Transcript TARGET Discovery Series: Discover How the Department of

State Plan for FY 20092011 and
Program Review of
Statewide AT Programs
Jeremy Buzzell
and
Robert Groenendaal
PART 4
Statutory Requirements for State Plan
The application must include:
• 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
3
Program Review: Program Performance
The review of Program Performance assesses whether
the Statewide AT Program is implementing its Statewide
AT Program in accordance with its State Plan for AT, is
reporting data that can be supported by the nature of its
activities, and is achieving the results intended by the AT
Act. This includes:
• extent to which grantee increases access to, acquisition
of and knowledge about AT
• extent to which grantee is statewide and comprehensive
• extent to which grantee achieves measurable goals
4
Measurable Goals
Measurable Goals in State Plan
Use of Data In Program Review
6
Program Review: Data and Measurable
Goals
Achievement of measurable goals will not
determine compliance.
One webinar focuses on data only:
• Grantee’s strengths and areas in need of
improvement when it comes to data and
• How the grantee is learning from and
using its data
7
Program Review: Data and Measurable
Goals
Data collection infrastructure:
• How the data is collected
• How the data is checked
• Strengths and areas in need of
improvement
8
Program Review: Data and Measurable
Goals
For each activity:
• How the nature of your state and structure
of your program influence the data.
• What your data tells you about the activity
and how does this influence
implementation.
• Strengths and areas in need of improvement
9
Program Review: Data and Measurable
Goals
For measurable goals:
• If making progress, why?
• If not making progress, why?
• Are there differences in performance
by activity (state financing vs.
reutilization)?
10
Results of the Program Review
Assessing Compliance of Program
Performance
Program Review Report
Assessing Compliance of Program
Performance
There is no overall rating of compliance.
For each element of Program Performance, a
grantee will receive 1 of 3 ratings:
Compliant
• In Need of Improvement
• Fails to substantially comply
•
12
Assessing Compliance of Program
Performance
The rating is based on how peer reviewers answer the
questions:
Initial question: Is there evidence that the structure of this
activity makes it possible to meet the needs of targeted
individuals and entities in most areas of the state?
• Subquestion 1: If not, does the grantee provide justification
for why the current structure is sufficient?
• Subquestion 2: If not, does the grantee have a reasonable
plan for improving its structure?
•
13
Assessing Compliance of Program
Performance
•
•
•
•
•
•
If the answer to the initial question is “Yes” – the grantee is rated as
compliant.
If the answer to the initial question is “No” – the rating depends on the
answer to the subquestions.
If the answer to subquestion 1 is “Yes” – the grantee is rated as
compliant.
If the answer to subquestion 1 is “No” – the the rating depends on the
answer to subquestion 2.
If the answer to subquestion 2 is “Yes” – the grantee is rated as in need
of improvement.
If the answer to subquestion 2 is “No” – the grantee is rated as failing
to substantially comply.
14
Assessing Compliance of Program
Performance
Questions for which “needs improvement” doesn’t apply:
• Is there evidence that the grantee’s level of effort or funding for this
activity justifies its inclusion in the grantee’s State Plan?
•
(If the grantee claims comparability) Is there evidence of existing
comparable support for this activity provided from state or other
non-federal resources or entities?
•
Is there evidence that this activity is carried out primarily to meet the
intent of the AT Act?
•
Is there evidence that the activity utilizes AT Act funds to provide
direct payment for devices or services? – “Yes” answer indicates
failure to comply
15
Assessing Compliance of Program
Performance
The onus is on the grantee to present
evidence/plan sufficient to get to a “yes”
answer.
RSA and peer reviewers will ask questions or
provide examples of sufficient evidence if needed.
• Grantee likely will know their status before the
conversation is over.
•
16
Outcomes of a Review
Compliant = No action necessary.
In Need of Improvement = State implements its own
plan for improvement.
Failure to substantially comply =
• In 90 days, RSA and state agree on corrective
actions.
• Possible referral for TA from NATTAP or NISAT.
• Failure to implement corrective action results in
sanctions and being reported to Congress.
17
Concluding the Program Review
RSA compiles Program Management and
Program performance information into
comprehensive report.
• RSA shares report with grantee (on-site
available).
• RSA finalizes and receives approval of report.
• Grantee may respond to report in writing.
• Report and response posted on ed.gov
•
18
Concluding the Program Review: Report
Introduction
Executive Summary
Review of Program Management
•
Fiscal management
•
Personnel Management
•
Contract Oversight
•
Consumer-responsiveness
Review of Program Performance
•
Device loan
•
Device demonstration
•
State financing
•
Device reutilization
•
Training
•
Public
awareness/information and
assistance
Measurable goals and data
Conclusion
Appendices
19
Timeline
Pre-review
Prior spring = Notify grantee
Prior to review start = Agree on
time for review, find reviewers,
grantee prepares and submits
documents, grantee prepares for
webinars.
Review
2 weeks – Read documents,
Program Management call with
RSA
2 weeks – Webinars
2 weeks – Reviewers complete
forms and meet with RSA
3 weeks – RSA develops draft
report and shares with grantee
Post-review
Finalize report and share
Grantee has two weeks to write
response
ED approval of report and
posting on ed.gov
20
Closing Thoughts
READ THE MANUALS.
THESE ARE WORKS IN
PROGRESS.
21