201 - NYSILC



NYSILC 2018 SPIL Evaluation ReportConsultant’s Report on the Second Year of the 2017-2019State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL)Submitted by Alan KriegerKrieger Solutions, LLCMay 21, 2019Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Background12018 SPIL Evaluation Findings PAGEREF _Toc8680340 \h 2Summative Analysis – How well were the objectives and targets met? PAGEREF _Toc8680341 \h 2Summary of the evaluation of each of the objectives and consultant observations. PAGEREF _Toc8680343 \h 5Goal # 1: NYSILC will be an effective coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating entity for the SPIL. PAGEREF _Toc8680344 \h 5Goal # 2: People with disabilities will be actively involved in promoting disability rights in New York State. PAGEREF _Toc8680345 \h 9Goal # 3: Members of the IL network will have their technical assistance and training needs met through a statewide event or initiative. PAGEREF _Toc8680346 \h 15Goal # 4: The IL network effectively promotes IL philosophy through systems advocacy and services. PAGEREF _Toc8680347 \h 16Overall Summary PAGEREF _Toc8680348 \h 20Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc8680349 \h 21NYSILC 2018 SPIL Objectives/Evaluation Summaries PAGEREF _Toc8680352 \h 23Goal # 1: NYSILC will be an effective coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating entity for the SPIL. PAGEREF _Toc8680353 \h 23Goal # 2: People with disabilities will be actively involved in promoting disability rights in New York State. PAGEREF _Toc8680355 \h 29Goal # 3: Members of the IL network will have their technical assistance and training needs met through a statewide event or initiative. PAGEREF _Toc8680356 \h 38Goal # 4: The IL network effectively promotes IL philosophy through systems advocacy and services.40SSAN Volunteer Survey Results PAGEREF _Toc8680357 \h 45BackgroundThe 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 for several years to continue to refine the evaluation process and make it more outcome oriented. The consultant also completes an evaluation report each year.This evaluation covers the activities from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018 and is related to the six objectives in the Statewide Plan for Independent Living (SPIL). This is the second year of the plan and two objectives (#3 IL conference and #6 capacity building grants) were not active this year. The evaluation is based on the other four 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 provided some comments and issues for the committee to consider in reaching their decisions. Some of these comments became recommendations for the committee to examine while the Council develops the next SPIL. 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 involved a series of phone calls and very active engagement by all the members of the committee. We looked primarily at outcome and impact measures for each objective to focus more on results rather than activities. The committee developed recommendations for wording that is now being shared with other Council committees, to develop a final proposal. Working with the needs assessment committee to develop a survey, and review and analyze survey and other data to help identify priority needs for the next SPIL to address. This was further developed through the public hearings process.The Monitoring and Evaluation Committee followed 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). The committee then reviewed the resulting data and discussed any issues related to reaching the objectives.NYSILC staff compiled the data in early 2019. It essentially represented a preliminary assessment of the SPIL objectives for 2018 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 the preliminary assessment. The full summaries are appended to this report. The M & E Committee met in March 2019 to discuss routine monitoring activity. The group was impressed with 2018 Statewide Systems Advocacy Network (SSAN) survey results and felt they should be shared with the consultant for the SPIL evaluation. In addition, survey results were also pulled together for the Pat Figueroa Scholarship (PFS) and Leadership Development and Civic Engagement Program (LDCEP) and sent to the consultant. Overall, members were pleased at the progress being made to assess some initial outcomes and impact. 2018 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. However, many 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.The current plan has also done 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. In this year’s effort, the results seem to line up with the intentions so neither of these conditions apply.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 4 objectives active this year in the 2017-2019 SPIL. Two of the six objectives in the SPIL (#3 and #6) were not active. #6 related to the last year of the unserved/underserved capacity building grants which was completed last year, and #3 the IL statewide conference is held every other year and was not held in 2018. Objective # 5 is a new veteran’s with disabilities demonstration project and was delayed during the first quarter to execute the contract and launch the project. This represents the initial program year for the project. The four active objectives had 31 specific measurable performance targets set for this year. 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 on strictly numbers, the Council substantially met the measures for three objectives, and did not meet the fourth (#4 - Designate funds to develop and establish a statewide database and interface). Two of the three that were met were nearly fully met - for #1 (NYSILC) - 10 out of 11 were met, and for #2 (SSAN) - 7 out of 8 were met. Overall, the SPIL was substantially met for the past year. Of the 31 performance targets, 12 exceeded the target (39%) and 12 met the target (39%), so 24 out of 31 active targets were accomplished, a rate of 77%, which is similar to the past two years. There were only two targets that were Not Met or had No Progress, and these were due to a slow start, not a failure to meet the target (thus, No Progress). This 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 four active objectives were met and shows how well the individual performance targets in each objective 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 2018:ExceededMetSubstantially MetPartially MetNo ProgressN/A or Other1: NYSILC will demonstrate its effectiveness and capability to develop, monitor and evaluate the SPIL. X??11 total targets.55?1??2: New Yorkers with disabilities will be actively engaged in promoting disability rights through SSAN.?X????8 total targets.7??1???3: Increase the attendance and involvement of attendees by providing support for a statewide independent living training conference.XNot active for the year 20184: Designate funds to develop and establish a statewide database and interface. ???X??2 total targets.??2??5: Address priority unserved and underserved populations and issues by providing one (1) $72,000 demonstration grant opportunity.??X???10 total targets.?73???6: Improve the capacity of the IL network to address priority unserved and underserved populations identified in the statewide needs assessments. XNot active for the year 2018Total Targets1212052Total Objectives 312Three of the active objectives were Substantially Met, and one was not met. Therefore, overall, the Council Substantially Met the objectives for the second year of the plan. 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. In addition, the first two objectives were mostly exceeded and fully met except for one partially met indicator in each. All three of the “Substantially Met” objectives had at least 70% of the indicators met or exceeded and two had more than 87% met or exceeded.Summary of the evaluation of each of the objectives and consultant observations. (For more detail see the SPIL committee’s full report on page 23, which follows the consultant’s report)Goal # 1: NYSILC will be an effective coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating entity for the SPIL. (Has one objective: Objective 1)Objective #1: NYSILC will demonstrate its operational effectiveness and capability to develop, monitor, and evaluate the SPIL.This objective had eleven targets, ten of which were Met or Exceeded. One was only Partially Met, so overall, the objective was technically Substantially Met, but in reality, fully met – the strong performance overall shows that the Council is operationally effective and capable.An objective should show some change, an increase, decrease, etc. This objective indicates that the Council will continue to be effective. Since the Council has had this objective for many years and it has increased its effectiveness, especially in regard to monitoring and evaluation, this may not be as useful an objective going forward. The Council may want to focus on specific areas for continued growth or new areas for development.This objective had eleven performance targets or measurable indicators for success. Five of the targets are simply maintaining operational status, while the other six are more outcome oriented and could be stated as objectives. Six of the targets were related to general operation of the Council. The other five relate to three of the program activities undertaken by the Council. Going forward, the council should focus the SPIL on these types of objectives that reflect measurable impact and change.Of the six targets related to operation, five were routine and one was progress based. As the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee noted in their review, there is no outcome for the five routine indicators, other than the continued operation of the Council. In the past there were some issues here, but these have long since been resolved and could effectively be combined into a single measure going forward. The five routine indicators were all Met, which simply means the Council conducted its administrative responsibilities:Hold four Council meetings with a quorum Annual financial audit completed “unqualified” and 990 forms filed fully, accuratelyAnnual 704 Report completed with partners and submitted to ACL fully, accuratelyAnnual SPIL evaluation and report completed by evaluator and committeesCIL statewide needs assessment and report completed by committee and consultant The sixth operational indicator was an increase in funds or resource development. The target of this development was a very modest 2% increase ($8,679) and was Exceeded. In the past year, NYSILC raised a total of $26,682, a substantial increase over the projected amount. Most of the revenue was generated from the Hall of Fame (HOF) event in the following amounts:Event Sponsorships: $13,250 Event Tickets: $7,050 Honorary Committee Memberships: $1,000Program Advertisements: $800Gift Baskets: $515Silent Auction: $36250/50 Raffle: $190 Additional revenue came in from Donations, In-Kind Donations and Interest Income.This could continue to be an outcome objective in future plans as the Council continues to build this capacity. The Council may want to set a more ambitious target for future years, as this was triple the goal and exceeded the prior year by $8,500.The remaining five indicators are more related to achieving the Council’s mission than maintaining its administrative capacity and so are grouped under “program related” measures. They are also outcome related and could continue to be objectives in future plans. These five indicators relate to three program areas of the Council:Policy issues addressed by NYSILC committeesInvolvement of young adults in a training sponsorshipYoung adults actively participating in NYSILC’s youth leadership subcommitteeNumber of issues addressed by NYSILC committees: This is three targets in one. The overall target was set at twelve issues that were addressed by the committee and being “addressed” has been defined as being able to show that documented progress was made. This year, 28 issues were addressed, so this was Exceeded. There was also a target to successfully complete at least four issues, and twelve were completed, so this was also Exceeded. Finally, there was a target to leave no more than 4 unresolved issues and there were none unresolved at the end of the contract year, so this too was Exceeded.In the past, this objective simply said a specific number of issues needed to be addressed. It wasn’t clear what was meant by “addressed” – it could have been a single discussion. Now “addressed” means discussed and progress made through some clear action. This is a much stronger measure.Additionally, specific details about each of the issues addressed or completed is provided in the appendix on pages 23-29.Number of young adults participating in a training