The focus groups provided feedback from six locations on opportunities to improve the Boots to Business program. Key issues identified included: needing more case studies and real-life examples in the curriculum; incorporating tools to help participants decide if business ownership is right for them; and adding more material on franchises and developing financial projections. Participants wanted a more interactive class with practical exercises. Instructors noted multiple presenters kept participants engaged. Updating videos and following a clear roadmap for starting a business were also suggested. Addressing these curriculum and engagement issues could help strengthen the program.

1. 2014 Focus Groups Report
Columbia, SC • Dallas, TX • Denver, CO • Louisville, KY • Phoenix, AZ • Tampa, FL

2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
SouthCarolina
Texas
Colorado
Arizona
Florida
Kentucky
BEST PRACTICES & CURRICULUM
1 Case Studies / Real Life Examples • • • • • • 9
2 Decision Points, Attributes / Self-Assessment • • • • • 7.5
3 Franchises Information • • • • • 7.5
4 Practical Exercises • • • • 6
5 Pro Forma Financials • • • • 6
6 Multiple Presenters • • • 4.5
7 Small Business Owner Guest Speakers - Veterans • • • 4.5
8 Steps to Starting a Business (Class Needs to Follow a Roadmap) • • • 4.5
9 Update Videos (Real Life Examples, Last Year's Participants) • • • 4.5
10 Feasibility Analysis - Not Useful o • • o • o 3
11 Financial Literacy / Credit • • 3
12 Impressed with Curriculum o • o • o • 3
13 Information on Other Financing Options • • 3
14 Nonprofit Ventures • • 3
15 SBA Facilitator • • 3
16 Legal Entity Material Needs Revision • • o 2.5
17 Business Insurance • 1.5
18 Length of Class - Too Long o • o • o 1.5
19 Too Much Contracting Material o o -1
BEST PRACTICES & CURRICULUM
KEY: •= Comments supporting issue; o = Mixed comments or comments contradicting issue.

7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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]
SouthCarolina
Texas
Colorado
Arizona
Florida
Kentucky
MARKETING & OUTREACH
1 Base Newspaper • • • • 6
2 Direct Email • • • 4.5
3 Local Champions (City Mayor, College President, News Editor) • • • 4.5
4 Spouses / Dependents • • • 4.5
5 Video Not Being Shown • • • 4.5
6 Corporate Partners / Veteran Friendly Companies (i.e. USAA) • • 3
7 Local Earned Media • • 3
8 SBA Marketing (OCPL Publicity - Videos, Small Business Week) • • 3
9 Social Media • • 3
10 Speaking at Main Transition GPS Event • • 3
11 Separated Veterans • • o 2.5
12 Program Annual Report • 1.5
13 Word Not Getting Out • • o o o 1.5
MARKETING & OUTREACH
KEY: •= Comments supporting issue; o = Mixed comments or comments contradicting issue.

12. 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. 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. 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
SouthCarolina
Texas
Colorado
Arizona
Florida
Kentucky
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
1 Curriculum Upgrade • • • • • • 9
2 Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants • • • • • • 9
3 Need for Funding • • • • • • 9
4 Access to Capital - Major Issue • • • • • 7.5
5 Command / TAP Personnel Engagement • • • • • 7.5
6 Demand Increasing (Moderate) • • o • • o 5
7 Align Metrics of SBA / Resource Partners to Program • • • 4.5
8 Information on 8-Week Course • • • 4.5
9 Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course • • • 4.5
10 Guard / Reserve (Significant Modification Needed) • o o • • 3.5
11 Base Access • • 3
12 Feedback for Instructors (Survey Data) • • 3
13 Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) • • 3
14 Marketing / Publicity • • o • o o 3
15 Other SBA Training / Counseling (Gatekeeping) • • 3
16 SBA Direct Lending • 1.5
17 Slidedeck / Thumbdrive • 1.5
18 Incubators o o o o -2
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
KEY: •= Comments supporting issue; o = Mixed comments or comments contradicting issue.

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

19. 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.
Frequency
Importance
Resources
OPERATIONS ISSUES
Follow-Up Contact / Data on Participants 9 5.8 3 157.5
Command / TAP Personnel Engagement 7.5 6.8 3 153.75
Curriculum Upgrade 9 4.8 3 130.5
Need for Funding 9 4.2 3 112.5
Instructor Policy (Who May Teach) 3 2.8 9 76.5
Trouble Getting Into 8-Week Course 4.5 4.2 3 56.25
Marketing / Publicity 3 5.5 3 49.5
Demand Increasing (Moderate) 5 3.2 3 47.5
Information on 8-Week Course 4.5 1.2 9 47.25
Align Metrics of SBA / Resource Partners to Program 4.5 3.2 3 42.75
Guard / Reserve (Significant Modification Needed) 3.5 2.8 3 29.75
Access to Capital - Major Issue 7.5 2.5 1 18.75
Base Access 3 1.8 3 16.5
Feedback for Instructors (Survey Data) 3 1.5 3 13.5
Slidedeck / Thumbdrive 1.5 1.5 3 6.75
Other SBA Training / Counseling (Gatekeeping) 3 1.5 1 4.5
SBA Direct Lending 1.5 1.5 1 2.25
Incubators -2 1.5 1 -3
OPERATIONS ISSUES

20. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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%).