National Assistive Technology Act Data System

Annual Progress Report - Full Report

Arizona 2023

General Information

Statewide AT Program (Information to be listed in national State AT Program Directory)

State AT Program Title:
Arizona Technology Access Program (AzTAP)
State AT Program Title:
State AT Program URL
http://aztap.org
Mailing Address:
300 West Clarendon Ave, Suite 475
City:
Phoenix
State:
Arizona
Zip Code:
85013
Program Email:
AskAzTAP@nau.edu
Phone:
602-728-9534
TTY:
Relay-711

Lead Agency

Agency Name:
Northern Arizona University - Institute for Human Development - Office of Sponsored Projects
Mailing Address:
NAU - IHD - OSP: Box 4130 (Science Annex Bldg. # 20, 4th Floor)
City:
Flagstaff
State:
Arizona
Zip Code:
86011
Program URL:
https://in.nau.edu/osp

Implementing Entity

Name of Implementing Agency:
Mailing Address:
City
State:
Zip Code:
Program URL:

Program Director and Other Contacts

Program Director for State AT Program (last, first):
Clayton Guffey
Title:
AzTAP Program Director
Phone:
602-776-4699
E-mail:
Clayton.Guffey@nau.edu
Program Director at Lead Agency (last, first):
Clayton Guffey
Title:
AzTAP Program Director
Phone:
602-776-4699
E-mail:
Clayton.Guffey@nau.edu
Primary Contact at Implementing Agency (last, first) - If applicable:
Title:
Phone:
E-mail:

Person Responsible for completing this form if other than Program Director

Name (last, first):
Title:
Phone:
E-mail:

Certifying Representative

Name (last, first):
Tom Champagne
Title:
Associate Vice President - Research
Phone:
928-523-4880
E-mail:
NAU-OSP@nau.edu

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

Loan Applications
Area of Residence Total
Metro
RUCC 1-3
Non-Metro
RUCC 4-9
Approved Loan made 13 00 13
Approved Not made 01 00 01
Rejected 04 00 04
Total 18 00 18

2. Income of Applicants to Whom Loans Were Made

Lowest/Highest Incomes
Lowest Income: $3,197 Highest Income: $176,292

Average Income
Sum of Incomes Loans Made Average Annual Income
$855,369 13 $65,798

Number and Percentage of Loans Made to Applicants by Income Range
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 03 01 02 01 02 04 13
Percentage of Loans 23.08% 7.69% 15.38% 7.69% 15.38% 30.77% 100%

3. Loan Type

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 13 100%
With both interest buy-down and loan guarantee 00 0%
Total 13 100%

Loan Type Summary
Type of Loan Number of Loans Dollar Value of Loans
Revolving Loans 00 $0
Partnership Loans 13 $98,901
Total 13 $98,901

4. Interest Rates

Interest Rates
Lowest 4.5%
Highest 4.5%

Interest Rate Summary
Sum of Interest Rates Number of Loans Made Average Interest Rate
59 13 4.53846153846154%

Number of Loans Made by Interest Rate
Interest Rate Number of loans
0.0% to 2.0% 00
2.1% to 4.0% 00
4.1% to 6.0% 13
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 13

5. Types and Dollar Amounts of AT Financed

Types and Dollar Amounts of AT Financed
Type of AT Number of Devices Financed Dollar Value of Loans
Vision 02 $1,543
Hearing 02 $3,350
Speech communication 00 $0
Learning, cognition, and developmental 00 $0
Mobility, seating and positioning 02 $18,855
Daily living 06 $4,636
Environmental adaptations 04 $46,446
Vehicle modification and transportation 04 $14,756
Computers and related 02 $854
Recreation, sports, and leisure 01 $8,461
Total 23 $98,901

6. Defaults

Defaults
Number Loans in default 02
Net loss for loans in default $6,446

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: Acquisition Assistance from Staff to Obtain Funding

2. Geographic Distribution, Number of Individuals Who Acquired AT Devices and Services and Number for whom Performance Measure Data are Collected

County of ResidenceIndividuals Served
A. Metro (RUCC 1-3)1
B. Non-Metro (RUCC 4-9)1
C. Total Served2

Performance Measure
D. Excluded from Performance Measure0
E. Number of Individuals Included in Performance Measures2

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 / ServiceNumber of Devices
Funded
Value of
AT Provided
Vision 1$4,000
Hearing 0$0
Speech communication0$0
Learning, cognition, and developmental 0$0
Mobility, seating and positioning0$0
Daily living 0$0
Environmental adaptations0$0
Vehicle modification and transportation 0$0
Computers and related 0$0
Recreation, sports, and leisure1$320
Total2$4,320



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

Jose is twelve years old, has a physical disability, uses an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device to communicate, and relies on a family propelled manual wheelchair for his mobility. He was seen at AzTAP in our adaptive gaming clinic for a consultation and device demonstration for adaptive gaming equipment. After discussing options with his parents and having Jose trial different options, it was determined he could benefit from the following adaptive equipment: Microsoft XAC, Joystix joystick, two Jelly Bean switches, and two Locline mounts for the switches. The family was not able to afford the adaptive equipment, so our clinical coordinator assisted the family through another acquisition service to connect with Believe Beyond Ability (BBA). BBA is a local charitable service organization that can fund assistive technology (AT) for kids with complex needs. BBA was able to cover the $320.00 cost of the adaptive equipment for Jose. Within a month, the adaptive equipment was received and delivered to the family. Our adaptive gaming clinical coordinator arranged a home visit to set up and implement the equipment with Jose and his family.

