted each of the focus groups to be asked the same series of questions to preserve a sense of consistency and the team didn’t think the participants could be kept on the phone for three hours. So, the team instead chose to focus its efforts on the in-person site visits.

Site Selection

After a series of conversations with Field Operations, OVBD came up with the following criteria for selecting sites:

o The team wanted to try to visit locations that OVBD had not gone previously. In the past, OVBD had been to a lot of the high volume areas in Southern California and Virginia-North Carolina. So, the team wanted to get input from other areas as well.

o The team wanted to get a sample that represented a cross section of the dynamics at play in the delivery of the program. They wanted some with high volume and others with medium to low volume, some with good district office-resource partner relations and others where there were opportunities for improvement, some where the bases were nearby and others where they were more distant, and some where they were delivering to Guard and Reserve components.

o The team also wanted to keep the burden to a minimum. The program already takes a lot of time and resources. So, Field Operations suggested the sample size be kept to no more than 10% of the districts providing the program.

26

Based upon these criteria, the team ultimately decided upon the following locations: (1) Columbia, SC; (2) Dallas, TX; (3) Denver, CO; (4) Phoenix, AZ; (5) Tampa, FL; and (6) Louisville, KY.

Project Modifications

The Program Manager developed the list of discussion questions. (See Appendix.) In the interest of speedier turnaround time, a recommended test focus group was omitted. Therefore, the team went directly to Columbia, SC. After that focus group, the following changes were made:

o The background presentation developed by the Program Manager to provide context for the focus group was shortened considerably. Participants felt like it was too long and they wanted to get into to the discussion more quickly.

o The scripted introductory paragraphs of the Facilitator Guide developed by the Program Manager were dumped – as the focus group participants felt that these paragraphs interrupted the natural conversational flow of the discussion.

o The Baseline Questions that were asked at the start of the focus group were omitted. Field Operations had previously pointed out that this information could be found from reported data before the team arrived on site and the participants agreed with this assessment. So, the reported data for each district was incorporated into the background presentation and participants were asked just to verify that it was correct.

o The Logistics, Materials, Reporting, and Performance section was dumped. The Program Manager felt that this section only pertained to VBDOs (not the resource partners). Thus, since there were a lot of issues to cover in the other sections, it did not appear to be a good use of the focus group’s time.

Subsequent focus groups have run much more smoothly. However, the one drawback to these changes is that the project does not cover any of the issues which were touched on in the Logistics, Materials, Reporting, and Performance section. There are a number of known issues in this area – particularly on the Sharepoint Portal and on the Instructor Resources page. However, those issues now lie outside the scope of this project.

27

B. Discussion Questions The following questions were developed by the Program Manager to collect the data he needed to identify opportunities for improving the program:

Baseline Questions, Program Status, and Demand Trends

o On what installations are you teaching B2B and how often? o Which Resource Partners are teaching B2B classes in your district? o How do you divide up the modules among instructors? o Do the instructors and division of modules for your classes change from class to class? o How would you characterize the trend line of participation in your B2B classes? o What factors do you believe are contributing to your participation trend line? o What is your expectation for demand in the future? o What percentage of your students on average express interest in the eight week online

Foundations of Entrepreneurship course? o At what point in the course do you advertise the eight week online course? o How is the program progressing in your region?

Instructors, Best Practices, and Curriculum

o In your experience, what are the best practices for teaching entrepreneurship courses? o Are any of these best practices applicable to teaching Boots to Business? o Does any component of the curriculum or the supporting materials limit your teaching

effectiveness or your ability to integrate best practices of entrepreneurship instruction into B2B?

o Are there any modules of the Introduction to Entrepreneurship course that are particularly well received or particularly poorly received in your classes?

o How would you characterize the aptitude and preparedness of the students for the course content?

o How many students either have or develop business concepts during the class? o How do you view the suitability and usability of the Feasibility Analysis for the course? o Do you utilize guest speakers and/or subject matter experts (SME) beyond the Resource

Partners? If yes, how often do you use guest speakers / SMEs and for which course modules? o What is your view on the total time allotted for the course?

