2 - NYSILC



NYSILC 2019 SPIL Evaluation ReportConsultant’s Report on the Third Year of the 2017-2020State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL)as amendedSubmitted by Alan KriegerKrieger Solutions, LLCMay 18, 2020Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Background PAGEREF _Toc40626760 \h 12019 SPIL Evaluation Findings PAGEREF _Toc40626761 \h 2Summative Analysis – How well were the objectives and targets met? PAGEREF _Toc40626762 \h 2Overview: PAGEREF _Toc40626763 \h 2List of Objectives for 2019: PAGEREF _Toc40626764 \h 4Summary of the evaluation of each of the objectives and consultant observations. PAGEREF _Toc40626765 \h 5Objective #1: NYSILC will demonstrate its operational effectiveness and capability to develop, monitor, and evaluate the SPIL. PAGEREF _Toc40626766 \h 5Objective #2: New Yorkers with disabilities will be actively engaged in promoting disability rights through the support of a Statewide Systems Advocacy Network (SSAN) and a statewide coordinator working with priorities identified in the NYSILC statewide needs assessment. PAGEREF _Toc40626767 \h 8Objective # 3: Increase the attendance and involvement of attendees from the IL network, including affiliated stakeholders, by providing support for a statewide independent living training conference. PAGEREF _Toc40626768 \h 10Objective # 4: Designate funds to develop and establish a database and interface that will compile, analyze, and interpret data from the statewide network. PAGEREF _Toc40626769 \h 12Objective #5: Address priority unserved and underserved populations and issues by providing one (1) $72,000 demonstration grant opportunity that can be evaluated by the council, be held to its own unique set of deliverables (outcomes), and subsequently provide a best practices manual for the benefit of the statewide IL network. PAGEREF _Toc40626770 \h 13Objective # 6: Improve the capacity of the IL network to address priority unserved and underserved populations identified in the statewide needs assessment by providing ten (10) $25,000 capacity building self-sustaining grant opportunities that can be evaluated by the council, disseminated, and documented for replication for the benefit of the network. PAGEREF _Toc40626771 \h 19Overall Summary PAGEREF _Toc40626772 \h 19Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc40626773 \h 20NYSILC 2019 SPIL Objectives/Evaluation Summaries PAGEREF _Toc40626774 \h 22Objective # 1: NYSILC will demonstrate its operational effectiveness and capability to develop, monitor, and evaluate the SPIL. PAGEREF _Toc40626775 \h 22Objective # 2: New Yorkers with disabilities will be actively engaged in promoting disability rights through the support of a Statewide Systems Advocacy Network (SSAN) and a statewide coordinator working with priorities identified in the NYSILC statewide needs assessment. PAGEREF _Toc40626776 \h 30Objective # 3: Increase the attendance and involvement of attendees from the IL network, including affiliated stakeholders, by providing support for a statewide independent living training conference. PAGEREF _Toc40626777 \h 35Objective # 4: Designate funds to develop and establish a database and interface that will compile, analyze, and interpret data from the statewide network. PAGEREF _Toc40626778 \h 38Objective # 5: Address priority unserved and underserved populations and issues by providing one (1) $72,000 demonstration grant opportunity that can be evaluated by the council, be held to its own unique set of deliverables (outcomes), and subsequently provide a best practices manual for the benefit of the statewide IL network. PAGEREF _Toc40626779 \h 40BackgroundThe NYS Independent Living Council’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Committee’s job is to conduct on-going monitoring of all projects supported by the Council and the Statewide Plan, and to conduct the evaluation at the end of the year. An evaluation consultant has been working with the Council to continue to refine the evaluation process and make it more outcome oriented. The consultant also completes an evaluation report each year.The consultant’s job has been evolving. In the beginning he took an active role in helping develop the evaluation process, working with a number of Council committees. Once the M&E Committee was formed, he helped train committee members in outcome evaluation and offered suggestions for moving objectives and targets to more of an outcome measure. As the M&E Committee has gained expertise and proficiency he will be pulling back to focus more directly on the final annual evaluation and evaluation report, with a focus on assessing outcomes or impacts of Council supported efforts, and less focus on program activity which is monitored by the M&E Committee. The objectives and measures in the SPIL should relate as much as possible to outcomes and the objectives and measures in the contracts or action plans developed around SPIL objectives should include the additional layer of program activities that will produce the desired outcomes. The draft of the next SPIL continues the shift to that direction.This evaluation covers the activities from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 and is related to the six objectives in the Statewide Plan for Independent Living (SPIL). This is the third year of the plan and one objective (#6 capacity building grants) was completed in a prior year and not active this year. The evaluation is based on the other five objectives.The committee actively monitored the various projects funded through the SPIL and explored how well they were advancing the SPIL objectives. This past year they also worked actively to make the objectives for the next SPIL more specific, measurable, and meaningful. They had many detailed discussions and their proposed objectives are another great step forward in the development of the next 3-year SPIL.Having a dedicated evaluation committee is a new development and is proving to be an effective strategy. They specialize and focus on monitoring and evaluation overall, leaving the other committees to focus on the policy or operational issues they are addressing. The next step in the development of the SPIL objectives is to have the relevant “program” committees review the objectives and revise/update as needed. The M&E Committee will then do a final review prior to finalizing the SPIL. The current SPIL has been extended for a fourth year, allowing additional time to reshape the objectives. This has taken a lot of time and should lay the groundwork for future SPILs as well.NYSILC staff, as always, did a great job pulling together the data and working with the committee to finalize the assessments. The evaluation consultant did not review any of the original data, only what the Council staff pulled from monitoring reports and other documentation.As noted in previous reports, the Council has come a long way with writing a more specific and measurable plan. The objectives and targets are more outcome or impact oriented; vague terms and standards have been defined more clearly to make the evaluation more objective. The new monitoring protocol has enabled the Council to take a more active role in assessing success and gaining an early awareness if issues arise, so they can be addressed during the program year rather than after the fact. Work on the next SPIL’s objectives and indicators will move the Council even further down the path of outcome-based evaluation.This year’s evaluation consulting activities included:Working with the staff and the M&E Committee to review the prior year’s results and assess accomplishment.Helping the M&E committee critique and clarify the proposed objectives and measurable indicators for the next SPIL. This included working with the committee to incorporate the new logic model and format that was developed for future SPILs. The Monitoring and Evaluation Committee continued to follow their new process that relies on the NYSILC staff gathering relevant data from records for projects being conducted by NYSILC and from the Designated State Entity (DSE) for projects that were handled through Requests For Proposals (RFP’s) and or contracts. The committee then reviewed the resulting data and discussed any issues related to reaching the objectives.NYSILC staff compiled the data in late 2019. It essentially represented a preliminary assessment of the SPIL objectives for 2019 from a narrative section of the Federal Program Performance Report (PPR) for New York. This narrative was transmitted to the SPIL evaluator who then drafted an evaluation report from the preliminary assessment. The full summaries are appended to this report. 2019 SPIL Evaluation FindingsSummative Analysis – How well were the objectives and targets met? Overview:Most of the objectives in the SPIL are stated broadly and the measurable indicators or targets are used to assess impact. The Council has moved to a more outcome-based evaluation and has increased the number of indicators that focus on impact and results. Some of the indicators still relate to whether or not certain activities took place or how many people participated in the activity, not what the impact was of the activity or how that furthers the Council’s mission. As a statewide group, it is often difficult to measure true impact and that is something the committee wrestled with this year in their work on the next SPIL. There will always be a place for some activity indicators to show effort and the level of engagement. The Council continues to identify outcome indicators that can be assessed at a reasonable cost. Great progress continued to be made on that this year. This is especially true in terms of developing the objectives, outcomes, and performance measures for the next SPIL. The Committee spent a lot of time helping shift the activity measures to outcome measures and working with some of the funded projects on developing tools to help measure outcomes. The current state plan does a much better job than previous plans of writing more realistic targets that are not too narrowly defined and has shifted more of the targets to an outcome focus. However, in some cases, performance targets can be fully met, i.e. the number of activities/people served were achieved, but there may be no clear impact or outcome of these activities. The reverse is also true, some of the targets that the committee might feel were “not fully met” due to data problems or technicalities were actually met when looking at the intention or desired outcome of the objective. Generally, in this year’s effort, the results line up with the intentions but where this is not the case, this has been noted.The report is generally based on the technical rating – did the objective and indicators, as written, literally get met. In addition, the consultant added comments where a different rating might be more reflective of the impact.There were five objectives active this year in the 2017-2020 SPIL. One of the objectives in the SPIL (#6) was completed in 2017, and it related to the last year of the unserved/underserved capacity building grants from the prior SPIL. The five active objectives had 41 specific measurable performance targets set for this year, grouped under 29 “outcomes.” The Council has adopted a scale or range for rating each target and objective. The scale includes: Exceeded, Fully Met (100%), Substantially Met (at least 60%), Partially Met, Not Met/No Progress. This reflects the understanding that even when an objective or indicator is not fully met, if there was substantial progress, that has substantial impact and is worth noting.Overall, based strictly on numbers, the Council substantially met the measures for three objectives, exceeded the measures on a fourth objective and did not meet the targets of the fifth objective (#4 - Designate funds to develop and establish a statewide database and interface). Overall, the SPIL was substantially met for the past year. Of the 41 performance targets, 16 exceeded the target (39%) and 18 met the target (44%), so 34 out of 41 active targets were accomplished, a rate of 83%, which is slightly higher than the past few years. There was only one target that was Not Met and three that had No Progress. This low number reflects, in part, the Council’s increased skill in developing more realistic plans that take into account the delays built into working with a large state operational process.As noted in the introduction, these numbers do not tell the whole story. The reported results often show the extent of the activities that were conducted, but don’t always reflect the intention of the objective or the target in terms of impact or outcomes. And for one objective, the targets were so vaguely written it was difficult to do an objective assessment.The following table lists the six objectives addressed in the state plan, indicates how well the five active objectives and 41 individual performance targets were met. The table uses the Council’s rating scale that ranges from “exceeded” the target to a low of “not met”.