N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Web-based Data Collection for AT Act Programs: Data from FY01 Annual Reports Presentation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Making a Difference Improving the Quality of Life of Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and their families.
Advertisements

State Developmental Disabilities Councils. DDCs Jennifer G. Johnson, Ed.D., Supervisor Jennifer G. Johnson, Ed.D., Supervisor –
State Plan for Independent Living UPDATE Overview, Impact and Involvement.
Long Term Care, Family Caregiving and the Law of Succession Part One Josephine Gittler The Aging Population, Alzheimer’s and Other Dementias: Law and Public.
Missouri Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (MO SW-PBS) Implementation Mary Richter MO SW-PBS State Coordinator.
Disability Research to Practice Program NIDRR RERC Project Directors Meeting April 3 & 4, 2006.
Fiscal Year 2007 Data with Projection Scenario Senior and Disabilities Services (SDS) has been working since it’s inception in July of 2003 to develop.
Drake Class.  Home and Community Based waivers are Medicaid programs from the federal government which have rules set aside or waived.  Iowa currently.
11 Opportunities to Improve Care for Persons with Disabilities: The Community Living Initiative IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL HEALTH REFORM IN A DIFFICULT ECONOMIC.
Administration for Community Living U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ADMINISTRATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING, WASHINGTON DC PHONE
Great change is made through small steps... Attachment Area Plan Public Hearing Handout.
Made Possible by the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Broadband Technology Opportunities.
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended & Statewide AT Programs.
1 Money Follows the Person Working Group August 26, 2011.
1.  Data comes from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 (FY 2008).  Sources include: State Plans, Annual Progress Reports, UIC data system.  The.
1 EEC Board Policy and Research Committee October 2, 2013 State Advisory Council (SAC) Sustainability for Early Childhood Systems Building.
Proposed Cross-center Project Survey of Federally Qualified Health Centers Vicky Taylor & Vicki Young.
MI Choice Nursing Home Transition Program Bailey Sundberg Ferris State University.
MODULE II 1 How are UCEDDs Connected?. Topics of Presentation 1. Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) 2. Association of.
Program Name: Area Health Education Centers Program Need(s): There is a shortage of high quality primary health care to meet growing demand in the U.S.
*With some FY2008 Comparisons 1.  FY09 data comes from October 1, 2008 to September 30,  FY08 data comes from October 1, 2007 to September 30,
Minnesota Council on Transportation Access Moving Transit Forward with Coordination, Action and Advocacy 9/19/11.
Transportation Coordination & Federal Transportation Administration Programs Marianne Freed, MSW/LSW Office of Transit Ohio Department of Transportation.
VISIONING SESSION May 29, NWD Planning Grant  One year planning grant, started October 1, 2014; draft plan by September 30, 2015; final plan by.
Creating a New Vision for Kentucky’s Youth Kentucky Youth Policy Assessment How can we Improve Services for Kentucky’s Youth? September 2005.
Pass It On! A National Conference on the Reuse of Assistive Technology May 8-10, 2006 Atlanta, Georgia.
Presented by Vicki M. Young, PhD October 19,
Regional Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers Presented by: Great Lakes ADA Center.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Monitoring Overview.
Building State Capacity: Tools for Analyzing Transition- Related Policies Paula D. Kohler, Ph.D., Western Michigan University National Secondary Transition.
Disability Research to Practice Program National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) Joann Starks Frank Martin.
Napa Valley Fall Prevention Coalition StopFalls Napa Valley Coordinated Fall Prevention Outreach and Services.
United We Ride: Where are we Going? December 11, 2013 Rik Opstelten United We Ride Program Analyst.
Research Program Overview National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Robert J. Jaeger, Ph.D. Interagency and International Affairs Interagency.
Virginia Department for the Aging Area Plan Program Section Training FY 2011.
ATAP Conference July 13, Welcome and Introductions O Mike Brogioli, Executive Director, RESNA O Joey Wallace, Project Director, RESNA Catalyst.
Forging New Partnerships and Employment Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities SPI and BARC SSA Projects Office Virginia Commonwealth University Beth.
0 Training: General Training is not public awareness – training has more depth and breadth. If the purpose is to create awareness, the training session.
Kansas Youth Vision Team: Serving Our Neediest Youth Atlanta, GA September, 2006.
0 Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities PERFORMANCE MEASURES Craig Stanton Office of Planning, Evaluation,
ITS Tools for Coordination Mobility Services for All Americans Yehuda Gross USDOT ITS Joint Program Office CalACT 2007 Spring Conference & Expo April 2007.
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended & Statewide AT Programs.
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING.
Ryan White All Grantees Meeting Washington, DC November, 2012 Supporting National HIV/AIDS Strategies: the domestic experience and the AETCs.
The 7th Campbell Colloquium May 14-16, 2007 London, UK Knowledge Translation and Disability and Rehabilitation Research _______________________________________________.
What Is It, Anyway? Virginia Association of Housing and Community Development Officials February 25, 2008.
Disability Program Navigator Training A Joint Initiative of the U.S. Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES:
1 MODULE II How are UCEDDs Connected?. 2 Topics of Presentation 1. Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) 2. Association of University Centers.
O S E R S Proposed Assistive Technology Act Data Collection June 12, 2006 Jeremy Buzzell Program Specialist Rehabilitation Services Administration Office.
Centers for Independent Living Housing Planning and Advocacy Disability Commission Meeting June 18, 2009 Maureen Hollowell, Coordinator, Virginia Association.
Legal Aspects of Special Education And Social Foundations The Technology-Related Assistance Act (Tech Act)
1 National Technical Assistance for Assistive Technology: A summary of the RESNA Catalyst Project and its National Partners October 21, 2015.
Division of Aging Services State Plan on Aging Georgia Department of Human Services Presenter: Jean O’Callaghan Deputy Director Division of Aging Services.
SUPPORTED LIVING ARRANGEMENTS (SLA) For Developmental Services Presented by: Kate McCloskey, M.A., C.P.M. Manager of Quality Assurance Sierra Regional.
0 Device Reutilization: General Device reutilization includes:  device exchange  program serves as intermediary  program does NOT serve as intermediary.
This presentation is the intellectual property of the authors. Contact for permission to reprint and/or distribute This poster arises from.
Designing Pre-K to Meet Great Expectations: Some Considerations in Governance and Delivery for States Rachel Schumacher Senior Policy Analyst Center for.
Assistive Technology Laws by: Family Center on Technology and Disability.
The NC Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Planning Grant DIVISION OF MH/DD/SAS.
Health Center Program National Brownfields Conference Philadelphia, PA April 5, 2011 Scott Otterbein Senior Advisor, Office of Training and Technical Assistance.
Jacqui Downing, RN Program Manager Long Term Care Services Office of Aging and Disability Services May 24, 2016 State of Maine Long Term Care Services.
Supporting Minnesotans Where They Live: A Home Care Update Jeanine Wilson Diane Benjamin Disabilities Services Division.
REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (RSA) U.S. Department of Education 1.
1 Providing Effective Community- Based LTC in a Managed Care Environment Mary Guthrie, MBA.
1 South Carolina ACCESS Plus (ARDC) Planning Retreat Susan C. Reinhard, R.N., Ph.D. Co -Director Rutgers Center for State Health Policy.
The Assistive Technology Act Legislative History and the Basics of the 2004 Law.
Leena Sharma & Andi mullin Senior State Advocacy Managers
Virginia Department for the Aging
Annual Progress Report & State Plan Update
Presentation transcript:

