National Assistive Technology Act Data System
Annual Progress Report - Full Report
Arizona 2021
General Information
Statewide AT Program (Information to be listed in national State AT Program Directory)
Lead Agency
Implementing Entity
Program Director and Other Contacts
Person Responsible for completing this form if other than Program Director
Certifying Representative
State Financing
| Did your approved state plan for this reporting period include any State Financing? | Yes |
|---|---|
| Did your approved state plan for this reporting period include conducting a Financial Loan Program? | Yes |
| Area of Residence | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Metro RUCC 1-3 |
Non-Metro RUCC 4-9 |
||
| Approved Loan made | 11 | 00 | 11 |
| Approved Not made | 00 | 00 | 00 |
| Rejected | 02 | 00 | 02 |
| Total | 13 | 00 | 13 |
2. Income of Applicants to Whom Loans Were Made
| Lowest Income: | $9,240 | Highest Income: | $54,936 |
|---|
| Sum of Incomes | Loans Made | Average Annual Income |
|---|---|---|
| $316,809 | 11 | $28,801 |
| Income Ranges | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $15,000 or Less |
$15,001- $30,000 |
$30,001- $45,000 |
$45,001- $60,000 |
$60,001- $75,000 |
$75,001 or More |
||
| Number of Loans | 04 | 03 | 03 | 01 | 00 | 00 | 11 |
| Percentage of Loans | 36.36% | 27.27% | 27.27% | 9.09% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
3. Loan Type
| Type of Loan | Number of Loans | Percentage of loans |
|---|---|---|
| Revolving Loans | 00 | 0% |
| Partnership Loans | ||
| Without interest buy-down or loan guarantee | 00 | 0% |
| With interest buy-down only | 00 | 0% |
| With loan guarantee only | 11 | 100% |
| With both interest buy-down and loan guarantee | 00 | 0% |
| Total | 11 | 100% |
| Type of Loan | Number of Loans | Dollar Value of Loans |
|---|---|---|
| Revolving Loans | 00 | $0 |
| Partnership Loans | 11 | $36,694 |
| Total | 11 | $36,694 |
4. Interest Rates
| Lowest | 4.5% |
|---|---|
| Highest | 4.5% |
| Sum of Interest Rates | Number of Loans Made | Average Interest Rate |
|---|---|---|
| 50 | 11 | 4.5% |
| Interest Rate | Number of loans |
|---|---|
| 0.0% to 2.0% | 00 |
| 2.1% to 4.0% | 00 |
| 4.1% to 6.0% | 11 |
| 6.1% to 8.0% | 00 |
| 8.1% - 10.0% | 00 |
| 10.1%-12.0% | 00 |
| 12.1%-14.0% | 00 |
| 14.1% + | 00 |
| Total | 11 |
5. Types and Dollar Amounts of AT Financed
| Type of AT | Number of Devices Financed | Dollar Value of Loans |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | 01 | $4,372 |
| Hearing | 03 | $5,600 |
| Speech communication | 00 | $0 |
| Learning, cognition, and developmental | 00 | $0 |
| Mobility, seating and positioning | 03 | $10,543 |
| Daily living | 04 | $11,794 |
| Environmental adaptations | 00 | $0 |
| Vehicle modification and transportation | 05 | $3,920 |
| Computers and related | 01 | $465 |
| Recreation, sports, and leisure | 00 | $0 |
| Total | 17 | $36,694 |
6. Defaults
| Number Loans in default | 00 |
|---|---|
| Net loss for loans in default | $0 |
B. State Financing Activities that provide consumers with resources and services that result in the acquisition of AT devices and services
1. Overview of Activities Performed
| How many other state financing activities that provide consumers with access to funds for the purchase of AT devices and services were included in your approved state plan? | 1 |
|---|
Activity 1
| How would you describe this state financing activity? | Other: |
|---|
2. Geographic Distribution, Number of Individuals Who Acquired AT Devices and Services and Number for whom Performance Measure Data are Collected
| County of Residence | Individuals Served |
|---|---|
| A. Metro (RUCC 1-3) | 2 |
| B. Non-Metro (RUCC 4-9) | 0 |
| C. Total Served | 2 |
| Performance Measure | |
|---|---|
| D. Excluded from Performance Measure | 0 |
| E. Number of Individuals Included in Performance Measures | 2 |
If a number is reported in D you must provide a description of the reason the individuals are excluded from the performance measure:
3. Types and Dollar Amounts of AT Funded
| Type of AT Device / Service | Number of Devices Funded | Value of AT Provided |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | 0 | 0.00 |
| Hearing | 1 | 338.00 |
| Speech communication | 5 | 13290.00 |
| Learning, cognition, and developmental | 0 | 0.00 |
| Mobility, seating and positioning | 0 | 0.00 |
| Daily living | 0 | 0.00 |
| Environmental adaptations | 1 | 625.00 |
| Vehicle modification and transportation | 0 | 0.00 |