“Exceeded” means that a target was exceeded“Met” means the target was met exactly“Substantially Met” means greater than 60% and less than 100% of the target was achieved“Partially Met” means greater than 0 but less than 60% was achieved“Not Met” means nothing was achieved“No Progress” means the project was delayed or not startedList of Objectives for 2019:ExceededMetSubstantially MetPartially MetNot MetNo ProgressN/A or Other1: NYSILC will demonstrate its effectiveness and capability to develop, monitor and evaluate the SPIL. X??12 total targets.5511??2: New Yorkers with disabilities will be actively engaged in promoting disability rights through SSAN and a statewide coordinator working with priorities identified in the NYSILC statewide needs assessment.X????7 total targets.7????3: Increase the attendance and involvement of attendees by providing support for a statewide independent living training conference.X5 total targets.414: Designate funds to develop and establish a database and interface that will compile, analyze, and interpret data from the statewide network. ??**?X??3 total targets.??3??** While no progress was made on this year’s targets, progress was made on the project, which is behind schedule.5: Address priority unserved and underserved populations and issues by providing one (1) $72,000 demonstration grant opportunity that can be evaluated by the council, be held to its own unique set of deliverables (outcomes), and subsequently provide a best practices manual for the benefit of the statewide IL network.??X???14 total targets.?13?1?6: Improve the capacity of the IL network to address priority unserved and underserved populations identified in the statewide needs assessments. XThis objective was completed in 2017.Total Targets16182114Total Objectives 13**11Fully meeting an objective requires meeting every single target. This is a very high bar, as often something happens so one or two targets are not fully met. While the goal is always to meet and exceed where possible, if the objectives are written with some “reach” as many of these were, “substantially meeting” them is a strong outcome. Four of the five active objectives were substantially met or exceeded, which is a very good result. The fifth one had progress on last year’s targets, but no progress on this year’s targets, and so while it technically shows “no progress” in reality progress was made on the project, just not on the targets set for this year. Therefore, overall, the Council Substantially Met the objectives for the third year of the plan. Summary of the evaluation of each of the objectives and consultant observations. (For more detail see the SPIL Objectives/Evaluation Summaries on page 22, which follows the consultant’s report)Note that in the discussion below, there is a reference to “outcomes” and “targets”. “Outcomes” are usually activities that identify what the Council or Council supported entities will do. They are not in most cases truly “outcomes” In terms of interpreting an outcome as a result that changes the current situation. Most of the outcomes are descriptions of actions taken, not the results of these actions. For Objective 1, most of these outcomes are a maintenance of the status quo – the continued successful operation of the Council – not outcomes that promote progress on the Council’s mission or goals.Objective #1: NYSILC will demonstrate its operational effectiveness and capability to develop, monitor, and evaluate the SPIL.This objective had twelve targets. Five of these targets were Exceeded, five were Met and one was Substantially Met and one was partially met. Overall a very strong showing, and overall, the objective was Substantially Met. The strong overall performance shows that the Council is operating effectively and meeting all of its administrative requirements. As with prior years, four of these targets measured maintaining operational status and all were fully met: Holding 4 Council meetings with a quorumCompleting the audit, 990, CHAR500Completing the PPR reportCompleting the annual SPIL evaluation It is helpful to assess and document each year that the Council is fully complying with key administrative responsibilities and receiving appropriate oversight (annual audit and annual evaluation). While none of these represent a change or connect directly to the SPIL’s or SILC’s overall mission, for both to be successful, the Council needs to continue to operate effectively from an administrative standpoint. It may be clearer to make this its own objective to separate it from the rest.Three targets relate to fund development, which is an important area for Council growth. These are more outcome oriented. However, they are still administrative in nature and would fit in the administrative objective recommended above. These include:Percentage increase of resource development efforts above contract (the target was a 3% increase and this was greatly exceeded as it has been in previous years, indicating that 3:% may be too low of a target – although 2020 will be a very low year due to cancellation of the Hall of Fame).Comprehensive Fund Development PlanWork with Development Committee to define a scope of services to distribute to solicit vendors - technically completed, although only one vendor responded which might indicate that the scope of services was not as effective as it might have been.Work with selected vendor on the completion of a comprehensive Fund Development Plan (FDP) Good progress was made on this. It was not completed by the end of the fiscal year, so it was rated as “substantially met”. The other five targets have the potential to be more outcome oriented and related more directly to the Council’s mission. These targets relate to addressing critical issues and increasing youth engagement. For the most part, they continue to measure activities in service to the mission, but not outcomes that clearly move the Council forward in its mission. This has been discussed by the M & E committee when developing the next SPIL, and the intention is to move more to outcome-based measures. Three of these targets relate to the work of Council committees. A substantive way to measure that work is to measure the issues the committees address and the results of their work on the issues. All three targets were greatly exceeded, showing a very active year for committee work.Again, this might be more useful, if divided into administrative issues and mission related issues. Administrative issues support the administrative objective but don’t connect to the mission. Combining them into one tends to obscure the mission related work. Administrative issues addressed include:Where to hold the Hall of Fame eventA review of Council members’ board responsibilityRecruitment Committee selected four individuals to consider for vacancies in 2020Executive Committee discussed the importance of a NYSILC succession planOther committee work addressed issues that more directly impact people with disabilities ability to live independently. SPIL Committee reviewed priority issues and needs resulting from SPIL hearings, focus groups and the statewide needs assessmentRecruitment Committee successfully recruited two highly qualified candidates who also helped increase the Council’s diversity. The two additional targets focused on youth involvement, a key Council initiative. One measured the number of youth on the Council and the other measured the number of youth receiving scholarships for training. These are important in continuing to build the future leaders for independent living advocacy. The number of youth on the Council continued to exceed the target set and the youth involved have been on for a number of years, showing great stability in that effort. The number of scholarships fell short of the target and this has been a challenging goal to meet over the years. The Council continues to evaluate this and adjust the process to expand its reach to more youth leaders and to “right size” the target.Both targets measure activities and not outcomes. This has been discussed with the M & E committee and the scholarship program has become more focused on follow up and impact and this will be reflected in the targets in the next SPIL. It would still be helpful to include this information in the evaluation even though there isn’t a specific target set for it. It’s a successful event when youth leaders are exposed to new ideas and opportunities, and it’s even more impactful when they return home and increase their community engagement as a result. Many of them do and the scholarship now makes this a requirement, so it would be good to report on that. That would shift the target from measuring “activity” to measuring “output”.Similarly, the focus can fairly easily shift to a more outcome orientation with youth on the Council. Currently all the youth serve on the Youth Committee. It would be helpful to report what results the committee has produced, what role they play in Council deliberations and activities in addition to the review of the scholarship applications. It would also be helpful to note what other roles these youth members play in the work of the Council. Objective #2: New Yorkers with disabilities will be actively engaged in promoting disability rights through the support of a Statewide Systems Advocacy Network (SSAN) and a statewide coordinator working with priorities identified in the NYSILC statewide needs assessment.This is an outcome objective in that it calls for a specific outcome: people actively engaged in advocacy efforts. The objective had seven outcomes each with one target. The SSAN exceeded all seven outcomes and seven targets. The New York State Education Department (ACCES-VR) contracts with the New York Association on Independent Living (NYAIL) to coordinate the Statewide Systems Advocacy Network (SSAN). Fifteen ILCs make up the SSAN.To help move from an “activity” to and “outcome” based assessment, a survey was distributed to SSAN volunteers in year two to assess the impact systems advocacy has on factors such as levels of personal empowerment and self-determination. The SSAN quarterly reports document the amount of activity that was undertaken, and the survey helped document its impact, the survey report was appended to last year’s evaluation report. NYAIL worked with SSAN advocates to develop the statewide agenda. Individuals participated in the educational day in Albany on February 11th in cooperation with the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Association of NYS (CDPAANYS). NYAIL provided ongoing communication and technical assistance to the SSAN sites. Four new advocates joined the SSAN over the course of the reporting year. The SSAN Coordinator worked with each new advocate individually, setting up conference calls to review deliverables and reporting requirements. The SSAN coordinator also discussed the types of activities they could engage in as a new advocate. At the close of the second and third quarters, the SSAN Coordinator updated the advocates on their numbers regarding their deliverables. Advocates who had fallen behind were notified and offered assistance in order to address any issues. NYAIL participated in conference calls related to the ACL FAQ and provided feedback with NYSILC and ACCES-VR related to adjustments to practices and the upcoming state contract extensions/amendments for 2020.Training was provided for the SSAN network during the year on the state’s lobbying law and regulations, ACL’s FAQ regarding advocacy and lobbying activities, the statewide agenda, and a full day training related to advocacy, communication, and social media strategies.Each of the targets were exceeded, so this objective was also exceeded. Number of SSAN significant statewide system changes (Target: 2) This is the bottom line of all the advocacy efforts documented in the remaining targets. This is one of the key intended impacts of all the network’s other activities. While the SSAN can’t take full credit for these changes, the network actively supported them and provided educational opportunities that focused on the three issues cited below as significant system changes that were realized during the past year:Early voting enacted. There will now be 9 days of early voting in New York.Child Victims Act enacted. . Children with disabilities are especially vulnerable and this provides important protections.Source of income protections enacted. This was a long-time priority of the SSAN and is now state law.Number of local partnerships and coalitions established by the SSAN network (Target: 75) Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, the SSAN sites established 137 new partnerships and coalitions, exceeding the goal by 62. Earlier evaluations have noted that simply joining a coalition is not a meaningful change. SSAN now reports on the activities these partners undertake showing that their membership in the coalition is substantive, not in name only. This and the following targets demonstrate the active results produced by this network which help support the important issues impact of the network. Number of