Annual Report Workgroup Update June 12, 2008 Bob Bacon (and Workgroup Members)

Annual Report Workgroup Members Robert Bacon, Center for Disabilities and Development, Iowa Daniel Bier, Waisman Center, Wisconsin Elizabeth Bishop, Boling Center for Developmental Disabilities, Tennessee Robyn Carroll, The Elizabeth M. Boggs Center on Developmental Disabilities, New Jersey Jean Johnson, Center on Disability Studies, Hawaii Barbara Le Roy, Developmental Disabilities Institute, Michigan Olivia Raynor, Tarjan Center for Developmental Disabilities, California Penny Seay, Texas Center for Disabilities Studies, Texas Barbara Wheeler, USC UCEDD, California Valerie Williams, Center for Interdisciplinary Learning and Leadership, Oklahoma M. Bryce Fifield, North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities, North Dakota

Intended Workgroup Outcomes INITIAL INTENDED OUTCOMES: UCEDD program will have a revised template that will facilitate the process for reporting progress on an annual basis. The revised template will provide more accurate data on UCEDD core function outcomes as a result of the development of a clearer set of directions for collecting data and definitions for reporting on activities. ADD, the UCEDDs, and other stakeholders will be able to use the data to better show the impact of UCEDD activities on individuals with DD, families, and others. UCEDDs will use the ADD logic model to develop more refined evaluation plans to measure program impact. AN ADDITIONAL GOAL EMERGED AS THE STRATEGIC REVIEW EVOLVED: Assure a meaningful and efficient link between the Annual Report (and needed data collection) and the independent evaluation of the UCEDD network (i.e. PART/Westat).

Initial Charge and Timeline for Workgroup Tasks October 2007 May 2008 After May 2008 Workgroup monthly meetings starting in October 2007 to review and discuss various aspects of the annual report template: Strategic review of the annual report template Discussion of ADD UCEDD Program logic model and its interface with the HHS strategic plan Review and discussion of the indicators of progress (measures of improvement, consumer satisfaction, and collaboration) Review and discussion of GPRA measures Address the mechanics of the annual report function in NIRS Presentation of Workgroup Recommendations to UCEDD Directors at the ADD TA Meeting Final revisions to the Annual Report template ACF submission to OMB First OMB comment period Response to comments Second OMB comment period OMB approval

Actual Timeline Timeline Tasks October 2007 December 2007 February 7, 2008 February 28-29, 2008 April 8, 2008 April 15, 2008 May 19-20, 2008 June 2008 Pending Interim revisions in FY09/ Final revisions for FY10 Workgroup monthly meetings begin via conference call. 2. ACF submission to OMB 3. First OMB comment period begins 4. First face-to-face meeting of Workgroup. 5. AUCD comments submitted 6. Second OMB comment period begins 7. Second face-to-face meeting of Workgroup. 8. Presentation of Workgroup Recommendations to UCEDD Directors at the ADD TA Meeting 9. OMB approval 10. Final revisions to the Annual Report template

Progress of the Workgroup Work to date: Reviewed material and reacted to changes in timeline based on external forces (OMB, Westat evaluation, NPRM) and complexity of task. Crafted a draft logic model (both in detail and in graphic format) for your comments. Next steps Revise the logic model in response to comments. Review Annual Report template (and associated measures and definitions) for modifications that comply with the DD Act & Regulations and are consistent with the Logic Model. Explore adding qualitative methodologies. Monitor proposed changes in Regulations for their potential impact. Recommend possible revisions to accountability provisions of DD Act during reauthorization. Link the UCEDD Logic Model to the HHS strategic plan. REVISED TARGET: Complete all template revisions in time for NIRS software revisions to be effective 7/1/09 for FY 2010 Annual Reports.

The Logic behind the “New” Logic Model Clarified definitions of key terms to better distinguish among inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes Distinguished between Initial, Intermediate, and Ultimate Outcomes Include vision and key values/principles Organized by core function

How does the Logic Model fit your program? The Logic Model is intended to describe the inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the UCEDD network. But this goal can be realized only if individual UCEDDs can find a home in it. What do you think?