developmental disabilities program independent evaluation (ddpie) project ucedd meeting –...

Developmental Disabilities Program Independent Evaluation (DDPIE) Project

UCEDD Meeting – Technical Assistance Institute May 31, 2007

Lynn Elinson, Ph.D.Project Director

Developmental Disabilities Program Independent Evaluation (DDPIE) Project

Also known as “ADD Independent Evaluation”

Purpose of PowerPoint

To understand the background and progress of the ADD independent evaluation

To obtain a background and context for giving feedback on ADD independent evaluation materials

PowerPoint Outline

1. Background of ADD Independent Evaluation A. Purpose of the DDPIE Project B. Challenges

2. Research design3. Project implementation

A. Overview B. Project activitiesC. Evaluation toolsD. Validation

4. Seeking individualized input5. Progress and timing

1. Background

A. Purpose of the DDPIE Project

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 by “storytelling”

Promote accountability to the public

Why the independent evaluation?

In 2003 ADD conducted a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) self-assessment under OMB guidance.

PART is a series of questions designed to provide a consistent approach to rating programs across the Federal Government.

PART has four parts: (1) Program Purpose & Design; (2) Strategic Planning; (3) Program Management; and (4) Program Results.

PART 4 asks whether an agency has conducted an independent evaluation of sufficient scope and quality to indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

ADD answered “no” which lowered overall score.

Challenges

Each UCEDD program is unique.

Challenge is to develop performance standards that: are relevant to all UCEDD programs; capture the differences among the programs

(variability); and will be useful to ADD in demonstrating impact.

2. Research design

Design Considerations

PART prefers experimental or quasi-experimental research designs

The structure of the ADD programs does not lend itself to conducting randomized trials or pre- and post-tests.

Research Design: Standards-Based Evaluation

NOT a randomized control trial or quasi-experimental design

IS a standards-based evaluation to:- Set national standards- Determine levels that characterize extent to which national standards are being met - Determine impact DD Network programs (and collaboration among programs) are having on people with developmental disabilities, family members, State systems, and services providers

Reporting at national level

Data will be collected on individual programs and rolled up to national level.

Independent evaluation will NOT be comparing programs to one another

Independent evaluation will NOT replace MTARS, which is specific to individual programs.

2 Types of Standards

Evidence-based Consensus-based Performance standards for DDPIE are

consensus-based Performance standards will be developed for

each DD Network program and collaboration among the three DD Network programs

Key assumptions for designing performance standards

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.

Research design: seeks input and participation from stakeholders

Seeks input from: Project Advisory Panel DD Network Program Working Groups All State programs Validation Panels The public

Role of Advisory Panel

To provide balance, impartiality, and expertise

To provide advice on: DDPIE process Benchmarks, indicators, performance standards, and

performance levels Data collection protocols Pilot study Synthesis of findings and recommendations

Composition of 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 Groups

4 Working Groups (P&A, UCEDD, DD Council, Collaboration)

Process: In-person and telephone meetings Role:

- To assist Westat in understanding programs - To provide feedback on benchmarks, indicators, performance standards

UCEDD Working Group members

Carl Calkins Kansas City, MO

Tawara Goode Washington, DC

Gloria Krahn* Portland, OR

David Mank Bloomington, IN

Fred Orelove* Richmond, VA

Fred Palmer Memphis, TN

Lucille Zeph Orono, ME

*Collaboration Working Group

3. Project implementation

A. Overview

Phases of DDPIE Project

DDPIE will be conducted in 2 phases.- Phase 1 – development and testing of evaluation tools (measurement matrices and data collection protocols)- Phase 2 – full-scale evaluation

Westat was contracted by ADD to implement Phase 1. - Project began September 30, 2005- End of contract – September 29, 2008

Phase 2 will be funded upon completion of Phase 1.

B. Project activities

Steps in Phase I

Construct evaluation tools (measurement matrices and data collection protocols) that contain performance standards and performance levels

Conduct Pilot Study to test evaluation tools (measurement matrices and data collection protocols)

Revise evaluation tools

C. Evaluation tools

2 types of evaluation tools

Measurement matrices, which include:

- Key functions, benchmarks, indicators, performance standards

- Performance levels

Data collection protocols

Definitions of key terms in measurement matrices

Key functions Benchmarks Indicators Performance standards

- Outcome performance standards

- Program performance standards

Logic model/format for measurement matrices

Ben

chm

arks

Indi

cato

rsP

erfo

rman

ce S

tand

ards

Key Functions

Key Functions

Groups of activities carried out by DD Network programs

Cover all aspects of program activity 5 UCEDD key functions 1st four key functions identified by Working Group

(core functions in DD Act) Governance and Management – Relevant to other

four key functions Benchmarks, indicators, and performance standards

are being developed for all key functions.

UCEDD Key Functions

A. Interdisciplinary pre-service training and continuing education

B. Conduct of basic and/or applied research

C. Provision of community servicesD. Dissemination of informationE. Governance and management

Benchmarks

Broad, general statements Set bar for meeting expected

outcome(s) of each key function About 20 UCEDD benchmarks 3-4 benchmarks for each key function

Indicators

Identify what gets measured to determine extent to which benchmarks and performance standards are being met

4 types of indicators: outcome, output, process, structural

Will guide the development of data collection instruments

Performance standards

Criterion-referenced (measurable)Consensus-based 2 types:

- Outcome performance standards

- Program performance standards

Outcome performance standards

Linked to expected outcomes of each key function

Answer the questions:- Were the expected outcomes

met? - To what extent?

