Developmental Disabilities Program Independent Evaluation (DDPIE) Project

Developmental Disabilities Program Independent Evaluation (DDPIE) Project

Jennifer JohnsonLynn ElinsonCynthia ThomasAUCD Annual MeetingOctober 31, 2006

Purpose of the Independent Evaluation

Demonstrate impact of DD Network programs on:– Individuals – Families– Service providers– State systems

Provide feedback to ADD to help improve the effectiveness of its programs and policies

Promote positive achievements of DD Network programs

Promote accountability to the public

DDPIE Project

Independent evaluation 2 phases Phase 1 – development and testing of tools Phase 2 – full-scale evaluation Westat – contracted by ADD to implement

Phase 1

Evaluation Tools

Measurement matrices- standards- indicators (structures, processes, outputs,

outcomes) - performance levels

Data collection instruments

Evaluation

Comparison

Standards Indicators

What do we hope to achieve? What do we observe (measurement of indicators)?

Are there differences/discrepancies?

What is the nature and extent of the differences?

What action needs to be taken?

Framework of indicators (RFP)

To organize and guide the development of the performance standards and related measurement matrices, the following framework of indicators of program impact should be used:

- Structural indicators – adequate and appropriate settings and infrastructures, including staffing, facilities and equipment, financial resources, information

systems, governance and administrative structures, etc.- Process indicators – activities, procedures, methods,

and intervention supporting practices - Output indicators –results of the DD Network’s policies, procedures, and services - Outcome indicators – intermediate results

Open Systems Model

Structure (Input) Process Output

(Product) Outcome

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Measurement Matrices

Tools in the evaluation that will organize indicators, standards, and performance levels for each key function within each DD Network program and collaboration

Developed and pilot-tested in Phase I Used in Phase II

Basic Evaluation Approach

Performance-based approach – interested in outcomes

Development of standards and indicators Development of measurement matrices that contain

standards, indicators, and performance levels Collection of data Measurement of indicators to determine level at

which standards are being met Determination of overall performance at the national

level

Key Assumptions

State programs vary on their level of performance across the standards.

Consistently high performance across the standards is related to better outcomes.

Consistently low performance across the standards is related to poor outcomes.

Validation

Advisory Panel Working Groups Validation Panels Pilot Study Further analysis

Role of Advisory Panel

To provide balance, impartiality, and expertise.

To provide advice on: DDPIE process Standards, indicators, performance levels, and data

collection Measurement matrices Pilot study Synthesis of findings and recommendations

Composition of Advisory Panel

Individuals with expertise on: DD population Policies and services for the DD population Evaluation research DD Network programs Other evaluations

Advisory Panel

Self-advocates Family members Representatives from 3 programs – Richard

Carroll from Arizona UCEDD Child/disability advocates Evaluation expert Federal representative (for PAIMI evaluation)

Working Group Members: Criteria for Selection

Have broad overview of all aspects of UCEDD (Director, Associate Director)

Rural/urban state Geographic distribution Placement of UCEDD in University

Validation Panels

Role: To endorse the contents of the measurement matrices.

Composition: - Stakeholders (consumers, advocates)- DD Network program staff - DD Council members - ADD staff- Evaluation experts

Pre-test and Pilot Study

States randomly selected Pre-test – 1 state Pilot Study – 4 states

Progress to Date

Reviewed background materials. Conducted preliminary/background interviews. Established and met with Advisory Panel twice. Established and met with Working Groups. Identified key functions of each DD Network program. Discussed structures, processes, outputs and outcomes of

each key function. Conceptualized measurement matrices. Developed early drafts of standards and indicators for each key

function.

Project Tasks to Do

Complete draft matrices. Share process with state programs. Validate matrices (Validation Panels) Develop data collection instruments. Obtain OMB clearance (ADD). Conduct pilot study. Analyze and synthesize data. Write report and recommendations.

DDPIE Project Milestones

Draft measurement matrices completed. Feb., 2007

Measurement matrices validated by panels. May, 2007

Data collection instruments completed. June., 2007

OMB clearance obtained. Dec., 2007

Pilot study conducted (training, pilot) Jan.-Sept., 2008

Analysis and synthesis of data. Feb.-Nov., 2008

Report and final recommendations sent to ADD Oct.-Dec., 2008

Key Functions

A collection of activities that are intended to achieve particular results

Examples:- P&A – individual advocacy, outreach/public education- DD Councils – systemic advocacy, development of community capacity - UCEDDs – training, community service/technical assistance, research,dissemination (from DD Act)

UCEDD Working Group Members

Carl Calkins Kansas City, MOTawara Goode Washington, DCGloria Krahn* Portland, ORDavid Mank Bloomington, INFred Orelove* Richmond, VAFred Palmer Memphis, TNLucille Zeph Orono, ME

*Collaboration Working Group

Working Group Meetings

Orientation by telephone – March, 2006 Telephone meetings (full group) in spring In-person meeting in spring, 2006 –

coinciding with the national meeting Telephone focus groups (teams) summer,

2006 In-person meeting in fall, 2006

UCEDD Key Functions

Provision of Interdisciplinary Pre-Service Preparation and Continuing Education of Students and Fellows

Provision of Community Services Conduct of Basic or Applied Research Dissemination Governance and Management? Priority Setting?

Members of UCEDD Working Subgroups

Pre-Service Preparation Fred Palmer Lucille Zeph

Community Services Tawara Goode Fred Orelove

Basic or Applied Research David Mank Gloria Krahn

Dissemination Carl Calkins Gloria Krahn

Working Group Teams:

Described goals for each key function Explained the main activities Identified outcomes Discussed variability across UCEDDs Provided Examples Helped formulate SPOO tables, standards

Interdisciplinary Pre-Service Preparation...

Goal: Develop a cadre of individuals with knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to increase the capacity of states to provide services and supports in a culturally and linguistically competent manner for people with developmental disabilities and their families.

Interdisciplinary Pre-Service Preparation...(cont’d)

Function includes: Developing and teaching courses in the core curriculum Developing and/or teaching disability content for courses in other

departments Developing and teaching classes that offer continuing education

creditsOutcomes Include: “Graduates” from the preservice programs who demonstrate

knowledge, skills, and attitudes and values consistent with …. the principles of the DD Act.

Students who complete courses with disability content and demonstrate attitudes and values ….

Trainees who complete continuing education classes …..

Following Steps:

Development of written descriptions of each key function

Development of draft indicators Full working group reviews descriptions,

standard, indicators