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

2. 2 Goals Understand requirements of new State Plan for AT covering FY 2009-2011. Understand requirements of new State Plan for AT covering FY 2009-2011. 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.

3. PART 1

4. 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.

5. Foundations of the State Plan and Program Review

6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

13. Underlying Principles for State Plan and Program Review

14. 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. 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 2007. Focus group of 10 directors in November 2007. Work with MIS administrator. Work with MIS administrator.

16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 2008. State Plans entered from August 1 to August 31, 2008. State Plans reviewed from September 1 to September 30, 2008. State Plans reviewed from September 1 to September 30, 2008. New state plans effective October 1, 2008. New state plans effective October 1, 2008.

21. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 2009. First peer review in January 2009.