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Web-based Data Collection for AT Act Programs: Data from FY01 Annual Reports Presentation at RESNA’s Annual Meeting of AT Act Grantees July 28, 2003 – Washington, DC Prepared by Christene Tashjian, Senior Education Research Scientist, RTI International and Carol Cohen, Program Manager, NIDRR/U.S. Department of Education Presentation at RESNA’s Annual Meeting of AT Act Grantees July 28, 2003 – Washington, DC Prepared by Christene Tashjian, Senior Education Research Scientist, RTI International and Carol Cohen, Program Manager, NIDRR/U.S. Department of Education

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 2 Types of Costs Incurred to Ensure Access for Individuals with Disabilities abc a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Counts are duplicated because grantees could incur more than one type of cost. C Percentages are based on the number of grantees that incurred any type of cost to ensure access (46).

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 3 Number and Percentage of Grantees Using Particular Methods to Increase Public Awareness and Disseminate Information a,b Grantees Using Method c Method NumberPercentage Drop-ins to office and/or demonstration center4996 Mailings4894 Web site4894 Informational fact sheets/flyers for public4894 Telephone4792 Articles/notifications in other agency publications4792 Exhibits/fairs in public areas4792 Presentations4792 Reference library available to public4588 Manuals/guides/booklets4588 Radio/TV/newspaper4282 Newsletter/calendar of events3976 Database on AT information available to public3059 Public service announcements2651 Video(s) produced by AT project2039 Public forums conducted by grantee1937 Internet discussion list or bulletin/message board1835 Other1631 a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Counts are duplicated because grantees used more than one method/approach. c Percentages are based on the number of grantees conducting public awareness activities (51).