| Computers and related | 0 | 0.00 |
| Recreation, sports, and leisure | 0 | 0.00 |
| Total | 7 | 14253.00 |
C. State Financing Activities that Allow Consumers to Obtain AT at Reduced Cost
1. Overview of Activities Performed
| How many state financing activities that allow consumers to obtain AT at a reduced cost were included in your approved state plan? | 0 |
|---|
D. Anecdote
A senior citizen with a hearing loss was referred to AzLAT by her audiologist for a financial loan to purchase hearing aids. Her current income consists of Social Security and a small monthly pension. She had almost $5,600 in total debt from three pay day loans and a Care Credit account. She was making a $606 monthly payment on all these loans and her DTI exceeded the policy limit for the AzLAT program. We discussed her situation and application with our lending partner. They suggested using her car as collateral and consolidating all four loans into one loan with them. By doing so they could lower her interest rate and get her monthly payment down to $201. This lowered her DTI to a percentage within our policy and gave her over $400 extra dollars a month that she could put towards her AzLAT loan. The loan for the hearing aids was approved for a three year term at a monthly payment of $98.15. Now she has her hearing aids and a savings of over $300 a month.
A sister of a man with a developmental disability was referred to AzTAP by an AAC company representative. She wanted her brother to be evaluated for and receive an AAC device. He was residing in a group home and her chief concern was that her brother was unable to communicate his needs or wants to his group home care staff. The family had been unsuccessful in their recent past attempts to have him be evaluated for and receive an AAC system. Her brother was a ward of the state so he had a court appointed guardian. After a consultation AzTAP staff was able to coordinate with the guardian and initiate the process to get the paperwork submitted to have him seen by our DDD AAC evaluation program. As part of that eval process AzTAP lent a device and a mount to his coordinating SLP who was submitting the referral packet so that he could trial headpointing as a primary device access method. It worked for the client and upon entering the final evaluation with the team, the client and his caregiver were able to express that this was the access method he wanted to use. AzTAP was able to provide significant direction and hands on support to he and his family to marshal them through a process that they had not been successful with before. As a result, the client received a communication system (device and wheelchair mount) valued at $13,915.00 and the training services to support using it and implementing it in his daily life.
E. Performance Measures
| Response | Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Employment | Community Living | ||
| 1. Could only afford the AT through the AT program. | 00 | 02 | 08 | 10 |
| 2. AT was only available through the AT program. | 00 | 00 | 02 | 02 |
| 3. AT was available through other programs, but the system was too complex or the wait time too long. | 00 | 00 | 01 | 01 |
| 4. Subtotal | 00 | 02 | 11 | 13 |
| 5. None of the above | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 |
| 6. Subtotal | 00 | 02 | 11 | 13 |
| 7. Nonrespondent | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 |
| 8. Total | 00 | 02 | 11 | 13 |
| 9. Performance on this measure | NaN% | 100% | 100% | |
F. Customer Satisfaction
| Customer Rating of Services | Number of Customers | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Highly satisfied | 11 | 84.62% |
| Satisfied | 01 | 7.69% |
| Satisfied somewhat | 00 | 0% |
| Not at all satisfied | 00 | 0% |
| Nonrespondent | 01 | 7.69% |
| Total Surveyed | 13 | |
| Response rate % | 92.31% |
G. Notes:
Reutilization
A. Number of Recipients of Reused Devices
| Activity | Number of Individuals Receiving a Device from Activity |
|---|---|
| A. Device Exchange | 24 |
| B. Device Refurbish/Repair - Reassign and/or Open Ended Loan | 12 |
| C. Total | 36 |
| Performance Measure | |
|---|---|
| D. Device Exchange - Excluded from Performance Measure | 00 |
| E. Reassignment/Refurbishment and Repair and Open Ended Loans - Excluded from Performance Measure because AT is provided to or on behalf of an entity that has an obligation to provide the AT such as schools under IDEA or VR agencies/clients | 00 |
