State Plan for FY 2009- 2011 and Program Review of Statewide AT Programs Jeremy Buzzell and Robert Groenendaal.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MONITORING OF SUBGRANTEES
Advertisements

Making a Difference Improving the Quality of Life of Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and their families.
Effective Contract Management Planning
USG INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM AUDIT: ACHIEVING SUCCESSFUL AUDIT OUTCOMES Cara King Senior IT Auditor, OIAC.
Considering Assistive Technology and the AT Plan Sara Menzel, ATP UCP Michigan Assistive Technology Center
September 4, 2014 DATA Act Briefing. DATA Act Summary 2 Purpose: to establish government-wide financial data standards and increase the availability,
CDBG Disaster Recovery Overview U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
ESEA Program Review Russ Sweet Preparing for ESEA Program Reviews of Titles I-A, II-A, VI-B (REAP), and X Summer 2014.
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Overview of Statewide AT Program Fiscal and Contract Management.
Department of Transportation Support Services Branch ODOT Procurement Office Intergovernmental Agreements 455 Airport Rd. SE, Bldg K Salem, OR
Recently Issued OHRP Documents: Guidance on Subject Withdrawal and Draft Revised FWA Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections October.
SILC ORIENTATION. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Community Living Independent Living Administration Centers for Independent.
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended & Statewide AT Programs.
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program Federal Monitoring Update James Gray Program Specialist.
Environmental Management Systems An Overview With Practical Applications.
Presented at Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association Anaheim, CA, November 2011 Lessons Learned about How to Support Outcomes Measurement.
1.  Data comes from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 (FY 2008).  Sources include: State Plans, Annual Progress Reports, UIC data system.  The.
Staff Compensation Program Update
Data Transparency Town Hall September 26, 2014 Christina Ho Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Accounting Policy U.S. Department of the Treasury Karen F.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL PROCESS: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS January29, 2015.
Noneducational Community-based Support Services Funding Education Service Center Region 11 Fort Worth, Texas.
PREPARING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL MONITORING PERKINS COMPLIANCE Monieca West ADHE Federal Program Manager October 19, 2012.
Erica Cummings Grant Coordinator 1.  The New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) is responsible for:  Monitoring.
EPlan for Advanced Users 2015 ESEA Directors Institute August 27, 2015.
Missouri Vocational Rehabilitation Quality Assurance Continuous Quality Improvement.
AFP and Telework Program Review U.S. Department of Education OSERS/RSA Rob Groenendaal and Brian Bard.
Webinar on WIOA and Independent Living for CILs
ADD Perspectives on Accountability Where are We Now and What does the Future Hold? Jennifer G. Johnson, Ed.D.
Overview of Statewide AT Program Management. This PowerPoint will allow you to… Describe the State Plan and how it works Describe the basic requirements.
United We Ride: Where are we Going? December 11, 2013 Rik Opstelten United We Ride Program Analyst.
12/07/20101 Bidder’s Conference Call: ARRA Early On ® Electronic Enhancement to Individualized Family Service Plans (EE-IFSP) Grant and Climb to the Top.
Grantee Briefing for the FY 2012 Supplemental Funding for Quality Improvement in Health Centers Interim Report U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
NEW START-UP APPLICATION  Deadline to submit application is October 1 year prior to implementation  If proposal is ed, submit cover page.
Water Quality Program Financial Assistance Progress and Plans for Meeting RCW Requirements (Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee)
AFP and Telework Program Review Jeremy Buzzell and Robert Groenendaal.
Proposal to Establish the Transportation/Land Use Connection Program Ronald F. Kirby Director of Transportation Planning October 18, 2006 Item 14.
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.
National Center for Information and Technical Support for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities (NCITSPSD) NCITSPSD Technical Assistance Workshop Orientation.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services United States Department of Education Program Review and Best Practices: Who, What, When, Where,
Annual Report. Submission of UCEDD Annual Report DD Act: required each center to submit annual report to the Secretary (ADD) DD Act: required each center.
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.
Military Family Services Program Participant Survey Briefing Notes.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency School of Drafting Regulations – November 2014 Government and Regulatory Body Functions and Responsibilities IAEA.
Presented by: Jan Stanley, State Title I Director Office of Assessment and Accountability June 10, 2008 Monitoring For Results.
ESEA Consolidated Monitoring Office of Federal Programs December 10, 2013.
O S E R S Proposed Assistive Technology Act Data Collection June 12, 2006 Jeremy Buzzell Program Specialist Rehabilitation Services Administration Office.
LSTA Grant Workshop Jennifer Peacock, Administrative Services Bureau Director David Collins, Grant Programs Director Mississippi Library Commission September.
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 6 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
2015 Pipeline Safety Trust Conference November 20 th, 2015 | New Orleans, LA API RP 1175 Pipeline Leak Detection Program Management – New RP Highlights.
Legal Aspects of Special Education And Social Foundations The Technology-Related Assistance Act (Tech Act)
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
1 Cross-Cutting Issues 5310-JARC-New Freedom U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration SAFETEAU-LU Curriculum August 7, 2007.
Governor’s Guidelines to State and Local Program Partners Negotiating Costs and Services under WIOA December
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services United States Department of Education Program Review and Best Practices: Who, What, When, Where,
AGA Intergovernmental Partnership Steering Committee – DAP Presentation DATA Act - Section 5 Grants Pilot February 25, 2016.
Program Management 4. INDIAN AND NATIVE AMERICAN (INA) EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 166 OF THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) An Orientation.
1 Auditing Your Fusion Center Privacy Policy. 22 Recommendations to the program resulting in improvements Updates to privacy documentation Informal discussions.
First Things First Grantee Overview.
Phyllis Lynch, PhD Director, Instruction, Assessment and Curriculum
Diane Cordry Golden March 2017
Research Program Strategic Plan
Creating a P.L Plan.
Governor’s Guidelines to State and Local Program Partners
Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C.
SILC Value beyond the SPIL
Implementing, Sustaining and Scaling-Up High Quality Inclusive Preschool Policies and Practices: Application for Intensive TA September 10, 2019 Lise.
Presentation transcript:

State Plan for FY and Program Review of Statewide AT Programs Jeremy Buzzell and Robert Groenendaal

2 Goals Understand requirements of new State Plan for AT covering FY Understand requirements of new State Plan for AT covering FY Understand process for Program Reviews. Understand process for Program Reviews. Understand how they fit into the larger AT Act infrastructure. Understand how they fit into the larger AT Act infrastructure. All documents are final drafts.

PART 1

4 Putting the Pieces Together State Plan – What you do and how State Plan – What you do and how Data – The results you produce by doing it Data – The results you produce by doing it Program review – Doing it in compliance with the requirements and intent of the law Program review – Doing it in compliance with the requirements and intent of the law Effective practices – Doing it better Effective practices – Doing it better All of these should align and work together.

Foundations of the State Plan and Program Review

6 Statutory Requirements for State Plan Section 4(d) of the AT Act: Any State that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary, at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require.

7 Statutory Requirements for State Plan The application must describe: The Lead Agency and Implementing Entity (if applicable) and how they collaborate with each other The Lead Agency and Implementing Entity (if applicable) and how they collaborate with each other Allocation of funds for State-level and State Leadership activities and how funds are tracked Allocation of funds for State-level and State Leadership activities and how funds are tracked Involvement of public and private entities, including resource commitments Involvement of public and private entities, including resource commitments State funding for the program State funding for the program How State-level and State Leadership activities will be implemented How State-level and State Leadership activities will be implemented

8 Statutory Requirements for State Plan The application must include: Assurances (EDGAR also requires assurances in any State Plan). Assurances (EDGAR also requires assurances in any State Plan). Measurable goals, and a timeline for meeting the goals, that the State has set for addressing the AT needs of individuals with disabilities in the State related to education, employment, community living and IT/telecommunications Measurable goals, and a timeline for meeting the goals, that the State has set for addressing the AT needs of individuals with disabilities in the State related to education, employment, community living and IT/telecommunications

9 Statutory Requirements for Program Review Section 7 of the AT Act of 1998, as amended: “Review of Participating Entities” (b)(1) The Secretary shall assess the extent to which entities that receive grants under this Act are complying with the applicable requirements of this Act. EDGAR and OMB circulars also contain their own requirements for compliance. The State Plan, data, and Program Review all are tools for determining compliance.

10 Applicable Requirements of the AT Act Requirement 1. Submission of a State Plan. 2. Establishment and maintenance of advisory council. 3. Collection and reporting of data. 4. Adherence to spending limitations.. 5. Implementation and maintenance of a Statewide AT Program. How RSA Reviews Requirement 1. Verified by submission. 2. Assured in state plan, verified by program review. 3. Verified by submission. 4. Assured in state plan, verified by program review. 5. Described in state plan, verified by data and program review.

11 Maintenance of Statewide AT Program Grants to states to... maintain comprehensive statewide programs... that are designed to maximize the ability of individuals with disabilities across the human lifespan and across the wide array of disabilities, and their family members, guardians, advocates, and authorized representatives, to obtain assistive technology, and that are designed to increase access to assistive technology. Sec 4(a)

12 Maintenance of Statewide AT Program Required Activities 4 state-level activities (with exceptions): State financing State financing Device reuse Device reuse Device loan Device loan Device demonstration Device demonstration 3 state leadership activities: Training Training Public Awareness Public Awareness Information and assistance Information and assistance Expectations for Implementation Conducted in coordination and collaboration. Statewide and comprehensive. Increase access to and acquisition of AT. Same as above, except increase knowledge about AT.

Underlying Principles for State Plan and Program Review

14 State Plan and Program Review Should... Recognize how far you’ve come … and how far there is to go. Recognize how far you’ve come … and how far there is to go. Respect diversity while increasing consistency. Respect diversity while increasing consistency. Be of use to RSA, states, NATTAP, NISAT and Congress. Be of use to RSA, states, NATTAP, NISAT and Congress. Reduce burden and harness information by using technology. Reduce burden and harness information by using technology. Be integrated parts of a larger AT Act infrastructure. Be integrated parts of a larger AT Act infrastructure.

