Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services United States Department of Education Program Review and Best Practices: Who, What, When, Where,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Welcome to the State Plan Committee December 14, 2006.
Advertisements

(a) Amount of funds provided: The amount of funds provided under the terms of the contract shall NOT be less than the Secretary would have provided for.
Donald T. Simeon Caribbean Health Research Council
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program SSVF Grantee Uniform Monitoring.
Chapter 56 Workgroup Orientation Session The Road to Chapter 60 June 30, 2007.
Overview of Statewide AT Program Fiscal and Contract Management.
Title III National Professional Development (NPD) Program Grantee Performance Reporting: A Webinar for FY2011 and FY2012 Grantees February 28, 2013 Prepared.
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended & Statewide AT Programs.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
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 Program Performance and Evaluation: Policymaker Expectations 2009 International Education Programs Service Technical Assistance Workshop Eleanor Briscoe.
ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan Presentation to the Governor’s Water Summit April 17, 2007 Idaho Water Resource Board Jonathan Bartsch and Diane.
Basic Financial Requirements for DoD Government Contracting 2015 National SBIR/STTR Conference The views expressed in this presentation are DCAA's views.
Designing and Implementing An Effective Schoolwide Program
Bureau of Rehabilitation Services (BRS) Department of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) Understanding the State Plan for Vocational Rehabilitation and Supported.
Instructions for Submitting FY12 ( ) Title I Data Office of School Improvement Grant Programs March 2012.
1. 2 Nuts and Bolts: Audit Resolution Maury James.
Verification Visit by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) September 27-29, 2010.
9/2/20151 Ohio Family and Children First An overview of OFCF structure, membership, and responsibilities.
1 Module 4: Designing Performance Indicators for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Programs.
2011 CDBG Recipients’ Workshop What’s New? Keeping current with the changing landscape.
Erica Cummings Grant Coordinator 1.  The New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) is responsible for:  Monitoring.
Title I School Improvement Committee of Practitioners Bridgeport Conference Center June 9, 2008.
The Arizona Community of Practice (AzCoPT) June 12,
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities February Implementing the “New” Section 5310 Program.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Monitoring Overview.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
Perkins Update FY16 Federal Legislation Assistance Division Josh Miller Janet Cooper.
Overview of Statewide AT Program Management. This PowerPoint will allow you to… Describe the State Plan and how it works Describe the basic requirements.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Participation of the State Advisory Panel and State Interagency.
Perkins Update July 9, 2015 Federal Legislation Assistance Division Josh Miller Janet Cooper.
AFP and Telework Program Review Jeremy Buzzell and Robert Groenendaal.
PREPARING FOR A COMPLIANCE REVIEW PERKINS COMPLIANCE Monieca West ADHE Federal Program Manager October 19, 2012.
State Plan for FY and Program Review of Statewide AT Programs Jeremy Buzzell and Robert Groenendaal.
State Support System for Districts New Hampshire Department of Education.
CANAR Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation FISCAL MANAGEMENT FOR PROJECT SUCCESS CANAR 2012.
Hallgrímur Snorrason Management seminar on global assessment Session 8: Planning, programming and priority setting under budgetary restraints; human resource.
1 General Supervision. 2 General Supervision (and Continuous Improvement) 1.What are the minimum Components for General Supervision ? 2.How do the Components.
Presented by: Dr. Jobi Lawrence Director, Title III Iowa Department of Education.
IDEA and NCLB Standards-Based Accountability Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of Education OSEP 2006 Project Directors’ Conference.
1 CMHS Block Grant Peer Reviews Ann Arneill-Py, PhD, Executive Officer CA Mental Health Planning Council California Mental Health Planning Council April.
ANNUAL AND FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS 524B FORM REPORTING PERIOD BUDGET EXPENDITURES INDIRECT COST RATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.
State Plan for FY and Program Review of Statewide AT Programs Jeremy Buzzell and Robert Groenendaal.
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended & Statewide AT Programs.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
Edita Trečiokienė Grundtvig 3: Grants to Participate in Adult Education Training Activities The Quality of Training Activities applied for and possible.
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING.
Title II, Part A, Division Improvement Procedures for Compliance with Section 2141 of Title II, Part A Virginia Department of Education.
Presented by: Jan Stanley, State Title I Director Office of Assessment and Accountability June 10, 2008 Monitoring For Results.
O S E R S Proposed Assistive Technology Act Data Collection June 12, 2006 Jeremy Buzzell Program Specialist Rehabilitation Services Administration Office.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services United States Department of Education Program Review and Best Practices: Who, What, When, Where,
OSEP Project Directors’ Conference Managing Your Grants 101 Terry Jackson – OSEP Shedeh Hajghassemali – OSEP July 22, 2008.
ork ork Work – Part 261 ä Individual Responsibility ä State Accountability ä Work Activities ä Caseload Reduction Credit ä Work Penalties ä Waivers ä.
State Plan for FY and Program Review of Statewide AT Programs Jeremy Buzzell and Robert Groenendaal.
1 Restructuring Webinar Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary.
Challenge Grant Funding And SB  The Challenge Grant program is authorized by section (4), Florida Statutes, to provide grant funding to.
Overview of the FY 2011 SPDG Competition Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. State Personnel Development Grants Program Lead 1.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
The Assistive Technology Act Legislative History and the Basics of the 2004 Law.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Federal Determination Levels Vanessa Winborne Infant/Toddler and Family Services Office of Early Childhood Education & Family Services.
1 Office of Community Services Division of State Assistance COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT Office of Community Services Division of State Assistance Update.
Enhancing Education Through Technology ( EETT/Title II D) Competitive Grant Application Technical Assistance Workshop New York State Education Department.
CBP Update: Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Working with your AoA Project Officer
2015 Leadership Conference “All In: Achieving Results Together”
THREE-YEAR LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
DGCA Breakfast Briefing
Data Quality 101: What is Data Quality
Presentation transcript:

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services United States Department of Education Program Review and Best Practices: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? Jeremy Buzzell, Program Specialist Denver, CO. May 23, 2007

1 Program Review: Why? Section 7(b): Review of Participating Entities The Secretary shall assess the extent to which entities that receive grants under this Act are complying with the applicable requirements of this Act and achieving measurable goals that are consistent with the requirements of the grant programs under which the entities received the grants.

2 Section 7(c): Corrective Action and Sanctions (1) CORRECTIVE ACTION.—If the Secretary determines that an entity that receives a grant under this Act fails to substantially comply with the applicable requirements of this Act, or to make substantial progress toward achieving the measurable goals... the Secretary shall assist the entity, through technical assistance... within 90 days after such determination, to develop a corrective action plan. (2) SANCTIONS.—If the entity fails to develop and comply with a corrective action plan...the entity shall be subject to 1 of the following corrective actions selected by the Secretary: (A) Partial or complete termination of funding under the grant program, until the entity develops and complies with such a plan. (B) Ineligibility to participate in the grant program in the following year. (C) Reduction in the amount of funding that may be used for indirect costs under section 4 for the following year. (D) Required redesignation of the lead agency... or an entity responsible for administering the grant program.

3 Program Review: How? The program review is a one- size fits all protocol.

4 Program Review: How? Proposed Process for Developing Program Review Protocol: 1) Input from NATTAP Annual Conference in Denver 2) Review of existing OSERS protocols 3) Internal development of ideas based on (1) and (2) 4) Share and seek feedback on ideas 5) Refine ideas based on (4) – develop written draft 6) Share and seek feedback on draft 7) Refine draft based on (6) – develop final 8) Internal review of final 9) Roll-out

5 Program Review: What? “... substantial progress toward achieving the measurable goals...” Measurable goals are in State Plan and current data collection requirements (access and acquisition measures) Measurable goals are in State Plan and current data collection requirements (access and acquisition measures) Initially, states set their own targets Initially, states set their own targets Once there is enough data, national targets for performance will be set Once there is enough data, national targets for performance will be set - Example: Range of acceptable percentages - Example: Range of acceptable percentages *NISAT will provide TA to RSA and States*

6 Program Review: What? “... substantial compliance with the applicable requirements...” Applicable requirements: Lead agency and implementing entity Lead agency and implementing entity Advisory council (composition and function) Advisory council (composition and function) State-level activities State-level activities State Leadership activities State Leadership activities Funding allocations, accounting for, and use of funds Funding allocations, accounting for, and use of funds Provision of data Provision of data Statewideness and comprehensiveness Statewideness and comprehensiveness ADA and 508 ADA and 508

7 Program Review: How? What does substantial compliance mean? Can it be measured quantitatively using NISAT data?

8 Program Review: How? What does substantial compliance mean? If it cannot be measured quantitatively, what can/must be measured qualitatively? How is this qualitative measurement done?

9 Program Review: How? Do all 7 state-level and state leadership activities need to be reviewed? Is each activity reviewed differently?

10 Program Review: When? Program reviews to begin in FY 2008 (3 rd year of plan) Limitation: No more than 6 a year given staff time and budget Process must be selective On what basis is a state chosen for review?

11 Program Review: When? On what basis is a state chosen for review? Performance?Random? Alphabetical? Population? Region?Grant size? Lead agency/implementing entity? Program maturity? Other dimension or combination of dimensions?

12 Program Review: Where? Must a program review be done on-site? (On-site review is no longer required by the Act.)

13 Program Review: Where? What does on-site mean? What is “seen” on-site? What can be done off-site?

14 Program Review: Who? Who is involved in the review?

15 Program Review: Who? Who is involved in the review? RSA staff RSA staff External experts? External experts? Internal staff? Internal staff? Consumers/stakeholders? Consumers/stakeholders? Subcontractors? Subcontractors?

16 Program Review: Then What? Program reviews generally conclude with a written report. These reports are public information. What should we be able to say about a program when the review is complete?