| F. Number of Individuals Included in Performance Measures | 36 |
If a number is reported in E you must provide a description of the reason the individuals are excluded from the performance measure:
B. Device Exchange Activities
| Type of AT Device | Number of Devices Exchanged | Total Estimated Current Purchase Price | Total Price for Which Device(s) Were Exchanged | Savings to Consumers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vision | 01 | $1,595 | $0 | $1,595 |
| Hearing | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Speech Communication | 02 | $29,349 | $0 | $29,349 |
| Learning, Cognition and Developmental | 05 | $900 | $0 | $900 |
| Mobility, Seating and Positioning | 01 | $300 | $0 | $300 |
| Daily Living | 04 | $4,953 | $1,300 | $3,653 |
| Environmental Adaptations | 01 | $65 | $0 | $65 |
| Vehicle Modification & Transportation | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Computers and Related | 10 | $290 | $0 | $290 |
| Recreation, Sports and Leisure | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total | 24 | $37,452 | $1,300 | $36,152 |
C. Device Refurbish/Repair - Reassignment and/or Open Ended Loan Activities
| Type of AT Device | Number of Devices Reassigned/Refurbished and Repaired | Total Estimated Current Purchase Price | Total Price for Which Device(s) Were Sold | Savings to Consumers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vision | 03 | $4,100 | $0 | $4,100 |
| Hearing | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Speech Communication | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Learning, Cognition and Developmental | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Mobility, Seating and Positioning | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Daily Living | 01 | $439 | $0 | $439 |
| Environmental Adaptations | 05 | $536 | $0 | $536 |
| Vehicle Modification & Transportation | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Computers and Related | 12 | $4,798 | $1,754 | $3,044 |
| Recreation, Sports and Leisure | 00 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total | 21 | $9,873 | $1,754 | $8,119 |
D. Anecdote
AzTAP’s Reuse services coordinator was contacted by a gentleman whose mother in law was using a three year-old Acorn stairlift. They were going to be moving to a single-story home and did not need the stairlift in their new home. He was under a time crunch as they were needing to be out of the home and the stairlift needed to be removed as quickly as possible. After calling several stairlift installers, we were not able to find a local buy-back programs for these lifts. We called the Az Chapter of Paralyzed Vets (AzPVA) who runs a DME lending closet and they agreed to take it on donation. Using a handyman, the they were able to have the stairlift removed from the home and he rented a trailer to deliver it to the AzPVA. Upon delivery the AzPVA reported that they had a potential recipient in mind for the stairlift. With AzTAP’s support this stairlift entered the Reuse market and will soon hopefully find a home with a new owner.
E. Performance Measures
| Response | Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Employment | Community Living | ||
| 1. Could only afford the AT through the AT program. | 02 | 00 | 13 | 15 |
| 2. AT was only available through the AT program. | 03 | 00 | 12 | 15 |
| 3. AT was available through other programs, but the system was too complex or the wait time too long. | 00 | 00 | 01 | 01 |
| 4. Subtotal | 05 | 00 | 26 | 31 |
| 5. None of the above | 00 | 00 | 02 | 02 |
| 6. Subtotal | 05 | 00 | 28 | 33 |
| 7. Nonrespondent | 00 | 00 | 03 | 03 |
| 8. Total | 05 | 00 | 31 | 36 |
| 9. Performance on this measure | 100% | NaN% | 83.87% | |
F. Customer Satisfaction
| Customer Rating of Services | Number of Customers | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Highly satisfied | 27 | 75% |
| Satisfied | 04 | 11.11% |
| Satisfied somewhat | 00 | 0% |
| Not at all satisfied | 00 | 0% |
| Nonrespondent | 05 | 13.89% |
| Total Surveyed | 36 | |
| Response rate % | 86.11% |
G. Notes:
Device Loan
A. Short-Term Device Loans by Type of Purpose
| Primary Purpose of Short-Term Device Loan | Number |
|---|---|
| Assist in decision-making (device trial or evaluation) | 475 |
| Serve as loaner during service repair or while waiting for funding | 31 |
| Provide an accommodation on a short-term basis for a time-limited event/situation | 17 |
