1. Webinar on the OSEP Self Assessment and Site Review Process for State and Multi-State Deaf-Blind Projects October 29, 2004

2. Today's topics include… Additional information and clarification on the...  Nomination and selection of reviewers  Self-assessment and site review process  Strategies for obtaining and using stakeholder input  Using data to address the grant priorities and providing outcome data  Discussion of State examples  Questions and Answers

3. Sharing today by…  Charles Freeman, OSEP  Richard Zeller, WRRC  D. Jay Gense, Oregon Department of Education  Ella Taylor, NTAC

4. Special thanks to…  Tanni Anthony, Colorado  Nancy Hatfield, Washington  Donna Gilles, Florida  Larry Rhodes, Missouri  Karen Goehl, Indiana for their willingness to share their examples!

5. Specific criteria for reviewers… 1. Cannot be a project director, coordinator, family specialist or any staff member of a funded State/Multi-state project 2. Experience in deaf-blindness and technical assistance, with some knowledge of evaluation (Preference will be given to those nominees with grant management experience)

6. Specific criteria for reviewers… Continued 3. Available for travel during April, May, June and July 4. Willingness to sign a conflict of interest statement 5. No fiduciary conflicts with an assigned state

7. Reviewer nominations are requested from the field… Prior to making a recommendation, the nominee must be contacted to verify…  The nominee meets the criteria  They are available (April through July)  Agrees to the consulting fee ($1200.00, plus travel)  Commit to training (2 Webinars)

8. Reviewer recommendations are requested to be sent to… By email to Charles Freeman at OSEP… Charles_Freeman@ed.gov No later than… January 1 st, 2005

9. More on the self-assessment and site review process…  Self-assessment and site review activities will target the approved work scope and goals of the project  Plans for “addressing slippage” should be provided to the reviewers  Reviewers will verify the consistency of their findings across one another

10. More on the self-assessment and site review process…Continued  Reviewers will identify and provide to OSEP the top three strengths and areas for improvement for each project  The reviewers site visit report will be presented to the project Director prior to their leaving the site  Additional, non-selected states desiring a review, may be included in the site- review process dependent upon review team availability

11. More on the self-assessment and site review process…Continued  Reviewer fees are $1,200.00 per state, plus state approved travel expenses  Expenses for Advisory Board and stakeholders are allowable reimbursements  Costs are the responsibilities of the selected states

12. Training for reviewers… All reviewers will be required to participate in two web-based trainings facilitated by NTAC…  The first Webinar will address the evaluation instruments and criteria  The second will address consistency across reviewers and states

13. Materials to be sent to the review team… The following should be sent to each review team member, minimally three weeks prior to the review…  All self-assessment data and materials  All supporting data and materials  A copy of your funded proposal  Your previous year’s Performance Report

14. One last reminder…  The self-assessment and site evaluation is an OSEP activity…  Please don’t retype the form!

15. Next…let’s talk about strategies for obtaining and using stakeholder input…  Using stakeholders and your Advisory Board…  Continuous Focused Monitoring and the use of multiple stakeholders…  Using outside facilitator's in the self- assessment process…

16. Using stakeholders and your Advisory Board… Value of stakeholder representation…  In any self-assessment…  From an accountability perspective…  For reflecting on quality…  For reflecting on process…

17. Using stakeholders and your Advisory Board… Value of “broad” representation…  Don’t limit to those who consistently agree…  The voice of dissent is valuable!

18. Gather broad representation…  Parents  Students  Administrators  Teachers and other service providers  Other agency partners ORPTI Oregon Commission for the Blind Other SEA efforts

19. Continuous Focused Monitoring and the use of multiple stakeholders…  Oregon’s perspective…  Stakeholder representatives in Oregon’s CIMP…  Improvement planning and the APR…

20. Using outside facilitator's in the self-assessment process…

21. Using data to address the grant priorities and providing outcome data…  Effort – actions carried out by the project Satisfaction data Numbers of participants  Effect – impact of the actions on stakeholders (families, children, service providers, etc.) What outcome resulted from the activity?  Child change data  Service provider implementation  Family implementation  Systems change

22. Reporting “effect” data – some possibilities…  RFP Priority (a)(1): Identify and support activities to enhance state capacity to improve services… As a result of participation in the state’s “Directors of Special Education” meetings, new policies for incorporating children who are deaf-blind into the state’s alternative assessment system have been developed.  RFP Priority (a)(4): … ensure providers have skills… As a result of the workshop, 80% of service providers indicate they will develop and implement a functional behavior plan with children in their classrooms.

23. Reporting “effect” data – some possibilities…Continued  RFP Priority (b)(2): Maintain needs assessment information to … assess the critical needs of these children. An analysis of DB census data indicated a substantial increase in children identified with Usher’s Syndrome. As a result, we have initiated five regional workshops to assist service providers in addressing the unique learning needs of this population.  RFP Priority (b)(3): … assessing current needs of the state. Based on TA requests from families seeking information about Cochlear Implants, we have added a field to our state DB census to determine the number of children this impacts. In the future, this data will be used to help guide our TA delivery.

24. Reporting “effect” data – some possibilities…Continued  RFP Priority (c): Develop and implement procedures to evaluate the impact of program activities on services and outcomes for children… Six months after the communication workshop, 70% of service providers reported an increase in the receptive communication of children with deaf-blindness. (CHILD CHANGE) Ten families received one-on-one technical assistance in Person Centered Planning as a transitions tool. Five families used the PCP during their child’s educational transition into the elementary school. (IMPLEMENTATION)

25. Ok…so now, let’s look at some Project examples…  Priority…  (a) (1) from Missouri  (b) (1) from Colorado  (a) (2) from Indiana  (a) (4) from Washington  (a) (5) from Florida

26. Questions and Answers…  Please refer to the WORD document sent for the previous Questions and Answers…  New questions… will be added and sent via the DB listserv