educational alerts disseminated to local volunteers by the SSAN network (Target: 660) Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, SSAN centers sent a total of 850 alerts to local volunteers. This exceeded the target by 190. Number of local public education activities engaged in by the SSAN network (Target: 300) Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, the SSAN Centers exceeded this goal by engaging in 625 public education activities in the past year. This exceeded the target by 325. Number of grassroots organizing activities engaged in by the SSAN network (Target: 90) Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, SSAN sites reported a total of 239 grassroots organizing activities for the year. This exceed the target by 149. Number of oral or written public testimonies statements or letters provided, in response to a documented request, by the SSAN network (Target: 90) Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, SSAN sites collectively provided 134 public testimonies during the past year. This exceeded the target by 44. Number of CILs or SCILs without a SSAN contract voluntarily involved in the participation of the network (Target: 2) Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, four non-SSAN centers continue to participate at various levels in the SSAN. Overall, this objective and its seven outcomes / targets demonstrated significant progress during the past year.Objective # 3: Increase the attendance and involvement of attendees from the IL network, including affiliated stakeholders, by providing support for a statewide independent living training conference.There were five outcomes each with one target for this objective. Four outcomes/targets were exceeded, and one was substantially met. Several of the targets showed a significant increase over the results from two years ago. Overall, this objective was substantially met. NYAIL coordinated the 2019 New York statewide IL conference which was held at the Albany Capital Center September 10-11th, 2019.There were two plenary sessions and five (5) clusters of workshops, totaling 25 different workshops for attendees to choose from. The workshops addressed a wide range of topics impacting New Yorkers with disabilities and issues pertinent to IL and the centers. Vendors exhibited throughout the event. The 2019 David Veatch Advocacy Achievement Award was given to Susan Ruff of the Southern Tier Independence Center (STIC).The five outcomes/targets were:Number of people attending the IL conference with reduced registration costs (Target: 200, actual 274 (exceeded)) Based on the documentation from registration forms, the total number of attending the IL statewide conference with a reduced registration was 274. This number was down compared to two years ago, but still far exceeded the target.If two conferences in a row far exceeded the target, it might be time to increase the target.Number of people attending the IL conference with reduced registration costs sorted by IL involvement (Target: 100 staff, 25 board members 25 advocates, 25 stakeholders, and 25 other) (actual: 239, 16, 19, 61, 0 – some had multiple identifications, so 274 were served in total) (two targets exceeded their numbers, two substantially met, one not met.)This is an example of a rigid target that doesn’t really address the intention of the objective. The objective is to have the registration subsidy support a diverse group of attendees, not match specific numbers. In addition, “stakeholders” really represent “other stakeholders) which is anyone with an interest in the conference topic, so the “other” category is really not necessary and in fact no one reported being in that category. This target could be rewritten to state the goal as: supporting a diversity of attendees such that approximately 50% are staff, 25% board members and advocates evenly divided, and 25% other stakeholders. Since it’s nearly impossible to hit these targets exactly, a range would be a better presentation. This could be: at least 90 staff, at least 20 board members, at least 20 advocates and at least 40 other stakeholders. If these targets were all met, then the intention was met, even if it were not evenly divided. With this re-interpretation, two of the four targets were exceeded, and the other two were still only substantially met, but were a little closer to the target.The key question to ask, is the actual distribution noted above a success or a failure? The overall target was 200, and in actuality, nearly 300 were served. Should the 200 target be increased? If the targets were converted to percentages, then only one target was met (staff at 50%). Does the shortfall in the other categories represent a serious deficiency? Is it a problem that the final percentage was 87% staff instead of 50% and only 22% of other stakeholders instead of 25%, and less for the other two categories? If this distribution is important, then the targets should be written in terms of percent and a minimum number. If it’s important that board members and advocates are more well represented, was anything learned from this experience to increase these numbers in the future? If the distribution is acceptable, then the targets need to be written more broadly. The intention of this target is diversity in participation and the fact that staff far exceeded the number targeted actually made the other groups much less represented than is shown by their raw number. The following three targets are based on responses from a post-survey sent to attendees (50 responses from 274 persons with reduced registrations/18% return).Percentage of attendees satisfied with their overall experience at the statewide IL conference (Target: 90%; actual 98%) NYAIL identified a 98% satisfaction rate (based on responses ranging from excellent, good, and satisfied). This is an increase from two years ago.The next two targets are more substantive and move towards an outcome orientation:Percentage of attendees who learned something useful at the statewide IL conference (Target: 70%, actual 84%) This is an increase from two years ago.Percentage of attendees who intend to implement a best practice or other idea at the local level (Target: 40%, actual 73%) This is a slight increase from two years ago. This final target shows intention that attendees intend to change their work in some way based on what they learned at the conference which is the primary desired outcome of the conference. This question is an enhancement to prior conference evaluations which focused more on satisfaction and learning than on implementation and action. The Council and NYAIL have greatly enhanced the quality of their evaluation!Objective # 4: Designate funds to develop and establish a database and interface that will compile, analyze, and interpret data from the statewide network. The objective here is not really to “designate funds” … but to develop and establish a statewide database for the IL network. The objective should focus on the outcome, not the process to get there. This is a multi-year project, that is a restart of a prior effort that was unsuccessful. There were three outcomes active this year related to this objective each with one target. None of these outcomes or targets were met, they weren’t addressed so “no progress” is the rating assigned this objective. The same situation occurred last year. Essentially, the timing for the implementation of the data interface project is off by about 1-2 years. This was due to a delay in securing the funding for the entire project, which won’t happen until 2020. This impacts the completion of the outcomes and targets as originally planned.Rather than sticking with the no longer realistic timeframe outlined in the plan, it would be more useful to revise the timeline and evaluate how well progress is being made on the revised timeline and what the likely date of completion will be. Otherwise, real progress that is being made will be reported as a failure. Phase I was completed last year (2018), which while a year behind schedule, this is still progress. Phase II was addressed in 2019. The targets that were set for this year are on track to be completed next year which would include prototype testing, actual data collection, training in the new system and launch of the system. So, while the project is behind schedule, real progress is being made and plans indicate likelihood of completion in the next year or so.This is a situation the Council faced frequently in the early days of developing the evaluation system. Delays in paperwork led to targets being missed. This has gotten better as more planning time is built into each SPIL’s implementation timelines. As a result of those experiences we added “No Progress” as an assessment category. “Not Met” sounds as if the project failed to accomplish its goals. “No Progress” is what it is… there was no progress made as yet, on the current year’s targets, but progress was made on last year’s targets. So “no progress” is not correct. Phase II was partially completed this contract year. Objective #5: Address priority unserved and underserved populations and issues by providing one (1) $72,000 demonstration grant opportunity that can be evaluated by the council, be held to its own unique set of deliverables (outcomes), and subsequently provide a best practices manual for the benefit of the statewide IL network.As stated last year, these targets are very vaguely written. There are no numerical targets, so they are very easy to meet. Most of these targets relate to activities that are required in the operation of any effective program. It reads more like an action plan than a set of objectives and targets. Very few relate to any outcome or result and the one that does is still very vague. The purpose of a demonstration project is to develop and test new strategies. The annual evaluation should help answer the following questions – is this effort producing the intended outcomes? Is it successful? Is it worth the investment? Should it be continued and/or replicated? Due to the lack of measurable outcome-related targets, it is not possible to answer these questions.As indicated by the M&E’s Committee report, there was a lot of activity performed in support of this project, but there are no measurable indicators for what would be an acceptable or successful level of activity. Therefore, every measure was fully met since it was done at least twice and met the standard set by a plural target – e.g. issue press releases.When creating the last SPIL, it wasn’t known what project would be selected for the demonstration project, and the decision was made to let the local program set its own goals with the DSE (ACCES-VR), objectives and targets. As shown by the result, the Council needs to provide guidance and oversight to ensure measurable, outcome-based targets are set and that they are at a level that would indicate reasonable success.While the contract was negotiated with these vague targets in it, and it would be difficult to renegotiate the contract, it would have been reasonable for the Council’s M & E committee to meet with the program staff and help them better articulate outcome measures that they hoped to achieve and to put numeric targets into the original targets. Thirteen targets were technically met, and one was not met, so the objective was substantially met.The true value of this demonstration project is in the services provided to the unserved/underserved population and in the community connections made. There is probably some meaningful data in survey results and results of people directly served by the program, but no survey results are shared in the report and program results are broadly and vaguely stated, making the evaluation of the objective difficult. The committee identified seven outcome areas related to this objective with fourteen total targets. Only six outcomes seem to be stated here, with fourteen targets. Of those, five of the outcomes were met, and one was not met, while thirteen targets were met, and one target was not met. Given the overall results, this objective was substantially met.Taconic Resources for Independence (TRI) completed the second year of the demonstration project to provide Independent Living services to veterans with disabilities. The project has an additional focus on accessible and affordable housing and transportation in the community. TRI set up their own unique deliverables with the DSE and reports on them quarterly. The content from the quarterly reports serve as the basis for this report.The Council indicated that the value of this demonstration project will be determined more clearly at the end in its “how to” manual (what worked/what didn’t), which will be distributed across the state and posted on the NYSILC website. ?Here are the targets for this year as outlined by the agency after being awarded:Outreach:The three outreach targets as written are not meaningfully measurable. For example, would one press release, email blast and posting to social media be sufficient? Would one a month be sufficient? How many