| Conduct training, self-education or other professional development activity | 73 |
| Total | 596 |
B. Short-Term Device Loan by Type of Borrower
| Type of Individual or Entity | Number of Device Borrowers | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Desicion-making | All other Purposes | Total | |
| Individuals with Disabilities | 441 | 52 | 493 |
| Family Members, Guardians, and Authorized Representatives | 12 | 00 | 12 |
| Representative of Education | 08 | 33 | 41 |
| Representative of Employment | 02 | 01 | 03 |
| Representatives of Health, Allied Health, and Rehabilitation | 11 | 22 | 33 |
| Representatives of Community Living | 00 | 01 | 01 |
| Representatives of Technology | 01 | 12 | 13 |
| Total | 475 | 121 | 596 |
C. Length of Short-Term Device Loans
| Length of Short-Term Device Loan in Days | 14 |
|---|
D. Types of Devices Loaned
| Type of AT Device | Number of Devices | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Desicion-making | All other Purposes | Total | |
| Vision | 78 | 76 | 154 |
| Hearing | 49 | 45 | 94 |
| Speech Communication | 189 | 68 | 257 |
| Learning, Cognition and Developmental | 134 | 94 | 228 |
| Mobility, Seating and Positioning | 54 | 14 | 68 |
| Daily Living | 187 | 95 | 282 |
| Environmental Adaptations | 137 | 76 | 213 |
| Vehicle Modification and Transportation | 00 | 00 | 00 |
| Computers and Related | 292 | 87 | 379 |
| Recreation, Sports and Leisure | 26 | 19 | 45 |
| Total | 1,146 | 574 | 1,720 |
E. Anecdote
AzTAP was contacted by the family of a senior citizen who had a significant bilateral conductive hearing loss since she was a child. She was living alone on a fixed income. Her current hearing aids were no longer working for her and the family had given up on trying to get them to work for her. Because of her hearing loss and inability to hear household cues such as the smoke alarm, doorbell or the phone her family was concerned for her safety. Also, when they would go to visit her since she could not hear the doorbell/door knock they would often startle her each time they entered. Via a virtual consultation with the family we discussed different options for her regarding Assistive Listening Devices (ALD’s) (i.e. smoke detector, phone, doorbell, and alarm clock). AzTAP loaned the family the Serene Innovations Central Alert Wearable System Notification with Audio Sensor to trial with her. If it worked she would be able to get the base system provided on long term loan and free of charge from the AzTEDP program. With AzTAP support the family set it up with her and after trial relayed that it worked very well for her. AzTAP ATS provided them with the AzTEDP application, completed the Certifying Professional portion and gave them the contact information for the program. Since she had a conductive hearing loss the ATS also sent the family information on a Baha implant as well as the contact information for a local representative for a company that provided that implant so that they could investigate it as a potential option to replace her failing hearing aids. Being able to have the chance to try the equipment, and then have the AzTEDP provide her with equipment was very beneficial for her financially and gave the family some peace of mind.
F. Access Performance Measures
| Response | Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Employment | Community Living | ||
| Decided that AT device/service will meet needs | 118 | 25 | 127 | 270 |
| Decided that an AT device/ service will not meet needs | 52 | 12 | 51 | 115 |
| Subtotal | 170 | 37 | 178 | 385 |
| Have not made a decision | 05 | 00 | 10 | 15 |
| Subtotal | 175 | 37 | 188 | 400 |
| Nonrespondent | 45 | 05 | 25 | 75 |
| Total | 220 | 42 | 213 | 475 |
| Performance on this measure | 97.14% | 100% | 94.68% | |
G. Acquisition Performance Measures
| Response | Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Employment | Community Living | ||
| 1. Could only afford the AT through the AT program. | 15 | 00 | 00 | 15 |
| 2. AT was only available through the AT program. | 41 | 29 | 23 | 93 |
| 3. AT was available through other programs, but the system was too complex or the wait time too long. | 00 | 00 | 01 | 01 |
| 4. Subtotal | 56 | 29 | 24 | 109 |
| 5. None of the above | 03 | 00 | 00 | 03 |
| 6. Subtotal | 59 | 29 | 24 | 112 |
| 7. Nonrespondent | 05 | 00 | 04 | 09 |
| 8. Total | 64 | 29 | 28 | 121 |
| 9. Performance on this measure | 94.92% | 100% | 100% | |
H. Customer Satisfaction