sponsorship. Target: 12; results: 3 scholarship opportunities were provided to young adults during the year. Two additional scholarships were approved but not realized. This was Partially Met. Three individuals were approved for $250 scholarships. A young man from Watertown, received assistance to attend the Mental Health Waiver Youth Peer Advocacy Training in Albany, NY. A young woman from Long Island received assistance to attend A NCIL board meeting as a young representative in Washington, DC. A young woman from Rochester received assistance to attend the National Williams Syndrome Conference in Baltimore, MD. (This particular case was slightly different in that the request was facilitated by the young woman’s mother and as a result, the applicant did not have direct input. However, through direct contact with Brad Williams and also assistance from her mother, the recipient was able to complete the online survey and provide additional input.)This target has not been met in either of the first two years of this plan. As a result of this evaluation and reflection process, going into 2019, the Youth Leadership Committee will be addressing the utilization of the program. One concern is that the $250 maximum amount limits the number of applications as the amount is often too low to have an impact on an applicant’s ability to attend a training or event. It was decided at the September council meeting to raise this dollar amount to $1,000 starting in January 2019 in hopes to be more competitive and increase participation. The Council overall will help increase the marketing of this initiative to further increase participation.Last year, the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) committee noted that the Council’s goal or desired outcome of having young people participate in a training program is that participants will do something following the training to increase their community involvement and/or take on leadership roles. None of the three noted any specific increase in their activities, but all noted an increased awareness of issues and an increased motivation to become more involved. This is a long-term process and it may be worthwhile to connect these youth to a mentor and follow up for two or three years to see if additional involvement materializes. Another possible outcome measure could be a demonstrated increase in advocacy skills. It sounds like all three accomplished this result. Last year the (M&E) Committee added two more suggestions, that participants should:Give a presentation to the Council or a local group which could help document and demonstrate what they’ve learnedHelp recruit youth to participate in future yearsThe Council provided results from its follow up surveys with Pat Figueroa Scholarship (PFS) recipients from 2018. It consisted of three recipients during the year and one individual on the cusp from the previous year about what they gained from the experience and how they used the knowledge back in their community. Of the four respondents:4 indicated that they had plans to share what they learned with others4 indicated that they were going to be active in their community (but the question didn’t clarify if this was increased activity due to the experience or continuation of what they had been doing previously3 commented on how empowering the experience was2 commented on how this raised their awareness of the need for a youth voice in disability advocacyNumber of young adults actively participating in NYSILC’s youth leadership subcommittee. Target: 5; Results: 6. Exceeded. (Note: “young adult” is defined as ages 18-28)This has been a long-term objective of the Council and the Council has steadily maintained and increased its youth participation. This year, the NYSILC Youth Leadership Subcommittee consists of the same active six members (three council members and three non-council members). With the strong, consistent results, the Council may want to move this to the “operations” section of the indicators with the focus on maintaining significant youth involvement instead of continuing to increase the numbers.The Council originally stated a goal to have youth serve as members of the Council. Since the number of Council seats is limited, the goal was shifted to youth being “members of the youth subcommittee”. The Council may want to adjust this measure to retain the focus on maintaining a minimum number of young adults on the Council itself, perhaps with a target of two, and having three or more additional youth serving on the youth subcommittee, or perhaps on other committees of the Council. The overall goal is to have a substantial contribution by young people into the Council’s deliberations and decisions.While previously noting that the target of “participating” in a training program, (the youth “scholarship” measure) was not a true outcome; “participating” on a Council committee is by definition a leadership role and therefore an outcome of expanded youth empowerment. The catch here, is what “participating” means. Just showing up is a leadership experience, actively participating is much more powerful. I have observed young adults on the Council and they actively participate in Council discussions. A statement from the chair of the youth subcommittee confirming the active participation of the youth members would help document and strengthen this measure. Other indicators can also be identified, such as participation on other NYSILC committees, becoming a chair of a committee, or an officer of the Council.Goal # 2: People with disabilities will be actively involved in promoting disability rights in New York State. (Has one objective: Objective 2)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 eight targets; seven were Exceeded and one was Partially Met, so the objective overall was very substantially met.In addition to the specific measurable targets listed below, NYAIL hosted a Legislative Day, a press conference related to budget priorities, and several training sessions and webinars.The eight Measurable Indicators/Performance Targets were:Number of SSAN significant statewide systems changes. Target: 2, Results 6. Exceeded. The Council defines a “system change” as enactment of a law or regulation promoted by the network, or preventing enactment of a law or regulation opposed by the network. While the network can’t take full credit for these decisions, they can document that they contributed to these successful outcomes. This is the only true “outcome” measure of the eight targets in this objective. The remaining seven all measure the activity the network undertook to help achieve this outcome.Specific details about each of these changes is provided in the appendix on pages 29-34.Number of local partnerships and coalitions established by the SSAN network Target: 75, Results: 154. Exceeded.154 new partnerships and coalitions were established in the past year, exceeding the goal by 79. This also is an increase over the previous year by 35. A few examples of partnerships and coalitions include:NRCIL’s systems advocate is now on the board of the Jefferson County Mental Health Coalition.ILCHV’s Systems Advocate was invited to join Troy’s ADA Review Committee as they update their ADA plan.AIM’s Systems Advocate joined the Chemung County Homeless Housing Task ForceSTIC is working with representatives from the Red Cross and Tioga County DOH to plan a family emergency preparedness day this fall.“Coalitions established,” while an outcome, is not nearly as impactful as saying local partnerships and coalitions who are “actively engaged” in promoting disability rights, or some other measure that shows the partnerships actually produce something. It’s also unclear what has happened to partnerships established in prior years. It might be interesting to show how many previously established partnerships continued and for how many years. That would show greater depth than establishing new ones each year. This target and the ones that follow, are measures of activities more than outcomes. The purpose of these activities is to promote disability rights and effect system change, which is the first target for this objective. These additional targets are activities in support of that objective. The committees have discussed in the past that specific outcomes resulting from these activities are very difficult to measure, but there are some indicators that could be used to show that these activities produced tangible movement forward. I would recommend adding that into future SPILs or recasting these targets as activities in support of the ultimate outcome of system change.Using the target below as an example: “disseminating education alerts”, a way to measure if real change is produced could be that “as a result of these alerts, X# of consumers/families communicated concerns to an elected official.” This would be expensive and difficult to measure for all 600 alerts, but centers could be asked to choose several alerts each year and ask people to respond with what action they have taken. Since few will actually take action and then take the time to reply, this target will have to be set at a conservative level. The responses will show that the activity (alerts), led to some measurable change (consumers contacting elected officials). From that sample, a reasonable conclusion could be drawn as to whether the alerts impact change. Number of educational alerts disseminated to local volunteers by the SSAN network: Target: 660; Results: 860. Exceeded.A total of 860 alerts were distributed to local volunteers in the past year. This exceeded the target by 200, but was a slight decrease from last year (by 21). Examples of action alerts included:Call Your Senators Today About the EVV Delay Bill!Happy Birthday, Medicaid!Take Action: Fair Housing and Other Critical Resources at RiskACTION ALERT: #BanIncomeBiasNY needs your supportWhile the target was exceeded, the impact of the target is difficult to measure. There were 860 alerts sent, but were they about 860 different issues? How many people received them? Again, this could be done for a small sample by asking the local volunteers and collaborating partnerships to report in on how many they forward. This would be relatively easy to measure as opposed to measuring the more important, but difficult impact of what people did as a result of the alert. As previously noted, the M & E Committee is working to address some of these areas and make them more outcome-oriented and impactful for the next 3-year SPIL.The same comments apply to most of the remaining targets below.Number of local public education activities engaged in by the SSAN network: Target: 300; Results: 602. Exceeded.The SSAN Centers engaged in 602 public education activities in the past year. This number exceeds the target of 300 and was an increase over last year by 119. Examples of local public education include:Expressing concerns at a City Council meeting Conducting Voter Registration activities Media interviewsHolding a relevant movie viewing and discussionHolding a mock election to learn how to use BMD machines More details are provided in the appendix on pages 35-36.Number of grassroots organizing activities engaged in by the SSAN network: Target: 90; Results 258. Exceeded.SSAN sites reported a total of 258 grassroots organizing activities for the past year. This exceeds the target by 168 and is an increase over the last year by 90. Examples of such grassroot organizing events include:Advocates attending a candidate anizing an advisory groupGetting advocates to talk with public officialsAttending the NYC Disability Pride ParadeMore details are provided in the appendix on pages 36-37.The Monitoring and Evaluation Committee raised the question last year as to how many people were actually involved in the activities for the two above measures. This year’s report included more detail about these numbers, but having it as part of all reports would be helpful. This would be relatively easy to document and while it doesn’t show impact, it would give a better sense of how substantive these events were. This could also show how many partners played a significant role in leading these events.Number of oral or written public testimonies statements or letters provided, in response to a documented request, by the SSAN network: Target: 90; Results: 114. Exceeded. SSAN sites provided 114 public testimonies during the past year. This exceeds the target of 90 by 24, but is a slight decrease over last year by 22. A few examples of public testimony include:Several advocates in the SSAN submitted written comments or spoke at a hearing for NYSILC’s SPIL hearings.STIC submitted comments to DRNY on their proposed priorities in the PADD program for 2019.WILC, ARISE and ATI submitted written comments to HCR on their draft