contacts equal a meaningful collaboration and how many events need to be attended to be effective? In addition, the activity of issuing outreach information or meeting with other stakeholders, is just that, an activity. The measurable outcome would be how many referrals resulted from these efforts and that should really the be target that is measured. It could be said that all three targets were met and possibly exceeded.Agency will issue press releases and email blasts which will include printable materials. Will include information on all social media platforms.TRI’s initial outreach was completed, and they continued to do outreach by posting their various social media platforms as events and information arise. TRI posted community veteran events and functions on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. As a result, this target was met. Veteran Specialist will collaborate with the Division of Veteran Services, Mental Health America Living Room Program (homeless program) and Hudson River Housing Veteran Services Program to promote services.Ongoing. TRI’s collaborators have changed. They continued to work on a regular basis with the Division of Veteran Services to help veterans with their compensation claims. The MHA program, Vet2Vet, has expanded again and has a new member who runs VET-TAP, which is designed to help veterans looking for employment. TRI continued to partner with WestCop as well, who assists us with finding housing for veterans. Technically this target was not met since TRI was no longer collaborating with the specified collaborators. This is another example of an overly specific target. A better target might have said, will collaborate with at least three key veterans and housing programs in the region. With that in mind as the intent of the target, this target was met. Veteran Specialist will attend veteran specific events to conduct outreach and to remain current regarding the needs of Dutchess County Veterans. Again, this targets as written is not meaningful. It calls for attending a minimum of two events since “events” is plural. TRI met this target.Program Planning:Similar comments as above – these targets are not meaningful, are very easy to meet, and don’t measure the quality of the program’s services or impacts.Veteran Specialist will create a dedicated database to document all activities and outcomes and provision of direct services and/or systems advocacy and outcomes.TRI’s database previously set up and the veteran drive completed. Input is ongoing and updated regularly. This target was met last year and should not be listed again as a target in this year.Program Director and Veteran Specialist will join veteran related committees and coalitions.TRI’s Veteran Specialist is a founding member of the Dutchess County Veteran Task Force that meets monthly with like-minded agencies to discuss all events and happenings related to veterans in the county. The Veteran Specialist is also a member of the Hudson Valley Task Force that serves five counties, and the Program Director attends meetings as a guest. Since they’ve joined two committees/coalitions, this target is met.The Veteran Specialist will develop program specific intake assessment forms and outcome pleted. A more interesting report would be on the results of the participant survey. Simply developing a survey has no value in and of itself. The assessment intake and goals assessment were developed last year. A veteran specific outcome survey was developed and distributed to both past and present participants via Survey Monkey. While this was technically met, again it is of little value as a target unless they summarize the results and issue a report.Veteran Specialist and Program Director will meet weekly to assess program activities and plan best practices pleted. TRI staff met weekly. Again, the frequency of meeting is not meaningful. Nor is the fact that they did assessments and planning. What would be meaningful is what the assessments showed and what value the best practices manual has. The final draft of the “how to” was completed and submitted to Board of Directors and NYSILC for review. No comments were included as to the effectiveness of this product. Project Implementation:The Veteran Specialist will provide comprehensive, quality independent living services to veterans with disabilities to assist them in becoming more stabilized in their homes and communities. The specialist will conduct in depth intake interviews, assessments of needs and define expectations and goals.Ongoing. TRI provided services to 25 unduplicated people this year. Four veterans required services again. Also, 74 stakeholders (individuals, families, agency personnel) were provided with one-time information and referral that allowed them to self- advocate/resolve issues without the need for a full intake. If this means that 99 people were served by this program and only four required additional services, that may be a very impressive outcome! The question for the Council is this value equal to what you had hoped would be achieved with this level of investment? In addition, since 74 only required one-time information, it raises the question of how significant a need they had and whether this could have been addressed through a simple on-line search. Similarly, there is no indication of the level of need of the 25 provided more in-depth services. To evaluate the impact of this program it would be helpful to stipulate the degree of need of clients served and the degree of success in meeting these needs. For example, did those lacking employment or housing get these needs met?The Veteran Specialist will communicate with agency partners to provide appropriate linkage to supports and services for veterans with disabilities.Again, not clear what the expected impact would be of these communications. Seems somewhat redundant with earlier targets of collaborating and attending events. Agency reported that Vet2Vet is available in multiple counties and the Veteran Specialist works closely with the Dutchess County branch. Our partners include the Dutchess County Division of Veterans Services, Veteran Affairs at various locations, The Social Security Administration, WestCop, Legal Services of the Hudson Valley and the MHA Vet2Vet H.E.R.O. program. We are also part of and share outreach and support related information to B.A.T. members, which is comprised of many nonprofits in Dutchess County. Service Provision:The same comments apply to these two targets.The Veteran Specialist will link veterans to/with supports, services, and benefits as needed.Ongoing. TRI linked veterans with disabilities to many services at agencies throughout the county including the Dutchess County Division of Veterans Services, the local VA, the Department of Labor, Social Services, West Cop, Legal Services of Hudson Valley and the MHA Vet2Vet programs. The Veteran Specialist will provide independent living skills training based on individual needs and goals.Most independent living skills training involves assisting veterans with disabilities with filling out forms, requesting paperwork and filing for benefits from Veteran Affairs. TRI finds many veterans use our in-house Social Security disability benefits counseling services. They assist veterans with applying for compensation and pension with the Veteran Service Office. TRI also helps them apply for VA Healthcare. It would seem that Independent Living skills should go beyond completing forms, or perhaps the initial idea that veterans would seek out IL skills training was replaced by the reality that they needed assistance with benefits advisement and navigating various systems.Systems Advocacy:The Veteran Specialist will assist veterans with disabilities in organizing a committee for conducting systems advocacy especially as it relates to affordable/acceptable housing. The Veteran Specialist will offer the opportunity to join the systems advocacy group to each veteran during the intake process.Offered to consumers on goals form during intake. Noted on assessment sheet. We are having difficulty forming the systems advocacy group as veterans are looking for immediate housing options, but we continue to strive to accomplish this goal. We have found that homeless veterans are in crisis and are looking for emergency services and not currently interested in a systems advocacy group. This target was not met.Best Practices Manual:The Veteran Specialist will research, collect, and store data and document all activities and outcomes to be used to inform a best practices manual. The Veteran Specialist will use data collected from the intake interview and exit surveys to document outcomes or attainment of pleted. TRI utilized consumer statistics and exit surveys that had been distributed to current and past consumers to supplement work. “How To” best practices manual submitted and approved ahead of time. Archived on NYSILC website: . This target was met. The M & E Committee greatly valued TRI’s “How To” manual. At the March 2020 committee meeting, it was agreed that Brad should reach out to TRI and request that they update their manual to reflect new lessons learned as a result of the Coronavirus before the end of their project. This was the primary objective of this project, to produce a “how to” manual that other centers could use. This is the closest to an outcome measure. Getting input from other centers about how useful and informative the manual was could have been useful in evaluating the impact or outcome of this target. A daily log will be kept tracking activity that will also be used to inform the best practices manual.Ongoing. Updated daily in a dedicated drive. This target no longer seems relevant if the manual has been finalizedOther:Highlights:Ongoing.TRI was able to get a previously denied veteran a HUD Vash voucher which will allow him to seek affordable sustainable housing.TRI was able to help a Korean War veteran to move out of nursing home and into an apartment.TRI continued to work with Legal Services of the Hudson Valley to help veterans with free legal services.TRI enrolled a veteran in the VA Healthcare system.This data seems to relate to the outcome data reported in a previous target above.Challenges:Ongoing.Housing programs are designed for those who are homeless or in imminent risk. They do not assist enough with those that are at risk of losing their homes. The requirements are very stringent and complicated for those that are homeless, creating further barriers to receiving help.Many veterans are not qualified for VA compensation and healthcare due to lack of time in service or their status of discharge. If we have exhausted all the veteran’s options, the veterans are recommended to alternative services such as the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor.Lack of funding and resources have proven difficult in finding affordable, stable housing. There is a tremendous deficit of living options available to disabled veterans.Employment continues to be an issue as many veterans struggle to find sustainable work.Number of unduplicated veterans served by the program to date: 51.The committee indicated that this Outcome and target were met. It’s not clear what outcome or target is indicated here to evaluate? As a result, it appears that there are 6 outcomes and 14 targets, with 13 of them being met or exceeded.Objective # 6: Improve the capacity of the IL network to address priority unserved and underserved populations identified in the statewide needs assessment by providing ten (10) $25,000 capacity building self-sustaining grant opportunities that can be evaluated by the council, disseminated, and documented for replication for the benefit of the network.This objective was completed in 2017.Overall SummaryOverall, the SPIL had very strong results again this year, three of the objectives were substantially met, and a fourth was exceeded. Only one objective was not met and that was due to the targets being out of synch with the actual implementation timeline, not because no results were produced. The M&E Committee has continued to add strength to the evaluation process as they monitor results on a quarterly basis and continue to give the evaluation process a lot more attention than had been given in the past when it was delegated to multiple committees. Terms are better defined, and targets are becoming more realistic and meaningful. While there is room for improvement, much of the needed changes have been built into the next SPIL, which will take this to an even higher level. One area for continued development which the committee has addressed in the next SPIL, is when setting targets, it would be helpful to think carefully about the intention of the objective in terms of desired changes, and what are some meaningful and measurable indicators that could show that progress is being made on the objective’s intention. The Council has come a long way from the start in developing outcome-based objectives and indicators. Continued attention to this will create better and better plans and evaluations that