| Customer Rating of Services | Number of Customers | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Highly satisfied | 410 | 68.79% |
| Satisfied | 73 | 12.25% |
| Satisfied somewhat | 05 | 0.84% |
| Not at all satisfied | 02 | 0.34% |
| Nonrespondent | 106 | 17.79% |
| Total Surveyed | 596 | |
| Response rate % | 82.21% |
I. Notes:
Device Demonstration
A. Number of Device Demonstrations by Device Type
| Type of AT Device / Service | Number of Demonstrations of AT Devices / Services |
|---|---|
| Vision | 07 |
| Hearing | 01 |
| Speech Communication | 115 |
| Learning, Cognition and Developmental | 00 |
| Mobility, Seating and Positioning | 07 |
| Daily Living | 00 |
| Environmental Adaptations | 02 |
| Vehicle Modification and Transportation | 00 |
| Computers and Related | 03 |
| Recreation, Sports and Leisure | 00 |
| Total # of Devices Demonstrated | 135 |
B. Types of Participants
| Type of Participant | Number of Participants in Device Demonstrations |
|---|---|
| Individuals with Disabilities | 133 |
| Family Members, Guardians, and Authorized Representatives | 62 |
| Representatives of Education | 03 |
| Representatives of Employment | 00 |
| Health, Allied Health, Rehabilitation | 05 |
| Representative of Community Living | 00 |
| Representative of Technology | 00 |
| Total | 203 |
C. Number of Referrals
| Type of Entity | Number of Referrals |
|---|---|
| Funding Source (non-AT program) | 01 |
| Service Provider | 00 |
| Vendor | 00 |
| Repair Service | 00 |
| Others | 00 |
| Total | 01 |
D. Anecdote
AzTAP received a referral for an AT Consultation from a local Neurorehab provider for a thirty two year female who had experienced an Anoxic brain injury. The client had difficulty with motor coordination, reading print due to a significant vision impairment and inability to use L UE for keyboard typing. They were evaluating and working with her become a paralegal. We reviewed her employment needs and suggested AT options to the rehab team. They chose to trial a laptop computer fully configured with an OCR software and external camera, a magnifier/screen reader software, voice recognition software and a bridge software that allows the screen reader and voice recognition software to work together so she could control the computer by voice command and have audio feedback. The AzTAP ATS supported the OT on the rehab team virtually to get up and running with all the devices and demonstrated the base features of each software's. Ultimately, they were able to compare and contrast the features of the OCR and Reader software's and they found that all that all the provided equipment had the potential to work for the client and allow her to access and use the computer, read electronic information as well as deal with and read print documents. They will now be able to send the VRC AT options they can consider for this client. They were highly satisfied with our services and support received in the demonstration.
E. Performance Measures
| Response | Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Employment | Community Living | ||
| Decided that AT device/service will meet needs | 01 | 02 | 125 | 128 |
| Decided that an AT device/ service will not meet needs | 00 | 01 | 05 | 06 |
| Subtotal | 01 | 03 | 130 | 134 |
| Have not made a decision | 00 | 00 | 01 | 01 |
| Subtotal | 01 | 03 | 131 | 135 |
| Nonrespondent | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 |
| Total | 01 | 03 | 131 | 135 |
| Performance on this measure | 100% | 100% | 99.24% | |
F. Customer Satisfaction
| Customer Rating of Services | Number of Customers | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Highly satisfied | 194 | 95.57% |
| Satisfied | 09 | 4.43% |
| Satisfied somewhat | 00 | 0% |
| Not at all satisfied | 00 | 0% |
| Nonrespondent | 00 | 0% |
| Total | 203 | |
| Response rate % | 100% |
G. Notes:
Overall Performance Measures
Overall Acquisition Performance Measure
| Response | Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Employment | Community Living | ||
| 1. Could only afford the AT through the AT program. | 17 | 02 | 21 | 40 |
| 2. AT was only available through the AT program. | 44 | 29 | 37 | 110 |
| 3. AT was available through other programs, but the system was too complex or the wait time too long. | 00 | 00 | 03 | 03 |
| 4. Subtotal | 61 | 31 | 61 | 153 |
| 5. None of the above | 03 | 00 | 02 | 05 |
| 6. Subtotal | 64 | 31 | 63 | 158 |
| 7. Nonrespondent | 05 | 00 | 07 | 12 |
| 8. Total | 69 | 31 | 70 | 170 |
