1. Annual Report Workgroup Update
June 12, 2008
Bob Bacon
(and Workgroup Members)

2. Annual Report Workgroup Members
Robert Bacon, Center for Disabilities and Development, Iowa
Daniel Bier, Waisman Center, Wisconsin
Elizabeth Bishop, Boling Center for Developmental Disabilities, Tennessee
Robyn Carroll, The Elizabeth M. Boggs Center on Developmental Disabilities, New Jersey
Jean Johnson, Center on Disability Studies, Hawaii
Barbara Le Roy, Developmental Disabilities Institute, Michigan
Olivia Raynor, Tarjan Center for Developmental Disabilities, California
Penny Seay, Texas Center for Disabilities Studies, Texas
Barbara Wheeler, USC UCEDD, California
Valerie Williams, Center for Interdisciplinary Learning and Leadership, Oklahoma
M. Bryce Fifield, North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities, North Dakota

3. Intended Workgroup Outcomes
INITIAL INTENDED OUTCOMES:
UCEDD program will have a revised template that will facilitate the process for reporting progress on an annual basis.
The revised template will provide more accurate data on UCEDD core function outcomes as a result of the development of a clearer set of directions for collecting data and definitions for reporting on activities.
ADD, the UCEDDs, and other stakeholders will be able to use the data to better show the impact of UCEDD activities on individuals with DD, families, and others.
UCEDDs will use the ADD logic model to develop more refined evaluation plans to measure program impact.
AN ADDITIONAL GOAL EMERGED AS THE STRATEGIC REVIEW EVOLVED:
Assure a meaningful and efficient link between the Annual Report (and needed data collection) and the independent evaluation of the UCEDD network (i.e. PART/Westat).

4. Initial Charge and Timeline for Workgroup
Tasks
October 2007
May 2008
After May 2008
Workgroup monthly meetings starting in October 2007 to review and discuss various aspects of the annual report template:
Strategic review of the annual report template
Discussion of ADD UCEDD Program logic model and its interface with the HHS strategic plan
Review and discussion of the indicators of progress (measures of improvement, consumer satisfaction, and collaboration)
Review and discussion of GPRA measures
Address the mechanics of the annual report function in NIRS
Presentation of Workgroup Recommendations to UCEDD Directors at the ADD TA Meeting
Final revisions to the Annual Report template
ACF submission to OMB
First OMB comment period
Response to comments
Second OMB comment period
OMB approval

5. Actual Timeline Timeline Tasks October 2007 December 2007
February 7, 2008
February 28-29, 2008
April 8, 2008
April 15, 2008
May 19-20, 2008
June 2008
Pending
Interim revisions in FY09/ Final revisions for FY10
Workgroup monthly meetings begin via conference call.
2. ACF submission to OMB
3. First OMB comment period begins
4. First face-to-face meeting of Workgroup.
5. AUCD comments submitted
6. Second OMB comment period begins
7. Second face-to-face meeting of Workgroup.
8. Presentation of Workgroup Recommendations to UCEDD Directors at the ADD TA Meeting
9. OMB approval
10. Final revisions to the Annual Report template

6. Progress of the Workgroup
Work to date:
Reviewed material and reacted to changes in timeline based on external forces (OMB, Westat evaluation, NPRM) and complexity of task.
Crafted a draft logic model (both in detail and in graphic format) for your comments.
Next steps
Revise the logic model in response to comments.
Review Annual Report template (and associated measures and definitions) for modifications that comply with the DD Act & Regulations and are consistent with the Logic Model. Explore adding qualitative methodologies.
Monitor proposed changes in Regulations for their potential impact.
Recommend possible revisions to accountability provisions of DD Act during reauthorization.
Link the UCEDD Logic Model to the HHS strategic plan.
REVISED TARGET: Complete all template revisions in time for NIRS software revisions to be effective 7/1/09 for FY 2010 Annual Reports.

7. The Logic behind the “New” Logic Model
Clarified definitions of key terms to better distinguish among inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes
Distinguished between Initial, Intermediate, and Ultimate Outcomes
Include vision and key values/principles
Organized by core function

8. How does the Logic Model fit your program?
The Logic Model is intended to describe the inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the UCEDD network.
But this goal can be realized only if individual UCEDDs can find a home in it.
What do you think?