Program performance standards

What the program should achieve, have, and do to effectively:- meet the principles and goals of the

DD Act; and - have an impact on people with developmental disabilities, family members, State systems, service providers

Program performance standards (continued)

Linked to the structures, processes, and outputs of UCEDD program

Answers the questions:

- What structures should be in place to carry out UCEDD network key functions? What should they be like?

- What processes should be used? What should they be like?

- What should the UCEDD network produce? What should products be like? To what extent should they be produced (e.g., how often, how many)?

D. Validation

Overview of validation

There is no “gold standard” for an effective UCEDD, so another approach needs to be used to identify performance standards.

The ADD independent evaluation uses a consensus approach. This implies participation in the process and validation from a

wide variety of stakeholders. There will be several opportunities for validation throughout the

development of performance standards. Stakeholders hold a variety of perspectives and, therefore, may

not always agree with one another.

Validation approach for DDPIE project

Consists of obtaining input, feedback, and consensus Consists of validating measurement matrices (indicators and

performance standards) and data collection instruments Is a multi-step process Provides validation opportunities to several types of

stakeholders (e.g., consumers, family members, program representatives, advocates, evaluation experts)

Provides opportunities for validation at different points in the process

Opportunities for validation

Working Group process Advisory Panel meetings State programs (at TA meetings, by

telephone, in writing) Validation Panel process OMB process Pre-test and pilot study

Validation Panels

There will be 4 Validation Panels (UCEDDs, P&As, DD Councils, Collaboration).

Process

- Telephone call orientation

- “Paper” approach (not face-to-face) – accommodation will be provided

- Opportunity for discussion by telephone

Criteria for Validation Panel selection

Stakeholder groups (e.g., people with developmental disabilities, family members, advocates, programs, service providers)

Researchers

Criteria for Validation Panel selection (continued)

Understands consumer needsUnderstands DD Network programsDiverse composition (gender,

race/ethnicity)Mix of junior and senior program staffUrban and rural representation

Focus of Validation Panel process

Will achieve consensus Formal process Builds in objective methodology (e.g., criteria

for eliminating and accepting indicators and performance standards)

OMB approval process is another form of validation

OMB approval process results from the Paperwork Reduction Act

Act is administered by Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Purpose of Act is to ensure that information collected from the public minimizes burden and maximizes public utility

All Federal agencies must comply

OMB approval process (continued)

When contemplating data collection from the public, Federal agencies must seek approval from OMB.

Must submit an OMB package consisting of description of study and data collection effort, an estimate of burden, and data collection instruments.

Approval process consists of making data collection instruments available for public comment in the Federal Register.

ADD will be submitting an OMB package; all interested parties will have opportunity to comment during public comment period.

Pre-test and Pilot Study – additional form of validation

Data collection protocols will be pre-tested in one state.

A pilot study will be conducted in up to 4 states.

Pilot study states will be chosen randomly. Pilot study will test reliability and validity of

measurement matrices and feasibility of data collection.

4. Seeking individualized input

Opportunities for individualized input

UCEDD TA meeting (May 31, 2007)

- Distribution of draft benchmarks, indicators, and a few examples of performance standards

- Small group discussions facilitated by AUCD

Telephone meetings scheduled in June and July In writing

Small Group Discussions at UCEDD Technical Assistance Meeting (May 31, 2007)

Westat will:- Distribute draft performance standards on UCEDD

Network and Collaboration- Review organization of materials- Describe feedback process for individual UCEDD

programs- Answer questions on process for feedback

UCEDD programs will: - Continue to meet in small groups to discuss the materials (facilitated by AUCD)- Report out in a large group on first impressions

Type of Input Sought

Benchmarks and indicators: Are they the concepts that need to be addressed?

Benchmarks and performance standards: Do they represent what the programs should be achieving/should have/should do in order to be effective in meeting the principles and goals of the DD Act and have an impact on people with developmental disabilities, families, State systems, and service providers?

Indicators: Which seem the most important and feasible to measure? Which could be eliminated?

If not these, then what?

5. Progress and Timing

Progress to Date

Meetings with ADD, head of national associations, TA contractors – November, 2006

Site visit to programs in one state – December, 2006 Review of background materials (provided by ADD; Working

Groups; national websites; other) – October, 2005 – February, 2007

Meetings with Working Groups – March, 2006 – September, 2006

Meetings with Advisory Panel - March, 2006, October, 2006, March, 2007

Synthesis of all information by Westat – September, 2006 to February, 2007

Draft benchmarks, indicators, performance standards – February, 2007

Upcoming DDPIE Project Milestones

Feedback from UCEDD Working Group April – May, 2007

UCEDD TA meeting May 31, 2007

Feedback from all UCEDD programs June - July, 2007

UCEDD Validation Panel Sept. – Dec., 2007

DD Council Validation Panel Oct. – Jan., 2008

P&A Validation Panel Nov. – Feb., 2008

Collaboration Validation Panel Feb. – April, 2008

DDPIE Project Milestones (continued)

Data collection instruments June, 2008

Measurement matrices July, 2008

Final report (with evaluation tools) Sept., 2008

OMB Comment Period

Pilot Study New contract