| 9. Performance on this measure | 95.31% | 100% | 87.88% | 93.17% |
| ACL Performance Measure | 85% | |||
| Met/Not Met | Met | |||
Overall Access Performance Measure
| Response | Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Employment | Community Living | ||
| Decided that AT device/service will meet needs | 119 | 27 | 252 | 398 |
| Decided that an AT device/ service will not meet needs | 52 | 13 | 56 | 121 |
| Subtotal | 171 | 40 | 308 | 519 |
| Have not made a decision | 05 | 00 | 11 | 16 |
| Subtotal | 176 | 40 | 319 | 535 |
| Nonrespondent | 45 | 05 | 25 | 75 |
| Total | 221 | 45 | 344 | 610 |
| Performance on this measure | 97.16% | 100% | 96.55% | 97.01% |
| ACL Performance Measure | 90% | |||
| Met/Not Met | Met | |||
Overall Satisfaction Rating
| Customer Rating of Services | Percent | ACL Target | Met/Not Met |
|---|---|---|---|
| Highly satisfied and satisfied | 99.05% | 95% | Met |
| Response Rate | 86.79% | 90% | Not Met |
Training
A. Training Participants: Number and Types of Participants; Geographical Distribution
| Type of Participant | Number |
|---|---|
| Individuals with Disabilities | 198 |
| Family Members, Guardians and Authorized Representatives | 154 |
| Representatives of Education | 560 |
| Representatives of Employment | 404 |
| Rep Health, Allied Health, and Rehabilitation | 589 |
| Representatives of Community Living | 93 |
| Representatives of Technology | 218 |
| Unable to Categorize | 446 |
| TOTAL | 2,662 |
| Metro | Non Metro | Unknown | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,971 | 658 | 33 | 2,662 |
B. Training Topics
| Primary Topic of Training | Participants |
|---|---|
| AT Products/Services | 1,090 |
| AT Funding/Policy/ Practice | 137 |
| Combination of any/all of the above | 993 |
| Information Technology/Telecommunication Access | 252 |
| Transition | 190 |
| Total | 2,662 |
C. Description of Training Activities
Describe innovative one high-impact assistance training activity conducted during the reporting period:
AzTAP hosted two seventy five minute breakout sessions at the 2021 IHD-AzTAP Evidence for Success Virtual Conference presented by Mike Marotta, Director of the New Jersey AT Act Program that were focused on exploring an array of mobile device apps, browser based apps and extensions, and cloud based productivity suites focused on providing support for organization and executive function. There were 150 participants between both sessions and survey results were obtained from 22 respondents who rated the session at 3.73 out of 4.00.
Briefly describe one training activity related to transition conducted during the reporting period:
AzTAP staff provided a 1.5 hour Zoom presentation to thirteen individuals who were associated with the Arizona Association of People Supporting Employment and who provide direct employment supports to individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. The focus of the presentation was to inform and educate these service providers about specific AT options used in employment for young adults with these disabilities who were also current VR clients. A wide variety of specific AT examples were provided for needs related too expressive communication, deafness/hard of hearing, attention/concentration/anxiety reduction, scheduling/time management and task completion. This was a high impact activity because the training was directed at staff who provided direct employment support services to this population and whose clients had AT acquisition support from RSA-VR.
Briefly describe one training activity related to Information and Communication Technology accessibility:
AzTAP hosted a virtual ICT accessibility workshop featuring Rob Carr and Lyssa Prince from Oklahoma ABLE Tech, on how to create more accessible PowerPoint slide presentations. The participants were presenters for the IHD 2021 disability conference. This in-depth 3 hour training was a 2-part workshop - the first focused on creating accessible slide masters, and the second was about creating individual slides that are accessible. The workshop was held using the Zoom platform and there was a lot of hands-on work in breakout rooms. After the conclusion, participants were sent a Qualtrics satisfaction survey. Ten participants took the survey, giving the workshop an overall satisfaction score of 3.70 out of 4.00. Responses also provided open-ended feedback which AzTAP will use to improve future ICT accessibility workshops.
