Delaware’s Experience with Program Review
39
Delaware’s Experience with Program Review
description
Delaware’s Experience with Program Review. We were doubly lucky…. We had TWO program reviews!!!. Our Process. The Checklist Task Assignment Preparation of Advance Materials Creation of Presentation Framework The Visit. The Checklist. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Delaware’s Experience with Program Review
Delaware’s Experience with Program Review
We were doubly lucky…
We had TWO program reviews!!!
Our Process
• The Checklist• Task Assignment• Preparation of Advance Materials• Creation of Presentation Framework• The Visit
The Checklist
List of requirements from technical assistance guidance
Task Assignments
Charge to staff
Preparation of Advance Materials
• Notebook– Narrative– Evidentiary
documentation• Box of goodies
– Samples of products
Creation of Presentation Framework
• PowerPoint presentations– Brief history– Report on State Level Activities– Report on State Leadership Activities– Discussion of data
• A cohesive story rather than a point-by-point regurgitation of data
Delaware Assistive Technology Initiative
RSA Program ReviewOctober 2009
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Our Customers
• Only eligibility criterion is Delaware residency
• 326 individuals served with device loans in 2007-2008
• 505 individuals served with device loans in 2008-2009
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Borrower Profile 07/08 08/09
Individuals with disabilities/Family members
46% 53%
Representatives of education 22% 24%
Representatives of employment 2% 1%
Representatives of healthcare 28% 20%
Other 2% 2%
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Customer Satisfaction
• 07/08 – 100% satisfied 90% highly satisfied
• 08/09 – 99% satisfied 88% highly satisfied
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Our Staff
Each ATRC has an AT Specialist and an administrative support professional
AT Specialists routinely access professional development to maintain state-of-the-art knowledge and skills
Committed to customer service and customer satisfaction
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
New Castle County ATRC
Joann McCafferty
Marvin Williams
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Kent County ATRC
Eddie Jory
Beth Shinn
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Sussex County ATRC
Dan Fendler
Sandy Walls
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Vast inventory of devices
• Only service of this type and magnitude in the state
• Considerable investment over the years• Searchable on the website• Maintain “wish list” of equipment
Recent $60Kaward fromDE DOE
2 Vantage Lites
SpringBoard Lite
DynaVox V
Tobii C8
Lightwriter SL40
GoTalk 20+
2 GoTalk Buttons
TechSpeak 32
6 TouchSmart tablets
8 Netbook N120s
3 TouchSmart IQ800ts
3 PowerLite Projectors
5 iPod Touch devices
6 Kindle devices
Sony Reader Digital Book Pulse Smartpen
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
• 544 devices were loaned in 2007-08
• 846 devices were loaned in 2008-09
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Loans by Device Category
07/08 08/09
Vision 23% 28%
Hearing 18% 13%
Speech 33% 29%
Learning 8% 10%
Mobility 0 1%
Daily Living 5% 4%
Environmental Adaptation 5% 5%
Vehicle Mod/Transport 0 1%
Computers & Related 8% 6%
Recreation etc. 0 1%
Other 0 2%
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Loans arise from:• Service provider need for
equipment• Trainer need for demonstration
equipment • Demonstrations• Contacts at exhibits, health fairs,
awareness presentations• AT Messenger articles• Need for temporary/replacement
device
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
The Loan Process• Contact form• Loan documentation• Return reminder (if needed)• Customer feedback form
Device LoansWHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
Loan challenges:• Keeping inventory current• Multiple renewals• Failure to return equipment
DataDiscussion
We are madabout data!
Data Collection Infrastructure• Our data collection procedures are formalized
– Significant investment in conceptualization of data structures and collection procedures
– Data collected in paper form– Forms customized to reporting requirements– InfoSys: database customized to our specifications– All staff trained on data collection procedures– The Notebook serves as a reference document
Data Collection Infrastructure• ATRCs are responsible for demo and loan data,
event data, individual BOLD data– Individual information entered into database– Data tabulated
• Sandy responsible for AT Exchange data• Eileen & Joann responsible for financial loan
program data• Sonja maintains BOLD financial data
Activities Data• We encounter few data collection challenges.
– Our investment in building relationships with our customers facilitates data collection.
– We have direct contact with the majority of our customers.
– Our ATRC structure gives us “reach” into all sectors of the state.
– Our large inventory enables us to address equipment needs across life domains.
Activities Data• Two areas in which the data could be more
complete– We don’t always know the “buyer” in an AT Exchange
transaction. That’s the price of a system that empowers individuals to act on their own behalf.
– We need to secure evaluation data for all of our training sessions.• Those for which we are not the host/sponsor• Need format that more effectively informs planning
Activities Data• Utilization of all activities continues to increase.• Clarification of some amorphous data guidance
will strengthen validity and comparability across states.
• Activity numbers at times reflect emphases in other program areas.
• Sometimes there is a “back story.”
Achievement of Measurable Goals
• Long- and short-term goals established with input from staff and Advisory Council
• Grounded in baseline data• Objective was to be ambitious and realistic• We achieved FY2008 short-term goals for
all dimensions of access and acquisition activities
Achievement of Measurable Goals
Access Education EmploymentCommunity
Living IT/Telecomma. Long-term Goal 80.00 60.00 85.00 85.00
b. Long-term Goal Status Not met Met Not met Met
c. FY 2007 Performance 80.95 100.00 77.11 100.00
d. FY 2008 Short-term goal 75.00 50.00 75.00 75.00
e. FY 2008 Performance 75.94 63.64 81.04 83.33
f. FY 2008 Status Met Met Met Met
g. FY 2009 Short-term goal 78.00 55.00 80.00 80.00
h. FY 2009 Performance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
i. FY 2009 Status
j. FY 2010 Short-term goal 80.00 60.00 85.00 85.00
k. FY 2010 Performance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
l. FY 2010 Status
The Visit
• Staff gathered in one location• Webinar
– PowerPoint– Live connection
• Planned for 3 two-hour sessions
Afterward…
• Follow-up requests for information
Useful Features
• Links to website• Video tour of an ATRC• Comparison of annual data• Inclusion of data in programmatic discussion• PowerPoint carried the basics; the live
component supplemented and elaborated
Lessons Learned
• HUGE amount of work– It took a village
• Valuable opportunity to reflect• Design of state’s response sets the tone
– Thorough– Anticipated questions & addressed them
proactively
Advice?
• Allow adequate time for preparation• Supplement your data with the stories• Tell it like it is• Don’t forget humor!
The End
We thank you for all the time and effort that you devoted to this process.