Marketing and Outreach Needs

o Do you have any insights on what percentage of eligible program participants (transitioning service members (TSMs) and their spouses and dependents) are selecting the Transition Assistance Program’s entrepreneurship track (B2B)?

o What M&O tactics e.g. print advertising, social media marketing, website postings, etc. do you think would be most effective to build awareness for B2B?

o Who do you believe are the key influencers of prospective program participants? What specific M&O tactics do you think will reach these key influencers?

o What other ideas do you have to promote the program and drive participation?

Program Practices, Polices, and Performance Assessment

o What one element of the program would you prioritize over any other to focus on in 2014? o What do you think the most effective and least effective parts of the program are?

28

o What are some of the biggest obstacles transitioning service members encounter in their pursuit of self-employment and small business ownership?

o In your view, do transitioning service members encounter unique difficulty accessing capital? o Are there other entrepreneurship resources in your area that are accessible to TSMs to provide

additional services, e.g. business incubators, networking groups, etc.? o Do you currently offer B2B in any way to members of the National Guard and / or Reserves? If

yes, how? If no, is expanding to better server Guard/Reserve feasible? o Do you collect any data on the participants or performance feedback beyond the DOD class

survey? If so, what do you collect and how? o Are there any additional incentives you would suggest to ensure installations support and

promote the program and prospective students participate? e.g. college credit, commander engagement?

o To what degree does your current level of funding for veterans programs impact your ability to support B2B?

Logistics, Materials, Reporting, and Performance

o How would you characterize your relationship and ability to coordinate with installations to deliver B2B?

o For each participating partner and for the District Office, approximately how much time is spent on the following tasks per class?

o If you conduct B2B on a Joint base, do you coordinate and conduct multiple courses for each service are conduct and coordinate through a single POC for all services’ participants.

o How far in advance of class do you wish to receive materials? Are you currently receiving your materials with sufficient lead time to the class date? Who receives materials shipments?

o How far in advance of a class are you able to confirm the number of registered participants? o Do you currently have inventory of course materials? If so, how many class “packets” do you

have in inventory? o What would be your preference for materials shipments? o Do you have any suggestions to improve the new Sharepoint portal?

29

C. Demographics

Columbia, SC In 2013, the district delivered 7 classes to 77 participants at the following locations: 2 Fort Jackson 7, 19 3 JB Charleston 4, 9, 7 2 Shaw AFB 15, 16 The breakdown of participants was: Army (42%), Navy (8%), Air Force (49%), and National Guard (1%)

Dallas, TX In 2013, the district delivered 7 classes to 85 participants at the following locations: 5 Fort Hood 2, 15, 15, 24, 7 1 Sheppard AFB 8 1 NAS JRB Fort Worth 14 The breakdown of participants was: Army (70%), Navy (4%), Air Force (20%), Coast Guard (4%), and National Guard (1%)

Denver, CO In 2013, the district delivered 9 classes to 171 participants at the following locations: 3 Buckley AFB 12, 4, 9 3 Fort Carson 28, 41, 9 3 Peterson AFB 18, 29, 21 Schriever AFB USAFA The breakdown of participants was: Army (60%), Navy (3%), Air Force (35%), Coast Guard (4%), and National Guard (2%)

30

Phoenix, AZ In 2013, the district delivered 19 classes to 256 participants at the following locations: 4 Davis-Monthan AFB 36, 24, NA, 24 4 Fort Huachaca 15, 15, 11, 15 4 Luke AFB 2, 12, 10, 11 4 MCAS Yuma 5, 11, 8, 12 3 National Guard 12, 10, 23 The breakdown of participants was: Army (22%), Navy (2%), Air Force (44%), Marines (14%), and National Guard (18%)

Tampa, FL In 2013, the district delivered 7 classes to 92 participants at the following locations: 3 MacDill AFB 11, 9, 31 2 NAS Key West 12, 3 2 Patrick AFB 17, 9 The breakdown of participants was: Army (20%), Navy (4%), Air Force (67%), Marines (7%), and Coast Guard (2%)

Louisville, KY In 2013, the district delivered 18 classes to 443 participants at the following locations: 10 Fort Campbell 21, 26, 43, 30, 35 34, 31, 28, 33, 22 8 Fort Knox 26, 15, 10, 20, 19 10, 29, 11 The breakdown of participants was: Army (94%), Air Force (1%), Marines (2%), Coast Guard (1%), and National Guard (2%).