15 Development of the New State Plan Lessons learned from old State Plan. Lessons learned from old State Plan. Lessons learned from NISAT data collection development. Lessons learned from NISAT data collection development. Review of information requests and NATTAP/ATAP surveys. Review of information requests and NATTAP/ATAP surveys. Work with Pass It On Center, NATTAP workshop in NC. Work with Pass It On Center, NATTAP workshop in NC. Focus group of 10 directors in November Focus group of 10 directors in November Work with MIS administrator. Work with MIS administrator.

16 What we leaned from the process... Replace the previous State Plan (rather than add on) Replace the previous State Plan (rather than add on) Allow electronic submission and update Allow electronic submission and update Minimize narrative Minimize narrative Make it consistent with data Make it consistent with data Create a standard format for every state Create a standard format for every state Provide data that can be aggregated and searched Provide data that can be aggregated and searched

17 The result... For the new State Plan: States provide information using “yes/no” and “drop down menu” selections; occasional “fill in the blank” and “text box” options. States provide information using “yes/no” and “drop down menu” selections; occasional “fill in the blank” and “text box” options. There are boilerplate questions for every activity as well as activity-specific questions. There are boilerplate questions for every activity as well as activity-specific questions. Essentially it is a survey that yields (a) a profile of every state and (b) a database of information. Essentially it is a survey that yields (a) a profile of every state and (b) a database of information.

18 The effect... Pros: Pros: Less burden Less burden Greater consistency Greater consistency Accessible data Accessible data Aligned with NISAT and Program Review Aligned with NISAT and Program Review Cons: Cons: Creates forced choices Creates forced choices Cannot capture the full universe of information Cannot capture the full universe of information Less chance to “explain” Less chance to “explain”

19 Why this approach? Programs are established. Programs are established. More time/energy should be focused on capturing data and improving practices. More time/energy should be focused on capturing data and improving practices. Accountability shifts to data and program review. Accountability shifts to data and program review. Previous State Plan showed basic “patterns” of program implementation. Previous State Plan showed basic “patterns” of program implementation. Need to capture information about programs for Congress, TA, other information requests. Need to capture information about programs for Congress, TA, other information requests.

20 Next Steps with State Plan After this workshop... Internal ED review. Internal ED review. Submit for OMB approval. Submit for OMB approval. Final modifications upon approval. Final modifications upon approval. Notification of grantees and distribution of materials. Notification of grantees and distribution of materials. Technical training on use of MIS. Technical training on use of MIS. State Plans entered from August 1 to August 31, State Plans entered from August 1 to August 31, State Plans reviewed from September 1 to September 30, State Plans reviewed from September 1 to September 30, New state plans effective October 1, New state plans effective October 1, 2008.

21 Development of Program Review Open forum in Denver Open forum in Denver Review of existing protocols Review of existing protocols ED training in auditing ED training in auditing Developed proposals Developed proposals NATTAP Blog NATTAP Blog Focus group of directors in November 2007 Focus group of directors in November 2007 Refined proposals Refined proposals Internal review and approval of proposals Internal review and approval of proposals

22 What we learned from the process... Proof of compliance should not be based on data alone. Proof of compliance should not be based on data alone. Every state should be assessed the same way but can show compliance in its own way. Every state should be assessed the same way but can show compliance in its own way. States should not be compared to each other. States should not be compared to each other. Compliance should not be black or white. Compliance should not be black or white. Look for the positive as well as the negative. Look for the positive as well as the negative. Align it with data and State Plan requirements. Align it with data and State Plan requirements.

23 The result... Program Reviews allow for a holistic explanation of the program (through documents, data and discussion). Program Reviews allow for a holistic explanation of the program (through documents, data and discussion). This explanation is done for peer reviewers and RSA. This explanation is done for peer reviewers and RSA. The peer reviewers and RSA answer a series of questions about the program to determine the extent of compliance. The peer reviewers and RSA answer a series of questions about the program to determine the extent of compliance.

24 The effect... Pros Context is considered. Context is considered. Focuses on what you can control. Focuses on what you can control. Appropriate to size and funding of program. Appropriate to size and funding of program.Cons Time-intensive (for all). Time-intensive (for all). Highly subjective. Highly subjective. Will evolve. Will evolve.

25 Why this approach? On-site reviews are not feasible. On-site reviews are not feasible. RSA staff are limited and do not come from the field. RSA staff are limited and do not come from the field. Data is not reliable. Data is not reliable. Lack of basis for self-assessment. Lack of basis for self-assessment. Program continues to evolve. Program continues to evolve. One size fits all. One size fits all.

26 Next Steps with Program Review Final drafts cleared by RSA. Final drafts cleared by RSA. Final drafts reviewed by Risk Management. Final drafts reviewed by Risk Management. Official materials shared with states. Official materials shared with states. Choose and notify first round of states. Choose and notify first round of states. States complete State Plans. States complete State Plans. States submit 2007 and 2008 data. States submit 2007 and 2008 data. Train peer reviewers. Train peer reviewers. First peer review in January First peer review in January 2009.