Annual Action Plan for 2019.The Monitoring and Evaluation Committee raised questions last year about what topics the testimony addressed and what the impact was of this testimony. Some additional details were provided this year, but it would be helpful to see the full list and to see if this lines up with the issues addressed by the State Council, and/or the issue alerts distributed by SSAN. Impact will be difficult to measure, but if the testimony focused on a very limited number of issues, the progress made on each issue could be to a small extent a result of the testimony. The success of this target may in fact be a result of the organizing activities described above. In a way, this could be an outcome objective, if that indeed is the desired outcome of the alerts and other activities.Number of CILs or SCILs without a SSAN contract voluntarily involved in the participation of the network: Target: 2; Results: 4. Exceeded.Four non-SSAN centers participated at various levels in the SSAN. Bronx Independent Living Services (BILS)Taconic Resources for Independence (TRI)Western New York Independent Living (WNYIL)Finger Lakes Independence Center (FLIC) More details are provided in the appendix on page 37.Questions were raised in the past about what “involved” means. This year’s report provides some examples of the involvement. Also are these centers new to the network or continuing from previous years, and what happened to those who were previously involved and are no longer involved? The Council should be clear about its goal regarding SSAN - is it to continually grow the network by adding new CILs or is it to just have a small number of additional CILs/SCILs involved? Objectives should usually relate to change, not maintaining.SSAN advocates: Demonstrate improved understanding by the ILC network of unique advocacy priorities and public education campaign issues (Target/Demonstrated improvement/Collective pre and post). Target: survey SSAN by the end of year two of the contract. (It was initially set for the end of the contract, then got moved up to the end of year two.) Partially Met.The survey has been developed but didn’t go out until first quarter of 2019. The target should have been more than “conduct a survey”. The survey was a means to collect data. The target should have been, of those volunteers responding to the survey, a certain number or percent would show a certain level of engagement, advocacy skill development, etc. This has been addressed by the M&E committee in their draft targets for the next SPIL and SSAN is to be commended for conducting the survey and trying to assess more of an outcome of the network’s efforts.The survey was designed to assess the value of the systems advocacy and its impact on the volunteers involved in the network in the areas of personal empowerment and self-determination. The survey was sent out to volunteers through the 15 centers and had an estimated response rate of 8.2%, with 62 responses received. While that’s a disappointing response rate, in this era of daily surveys, it is very difficult to get a strong response from such a diffuse network.The survey results, as a whole, were positive and reflected how being a volunteer in systems advocacy can have positive impacts on both the community and a volunteer’s personal empowerment and confidence. Of the opportunities offered to volunteers, completing action alerts was the top activity volunteers have done, with 77% of respondents doing this activity. Attending programs and presentations at an ILC was second with 67.7% of responses and participating in meeting with legislators or other public officials was third, with 58.1% of responses. These three activities were also selected as being the most enjoyable to respondents. 53% of respondents noted that they would like assistance or additional support in participating in meetings with legislators or other public officials.As for the impact of volunteering on personal empowerment and development, 82.3% of volunteers said they felt encouraged to provide input on issues important to them. 79% of volunteers said they feel more confident in making decisions about their life and 88.5% said they feel more empowered to make their opinion and voice heard, both as a result of their participation in systems advocacy. Additionally, 33.9% of respondents stated that their involvement in systems advocacy has led to achieving new social, educational or employment opportunities. 67.2% of respondents also said that their involvement has helped prepare them to share their own personal story in their advocacy efforts. The survey asked respondents for examples and comments and a more detailed report is appended to this report. (See page 38.) Goal # 3: Members of the IL network will have their technical assistance and training needs met through a statewide event or initiative. (Has two objectives: Objective 3 and 4)Objective # 3: Increase the attendance and involvement of attendees by providing support for a statewide independent living training conference.This objective was not active this year. It will be active again in 2019.The following objective was carried over from the previous SPIL 2014-2016 with unspent Title VII, Part B funds.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 statewide database for the IL network. The objective should focus on the outcome, not the process to get there. The two measurable indicators below relate to the process of developing and establishing the data base. This is a multi-year project, that is a restart of a prior effort that was unsuccessful. While the project has gotten restarted, there was not sufficient progress to meet the two measurable indicators. Not Met.Number of centers testing the prototype of the statewide database and interface product, providing feedback related to the process: (Target: 20). The prototype was not completed in time for testing this year. No Progress. The Data Interface Work Group met in early August 2018 to begin this effort. For more details on their work, see page 39. Report on status of database and interface design based on collective center data and feedback completed as documented: (target: 100%). While the project was successfully initiated during the last year, the project was not completed, and the report will not be issued until completion in 2020. No Progress.Overall, the council was excited that the data interface project was initiated this year. Outcomes and targets that were not met will be extended into upcoming years and reported on as the project moves forward. 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, but it is expected that the project will be accomplished.The Data Interface Work Group met in early August 2018. They commenced Phase I of the Data Interface Project. The first step identified set-up of a communication board for the project for the members of the group. Members were able to follow “threads” or discussions on the key elements of the system. One important aspect discussed was the common data fields along with the proposed reports. Feedback included the web application and aesthetics, the architectural package, dashboard functions, and login system. Phase I was successfully completed by the end of the contract year. The group will look to address Phase II in the latter part of 2019 and the rest of the phases in 2020. This delayed progress means that centers won’t be able to test the “prototype” (i.e. the data interface) until sometime in 2020 during the proposed fourth year to the current state plan. The testing phase is one of the remaining phases identified for 2020.Goal # 4: The IL network effectively promotes IL philosophy through systems advocacy and services. (Has two objectives: Objective 5 and 6)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.This objective has ten performance targets, some of which had numeric targets, others of which were establishing new services without specific numbers. Seven out of the ten targets were Met and three were Partially Met, so overall, the objective was Substantially Met (70%).Taconic Resources for Independence (TRI) was selected as the consumer-directed organization to provide Independent Living services to veterans with disabilities to assist consumers in becoming more stabilized in their homes and community. The project has a specific focus on accessible and affordable housing and transportation.TRI spent the first few months getting the program established and hiring a Veterans Specialist.Outcomes for this project were not specified in the SPIL since the specific project would be selected based on applications received from centers. Therefore, the intention was to allow the awardee in their RFP to propose their own unique set of deliverables with outcomes. These would become a part of the contract and then the M & E Committee would monitor and evaluate these via their quarterly reports. The awardee had a clear sense of what they intended to deliver but were not able to articulate many of the items as outcomes in a measurable way. We learned from this that in the future, the SILC might want to provide a framework up front or provide assistance in the development of the actual contract to build in more measurable, outcome indicators.Also, this is a demonstration project whose value 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 as outlined by the agency after being awarded:Overall:Services are provided by the grant recipient that result in the unique set of annual outcomes/deliverables identified in the proposal: (target 85% of the following Met)Veteran Specialist will conduct street level outreach in known homeless encampments around the county: After connecting with the Mental Health Association’s Vet2Vet program, the TRI veteran’s with disabilities program is receiving referrals. Ongoing. Target Met.Evaluator’s comment: Would be helpful to know how many referrals and whether this one connection is sufficient to reach the full disabled veteran’s community.Veteran Specialist will create a dedicated database to document all activities and outcomes and provision of direct services and/or systems advocacy and outcomes: The database has been set up and the input is ongoing. A veteran specific drive was created to document activity. Target Met.Evaluator’s comment: this target and the next two are steps needed to set up the program. They do not result in any service delivery or outcomes. I would not classify them as performance targets.Program Director and Veteran Specialist will join veteran related committees and coalitions: Veteran Specialist is a founding member of the Dutchess County Veteran Task force that meets monthly to discuss all events and happenings related to veterans in the county. Veteran Specialist is a member of the Hudson Valley Task Force that includes five counties. Program Director attends based on availability. Additional connections were also developed (see page 41).The Veteran Specialist will develop program specific intake assessment forms and outcome surveys: TRI’s agency intake and goal assessment forms were adequate to use for this program. They are in the process of creating a veteran program specific outcome survey that will be given to both past and present participants when completed. Ongoing. Target Partially Met.