measure meaningful results and impacts. Another improvement the Committee might consider is to revise the targets as circumstances change. While it may be too difficult to actually amend the SPIL, the committee could indicate that while the target as stated in the SPIL was or was not met, the committee recognized that circumstances had changed and that the project had shifted its focus or timeline and as a result, either real progress had been made (as in the case of the data base project) or targets were clarified and perhaps some were not fully met with the new clarification although they technically met the terms of the SPIL (as might have been done for the veteran’s program where more rigorous targets might have been set).The SPIL is a three-year plan, developed a year before its actual implementation. It is very difficult to foresee all eventualities that far in advance, so it is not unreasonable to make some adjustments in later years to reflect reality on the ground which could provide for a more meaningful evaluation. In the sense that the SPIL is a contract, a technical evaluation can be completed to measure exactly what was in the SPIL, and a more substantive and meaningful evaluation can also be done where targets are adjusted and projects are evaluated based on a more meaningful set of measures.Recommendations The above analysis of the results of each objective focuses on “summative” evaluation, or evaluation strictly of numerical results. “Formative” evaluation looks at using the data to inform and improve the operation of the projects. In the current state plan, the Council made an effort to continue the shift from objectives that were more activity based (measuring numbers served, numbers of events) to those that are more impact or outcome based (how the situation was overall improved). Some targets in the old plan were overly specific and detailed and were changed in the new plan to focus more on outcomes rather than specific outputs or activities – they indicate how things might change as a result of the plan’s efforts, not just what was done or what was produced. As noted above, there is more to be done and the Committee has addressed this as they develop the next SPIL.The biggest change needed is to continue to move from activity based measures to outcome measures It is very challenging for a statewide organization that tries to promote real change at both the state and local level to measure this change. The Council has made great improvements in this area by adding in more surveys and other follow up data to try to measure the impact of the Council’s / SPIL’s initiatives. The SSAN and NYAIL conference are good examples of progress made. The veteran’s program also conducted surveys, but this data wasn’t included in the program’s assessment. From initially having no objectives, to in an earlier SPIL having 14 objectives, each with multiple performance targets that were mostly activity oriented, to now having a smaller number of objectives that are more outcome focused, is a large step forward. Prioritizing the objectives to a smaller number reflects a better sense of the Council’s role in the SPIL. Continuing to add more elements that focus on outcomes will help promote the move to a more outcome-based evaluation.Developing a SPIL is a very large and challenging undertaking. The process rightly focuses primarily on how resources should be allocated. The time for writing the actual objectives and performance targets is at the end when there is little time for reflection and revision. The involvement of the M&E Committee in writing the plan, has helped add this focus to the development process for the next plan. In addition, there was a one-year extension provided for completing the next plan and this gave the committee time to really sort through all the objectives, try to determine the “true” intentions and degree of change required. They also took time to try to specify these changes with some relevant performance targets. It is hoped that the other Council committees who will finalize various aspects of the next SPIL will take this shift into account as they finalize the outcomes and targets for each of the objectives. In some cases, adding quality criteria to the target (e.g. education alerts that are responded to), will bring down the number of “successful” outcomes, so the Council may want to consider reducing numbers while increasing the qualitative aspect of what constitutes success. This will show outcomes that have a measurable impact, not just an activity. In previous years, several objectives had “value added” components. In most cases, these additions tried to measure more outcome-oriented results. From these experiences, the Council has evolved to a more outcome-oriented assessment. The bottom line of an evaluation process should be to assess whether the programs and initiatives supported in the plan are making a difference in furtherance of the mission and broad goals of the plan. In the past, the Council’s evaluation process focuses more on assessing “yes” or “no,” was the objective met or not – the summative evaluation. It can be helpful to also look at “why” an objective was met, exceeded, or fell short – the formative evaluation. The M&E committee has begun reviewing this as part of their deliberations, which is another benefit of having a dedicated M & E committee. More can be done in this area.In the beginning of this process a number of years ago, the Executive Committee was tasked with evaluating the evaluation process overall and the work of the evaluation consultant. That was not done for the past few years. This is now the responsibility of the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee, who reviews and recommends the final draft of the SPIL Evaluation report to the full Council. The Committee and the evaluator will meet later this year to discuss how the Committee can best conduct this evaluation.The full Monitoring and Evaluation Committee report follows including detailed evaluations of each objective and performance target.NYSILC 2019 SPIL Objectives/Evaluation SummariesObjective # 1: NYSILC will demonstrate its operational effectiveness and capability to develop, monitor, and evaluate the SPIL.Measurable Indicators/Performance Targets:Number of full council meetings held during the year with a quorum (target 4): 4.Preliminary Assessment: NYSILC successfully held all four full council meetings with a quorum during the year at several locations, on the following dates: Troy Hilton Garden Inn - November 9, 2018, Schenectady Rivers Casino/Landing Hotel – March 29, 2019 and June 14, 2019, and Schenectady Marriott Courtyard - September 20, 2019. Outcome and target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherProgress made by NYSILC Committees (Outcome met) Number of issues addressed by NYSILC committees (target 12): 34. Preliminary Assessment: Based on the information from the quarterly reports, progress was made on thirty-four issues by NYSILC committees during the past year. Target exceeded. A few examples included:SPIL Committee reviewed priority issues and needs resulting from SPIL hearings, focus groups and the statewide needs assessmentRecruitment Committee selected four individuals to participate in telephone interviews in August to consider for two vacancies/two individuals later selected for appointment in 2020Executive Committee discussed the importance of a NYSILC succession plan/major area of focus in the council’s draft short-term strategic planExecutive Committee discussed the Administration on Community Living (ACL) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) related to advocacy activities/several follow up steps followed with IL partners to communicate and confirm the FAQSPIL Committee identified budget parameters along with projects to support in the next plan based on input and need.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherIssues successfully addressed by committees (target 4). 20 actions were successfully addressed. Target exceeded. A few examples included:Development and Executive Committees support the FCM and Hall of Fame (HOF) event venue change to the Albany Wolf Road Marriott in 2020Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) Committee decisions to invite and have both a group of SSAN coordinators and the Taconic Resources for Independence (TRI) veteran’s with disabilities demonstration project present at FCMsExecutive Committee’s review of the council’s board responsibilities summary and plan/later reviewed at the June FCM/several of these items were addressed during the final quarter of the year in draft plansRecruitment Committee successfully reached the intended target population of its candidate search. Nine of the individuals were people with disabilities/peers (90%), and seven of the applications were also diverse candidates (70%).The two candidates recommended for appointment had impressive skills and experience to offer the council, were peers, and added to the council’s diversity Development Committee announced five inductees for the 2019 NYS Disability Rights Hall of Fame amongst several worthy nominations.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherUnresolved Issues: faced by committees: (target maximum of 4) T Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports, there was one (1) unresolved issue by the end of the contract year. NYSILCs 4-year contract was not successfully executed by the 10/1/19 start date and the advance payment was not received. The contract materials were received on 9/26/19 and sent to the SED contract unit on 9/30/19. After about a month of follow up questions and processing, the contract was approved and NYSILC receive an executed copy in mid-November. They are awaiting the advanced payment. Since there was one unresolved issue, this is a result that exceeds the target of 4 (since it is less). Target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherCompletion and documentation of reporting requirements (Outcome met)Annual financial audit completed “unqualified” and 990 forms filed fully, accurately as documented: Target: 100%.Preliminary Assessment: Based on the information from the January-March 2019 NYSILC quarterly contract report, Brad Williams, Executive Director, responded to Michelle Rosen of Cusick & Company with a set of emails regarding the list of fiscal audit deliverables. Follow up items were reviewed online the week of January 7th. The site visit was the morning of January 15th. CPA Ken Claflin reviewed and generated the draft versions of the 2018 Audited Financial Statement (AFS) and 990 form. The Executive Director, bookkeeper and Treasurer reviewed these draft documents and contacted the CPA with minor edits. The NYSILC Finance Committee met on February 7, 2019 with CPA Ken Claflin to receive an overview of the AFS. The committee approved the AFS. The CPA firm initiated the process to generate final copies of the AFS and both filings (990 and CHAR500).Brad Williams facilitated the signing of the two filings identified above. The electronic copy of the 990 was posted to the website under Key Documents, while the AFS was emailed out to the full council for review in advance of the March 2019 FCM. . Target met. Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherAnnual PPR Report completed with DSE to ACL fully, accurately, and on time. Target: 100%.Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports, NYSILC, ACCES-VR and TRI worked to coordinate data and information into different sections of the 2018 NY Program Performance Report (PPR). NYSILC pulled together the Word draft for review and signatures and entered the information into the ACL Reporting site before end of January 2019 deadline. The report received preliminary approval by ACL on 3/19/19. After addressing four additional items identified by ACL in NY’s 2018 PPR, the report was approved for grant #1901NYILS by ACL on 4/22/19. (Two of the items were related to the difference between budgeted and spent Part B and non-Part B funds. The other two items required additional information related to the council’s composition/disability assurance and the DSE’s monitoring activity). Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherAnnual SPIL evaluation and report completed by evaluator and committees as documented: 100%.Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports, Executive Director Brad Williams and consultant Alan Krieger of Krieger Solutions, LLC started a process to compile information for the NYSILC 2018 SPIL Evaluation. On 1/1/19, Brad sent the narrative from Section 26 of the 2018 PPR. This provided expanded background information about the performance of the SPIL objectives. Alan utilized information from the report for the summative part of the report and attached. Brad provided additional information from two other NYSILC programs based on survey input.Consultant Alan Krieger of Krieger Solutions, LLC completed a final draft of a 2018 NYSILC SPIL Evaluation report, which included input from members of the M & E Committee and NYSILC Executive Director Brad Williams. Alan Krieger provided an overview of the report at the June 2019 full council meeting. The report was accepted and was posted to the NYSILC website and distributed via council outlets. The link to the report is: . Outcome and target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherCompletion of statewide needs assessment and report/distributed and posted to NYSILC website. (Target: 100%). Inactive this year. Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherPercentage increase of resource development efforts above contract (all other sources). (Target: 3% or $13,018).Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports, the council has the capacity to develop resources per authority (B) under the WIOA regulations, as stated in the SPIL. The SILC can use operating funds to ideally support its primary operations and identified programs, such as the Pat Figueroa young adult scholarships, the NYS Disability Rights Hall of Fame, and other opportunities as defined and supported.During the past year, NYSILC developed (all sources) $30,320. This exceeded the target by 232%. It exceeded last year’s amount by $3,638. Most of the revenue was generated from the Hall of Fame (HOF) event. The following line items produced: $30,320 (Event Sponsorships, $16,700 - Event Tickets, $3,400 - Honorary Committee Memberships, $5,200 - Program Advertisements, $1,500 - Gift Baskets, $378 - Silent Auction, $420 - and 50/50 Raffle, $300. Additional revenue came from Donations – $1,278, In-Kind Donations - $150, Consulting Fees - $450 (SILC-Net), Interest Income -$538, and Miscellaneous Income - $6. Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherIncrease in NYSILC Young Adult Involvement (Outcome substantially met)Number of young adults participating in a training sponsorship (target 12): 6. While the SPIL target is identified as 12, recent changes made to the Pat Figueroa Scholarship (PFS) program makes it more realistic to project that 5-8 individuals will benefit from the opportunity each year. Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports and the NYSILC 2018- 2019 Annual Report, six scholarships were provided to young adults during the year.A young woman (a CUNY student) from NY City was provided a scholarship to attend the State-of-the-Art conference in Syracuse, NY. The conference addressed a variety of topics for students including life skills, advocacy, technology, and the overall college experience. The event changed her outlook on the importance of self-advocacy skills for youth/young adults with disabilities before they reach the post-secondary college level. She has reached out to a local school district superintendent to discuss starting a disability awareness month acknowledgment throughout their public schools.A young man from NY City was provided a scholarship to attend the Families Together in NYS conference in Albany, NY May 5-6, 2019. He currently works as a Youth Peer Advocate to assist youth in the juvenile justice system to learn leadership skills based on a training curriculum along with other peer-led activities. He is interested in the “building strong roots for success: integration for family wellness” workshop. The recipient is appreciative of the support.A young woman from Brooklyn was provided a scholarship to attend the 2019 Abilities Expo in New Jersey from May 3-5, 2019. She is a reading tutor intern at PS 7/Reading partners, providing one-on-one assistance to individuals with disabilities. She is interested in “bettering her community” by educating people about resources for people with disabilities and by improving accessibility. She was appreciative of the scholarship and reported back that the event was useful in garnering contacts and resources she can take back to her community.A young woman from Lowville (Western NY) was provided a scholarship to attend the University of Youth Power in Albany from June 22-25,2019. She was recently hired as a youth peer advocate and reported back that the training will be very helpful in her new job. She said she wants to “rebuild her confidence and learn to be a voice through advocacy for herself and others and develop leadership skills to ultimately help others.”One individual applied for a PFS scholarship but was made aware of a Youth Power! Scholarship. They attended the University of Youth Power on one of their scholarships.A young woman from Brooklyn was provided a scholarship to attend the Respectability Summit on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on July 22, 2019.She wrote a blog post about the event: submit-on-capital-hill.html and expressed her gratitude, writing “this opportunity allowed me to develop a vision for youth in my community.” Responding to an appeal for support from the Empire State Association for the Deaf (ESAD), a $250 donation was provided to the ESAD after they requested assistance for a deaf and hard-of-hearing young adult to attend their biennial convention in Rochester, NY in November. ESAD is looking to integrate peers into work and education settings. In our letter, we requested that any young adult attending their event with our funds complete the PFS online survey about their experiences. For the year, six scholarships were provided to young adults with disabilities. As noted above, this number is in line with the changes made and the new direction of the program: (see fourth paragraph). Target partially met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherNumber of young adults actively participating in NYSILC’s youth leadership subcommittee (target 5): 6. Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports, the NYSILC Youth Leadership Subcommittee still consists of the same six active members: Zach Garafalo; Marc Rosen and Crystal Rivera, all council members, as well as Lyndsi Wickert, David Dodge, and Melanie Hecker as non-council members. The chair of the committee is currently vacant. Brad Williams, NYSILC Executive Director, coordinates email communication for the group. The committee participates in the review and approval of PFS applications. It should be noted that at the end of next quarter (12/31/19) both Zach Garafalo and Marc Rosen will be terming off the council. Marc Rosen will stay active on the committee as a non-council/former council member. The committee will need to reach out and recruit new members. Target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherComprehensive Fund Development Plan/Search for a vendor to provide the requested services (Target: 100%). 100%Report completed by committee and consultant (Target 100%).Work with Development Committee to define a scope of services to distribute to solicit vendors (Target: 100%). Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports and committee minutes, the Development Committee created a scope of services for the Fund Development Plan (FDP) and identified a list of vendors to send the request out to during the first quarter of 2019. It was sent out in late February for a month with only the Association Development Group (ADG) responding. The deadline was extended to seek additional responses. The vendor pool was expanded. No further requests were received. As a result, the Development Committee considered the ADG proposal during the late April committee meeting. Their proposal was selected pending positive references. The Development Committee wanted to obtain input from the various vendors who did not submit proposals to the request. A basic survey was created to obtain feedback with input from committee members. Brad sent a brief email with link to the vendors. Three responded. The two primary responses included: “Multiple deadlines/too busy” (selected twice), and “Not enough money given the work” (elected once). An additional comment in the open-ended section noted, “email was bland and unprofessional.” Committee members appreciated the value of the feedback and realized that the council was fortunate to get the work funded by a vendor because it appeared that the market and demand was higher than expected. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherWork with selected vendor on the completion of a comprehensive Fund Development Plan (FDP) (Target 100%) Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in NYSILC quarterly reports, NYSILC met with ADG’s team in early May to initiate the agreement to provide services and review expectations per the defined proposal. The team obtained initial feedback from the NYSILC staff related to the relationship between council members, their perceived needs, and what the staff required out of the relationship when it came to resource development. The topic of the recent board responsibilities and priorities was discussed.ADG conducted a development survey of NYSILC members, staff, and vendors in August. ADG gathered useful information from the survey results. Nancy Meyers Preston and Joseph Van De Loo of ADG presented at the NYSILC full council meeting on 9/20/19 related to development. They also shared highlights from the survey responses and facilitated council feedback around development planning. The draft FDP will be presented and reviewed at the November FCM. Target substantially met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherOverall, this objective and its seven outcomes with thirteen targets demonstrated excellent progress during the past year.Objective # 2: New Yorkers with disabilities will be actively engaged in promoting disability rights through the support of a Statewide Systems Advocacy Network (SSAN) and a statewide coordinator working with priorities identified in the NYSILC statewide needs assessment.There were seven outcomes related to this objective with seven targets. Preliminary results indicate that the SSAN exceeded all seven outcomes and seven targets.The New York State Education Department (ACCES-VR) contracts with the New York Association on Independent Living (NYAIL) to coordinate the Statewide Systems Advocacy Network (SSAN). ACCES-VR also contracts with the 15 ILCs that make up the SSAN. The SSAN sites in 2018-2019 were: ARISE Child & Family Services, Syracuse (ARISE); AIM Independent Living Center, Corning (AIM); Access to Independence of Cortland County, Cortland (ATI); Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, Brooklyn (BCID); BRIDGES, New City; Center for Disability Rights, Rochester (CDR); Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York, Manhattan (CIDNY); Independent Living Center of the Hudson Valley, Troy (ILCHV); Independent Living, Inc., Newburgh (IL, Inc.); Northern Regional Center for Independent Living, Watertown (NRCIL); Resource Center for Accessible Living, Kingston (RCAL); Resource Center for Independent Living, Utica (RCIL); Southern Tier Independence Center, Binghamton (STIC); Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc., Yonkers (MDOMI); and Westchester Independent Living Center, White Plains (WILC).Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, a survey was distributed to SSAN volunteers in the first quarter to assess the impact systems advocacy has on factors such as levels of personal empowerment and self-determination. The report will appear in Section 29, Additional Information.NYAIL worked with SSAN advocates to develop the statewide agenda. Individuals participated in the educational day in Albany on February 11th in cooperation with the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Association of NYS (CDPAANYS). NYAIL provided ongoing communication and technical assistance to the SSAN sites. Four new advocates joined the SSAN over the course of the reporting year. The SSAN Coordinator worked with each new advocate individually, setting up conference calls to review deliverables and reporting requirements. The SSAN coordinator also discussed the types of activities they could engage in as a new advocate. At the close of the second and third quarters, the SSAN Coordinator updated the advocates on their numbers regarding their deliverables. Advocates who had fallen behind were notified and offered assistance in order to address any issues. NYAIL participated in conference calls related to the ACL FAQ and provided feedback with NYSILC and ACCES-VR related to adjustments to practices and the upcoming state contract extensions/amendments for 2020.Training was provided for the SSAN network during the year on the state’s lobbying law and regulations, the statewide agenda, and a full day training related to advocacy, communication, and social media strategies.Number of SSAN significant statewide system changes (target: 2). 3.Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, the SSAN was supportive of and provided educational opportunities with individuals and stakeholders where the following systems changes were realized during the past year:Early voting enacted. The SSAN was supportive of education about early voting in the statewide agenda. The Election Reform Committee felt strongly that early voting would help alleviate the barriers for people with disabilities trying to vote in person as it would provide more days to get to the polling site. Several advocates participated with the broader coalition, Let NY Vote. There will now be 9 days of early voting in New York.Child Victims Act enacted. This item was supported in the statewide agenda. It was a priority because children with disabilities, particularly those with developmental and mental health disabilities, are far more likely to be victims of abuse. The Governor signed the act into law in January.Source of income protections enacted. A long-time priority of the SSAN was enacted – to get a person’s lawful source of income added as a protected class to New Yew York State Human Rights Law. This makes it illegal for landlords to refuse to rent to a person because they rely on disability benefits, a rental subsidy, public assistance, or any other forms of legal income. This form of discrimination has prevented many people with disabilities from being able to secure housing. It is now state law. Outcome and target exceeded. Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherNumber of local partnerships and coalitions established by the SSAN network (target: 75): 137.Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, the SSAN sites established 137 new partnerships and coalitions, exceeding the goal by 62. A few examples of the partnerships and coalitions include:BRIDGES established a partnership with the Rockland County Pride Center to support them in converting their facilities to be fully accessible, and to support them in providing accessibility at public events.AIM joined Complete Count Committee consisting of government agencies, non- profits, schools and other groups in Chemung, Schuyler and Steuben counties working to promote the 2020 U.S. Census and its importance in funding local programs and services.WILC is participating in Rev Up the Vote Westchester, a Coalition of people with disabilities and affiliate organizations working together to register people to vote, provide election and voter information, and increase access to polling places.ARISE’s SSAN participated in focus group discussions on issues surrounding Syracuse Surge development project—housing, business development and education. Syracuse Surge is a loose connection of projects that have been linked together to give a jumpstart to the low-income neighborhoods of Syracuse. Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherNumber of educational alerts disseminated to local volunteers by the SSAN network (target: 660): 850. Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, SSAN centers sent a total of 850 alerts to local volunteers. This exceeded the target by 190. Educational alerts ranged in topic from Competitive Integrated Employment, fair housing, restoration of the Office of Advocate to the small business tax credit for people with disabilities. Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Number of local public education activities engaged in by the SSAN network (target 300): 625.Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, the SSAN Centers exceeded this goal by engaging in 625 public education activities in the past year. This exceeded the target by 325. Examples of local public education include:National Disability Voter Registration Week - RCIL staff networked with DRNY, Montgomery OFA, Montgomery DSS, Montgomery BOE and NY Connects to facilitate a community event in support of voter registration and education for people with disabilities.CDR held a Legislative Breakfast to give constituents an opportunity to speak with their legislators about disability issues.National Disability Voter Registration Week – ATI partnered with Cortland County League of Women Voters to host voter registration and education tables at five different libraries in Cortland County throughout the weekAIM’s Systems Advocate Discussed CDPAS reimbursement cuts at Care Continuum Coalition for Chemung, Steuben, and Schuyler (C4S) meeting with directors of local offices for the aging and representatives of area health care providers.ARISE held an ADA celebration in Syracuse on July 24. There was entertainment and speakers, culminating in a parade. Over 150 people participated in the event.Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Number of grassroots organizing activities engaged in by the SSAN network (target: 90): 239.Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, SSAN sites reported a total of 239 grassroots organizing activities for the year. This exceed the target by 149. Examples of grassroots organizing activities include:RCAL’s Systems Advocate attended a launch of the Caring Majority in Ulster County. Advocates from around the local community to talk about the home healthcare crisis.CIDNY organized advocates to attend New York City’s Disability Pride Parade, held in July in honor of the ADA.BCID recruited attendees for a rally on August 1st outside state courthouse at 60 Centre Street in support of settling a lawsuit against the MTA to make their subway system fully accessible. After the rally, advocates attended the hearing inside.Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Number of oral or written public testimonies statements or letters provided, in response to a documented request, by the SSAN network (target: 90): 134. Preliminary Assessment: S Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, SSAN sites collectively provided 134 public testimonies during the past year. This exceeded the target by 44. Examples of public testimony include:Independent Living’s Systems Advocate provided written testimony, upon invitation, to HCR on the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan to ensure accessible housing and inclusion of a broader spectrum for people living with disabilities in plans.LIFE at RCIL submitted comment concerning the Department of Health and Human Services Proposed Rule: “Nondiscrimination in Health and Health Education Programs or Activities.STIC submitted comments to Disability Rights NY on their goal plans for PADD, PAIMI, PAIR, PABSS, PAAT, PAVA, and PATBI programs.CIDNY provided comments to the New York State Department of Health on the draft revisions to the “Residential Health Care Facility Report of Medicaid Recipient Admission /Discharge /Readmission/Change in Status” Form LDSS 3559. This form notifies residents when their status is being changed from short-term to long-term at the facility.Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Number of CILs or SCILs without a SSAN contract voluntarily involved in the participation of the network (target 2): 4. Preliminary Assessment: Based on information documented in SSAN quarterly reports, four non-SSAN centers continue to participate at various levels in the SSAN. Bronx Independent Living Services (BILS) is a member on NYAIL’s Housing Committee. Taconic Resources for Independence (TRI) is a member of NYAIL’s Employment and Transportation Committees. Western New York Independent Living (WNYIL) is active on NYAIL’s Housing Committee and participates in sponsored events. Finger Lakes Independence Center (FLIC) has staff participate in sponsored events and is a member of NYAIL’s Advocacy listserv. Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Overall, this objective and its seven outcomes with seven targets demonstrated significant progress during the past year.Objective # 3: Increase the attendance and involvement of attendees from the IL network, including affiliated stakeholders, by providing support for a statewide independent living training conference.There were five outcomes and five targets related to this objective. Preliminary results indicate that four outcomes and targets were exceeded, and one outcome and target were substantially met.NYAIL coordinated the 2019 New York statewide IL conference which was held at the Albany Capital Center September 10-11th, 2019.An opening keynote session featured three attorneys: Susan Jamieson, Esq. (Atlanta Legal Aid, Olmstead Attorney), Simeon Goldman, Esq. (Disability Rights New York) and Bethany Lilly, Esq. (The Arc of the United States). Another plenary session included a presentation from Michelle Caiola, Esq. (Disability Rights Advocates) who has filed number disability rights complaints and suits, including against the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) for their lack of elevator access in the New York City subway system.Throughout the two-day conference there were five (5) clusters of workshops, totaling 25 different workshops for attendees to choose from. The workshops addressed a wide range of topics impacting New Yorkers with disabilities and issues pertinent to IL and the centers A few of the featured workshops included:Using Pooled Trusts to Keep Medicaid or SSIHousing Rights for Persons with Disabilities Under the NYS Human Rights LawNY’s Long-Term Care Planning ProjectServices for Those Who Served: Assisting Veterans and Families in your Daily WorkDisability, Diversity, and Intersectionality at CILsPeer Mentoring: A Proven Process for Successfully Transitioning Individuals out of InstitutionsFrom Institutions to Community: Providing Independent Living Behavioral Health ServicesIntegrating Homeless People with Disabilities into Community LivingVendors exhibited throughout the event. The 2019 David Veatch Advocacy Achievement Award was given to Susan Ruff of the Southern Tier Independence Center (STIC).Number of people attending the IL conference with reduced registration costs (target: 200): 274.Preliminary Assessment: Based on the documentation from registration forms, the total number of attending the IL statewide conference with a reduced registration was 274. This number was down compared to two years ago, but still far exceeded the target. Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Number of people attending the IL conference with reduced registration costs sorted by IL involvement (target 100 staff, 25 board members 25 advocates, 25 stakeholders, and 25 other): 239 staff, 16 board members, 19 advocates, 61 stakeholders and 0 other. Preliminary Assessment: Based on the documentation from registration forms, it was assessed that the following participation occurred at the IL statewide conference per the identified categories:Center staff: 239Center board members: 16Advocates: 19Stakeholders: 61Other: 0It should be noted that these were primary identifications. Some people had multiple identifications. The group of targets had a mixed result (two exceeded, two substantially met, one not met). As a result, the targets were substantially met. Outcome and target substantially met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Percentage of attendees satisfied with their overall experience at the statewide IL conference (target: 90%).Preliminary Assessment: Based on responses from a post-survey sent to attendees (50 responses from 274 persons with reduced registrations/18% return). Out of these individuals, the following results were achieved:NYAIL identified a 98% satisfaction rate based on responses ranging from excellent, good, and satisfied. This is an increase from two years ago.Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Percentage of attendees who learned something useful at the statewide IL conference (target: 70%): 84%.Preliminary Assessment: Based on responses from a post-survey sent to attendees (50 responses from 274 persons with reduced registrations/18% return). Out of these individuals, the following results were achieved:84% indicated that they learned something useful at the statewide conference. This is an increase from two years ago.Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Percentage of attendees who intend to implement a best practice or other idea at the local level (target: 40%). 73%.Preliminary Assessment: Based on responses from a post-survey sent to attendees (50 responses from 274 persons with reduced registrations/18% return). Out of these individuals, the following results were achieved:73% indicated they intended to implement a best practice or other idea at the local level. This is a slight increase from two years ago.Outcome and target exceeded.