D. IT/Telecommunications Training Performance Measure
| Outcome/Result From IT/Telecommunications Training Received | Number |
|---|---|
| IT and Telecommunications Procurement or Dev Policies | 27 |
| Training or Technical Assistance will be developed or implemented | 22 |
| No known outcome at this time | 14 |
| Nonrespondent | 189 |
| Total | 252 |
| Performance Measure Percentage | 19.4% |
| ACL Target Percentage | 70% |
| Met/Not Met | Not Met |
E. Notes:
Technical Assistance
A. Frequency and Nature of Technical Assistance
| Education | 67% |
|---|---|
| Employment | % |
| Health, Allied Health, Rehabilitation | 33% |
| Community Living | % |
| Technology (IT, Telecom, AT) | % |
| Total | 100% |
B. Description of Technical Assistance
Describe Innovative one high-impact assistance activity that is not related to transition:
AzTAP was contacted by an adult probation department with one of our counties superior court systems. Some of the services they provide to individuals on parole are education, employment and life skills development support. Many of their students present with an array of learning, cognitive or behavioral disabilities. They were interested in exploring AT options they could implement with these individuals. We initiated a plan where after a consultation with their team we would suggest options for them to review. We would then lend them the devices they were interested in to trial and provide them one on one support from all three of our AT Specialists to get up and running with the equipment. They could then decide after hands on usage what they wanted to purchase and implement with their students. This will be an ongoing project and will cross over into next FY (2021/2022).
Breifly describe one technical assistance activity related to transition conducted during the reporting period:
AzTAP worked with a local agency that provides services to individuals with developmental and related disabilities. Many of whom use AAC systems to be able to communicate. Some have limited or no support with maintaining their devices, navigating the system to get devices repaired/replaced and with being able to access a loaner when they were without their primary device. The agency wanted to setup an internal evaluation and loaner program to assist with those needs. AzTAP provided information on running a loan program and managing an inventory, suggestions and strategies on prioritizing devices to purchase for their inventory as well as resources for community funding to support this program. In addition, we renewed their membership in our department of education short term lending program so that they could borrow devices. AzTAP committed to be available to continue working with the agency to assist them in getting this program up and running within their organization.
C. Notes:
None.
Public Awareness
Public Awareness Activities
Public Awareness Narratives
Describe in detail at least one and no more than two innovative or high-impact public awareness activities conducted during this reporting period. Highlight the content/focus of the awareness information shared, the mechanism used to disseminate or communicate the awareness information, the numbers and/or types of individuals reached, and positive outcomes resulting from the activity. If quantative numbers are available regarding the reach of the activity, please provide those: however, quantative data is not required.
1. AzTAP developed and implemented a new communication and marketing plan in the last reporting period. In this plan we are varying our outreach to reach the widest audience possible. We are now doing a streamlined three part news and updates email blast four times each year; six training events each year consisting of three thirty minute lunch and learn sessions on AT devices, two focused trainings on ICT related topics as well as an annual high tech AzTAP Maker event. In addition, we are doing Facebook social media posting on AT related topics two times each month and we host an annual state wide AT conference. We also created a new marketing tag line: AzTAP: Supporting Independence with Assistive Technology.
2. NA
Information And Assistance
| Types of Recipients | AT Device/ Service |
AT Funding | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individuals with Disabilities | 624 | 120 | 744 |
| Family Members, Guardians and Authorized Representatives | 308 | 133 | 441 |
| Representative of Education | 86 | 01 | 87 |
| Representative of Employment | 98 | 01 | 99 |
| Representative of Health, Allied Health, and Rehabilitation | 267 | 17 | 284 |
| Representative of Community Living | 94 | 22 | 116 |
| Representative of Technology | 66 | 08 | 74 |
| Unable to Categorize | 2,984 | 02 | 2,986 |
| Total | 4,527 | 304 | 4,831 |
Notes:
Coordination/Collaboration and State Improvement Outcomes
Overview of Coordination/Collaboration Activities
| Coordination/Collaboration activities are not required. You may report up to two MAJOR coordination/collaboration activities for this reporting period. How many will you be reporting? | 2 |
|---|
A. Coordination/Collaboration
1. As concisely as possible, describe the partnership initiative. What activities/services were provided? Who are the major collaborating organizations and what is their role? Who is served/benefited? What funding was used to implement the initiative?
In collaboration with the Arizona Department of Education – Exceptional Student Services (ADE-ESS) AzTAP organized, advertised and hosted six virtual maker events in the last reporting period. AzTAP runs ADE-ESS’s short term AT lending program under a five year contract. So that participants could attend at time most convenient for them each event was comprised of at least two to three duplicate sessions at different times throughout the day. Devices constructed for each session ranged from switch adapted toys to low tech AT items. Participants were charged a nominal registration fee (+/- $25.00 for most events) and the additional associated costs for the sessions were paid for by ADE-ESS. We had 146 participants in all the sessions on the six Maker days. The primary attendees of these Maker events were teachers, related school service professionals, therapists and a few parents of a child with a disability.