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. Process will include an in-depth intake interviews, assessments of needs and definition of expectations and goals with consumers: Overall, twenty-seven (27) unduplicated veterans with disabilities were served during the year by TRI’s demonstration project. (20) consumers were served in the last quarter when the program’s capacity ramped up to speed. Another seven (7) were severed in the previous quarter. It should be mentioned that an additional 47 stakeholders, individuals and family members (non-consumers) were also provided with one-time information and referral that allowed them to self-advocate and/or resolve issues (no intakes were needed because these individuals were not consumers). Ongoing. Target Met.Evaluator’s comment: this target has no output or outcome number attached to it, so as long a one veteran was served, it would have been met. A numeric target should have been negotiated at the time of contracting – what would have been a reasonable goal to reach in terms of numbers of veterans served within the first start up year. Twenty-seven and 47 could be reasonable numbers, or could fall short of expectations, but the initial expectations/goals were not stated. The Veteran Specialist will communicate with agency partners to provide appropriate linkage to supports and services for veterans with disabilities: Vet2Vet is available in multiple counties and the TRI Veteran Specialist works closely with the Dutchess County branch. He met with Orange County and Rockland County Vet2Vet groups to better understand the services and workshops they provide, in order to be able to duplicate them in Dutchess County. Ongoing. Target Met.Evaluator’s comment: as with the earlier comment, this target is a step needed to establish the program. It did not result in any specific service delivery or outcomes. I would not classify this as a performance target.The Veteran Specialist will link veterans to/with supports, services and benefits as needed. Ongoing. They have linked veterans with disabilities to many services at many agencies throughout the county including the Dutchess County Division of Veterans Services, the local VA, Department of Labor, Social Services, West Cop and the MHA Vet2Vet program. Ongoing. Target Met.Evaluator’s comment: As with target 5, this target has no output or outcome number attached to it, so as long a one veteran was linked once, it would have been met. A numeric target should have been established. And lacking that, the report should indicate how many veterans were linked with how many services.The Veteran Specialist will provide independent living skills training based on individual needs and goals: Current trends involve assisting veterans with disabilities to fill out forms, request paperwork, and file for benefits from Veteran Affairs. Many veterans also use the in-house Social Security disability benefits counseling services. Ongoing. Target Met.Evaluator’s comment: As above, this target has no number attached to it and no numeric report on the number served. Were all 27 members served or only 1? Also, the services as described briefly above lean more to independent living services than independent living skills training.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 offered the opportunity to join the systems advocacy group to each veteran during the intake process on the goals form during intake. Generating consumer interest is the first step in the process. Next year, TRI will reach out to other stakeholders to help spread the word regarding forming a system change committee geared toward advocating for affordable, accessible housing for veterans with disabilities. Target Partially Met.Evaluator’s comment: Again, with no number, how can this be partially met? It sounds like an opportunity was offered and no one signed on? I understand that this could be a developmental process, plant the idea and nurture it, and as more basic needs are met, this can be implemented. If so, the target should have been framed as a seed planter, with implementation in a future year. It should indicate how many consumers would it be presented to and how many are hoped to sign on in the future with target dates.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 goals. Monthly reports are being used to record all activity and Excel spreadsheets are being used to record all veteran consumers. A three-month goal tracker allows TRI to see what goals consumers want to achieve and help them toward attainment A daily log will be kept tracking activity that will also be used to inform the best practices manual. Ongoing and updated daily. Target Partially Met.Evaluator’s comment: this is mostly an operational step, although the best practices manual would be an outcome. It’s not clear what was partially met. It sounds as if data is being collected that will in the future be the manual. If the target is to produce a manual, I would say this target is not met.As noted in the evaluator comments above, these targets could not be fairly evaluated because they were written so vaguely. It does sound as if some reasonable progress was made in getting the program set up and established in the community, including developing important networks. Services were provided to 27 consumers and referrals offered to 47 “non-consumers”, so there was some value delivered. The question for the Council is this value equal to what you had hoped would be achieved with this level of investment?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.In addition to the six objectives outlined in the SPIL, NYSILC has established a Leadership Development and Civic Engagement Program (LDCEP). As part of this process the Council distributed a short needs assessment survey to get a sense of areas of greatest interest/need in terms of leadership development. It may be helpful to conduct another survey in a year or two to assess how well being part of LDCEP contributed to meeting those needs/interests.Overall SummaryOverall the SPIL had very strong results again this year, even if no objective was technically fully met. Two of the four objectives were nearly fully met, and a third had good compliance with the plan even though there was little in the way of measurable targets. The fourth objective was not achieved, but again that was due to a delay in the process, not a failure of the process.The M&E Committee has added new strength to the evaluation process and has streamlined it as well. Terms are better defined and targets are more realistic and meaningful. While there is always room for improvement, this year has been another step up and plans are underway to continue to build on this success. One area for continued development (which the committee is working on) is when setting targets, it would be helpful to think carefully about the intention of the objective and what are some meaningful and measurable indicators that could show that progress is being made on the objective’s intention. Objectives and targets should indicate progress towards a desired change which is stated in the goal statements. 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. The SPIL should clearly state where the Council wants to be (goals) and how to get there (allocation of resources and measurable objectives).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 new 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. There is more to be done.One helpful concept with this is the logic model that was presented in the training at the June 2017 Council meeting. The logic model asks:If the measurable indicators are accomplished, does it follow that the objective will be achieved and progress towards the goal will be made?It’s also important to ask if there are any other critical indicators that would help document this progress?This is a very challenging shift to make and the Council should be applauded for the progress made. 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, an effort to maximize impact in light of reduced funding. 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, could help add this focus to the plan development process. The one-year extension provided this time around gave the committee time to really sort through all the objectives, try to determine the “true” intentions and try to assess that in some relevant performance targets. In doing so, the committee to some degree may have overstepped its authority and began revising some of the objectives not just to make them more clear, but to shift them to the committee’s perception of what the desired intentions were.At this point in time, these draft objectives and performance measures have been sent back to the relevant committees to make sure nothing was lost in translation. The addition of this extra year should allow for healthy discussion among the Council members and committees and build a foundation that future SPIL development efforts can use as a model. The Council’s evaluation process focuses more on assessing “yes” or “no,” was the objective met or not – the summative evaluation. It could be helpful to also look at “why” an objective was met, exceeded or fell short – the formative evaluation. Was failure due to poor planning, poor implementation, or unexpected factors, or influences outside the control of those running that program? What was the reasons for success? Were the targets too low, were the providers exceptionally effective, or were additional resources made available? Whatever the reasons, the Council should look at what can be done in the following year to address these issues and continue to build on successes. Since the M&E Committee is engaged in a quarterly monitoring process, they should be well placed to ask and answer these questions as well. The feedback that they in turn can give to other council committees and to the Council as a whole will help inform future SPIL development and continued growth of the outcome evaluation process.As these questions are answered, successes and failures can be better analyzed, and future plans can have more accurate targets. This can include lowering unrealistic targets or objectives, or increasing those that were understated. It can also include looking to reallocate resources or change program designs based on results of the prior year. We learned from this evaluation that while a creative idea, the SILC should not decentralize deliverables for any future RFPs/SPIL projects without providing a framework up front or assistance in the development of the actual contract to build measurable, outcome indicators.In several of these cases, adding quality criteria to the target (e.g. action alerts that are responded to), will bring down the number of “successful” outcomes, but 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 much more expert outcome assessment orientation. 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 beginning 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 may be another responsibility given to the new Monitoring and Evaluation Committee or assigned once again to the Executive Committee. The full Monitoring and Evaluation Committee report follows including detailed evaluations of each objective and performance target. Following that is the report from SSAN on their survey results.NYSILC 2018 SPIL Objectives/Evaluation SummariesGoal # 1: NYSILC will be an effective coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating entity for the SPIL.Objective # 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 the Troy Hilton Garden Inn on the following dates: November 14, 2017, April 27, 2018, June 15, 2018, and September 14, 2018. 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 exceeded) Number of issues addressed by NYSILC committees (target 12): 28. Preliminary Assessment: Based on the information from the July-September 2018 NYSILC quarterly contract report (which also reflects the end of the contract year), progress was made on twenty-eight issues by NYSILC committees during the past year. Target exceeded. A few examples included:Draft podcasts for LDCEP Topic Talks created by the Public Policy CommitteeFCM and HOF event venue changed to Schenectady in 2019 as discussed and supported by the Executive CommitteeDiscussion about a scope of work for a fund development plan by Development CommitteeDiscussion about the council’s Directors & Officers (D & O) liability policy by the Executive CommitteeDiscussion about council member’s commitments to chair and serve on committees, as well as a need for succession plans for committee chairs along with vice chairs for each committee by the Executive CommitteeConfirmation/Evaluation Rating:Exceeded target/Met target/Substantially met target (more than 60%), Partially met target (less than 59%), Target not metN/A or OtherAction successfully completed by committees (target 4). 12 actions were completed. Target exceeded. A few examples included:Discussion/confirmation email sent to ACL regarding the Part B Omnibus increase by the Executive CommitteeDiscussion/confirmation NYSILC contract issues successfully addressed (eliminated first unresolved issue – budget amendment dropped, budget amendment approved, 2019 contract processed) by the Executive Committee Approval of the 2019 NYSILC Annual fiscal budget by the Finance Committee (later approved by the full council)Appointment recommendation and four reappointments made by the Recruitment Committee (later approved by the full council)Drafted necessary components of support data and narrative for consultant to prepare the 2018 NYSILC Statewide Needs Assessment report by the Needs Assessment Committee (NAC)Reviewed SPIL objective’s performance via the evaluation document provided by the consultant and reviewed the draft 2017 NYSILC SPIL Evaluation Report by the M & E CommitteeProvided direct feedback to vendor ES11 and via communications board on key elements to complete Phase I of the Data Interface Project (eliminated unresolved issue) by the Database Work GroupConfirmation/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) There were no unresolved issues by the end of the contract year. Two unresolved issues were successfully addressed (noted above). Since there were no unresolved issues (zero), 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 2018 NYSILC quarterly contract report, the NYSILC Audited Financial Statement (AFS) ending September 30, 2017 was presented at the Finance Committee meeting on 2/7/18. CPA Ken Claflin of Cusick & Company reviewed the statement on the call with members and answered questions. He noted that NYSILC had an “unqualified” audit, which is the desired outcome. The Finance Committee formally accepted the audit. A copy of the financial statement was emailed out to council members in February. The Treasurer presented the statement at the Full Council Meeting on April 27, 2018. The 2016 990 was also completed, signed and submitted by the deadline date to satisfy the filing requirements. The NYSILC 2016 990 was posted on the NYSILC website under Key Documents. . 