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or Other.Overall, progress was made on this objective, which was reflected in the reduced registration for conference attendees and overall satisfaction of the conference.Objective # 4: Designate funds to develop and establish a database and interface that will compile, analyze, and interpret data from the statewide network.There were three outcomes active this year related to this objective with three targets. Preliminary results indicate that all outcomes and targets were not met. This same situation occurred last year. Essentially, the timing for the implementation of the data interface project is off by about 1-2 years. This was due to a delay in securing the funding for the entire project, which won’t happen until 2020. This impacts the completion of the outcomes and targets as originally planned. It was reported that Phase I of the project was completed last year, which related to the initial feedback about the overall conceptual design. This year, Phase II of the project was addressed starting in late June with vendor ES11. Conceptual agreement about the parameters to be achieved were agreed upon. ES11 pulled together draft wireframes for the web application based on the common data fields from last year. The Database Work Group met once on 8/7/19 to review the draft wireframes for the web application and to discuss questions, including “extra reportable items.” Discussion continued on these items on the project’s communication board, Basecamp. Extra reportable items will look to include a couple of key areas that the current system addresses based on what the centers report for local systems advocacy goals and results, deinstitutionalization, and prevention, along with a couple other enhancements. The remaining phases of the data interface project will be addressed next year (2020) from January through September. All the “inactive” outcomes and targets previously not met will become active again in 2020. This will include the three outcomes and targets “not met” this year (2019). NYSILC will report the progress on all of them in the 2020 PPR based on the projected completion of the data interface and database.Measurable Indicators/Performance Targets:Number of centers testing the prototype of the statewide database and interface product, providing feedback related to the process: (target 20). Inactive.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherReport on status of database and interface design based on collective center data and feedback completed as documented: (target 100%). Inactive. Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherPercentage of centers that participate in training related to the product and process: (target: 75%). Preliminary Assessment: As noted above, the timing of this outcome and target has been off by about 1-2 years due to a delay in securing funds for the entire project. It will be addressed next year (2020).Outcome and target not met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherPercentage of centers that successfully are connected to the data interface and upload the first requested data: (target: 90%). Preliminary Assessment: As noted above, the timing of this outcome and target has been off by about 1-2 years due to a delay in securing funds for the entire project. It will be addressed next year (2020).Outcome and target not met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherOverall, the SILC is optimistic about the continued progress being made with the data interface project. While the identified outcomes and targets were not met, they (along with others) will be extended into 2020 when the project is set to have its remaining phases completed.Objective # 5: Address priority unserved and underserved populations and issues by providing one (1) $72,000 demonstration grant opportunity that can be evaluated by the council, be held to its own unique set of deliverables (outcomes), and subsequently provide a best practices manual for the benefit of the statewide IL network.There were seven outcome areas related to this objective with fourteen targets. Preliminary results indicate that six outcomes were met, and one was not met, while thirteen targets were met, and one target was not met.Taconic Resources for Independence (TRI) completed the second year of the demonstration project to provide Independent Living services to veterans with disabilities. The project has an additional focus on accessible and affordable housing and transportation in the community. TRI set up their own unique deliverables with the DSE and reports on them quarterly. The content from the quarterly reports serve as the basis for this report.Measurable Indicators/Performance Targets:OutreachAgency will issue press releases and email blasts which will include printable materials. Will include information on all social media pleted. TRI’s initial outreach was completed. They continued to do outreach by posting their various social media platforms as events and information arise. TRI posted community veteran events and functions on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherVeteran Specialist will collaborate with the Division of Veteran Services, Mental Health America Living Room Program (homeless program) and Hudson River Housing Veteran Services Program to promote services.Ongoing. TRI’s collaborators have changed. They continued to work on a regular basis with the Division of Veteran Services to help veterans with their compensation claims. The MHA program, Vet2Vet, has expanded again and has a new member who runs VET-TAP, which is designed to help veterans looking for employment. TRI continued to partner with WestCop as well, who assists us with finding housing for veterans. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherVeteran Specialist will attend veteran specific events to conduct outreach and to remain current regarding the needs of Dutchess County Veterans. Some examples include:Ongoing.Met with staff at the Veteran Affairs at Castle Point to drop off pertinent paperwork for consumers.Crisis Intervention Training with Vet2Vet and Dutchess Sheriff’s Department to prepare the local police with training on working with veterans.Dutchess County Task Force to partner with Dutchess County Veteran groups.Meeting with Vet2Vet at MHA Dutchess with our Mobile Benefits Counselor to help mutual consumers with SSI and SSDIHudson Valley Task Force meeting in Goshen to discuss current veteran issues within the five counties.Office of the Public Defender to promote to the staff Taconic Resources for Independence programs and see what ways we can work together in the future. The final goal is to have an alternate to incarceration program for Veterans.Partnered with Solider On to help a mutual veteran.Outcome and target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherProgram PlanningVeteran Specialist will create a dedicated database to document all activities and outcomes and provision of direct services and/or systems advocacy and outcomes. Completed. TRI’s database previously set up and the veteran drive completed. Input is ongoing and updated regularly. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherProgram Director and Veteran Specialist will join veteran related committees and coalitions.Ongoing. TRI’s Veteran Specialist is a founding member of the Dutchess County Veteran Task Force that meets monthly with like-minded agencies to discuss all events and happenings related to veterans in the county. The Veteran Specialist is also a member of the Hudson Valley Task Force that serves five counties, and the Program Director attends meetings as a guest. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherThe Veteran Specialist will develop program specific intake assessment forms and outcome pleted. TRI’s assessment intake and goals assessment were developed and found adequate for use for this program. A veteran specific outcome survey was developed and distributed to both past and present participants via Survey Monkey. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherVeteran Specialist and Program Director will meet weekly to assess program activities and plan best practices pleted. TRI staff met weekly. Final draft of “how to” completed and submitted to Board of Directors and NYSILC for review. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherOutcome and target met.Project Implementation:The Veteran Specialist will provide comprehensive, quality independent living services to veterans with disabilities to assist them in becoming more stabilized in their homes and communities. The specialist will conduct in depth intake interviews, assessments of needs and define expectations and goals.Ongoing. TRI provided services to 25 unduplicated people this year. Four veterans required services again. Also, 74 stakeholders (individuals, families, agency personnel) were provided with one-time information and referral that allowed them to self- advocate/resolve issues without the need for a full intake. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherThe Veteran Specialist will communicate with agency partners to provide appropriate linkage to supports and services for veterans with disabilities.Ongoing. Vet2Vet is available in multiple counties and the Veteran Specialist works closely with the Dutchess County branch. Our partners include the Dutchess County Division of Veterans Services, Veteran Affairs at various locations, The Social Security Administration, WestCop, Legal Services of the Hudson Valley and the MHA Vet2Vet H.E.R.O. program. We are also part of and share outreach and support related information to B.A.T. members, which is comprised of many nonprofits in Dutchess County. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherOutcome and target met.Service Provision:1.The Veteran Specialist will link veterans to/with supports, services, and benefits as needed.Ongoing. TRI linked veterans with disabilities to many services at agencies throughout the county including the Dutchess County Division of Veterans Services, the local VA, the Department of Labor, Social Services, West Cop, Legal Services of Hudson Valley and the MHA Vet2Vet programs. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or Other2.The Veteran Specialist will provide independent living skills training based on individual needs and goals.Ongoing. Most independent living skills training involves assisting veterans with disabilities with filling out forms, requesting paperwork and filing for benefits from Veteran Affairs. TRI finds many veterans use our in-house Social Security disability benefits counseling services. They assist veterans with applying for compensation and pension with the Veteran Service Office. TRI also helps them apply for VA Healthcare. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherOutcome and target met.Systems Advocacy:The Veteran Specialist will assist veterans with disabilities in organizing a committee for conducting systems advocacy especially as it relates to affordable/acceptable housing. The Veteran Specialist will offer the opportunity to join the systems advocacy group to each veteran during the intake process.Ongoing. Offered to consumers on goals form during intake. Noted on assessment sheet. We are having difficulty forming the systems advocacy group as veterans are looking for immediate housing options, but we continue to strive to accomplish this goal. We have found that homeless veterans are in crisis and are looking for emergency services and not currently interested in a systems advocacy group. Not met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherOutcome and target not met.Best Practices Manual:The Veteran Specialist will research, collect, and store data and document all activities and outcomes to be used to inform a best practices manual. The Veteran Specialist will use data collected from the intake interview and exit surveys to document outcomes or attainment of pleted. TRI utilized consumer statistics and exit surveys that had been distributed to current and past consumers to supplement work. “How To” best practices manual submitted and approved ahead of time. Archived on NYSILC website: . Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherA daily log will be kept tracking activity that will also be used to inform the best practices manual.Ongoing. Updated daily in a dedicated drive. Target met.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherOutcome and target met.Other:Highlights:Ongoing.TRI was able to get a previously denied veteran a HUD Vash voucher which will allow him to seek affordable sustainable housing.TRI was able to help a Korean War veteran to move out of nursing home and into an apartment.TRI continued to work with Legal Services of the Hudson Valley to help veterans with free legal services.TRI enrolled a veteran in the VA Healthcare system.Challenges:Ongoing. Housing programs are designed for those who are homeless or in imminent risk. They do not assist enough with those that are at risk of losing their homes. The requirements are very stringent and complicated for those that are homeless, creating further barriers to receiving help.Many veterans are not qualified for VA compensation and healthcare due to lack of time in service or their status of discharge. If we have exhausted all the veteran’s options, the veterans are recommended to alternative services such as the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor.Lack of funding and resources have proven difficult in finding affordable, stable housing. There is a tremendous deficit of living options available to disabled veterans.Employment continues to be an issue as many veterans struggle to find sustainable work.Number of unduplicated veterans served by the program to date: 51.Confirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not met, N/A or OtherOutcome and target met.. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download