2. As concisely as possible, describe the measurable results of the initiative and any lessons learned. How did access to AT change as a result of the coordination/collaboration/partnership? How did awareness of AT change as a result of the partnership? How did the reach of the state AT program change as a result of the partnership? What made the partnership successful? What would you change or wish you had done differently? Provided funding/resources are available, will the initiative continue or is this a one-time event? What advice would you give for replication of the initiative? Please include URL for initiative if available.
Access to AT increased because these devices can be made using common items at a lower cost than if they were purchased commercially. Through participation in the workshop we were able to increase participant’s awareness of the ADE AT team and the AT Loan Library. The workshops were held using Zoom which increased the availability to individuals throughout Arizona who otherwise may not have been able to make the trip to participate. The partnership was made successful by commitment and flexibility from both organizations. Success is all in the planning – it is most important make sure the workshop instructions/script are very detailed, under the virtual format that plenty of support is available to help participants and that all supplies are ordered with enough time to arrive so they can be shipped to participants prior to the event. We are expecting the initiative will continue and are planning another series of Maker events for 2022.
3. What focus areas(s) were addressed by the initiative?
Education;
4. What AT Act authorized activity(s) were addressed?
Training;
A.2 Coordination/Collaboration (Entry 2)
1. As concisely as possible, describe the partnership initiative. What activities/services were provided? Who are the major collaborating organizations and what is their role? Who is served/benefited? What funding was used to implement the initiative?
The 2021 AzTAP/IHD Evidence for Success Virtual Conference. This was a 3-day conference featuring 2 general sessions (opening and closing speakers), 24 breakout sessions, 15 exhibitor spotlights and 2 different times for virtual exhibitor booths. Fifteen of the sessions were specifically focused on AT products, services and ICT accessibility which the other 9 were focused on advocacy and disability topics more generally. All presentations were delivered live via zoom. Collaborating partners were Arizona Department of Education (primary funder), Rehabilitation Services Administration (content/credentialing collaborator) and our parent organization IHD at NAU (technical support/marketing). The conference attracted 319 participants broken out as follows: 43 exhibit hall only, 43 RSA, 47 presenters, 28 exhibitors and 158 other full conference participants. Average attendance in each breakout session was 53.
2. As concisely as possible, describe the measurable results of the initiative and any lessons learned. How did access to AT change as a result of the coordination/collaboration/partnership? How did awareness of AT change as a result of the partnership? How did the reach of the state AT program change as a result of the partnership? What made the partnership successful? What would you change or wish you had done differently? Provided funding/resources are available, will the initiative continue or is this a one-time event? What advice would you give for replication of the initiative? Please include URL for initiative if available.
Forty four of the attendees responded to the post-conference survey, giving the conference an overall satisfaction score of 3.66 out of 4.00. This was a successful model and we are expecting to repeat a conference in 2022 with the same collaborators. Annually, this is a very popular event for us but has been dramatically effected by COIVD in the last two years. Going forward we are going to maintain the same collaborative relationships but make every effort to return to a full in person conference while maintaining some virtual components. This will allow us to have a vendor hall where conference participants can have hands on experiences with the AT devices and vendors. Funding increased for our conference in 2022.
3. What focus areas(s) were addressed by the initiative?
Education; Employment; Community Participation and Integration; Recreation / Leisure; Transition(school to work or congregate care to community); Information and Communication Technology / Remote Connectivity;
4. What AT Act authorized activity(s) were addressed?
Training; Public Awareness;
Overview of State Improvement Activities
| State improvement outcomes are not required. You may report up to two MAJOR state improvement outcomes for this reporting period. How many will you be reporting? | 00 |
|---|
Additional And Leveraged Funds
| Did you have Additional and Leveraged Funding to Report? | Yes |
|---|
A. Leveraged Funding for State Plan Activities
| Fund Source | Amount | Use of Funds | Data Reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public/State Agency | $318,875 | Demonstration | True |
| Public/State Agency | $178,934 | Device Loan | True |
| Public/State Agency | $45,855 | Training | True |
| Amount: $543,664 |
For any leveraged funding reported above for which data could not be reported, please describe the extenuating circumstances that precluded data from being reported and efforts to remediate the situation in future reporting periods.
NA
B. Describe any unique issues with your data in this section (e.g., the reason why you were unable to report the number of individuals served with additional or leveraged funds).
NA
Center for Assistive Technology Act Data Assistance . Saved: Mon Mar 07 2022 10:59:21 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)