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 704 Report completed with partners and submitted to ACL fully, accurately as documented: 100%.Preliminary Assessment: NYSILC, ACCES-VR and NYSCB worked to coordinate data and information into the different sections of Part I of the 2017 NY 704 Report (now referred to as the Program Performance Report/PPR). The information was entered in the ACL Reporting website and successfully submitted before the end of 2017. NYSILC checked the ACL reporting site for grant # 90IS0029. The report was approved. NYSILC posted a Word version of the signed 2017 Part I 704 report on its website: . 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: Alan Krieger of Krieger Solutions, LLC provided support as the council’s SPIL evaluator. He worked with the Monitoring & Evaluation (M & E) Committee to obtain feedback regarding the evaluation of SPIL objectives and drafted the 2017 NYSILC SPIL Evaluation Report, which reflected the first year of the current state plan. It was approved at the April 2018 full council meeting. The full report is available at: . 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 OtherStatewide needs assessment and report completed by committee and consultant as documented: 100%.Preliminary Assessment: Consultant Alan Krieger of Krieger Solutions, LLC provided support to the members of the Needs Assessment Committee (NAC), as they addressed four key questions related to the needs of the IL network in two work groups. The consultant helped design the surveys, drafted narrative around the data and charts, then analyzed the collective results from the surveys and developed additional narrative for the report. After a final review of the draft report, the 2018 Statewide Needs Assessment Report was presented and accepted at the September 14, 2018 NYSILC Full Council Meeting (FCM). The report was posted to the NYSILC website and sent out via Constant Contact: . 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 OtherPercentage increase of resource development efforts above contract (all other sources). (Target: 2% or $8,679).Preliminary Assessment: Based on the NYSILC Quarterly Fiscal Report for July to September 2018 (plus other documented information), the council now has the capacity to develop resources per authority (B) in the current SPIL. The SILC can use operating funds to support its primary operations and identified programs, such as the Leadership Development and Civic Engagement Program (LDCEP), Pat Figueroa young adult scholarships, the NYS Disability Rights Hall of Fame, and other opportunities as defined. During the past year, NYSILC developed (all sources) $26,682. This exceeded the target by three times the projected amount. It exceeded last year’s amount by a little over $8,500. Most of the revenue was generated from the Hall of Fame (HOF) event. The following line items produced: $13,250 Event sponsorships $7,050, Event Tickets, $1,000 Honorary Committee Memberships, $800 Program Advertisements, $515 Gift Baskets, $362 Silent Auction, and $190 50/50 Raffle. Additional revenue came from Donations $1,425, In-Kind Donations $2,027, and Interest Income $63. 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 partially met)Number of young adults participating in a training sponsorship (target 12): 3. Preliminary Assessment: Based on the information from the NYSILC 2017-2018 Annual Report, three scholarship opportunities were provided to young adults during the year. Two additional scholarships were approved for individuals to assist with their attendance at the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) Conference but was not utilized by them. The applicants never responded back post-event if they attended the conference and did not seek reimbursement.The following three individuals were approved for $250 scholarships. A young man from Watertown requested assistance to attend the Mental Health Waiver Youth Peer Advocacy Training in Albany, NY from February 25-27, 2018. Since the cost to attend the training exceeded the amount of the scholarship, the Northern Regional Center for Independent Living (NRCIL) in Watertown covered the overall cost and the council reimbursed the center for the scholarship amount. The recipient completed the online survey, as requested. He commented that the training was “designed to prepare providers of youth peer support for credentialing to work in the HCBS Medicaid waiver program” and it “went over topics like HCBS paperwork, peer support, leadership skills, and cultural competency.” He added, “I learned that youth with disabilities have a voice, just like adults with disabilities, and deserve to be heard and make decisions for themselves. This training greatly increased my awareness of the need for advocacy and self-empowerment in the youth disability community.”A young woman from Long Island requested assistance to attend a NCIL board meeting, as the youth representative. The NCIL board meeting took place in Washington, DC from February 27-March 1, 2018. She is a volunteer member of the NCIL board and does not have an organization to assist her in covering the expenses to participate on the board. They meet four times a year. She submitted her reimbursement and completed the online survey, as requested. In the highlights from her survey, the recipient noted in addition to board business, they “had a meeting on Capitol Hill to advocate against HR 620.” She found it “to be empowering and felt it demonstrated that young people with disabilities absolutely have a place and role in the movement.” When asked if she had accomplished anything of late, she responded, “I was selected the 2018 AAPD Paul G. Hearne Emerging Leader Award recipient.”A young woman from Rochester applied to attend the National Williams Syndrome Conference scheduled July 11-14, 2018 in Baltimore, MD. Her mother facilitated the application, and the group was concerned about the applicant’s lack of direct input. A list of follow-up questions was developed, and Brad Williams reached out direct to the applicant for feedback. One concern was the dual focus of the conference – clear tracks for family members and people with disabilities (peers). With direct feedback provided, one dissenting concern noted that the conference did not provide peers with any leadership development opportunities. The committee took this into future consideration. After attending the event, the recipient worked with her mother and completed the online survey. She was most excited to learn about how genetics were a part of our make-up. She stated she would be willing to attend future events supporting the disability community and advocacy specifically held in her own community.Going into 2019, the Youth Leadership Committee will address program utilization. One concern was that the $250 maximum amount limits the number of applications. At the September full council meeting, it was decided to adjust the program effective January 2019 (i.e., webpage, application, monthly solicitation). The opportunity will become more competitive, allowing an applicant to receive up to $1,000 based on need. The committee reviewing the applications can decide on a reimbursement versus a grant. Each recipient must complete an online follow up survey. The councilagreed that it will be better to have an impact on at least five young adults a year at an increased level than continue with decreasing participation. 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 the information from the July-September 2018 NYSILC quarterly contract report (which also reflects the end of the contract year), the NYSILC Youth Leadership Subcommittee still consists of the same six active members (three council members and three non-council members). Since council member Zach Garafalo has transitioned to Vice Chair of the council, he is no longer chair of the youth leadership subcommittee. Non-council member Lyndsi Wickert has taken that role. The committee will be active in the next quarter providing feedback about the changes discussed for the Pat Figueroa Scholarship program, which will require modifications to the website, application form, survey and monthly program notice. 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 OtherOverall, this objective and its seven outcomes with eleven targets demonstrated excellent progress during the past year.GOAL # 2: People with disabilities will be actively involved in promoting disability rights in New York State.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.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 2017-2018 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).NYAIL worked with its committee structure and advocates to develop its 2018 disability policy and budget priority agendas. These documents were used by the SSAN throughout the legislative session in meetings to guide discussions and the activities of the SSAN throughout the year. NYAIL hosted its Annual Legislative Day on February 12, 2018 in conjunction with the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Association of NYS. Many SSAN advocates were in attendance discussing items in the priority agendas. The day included an opening program that includes speeches by legislative representatives and key players in policy decisions impacting people with disabilities. NYAIL had a table with packets for the advocates to distribute to legislators which included NYAIL’s Public Policy DPA, NYAIL’s Report Card, and several memos of support and opposition. For the first time, NYAIL held a second legislative day on April 23, 2018. NYAIL’s Spring Legislative Day was held after the NYS budget was finalized and the legislature returned from their spring recess. The day provided training and grassroots organizing opportunities for SSAN members.NYAIL, in conjunction with Assemblyman James Skoufis, Chair of the Assembly’s Task Force for People with Disabilities, held a press conference on March 26th in Albany, toward the end of budget negotiations. The press conference was intended to raise the profile of several of NYAIL’s top budget priorities, including increased funding for Independent Living Centers, increased funding for Access to Home, and the re-establishment of the Task Force for People with Disabilities. About a dozen assembly members attended and spoke. Despite short notice, we had a strong turnout from the ILCs, with advocates attending from all over the State, making this a successful event. It was also a grassroots organizing activity for many in the SSAN.Regarding training for the network, NYAIL provided the following opportunities for the SSAN during the past year:On February 5, 2018, NYAIL facilitated a Legislative Day preparation training session via teleconference for SSAN advocates.On April 11, 2018, the SSAN Coordinator held a disability budget agenda review session in preparation for NYAIL’s Spring Legislative Day, to be held on April 23, 2018. The Coordinator also reviewed the 2018 NYAIL Bill Tracker during the training session and explained how advocates should use the information provided to decide who to meet with, and which priorities to focus on.Webinar: Learn All About the Disability Integration Act. On July 10, 2018, NYAIL hosted a webinar conducted by Stephanie Woodward, Director of Advocacy for the Center for Disability Rights on the Disability Integration Act (DIA). DIA is federal legislation which would ensure that eligible people with disabilities would have access to home and community-based services. The training recording, presentation slides, and a transcript are all available on NYAIL’s website at on Peer Advocacy as a Strategy for Resistance and Change. NYAIL hosted a webinar on September 13th, conducted by Monica Bartley, Community Outreach Coordinator for CIDNY entitled Peer Advocacy as a Strategy for Resistance and Change. Monica Bartley presented on an innovative model CIDNY piloted to increase grassroots activism at their center. Presentation slides and a recording of the training are available on NYAIL’s website