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 4 Number of Individuals Receiving Information from Selected Sources a a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Counts may be duplicated, particularly for web site hits and toll-free telephone calls. c Some grantees using particular methods were not able to report the number of consumers and/or families receiving information. The numbers of grantees that provided counts of consumers and/or families are as follows: newsletters, 38 of 39 that used this method; TA/training activities, 36 of 49; demonstrations, 43 of 47; presentations, 43 of 47; and forums, 19 of 19. d Some grantees using particular methods were not able to report the total number of individuals receiving information. The numbers of grantees that provided counts of individuals are as follows: web hits, 29 of 48 that used this method; newsletters, 38 of 39; toll-free telephone calls, 45 of 47; TA/training activities, 48 of 49; demonstrations, 46 of 47; presentations, 46 of 47; and forums, 19 of 19. e Details on grantee activities in these areas are discussed in later sections of this report. f Does not include individuals receiving information from web sites and toll-free telephone calls. Number of Recipients MethodConsumers and Families c All Individuals d Project web site hitsNot available3,186,540 Newsletters90,555232,581 Toll-free telephone callsNot available123,260 TA/training activities e 31,895104,540 Demonstrations48,855103,969 Presentationse29,31877,112 Public forums6,35712,010 Total206,980 f 3,840,012

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 5 Number of Grantees Conducting Interagency Coordination Activities with Each Type of Agency/Organization a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b A total of 49 grantees reported conducting interagency coordination activities. Counts are duplicated because grantees could report more than one activity. Community living/ human services/ Social services Education Health care Employment Telecommunications and IT Other

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 6 Types of Community Living/Human Services/Social Services Agencies/Organizations with Which Grantees Conducted Interagency Coordination Activities a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b A total of 49 grantees reported conducting interagency coordination activities with community living/human services/social services organizations. Counts are duplicated because grantees could work with more than one agency/organization.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 7 Types of Education Agencies/Organizations with which Grantees Conducted Interagency Coordination Activities a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b A total of 48 grantees reported conducting interagency coordination activities with education agencies/organizations. Counts are duplicated because grantees could work with more than one type of agency/organization.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 8 Types of Employment Agencies/Organizations with Which Grantees Conducted Interagency Coordination Activities a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b A total of 46 grantees reported conducting interagency coordination activities with employment agencies/organizations. Counts are duplicated because grantees could work with more than one type of agency/organization.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 9 Types of Health Care Agencies/Organizations with which Grantees Conducted Interagency Coordination Activities a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b A total of 47 grantees reported conducting interagency coordination activities with health care agencies/organizations. Counts are duplicated because grantees could work with more than one type of agency/organization.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 10 Types of Telecommunications and IT Agencies/ Organizations with which Grantees Conducted Interagency Coordination Activities a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b A total of 43 grantees reported conducting interagency coordination activities with telecommunications and IT agencies/organizations. Counts are duplicated because grantees could work with more than one agency/organization.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 11 Focus of Interagency Activities, Across All Goal Areas a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web-based system are not included. b Includes grantees that targeted this focus through one or more interagency activities across the areas of community living, education, employment, health care, telecommunications/IT, and other. c Based on the number of grantees that conducted interagency activities (49). FocusNumber of Grantees b Percentage of Grantees c Increase program capacity to provide technology-related assistance 4694 Train personnel to assist individuals with disabilities to use AT 4592 Improve coordination between state human service programs and private entities 4592 Conduct outreach to underrepresented populations and rural populations 4490 Obtain financing to pay for assistive technology devices and services 4388 Change systems to ensure timely acquisition and delivery of AT devices and services 4286 Provide/disseminate information about the availability and potential of AT 3980 Other1122