at In-Person Training. On September 20, 2018, NYAIL held our annual in-person SSAN training entitled Leadership and the Art of Advocacy in a Busy, Loud and Noisy World. The training was held in Albany. For this training, NYAIL worked with the Association Development Group (ADG), a NYS certified woman-owned business. The agenda addressed a variety of current subjects:Unpredictable Politics, Fake News and Controversy: The Reality of Community Awareness, the Media and Politics TodayWomen’s March, Immigration, Black Lives Matter, Gay Pride, DakotaPipeline: Raising the Voice and Visibility for People with DisabilitiesYour Approach Matters, Here’s WhyLeadership Styles Vary, and That’s Good ThingIgnorance Sucks, So What Are You Going to Do About ItCreating Cultures of Ability and AchievementNYAIL held an all-day in person training and outreach planning meeting in Albany for the SSAN on December 11, 2017 to lead a community education and outreach campaign Given threats from the federal level, NYAIL chose to focus on protecting access to Medicaid-funded home and community-based services. The plan focused on bringing the network up to speed on the issues and create a plan to help create awareness.NYAIL worked with Association Development Group (ADG) on the development of the training. Bruce Darling, a national organizer with ADAPT, President of NCIL, and President and CEO of CDR in Rochester, presented at the training and participated in the planning as well. The schedule of the day was as follows:Medicaid Under Attack: Framing the Issue, Bruce DarlingKey Elements of an Advocacy Campaign, Kathy Van De Loo (ADG)From the Trenches: What’s Happening Now, Bruce DarlingImplementation: Where the Real Work Begins: Group activities and discussion facilitated by ADGBased on the planning part of this meeting, ADG wrote up a community outreach plan for the network to guide our activities on this issue moving forward. Following this training, NYAIL distributed a manual for opposing threats to Medicaid. This manual came out in December 2017. It focused on federal threats, basing much of the materials on the proposed Affordable Health Care Act, which would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and gutted Medicaid. The manual will serve as a guide at both the national and even state levels, with ongoing talks of another attempt to repeal Medicaid or gut Medicaid, and the Governor attempting to cut Managed Long-Term Care (MLTC).In January 2018, the SSAN immediately focused on fighting proposed cuts to Medicaid in NYS that would force people into institutions, including carving people in nursing homes out of managed care, making it almost impossible for them to leave. NYAIL and the SSAN fought hard against these cuts and worked with coalitions of Medicaid advocates to educate policy makers on the impact of these proposals. Since the budget was finalized, SSAN advocates have been educating the public and policy makers on proposed federal legislation which would strengthen people’s access to HCBS – the EMPOWER Care Act, which would continue federal funding for the Money Follows the Person program, and the Disability Integration Act, civil rights legislation which would ensure people can get the care they need to live in the community. NYAIL hosted a webinar in the fourth quarter on the Disability Integration Act (DIA), has issued several alerts on these issues, and issued a press release on the EMPOWER Care Act. NYAIL also had a blog article published on the need to pass the EMPOWER Care Act: . In addition, NYAIL commissioned several videos to be created featuring people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to live in the community. The idea is to educate the public and policy makers on how Medicaid helps people live in the community, and the real-world impact of cutting these programs. NYAIL worked with Digital Fusion, a NYS certified minority-owned business for this project. Digital Fusion shot the videos and is in the process of editing them. They will be available on NYAIL’s website and shared over social media. NYAIL is in the process of totally revamping their website, and this issue will get its own page on our website to share these stories, and other vignettes next contract year.Specific measurable indicators:The following information comes from the SSAN 2018 year-end report:Number of SSAN significant statewide systems changes (target 2): 6.Preliminary Assessment: The SSAN participated in the following significant systems changes, which were achieved during the past year:Pooled Trust Notification Bill Enacted. The SSAN supported and advocated for the Pooled Trust Notification bill, which was introduced as a direct result of the advocacy of Rochester ILC Center for Disability Rights. The pooled trust is an available option to Medicaid applicants with disabilities whose income or assets are too high to otherwise qualify for Medicaid. NYSDOH send these applicants a letter explaining their options to get on Medicaid, but this letter currently does not include the pooled trust as an option. This bill will ensure that Medicaid applicants with disabilities are aware of this option, which is often the best option for many of these individuals. NYAIL issued alerts in support of this bill and submitted a letter of support to the Governor and legislature. Many centers in the SSAN also sent in letters of support for this bill. Governor signed this bill into law in December.Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP) Bill Enacted. Needed changes were made to A.11050 / S9002 so the LTCOP maintains eligibility for federal funding from the Administration on Community Living (ACL). The State had received a letter from ACL stating it needed to make administrative changes to the program or lose most or all federal funding for the LTCOP. Despite this, the legislature was stalling, and with only a couple of weeks left in session, had yet to advance a bill. NYAIL and the SSAN got involved, making phone calls, speaking with legislative staff, and writing letters. The network had actively advocated for increased state funding for the program in the budget. Now the State had not only failed to increase state funding for the program, they were putting its federal funding in jeopardy. In the final days of session, the bill passed both houses. NYAIL and the SSAN advocated with the Governor’s Office to ensure the bill was signed into law. On August 24, 2018, Governor Cuomo signed the bill into law, protecting federal funding for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program.In addition, the following systems change actions prevented negative activity from occurring:Defeated proposal to raise requirement for MLTC to a UAS score of 9. The IL community strongly opposed the Governor’s proposal to make it harder for new applicants to get on Managed Long-Term Care (MLTC) by requiring they get a Uniform Assessment System (UAS) score of 9. The nursing facility level of care is a UAS of 5. This proposal would have meant that even people at the nursing home level of care may not be able to receive services through MLTC, which has the most generous benefits package, and has the most extensive care management. Ultimately, this proposal was rejected by the Senate and Assembly and not included in the final budget.Spousal Refusal Protected in Budget. The IL community once again had to fight to preserve spousal refusal, which is a longstanding provision of state law that ensures that individuals can access the Medicaid-funded services and supports they need to live in the community, when their spouses “refuse” to spend down their resources or income to support their spouse. This is a way to prevent the “well” spouse from having to give up the household income, so their spouse can get home and community-based services from Medicaid.Prevented the State from decreasing the spousal impoverishment resource allowance to the federal minimum. Spousal impoverishment is like spousal refusal in that it allows the spouse who is not on Medicaid to maintain a certain income while still allowing Medicaid to pay for their spouse’s services and supports. The proposal would have forced many “well” spouses onto Medicaid, who could otherwise avoid it. This proposal was left off the final budget.Assisted Suicide Bill fails in legislature. NYAIL and the SSAN network continued our advocacy against A.2383/S3151 which would legalize physician assisted suicide in NYS. The Assembly Health Committee held a public hearing in Albany and NYC at which many in the network testified in opposition, including NYAIL. In addition, NYAIL distributed a memo of opposition to legislators, and shared it with advocates in the network for their use. The disability community was successful in conveying our concerns at the two public hearings and helped stop the Health Committee from taking a vote on the bill.Outcome exceeded.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 Other.Number of local partnerships and coalitions established by the SSAN network (target 75): 154Preliminary Assessment: The SSAN sites established 154 new partnerships and coalitions, exceeding the goal by 79. It also represented an increase from the previous year (plus 35). A few examples of the partnerships and coalitions include:NRCIL’s systems advocate is now on the board of the Jefferson County Mental Health Coalition.ILCHV’s Systems Advocate was invited to join Troy’s ADA Review Committee as they update their ADA plan.AIM’s Systems Advocate joined the Chemung County Homeless Housing Task Force.STIC is working with representatives from the Red Cross and Tioga County DOH to plan a family emergency preparedness day this fall.Outcome exceeded.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 Other.Number of educational alerts disseminated to local volunteers by the SSAN network (target 660): 860.Preliminary Assessment: Distribution of alerts was one of the areas in which SSAN centers were most active with a total of 860 alerts distributed to local volunteers. This exceeded the target by 200 but was a slight decrease from last year (minus 21). Examples of action alerts included:Call Your Senators Today About the EVV Delay Bill!Happy Birthday, Medicaid!Take Action: Fair Housing and Other Critical Resources at RiskACTION ALERT: #BanIncomeBiasNY needs your supportProtect Healthcare and Disability RightsAct Now to Save Money Follows the Parson (MFP)Create Your Organization's Non-Partisan GOTV Plan TodayOutcome 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): 602.Preliminary Assessment: The SSAN Centers exceeded this goal by engaging in 602 public education activities in the past year. This exceeded the target by 302 was an increase from last year (plus 119). Examples of local public education include:The Systems Advocate from Independent Living, Inc. attended the Newburgh City Council meeting and informed the Council members of concerns expressed by people living with low vision/blindness and the specific street crossing at Washington and Lake Streets. The represented constituency has requested an audio/pedestrian crossing device be installed for safety purposes.RCIL staff contributed to National Voter Registration Day by setting up a variety of registration tables throughout the community. They handed out promotional REV UP pins and stickers, as well as nonpartisan, mock ballots for new voters to learn and practice- courtesy of the Montgomery County Board of Elections. They registered 25 people to vote.On August 28, 2018, News 12 aired a feature, with interviews of BRiDGES advocates and New York State Senator Carlucci, on the accessibility deficiencies and lack of compliance with federal standards at the Suffern, NY Train Station.ILCHV along with local ADAPT group of the Capital Region had a viewing of the Gang of 19 ADA Movement at the Albany Public Library, where many folks from the community, including individuals from the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) were present. A good discussion ensued after the movie where we educated the group about the ADA, the Disability Rights movement and transportation services. WDOMI and WILC worked together to coordinate and set up for a mock election at the Westchester Board of Elections on September 29, 2018, election inspectors gave a rundown of how to use BMD machines and allowed people to ask questions. They had three speakers with disabilities talk about their experiences voting. 27 people attended the event.Outcome 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): 258.Preliminary Assessment: SSAN sites reported a total of 258 grassroots organizing activities for the year. This exceed the target by 168 and was an increase from last year (plus 90). Examples of grassroots organizing activities include:ATI advocates attended a candidate forum hosted by the League of Women Voters and asked disability specific questions of candidates.RCIL staff strengthened Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiatives by organizing a Core Advisory Group (CAG). RCIL will work together with local leaders in emergency management and first responders to ensure that emergency services and preparedness is provided equally for people who have disabilities.BCID organized several leading advocates fighting to keep Independent Care System (ICS) open, went to talk with Donna Frescatore and other Representatives of Medicaid and the Governor’s office. They spoke on how it can affect a big group of people that rely on ICS to live independently in the community.CIDNY attended the NYC Disability Pride Parade, scheduled to coincide with the anniversary of the ADA. CIDNY brought 25 participants to the parade.Outcome 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): 114. Preliminary Assessment: SSAN sites collectively provided 114 public testimonies during the past year. This exceeded the target by 24 but represented a slight decrease from last year (minus 22). Examples of public testimony include:Several advocates in the SSAN submitted written comments or spoke at a hearing for NYSILC’s SPIL hearings.STIC submitted comments to DRNY on their proposed priorities in the PADD program for 2019.WILC, ARISE and ATI submitted written comments to HCR on their draft Annual Action Plan for 2019.Outcome 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: Four non-SSAN centers participated at various levels in the SSAN. Bronx Independent Living Services (BILS) regularly participated on NYAIL’s Housing Committee and attended NYAIL’s Legislative Day. Taconic Resources participated regularly on NYAIL’s Employment and Transportation Committees and in NYAIL’s advocacy activities. Western New York Independent Living (WNYIL) was active on NYAIL’s Housing Committee and participated in NYAIL’s Legislative Days. Finger Lakes Independence Center (FLIC) had a staff member attend the annual SSAN in-person training and signed up for NYAIL’s Advocacy listserv. They will now receive advocacy updates, alerts, and information on upcoming meetings and opportunities to provide testimony. Outcome 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. SSAN advocates: Demonstrate improved understanding by the ILC network of unique advocacy priorities and public education campaign issues (Target/Demonstrated improvement/Collective %/before/after). Preliminary Assessment: NYAIL was to survey SSAN volunteers by the end of this contract. In consultation with NYSILC, NYAIL determined it would distribute the survey following the end of year two. In preparation, NYAIL formed a small workgroup to create the survey. The committee consisted of SSAN staff and advisement from NYSILC’s Executive Director. The committee developed the survey, which was designed to be easily understood and brief to maximize participation. The survey seeks to solicit information on self-empowerment and self-determination from SSAN volunteers. The survey will be distributed in the first quarter of next year, and NYAIL will report on the results of the survey in our first quarter report. Outcome partially 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 Other.Overall, this objective and its eight outcomes/ targets demonstrated significant progress during the past year.Goal # 3: Members of the IL network will have their technical assistance and training needs met through a statewide event or initiative.Objective # 3: This related to the IL statewide conference which was not held this year. Therefore, this objective was not active this year. It will be active again next year (2019).Objective # 4: Designate funds to develop and establish a database and interface that will compile, analyze, and interpret data from the statewide network.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)Preliminary Assessment: The Data Interface Work Group met in early August 2018. They commenced Phase I of the Data Interface Project. The first step identified set-up of a communication board for the project for the members of the group. Once everyone accepted and logged in, they were able to follow “threads” or discussions on the key elements of the system. One important aspect discussed was the common data fields along with the proposed reports. Feedback included the web application and aesthetics, the architectural package, the dashboard functions, and login system. Phase I was successfully completed by the end of the contract year. The group will look to address Phase II in the latter part of 2019 and the rest of the phases in 2020. This initial progress means that centers won’t be able to test the “prototype” (i.e. the data interface) until sometime in 2020. It will represent what will be a proposed fourth year to the current state plan via technical amendment in the upcoming year. The testing phase is one of the remaining phases identified for 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 OtherReport on status of database and interface design based on collective center data and feedback completed as documented: (target 100%) Preliminary Assessment: As noted above, the data interface project was successfully initiated during the last year. The entire project is set for completion in 2020. So, the report on the status of the data interface will be completed by contract year-end in 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 Council was excited that the data interface project was initiated this year. However, outcomes and targets that were not met will be extended into upcoming years and reported on as the project moves forward.Goal # 4: The IL network effectively promotes IL philosophy through systems advocacy and services.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 was one outcome related to this objective. The agency that was awarded the grant then established ten specific targets. Preliminary results indicate that the targets were substantially met (seven out of ten targets met 70%; three targets partially met).Taconic Resources for Independence (TRI) was selected as the consumer-directed organization to provide Independent Living services to veterans with disabilities to assist consumers in becoming more stabilized in their homes and community. The project has a specific focus on accessible and affordable housing and transportation.TRI spent the first few months getting the program established, working on a detailed Veterans Specialist description and creating marketing materials (program brochure, business cards, additions to the TRI website). This led to the posting of the Veterans Specialist position on various online employment sites and the selection and hiring of Veterans Specialist – Austin Salcedo.Measurable Indicators/Performance Targets:Services are provided by the grant recipient that result in the unique set of annual outcomes/deliverables identified in the proposal: (target 85% of the following Met)Veteran Specialist will conduct street level outreach in known homeless encampments around the county: After connecting with the Mental Health Association’s Vet2Vet program, the TRI veteran’s with disabilities program is receiving referrals. Ongoing. 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 create a dedicated database to document all activities and outcomes and provision of direct services and/or systems advocacy and outcomes: The database has been set up and the input is ongoing. A veteran specific drive was created to document activity. 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: Veteran Specialist is a founding member of the Dutchess County Veteran Task force that meets monthly to discuss all events and happenings related to veterans in the county. Veteran Specialist is a member of the Hudson Valley Task Force that includes five counties. Program Director attends based on availability. Some of the other connections TRI made included:Veterans Coordinator of Dutchess County Nelson Eddy RiveraStaff at the Hudson River Housing Veteran Impact ProgramMaureen Marchessault of Veteran Affairs social work at the Poughkeepsie outreach clinicNicole Embrey at Castle Point, who is the Outreach Coordinator for the VA of the Hudson ValleyScott Khare of Marist College to discuss veterans attending the college, andColleen Mallett of Vassar College to learn about The Posse Program they have on campus 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 OtherThe Veteran Specialist will develop program specific intake assessment forms and outcome surveys: TRI’s agency intake and goal assessment forms were adequate to use for this program. They are in the process of creating a veteran program specific outcome survey that will be given to both past and present participants when completed. Ongoing. Target partially 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 provide comprehensive, quality independent living services to veterans with disabilities to assist them in becoming more stabilized in their homes and communities. Process will include an in-depth intake interviews, assessments of needs and definition of expectations and goals with consumers): Overall, twenty-seven (27) unduplicated veterans with disabilities were served during the year by TRI’s demonstration project. (20) consumers were served in the last quarter when the program’s capacity ramped up to speed. Another seven (7) were severed in the previous quarter. This data is reflected in Subpart II of this report. It should be mentioned that an additional 47 stakeholders, individuals and family members (non-consumers) were also provided with one-time information and referral that allowed them to self-advocate and/or resolve issues (no intakes were needed because these individuals were not consumers). Ongoing. 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: Vet2Vet is available in multiple counties and the TRI Veteran Specialist works closely with the Dutchess County branch. He met with Orange County and Rockland County Vet2Vet groups to better understand the services and workshops they provide, in order to be able to duplicate them in Dutchess County. Ongoing. 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 link veterans to/with supports, services and benefits as needed. Ongoing. They have linked veterans with disabilities to many services at many agencies throughout the county including the Dutchess County Division of Veterans Services, the local VA, Department of Labor, Social Services, West Cop and the MHA Vet2Vet program. Ongoing. 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 provide independent living skills training based on individual needs and goals: Current trends involve assisting veterans with disabilities to fill out forms, request paper work, and file for benefits from Veteran Affairs. Many veterans also use the in-house Social Security disability benefits counseling services. Ongoing. 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 assist veterans with disabilities in organizing a committee for conducting systems advocacy especially as it relates to affordable/acceptable housing: The Veteran Specialist offered the opportunity to join the systems advocacy group to each veteran during the intake process on the goals form during intake. Generating consumer interest is the first step in the process. Next year, TRI will reach out to other stakeholders to help spread the word regarding forming a system change committee geared toward advocating for affordable, accessible housing for veterans with disabilities. Target partially met.Some highlights of advocacy with and for consumers include:TRI was able to assist a disabled veteran to receive a motorized scooter free of charge including delivery.TRI collaborated with WestCop to get a disabled veteran into housing through HudVash (a collaborative program between HUD and VA which combines HUD housing vouchers with VA supportive services to help Veterans who are homeless, and their families find and sustain permanent housing).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 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 goals. Monthly reports are being used to record all activity and Excel spreadsheets are being used to record all veteran consumers. A three-month goal tracker allows TRI to see what goals consumers want to achieve and help them toward attainment A daily log will be kept tracking activity that will also be used to inform the best practices manual. Ongoing and updated daily. Target partially met.In terms of challenges and lessons learned during the last year:The Hudson River Housing’s Veteran Impact Program has proven to be unstable as their funding fluctuates monthly and they are under a constant threat of closing.Many veteran programs are structured for those who are already homeless and not geared for prevention of eviction. We need more programs like the STEP program with Legal Services of the Hudson Valley that helps with evictions.Based on the lesson learned above, TRI found that MHA’s Living Room Program was not a great source for referrals to our program, since it was specifically targeting homeless veterans. However, TRI MHA’s Vet2Vet program was a natural partner and will remain so for referrals.