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 12 Number of Grantees with Particular Types of Interagency Involvement a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b A total of 49 grantees reported conducting interagency coordination activities. Exhibit includes all types of interagency coordination activities. Counts are duplicated because grantees could have more than one type of involvement.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 13 TA/Training Participants, by Category a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Forty-nine grantees used AT funds for TA and training. Of these, 36 were able to report participants by category, which totaled 80,166. This chart is based on that information. Grantees also reported serving an additional 24,374 individuals that could not be categorized. c Includes case managers, counselors, educators, technology experts, and health professionals. d Includes members of the general public, students, and individuals whom grantees could not categorize.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 14 Topics Addressed by TA/Training Sessions a a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Percentages are based on number of grantees indicating that they used funds for TA/training (49). Counts are duplicated because grantees could report more than one type of TA/training. Grantees Addressing This Topic Topic NumberPercentage b AT evaluation/assessment practice/AT devices4796 Modifications/device-specific training4796 Computer/computer adaptations4694 Communication/AAC4592 Aids for daily living4490 Environmental modification (home/work/school)4388 Switch/access devices4388 Vision aids4286 Environmental control4184 Learning/curricular adaptations4184 Mobility aids4184 Recreation/leisure devices4082 Hearing devices3980 Positioning/seating/mounting devices3878 Durable medical equipment3673 Farm machinery adaptations1735 Funding/acquisition of AT devices or services4490 Advocacy/consumer rights issues/laws/informed consumer choice 4490 Development and implementation of laws, regulations, policies, practices, procedures, or organizational structures that promote access to AT devices and services 3980 Other816

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 15 Percentage of Grantees Conducting Outreach Activities, by Activity Type a,b,c a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Counts are duplicated because grantees could report more than one type of outreach activity. c Percentages are based on the number of grantees conducting outreach activities (46).

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 16 Underrepresented Groups Targeted by Outreach Activities, by Activity Type a,b,c a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web-based system are not included. b Counts are duplicated because grantees could target more than one population. c Percentages are based on the number of grantees conducting outreach activities (46). Outreach Combined with TA/Training Outreach Combined with Interagency Coordination Outreach Not Combined with Other Activities Population No. of Grantees Percentage of Grantees No. of Grantees Percentage of Grantees No. of Grantees Percentage of Grantees Persons with low-incidence disabilities Minorities Poor persons Persons with limited English proficiency Older individuals Persons from rural areas Other Total

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 17 Percentage of Demonstration Sites Offering Various Services a a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 18 Number and Percentage of Grantees Conducting Demonstrations at Various Locations a a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web- based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web-based system are not included. b Percentages are based on number of grantees conducting demonstrations (47). c Includes consumers’ homes, nursing facilities, colleges and universities, and other locations. Grantees Conducting Demonstrations at This Location Locations NumberPercentage b Conferences/expos/fairs/exhibits4494 AT regional centers4085 Nonprofit organizations3779 Schools3779 State agencies3779 Senior citizen centers3268 Health clinics/hospitals3166 Independent demos/lending centers 2962 Community centers2860 Rehabilitation centers2860 Community-based employer organizations 2553 Libraries2451 Workforce development resource centers 2145 Churches/synagogues1940 Shopping malls1940 Federal agencies1328 Web-based demos1021 Other c 1226

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 19 Percentage of Grantees Making Legislative and/or Policy Changes ab a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Percentages are based on the 40 grantees reporting legislative or policy changes. Total percent exceeds 100 due to rounding.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 20 Legislative and Policy Changes, by Area a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Percentages are based on a total of 71 legislative changes and a total of 103 policy changes.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 21 Number of Changes Affecting Particular Types of Individuals With Disabilities a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Total number of legislative changes was 71; total number of policy changes was 103. Counts are duplicated because some changes affected more than one subgroup.

N I D R R National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 22 Number of Legislative and Policy Changes Resulting in Capacity Building, Systems Change, or Advocacy Activities a,b a Data Source: All data are derived from RTI’s web-based data collection instrument and reporting system (developed by C.A. Tashjian, K. Ong, B. Hayward, L. Chewning, R. Nichols, and J. Price) for the NIDRR’s AT State Grantee Program. FY 2002 data are from year one of the system’s use. Data from additional hard-copy forms received from states not using the web- based system are not included. b Counts are duplicated because a single legislative or policy change could result in more than one systems change Number of Changes Capacity Building or Systems ChangeLegislativePolicy Improved coordination among state human service programs4261 Increased program capacity to provide technology-related assistance 3249 Provided/disseminated information about the availability and potential of AT 2855 Provided outreach to underrepresented populations and rural populations 2729 Systems changed to ensure timely acquisition and delivery of AT devices and services 2550 Obtained financing to pay for AT devices and services2445 Improved access to telecommunications and information technology 1626 Trained personnel to assist individuals with disabilities to use AT1328 Other103