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, this objective and its one outcome with ten targets demonstrated excellent progress during its first year of operation.Objective # 6: The Capacity Building Independent Living Center Opportunity (CBILCO) grants to address priority unserved and underserved populations were completed in 2017, therefore this Objective was not active this year.February 20, 2019SSAN Volunteer Survey ResultsAs part of NYAIL’ s SSAN Coordination grant, NYAIL was required to develop a survey for the SSAN volunteers. The purpose of these surveys is to assess the value of systems advocacy and the impact systems advocacy has on factors such as levels of personal empowerment and self-determination. NYAIL developed this brief survey in collaboration with a small workgroup composed of a NYSILC representative and advocates from the SSAN with experience in creating surveys. MethodologyThe brief survey consisted of only ten questions. The survey questions were a mixture of multiple choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions. Advocates from the 15 centers distributed the survey directly to their volunteers. The committee felt their volunteers would be more likely to respond if the survey came directly from the SSAN advocates, as opposed to NYAIL. Committee members also raised concerns over privacy; some of the advocates had previously promised not to share the volunteers’ contact information with anyone. As such, sharing their contact information to NYAIL could have been taken as a violation from some volunteers. As a result, NYAIL distributed the survey to the 15 SSAN centers, and the lead SSAN contact at each center distributed the survey to their volunteers. NYAIL received 62 total responses. NYAIL did request the number of volunteers each center was sending the survey in order to report on response rates. Unfortunately, we only received estimates from a number of centers, and so can only provide an approximate response rate. The approximate response rate for the survey was 8.2%. Executive SummaryThe SSAN volunteer survey began by asking which activities volunteers do among a number of options. Completing action alerts got the highest percentage with 77% responding they complete action alerts. Next, volunteers were asked which activities they most enjoy doing. These responses were varied, with attending programs or presentations at the local ILC being the most popular activity with 49.2% of volunteers selecting that option. Responding to action alerts and meeting with legislators came in right behind, being selected by 42.6% of respondents. Volunteers were then surveyed on which areas of systems advocacy they would like assistance or additional support in doing. Only 45 people responded to this question, with 53% of volunteers reporting needing more assistance with meeting with legislators and 40% indicating they would like additional assistance with attending demonstrations or rallies. NYAIL believes the reason for the lower response rate for this question was that we did not provide “none” as an option, so` 17 people did not identify an area on which they would like greater assistance.Volunteers were surveyed on whether they feel they are encouraged to provide input on issues which are most important to them, or that they would most like to work on. Everyone responded to this question, with 51 or 82.3% responding in the affirmative, and only three people responding “no”. Volunteers then responded to whether they feel more confident making decisions about their life as a result of their participation in the SSAN. Responses were very positive, with 79% responding “yes”.When asked if they feel more empowered to share their opinion and make their voice heard, an impressive 88.5% responded “yes.” Next, when asked if their involvement in systems advocacy lead either directly or indirectly to achieving any new social, educational or employment opportunities, only 33.9% responded positively that it had. Volunteers who responded yes to the previous question were asked to share examples. 18 people responded, and a few examples include:I was a volunteer for several years and was then offered a paid position at local ILC and have been here 8 years.My involvement in systems advocacy has achieved social justice regarding voting rights for individuals with disabilities. Especially, for visual impaired people. In addition, the public transportation (access-a-ride) fair was to be increased, but through our systems advocacy, the fare remains the same up to present.Due to my volunteer work and advocacy I'm now employed as a peer specialist.I have enhanced my skills in helping others find employment within the community.When asked if their involvement with systems advocacy helped prepare them to share their personal story in their advocacy efforts on behalf of disability rights and independent living, 67% responded “yes.” The survey concluded by asking volunteers whether participation impacted their lives in any other way. Here are a few responses:My appreciation and empathy for people with a wide variety of disabilities is enhanced.Gaining confidence, but it has also given me knowledge in many areas as far as government and politics.Yes, my participation has impacted my life, in several ways. First of all, it has enabled me to speak in public, for the right of people with disability. Secondly, it has also provided me the opportunity to travel to Albany, to talk to our state representatives, regarding the right of people with plete Survey ResultsStatewide Systems Advocacy Network2018 Volunteer SurveyQuestion 1. Systems advocacy offers many opportunities for volunteers. Which of the following activities do you do? (Check all activities you’ve done before) a.??? Complete action alerts - 77%b.??? Attend programs or presentations at your ILC on topics related to your personal advocacy efforts or interests – 67.7%c.??? Participate in meetings with legislators or other public officials - 58.1%d.??? Share your story with local media or on social media – 35.5%e.????Participate in press conferences or demonstrations - 37.1%f. Provide public comments either in person or in writing – 56.5%Question 2. Which activities do you most enjoy doing? (Check all that apply) a. Action alerts - 42.6%b.??? Attend programs or presentations at your ILC on topics related to your personal advocacy efforts or interests - 49.2%c.??? Participate in meetings with legislators or other public officials - 42.6%D.??? Share your story with local media or on social media – 23%e.????Participate in press conferences or demonstrations – 27.9%f. Provide public comments either in person or in writing – 41%Question 3. What areas of systems advocacy would you like assistance or additional support in doing? (Check all that apply): a. Action alerts – 20%b.??? Attend programs or presentations at your ILC on topics related to your personal advocacy efforts or interests – 31.1%c.??? Participate in meetings with legislators or other public officials – 53.3%d.??? Share your story with local media or on social media – 33.3%e.????Participate in press conferences or demonstrations – 40%f. Provide public comments either in person or in writing – 33.3%Question 4. As a volunteer, do you feel you are encouraged to provide input on issues which are most important to you, or that you would most like to work on? a. Yes – 82.3%b. No – 4.8% Unsure – 12.9%Question 5. As a result of your participation in systems advocacy, do you feel more confident making decisions about your life?a. Yes – 79%b. No – 11.29%c. Unsure - 9.68%Question 6. As a result of your participation in systems advocacy, do you feel more empowered to share your opinion and make your voice heard?a. Yes - 88.5%b. No – 3%c. Unsure – 4%Question 7. Has your involvement in systems advocacy lead either directly or indirectly to achieving any new social, educational or employment opportunities? a. Yes – 33.9%b. No – 33.9%c. Unsure – 32.2%Question 8. If yes, please briefly explain. My relationship with the Suffolk Independent Living Organization has vastly expanded both my knowledge and my skill as an advocate and spokesperson for people with disabilities. This is especially true in terms of providing alternatives for growth that- as CEO Joseph M. Delgado emphasizes- "levels the playing field for people with disabilities." Thanks, Dr. Richard Morfopoulos CEO/Universal AbilitiesAfter starting Amsterdam youth leadership at the RCIL Amsterdam office I went on to teach autism as a paraprofessional in Aurora, Colorado at the elementary school levelI participated in a demonstration in Washington, D.C. opposing the Graham-Cassidy bill, which would have cut Medicaid for so many people. The demonstration was on the day they were voting on it in the Senate. It did not pass.I was a volunteer for several years and was then offered a paid position at local ILC and have been here 8 years.My involvement in system advocacy have achieved social justice, regarding voting right for individual with disability. Especially, for visual impaired people. In addition, the public transportation (access-a-ride) fare was to be increase, but through our system advocacy, the fare remained the same up to presentInformation is shared regarding employment opportunities and other helpful information involving educational and training opportunities.EducationalAdvocating for developmentally disabled individuals and personal experience support in career pathToo many systems changes to list!Due to my volunteer work and advocacy I'm now employed as a peer specialist.I have enhanced my skills in helping others find employment within the community.Question 9. Has your involvement with systems advocacy helped prepare you to share your own personal story in your advocacy efforts on behalf of disability rights and Independent Living?a. Yes – 67.2%b. No – 16.13%c. Unsure – 16.83%Question 10. Has your participation impacted your life in any other way? If so, please explain. Advocacy for othersMy appreciation and empathy for people with a wide variety of disabilities is enhanced- thank you SILO and other ILC organizations! Keep up the good work.Increased awareness of disability issuesGaining confidence, but it has also given me knowledge in many areas as far as government and politics. Participation in Advocacy has also helped me make contacts.I will always continue to advocate for health care and other issues due to child's vaccine damage and husband's terminal diagnosis and cancellation of health insurance due to diagnosis.It has made me so much more aware of the issues facing our community and the ignorance and lack of understanding for these issues.Yes, my participation has impacted my life, in several ways. First of all, it has enabled me to speak in public, for the right of people with disability. Secondly, it has also provided me the opportunity to travel to Albany, to talk to our state representatives, regarding the right of people with disability.My involvement in systems advocacy has created a fervent desire to vote in the Mid-Term elections on 11/6/18. Otherwise, I fear that many services for disabled individuals will be eliminated.It has helped me to be more confident and knowledgeable regarding issues effecting Americans with disabilities.I am able to live independently with the community at large.Increased sensitivity and awareness of varied individual needs and abilitiesNetworking! I love talking to people to help them and those who can help me help others persons with a disability. I am willing and able to learn.When we are able to affect change, there is a sense of empowerment that is so rewarding. I enjoy those types of changes. However, I do not like feeling pressured to participate in action alerts that go against my beliefs. There are occasions when I feel such pressure.Speaking about my problems is more easyI am more knowledgeable and can share the information learned with others who are where I once was, clueless!I have been able to get help for many people as a direct result of my advocacy volunteer work.Yes, I feel it achieved concrete changesIt has allowed me to help others and to advocate for them.To teach others and make resources more available to help the community at large. Mostly in early childhood education. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download