Impact Area

Elizabeth is a manual wheelchair user and wanted to be able to drive independently. AzTAP was able to direct her to a local Certified Driving Rehabilitation Specialist (CDRS) and they scheduled her for an adaptive driving evaluation. Elizabeth applied for the AzLAT financial loan program in December of 2022. AzTAP and our loan review committee were able to process her AzLAT application for $5,000.00, which was an estimated amount that Elizabeth would need to fund the services she needed to be able to drive. This amount included the cost of the adaptive driving evaluation, purchase and installation of hand controls and other related adaptive driving equipment, the cost of the behind-the wheel training on the hand controls, and the costs associated with the final relicensing process with the Department of Motor Vehicle. Both Elizabeth and her spouse were employed, and they had excellent credit, so the AzLAT loan review committee approved her loan in the estimated amount of $5,000.00. Once approved Elizabeth chose a 24-month loan term with a monthly payment of $218.22. Elizabeth was able to access the funds from our lending partner, as she needed them to cover each part of the process. The final cost of her return to driving services was $5,610.67. Elizabeth and her spouse were able to cover the additional $610.67 from their own resources. Elizabeth successfully completed the adaptive driving process and was able to drive independently. AzLAT was proud to be able to give her access to funds at a low interest rate to accomplish that goal.

Impact Area

E. Performance Measures

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. 01 00 06 07
2. AT was only available through the AT program. 00 02 05 07
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 01 02 12 15
5. None of the above 00 00 00 00
6. Subtotal 01 02 12 15
7. Nonrespondent 00 00 00 00
8. Total 01 02 12 15
9. Performance on this measure 100% 100% 100%

F. Customer Satisfaction

Satisfaction
Customer Rating of Services Number of Customers Percent
Highly satisfied 10 66.67%
Satisfied 00 0%
Satisfied somewhat 00 0%
Not at all satisfied 00 0%
Nonrespondent 05 33.33%
Total Surveyed 15
Response rate % 66.67%

G. Notes:

NA

Reutilization

A. Number of Recipients of Reused Devices

Activity Number of Individuals Receiving a Device from Activity
A. Device Exchange 15
B. Device Refurbish/Repair - Reassign and/or Open Ended Loan 28
C. Total 43

Performance Measure
D. 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
E. Number of Individuals Included in Performance Measures 43

If a number is reported in D you must provide a description of the reason the individuals are excluded from the performance

NA

B. Device Exchange Activities

Device Exchange
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 04 $525 $0 $525
Hearing 00 $0 $0 $0
Speech Communication 00 $0 $0 $0
Learning, Cognition and Developmental 01 $399 $0 $399
Mobility, Seating and Positioning 02 $1,065 $50 $1,015
Daily Living 05 $11,088 $1,925 $9,163
Environmental Adaptations 02 $338 $0 $338
Vehicle Modification & Transportation 00 $0 $0 $0
Computers and Related 01 $142 $0 $142
Recreation, Sports and Leisure 00 $0 $0 $0
Total 15 $13,557 $1,975 $11,582

C. Device Refurbish/Repair - Reassignment and/or Open Ended Loan Activities

Device Reassign/Repair/Refurbish and/or OEL
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 10 $11,140 $0 $11,140
Hearing 00 $0 $0 $0
Speech Communication 00 $0 $0 $0
Learning, Cognition and Developmental 01 $799 $0 $799
Mobility, Seating and Positioning 02 $3,497 $0 $3,497
Daily Living 02 $248 $186 $62
Environmental Adaptations 03 $388 $0 $388
Vehicle Modification & Transportation 00 $0 $0 $0
Computers and Related 22 $6,133 $1,390 $4,743
Recreation, Sports and Leisure 00 $0 $0 $0
Total 40 $22,205 $1,576 $20,629

D. Anecdote

Roy is a veteran who served in the Navy during World War II. He contacted AzTAP requesting assistance with finding a used Hoyer style lift. Roy explained to our reuse service coordinator that he and his wife, Sally, had just celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary. She was 95 and he was approaching 96. Seven years earlier, Sally had been diagnosed with dementia and she had limited mobility. Roy explained during this time he had learned, the hard way, to cope with her dementia, incontinence, and sundowning syndrome, and now he was no longer able to lift Sally to move her from the bed to her wheelchair. Roy said he was advised to enroll Sally in hospice, but he refused this suggestion. He stated, “I promised her, over 75 years ago, ‘to care for her through sickness and in health, ‘til death,’ and I am certain she would do no less for me.” AzTAP’s assistive technology specialist (ATS) and reuse services coordinator worked with Roy to review his options for medical equipment Reuse/loan closet programs. Roy was a veteran, so one of the referrals was to connect him with the Arizona chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America (AzPVA) medical equipment loan program here in Phoenix. Fortunately, the AzPVA had a gently used Reliant 450 electric Hoyer lift with two slings in inventory. When the AzPVA found out that Roy lived in southern Arizona and that he would need to rent a U-Haul truck to pick up the lift, they coordinated with one of their volunteers to deliver the lift to Roy and provide him support instruction on how to use it. At follow-up, Roy said, “The lift works wonderfully, and to have received it free of charge and to have it delivered was unbelievable. Thank you, thank you, thank you.”

Impact Area

E. Performance Measures

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 20 22
2. AT was only available through the AT program. 04 01 16 21
3. AT was available through other programs, but the system was too complex or the wait time too long. 00 00 00 00
4. Subtotal 06 01 36 43
5. None of the above 00 00 00 00
6. Subtotal 06 01 36 43
7. Nonrespondent 00 00 00 00
8. Total 06 01 36 43
9. Performance on this measure 100% 100% 100%

F. Customer Satisfaction

Satisfaction
Customer Rating of Services Number of Customers Percent
Highly satisfied 42 97.67%
Satisfied 00 0%
Satisfied somewhat 00 0%
Not at all satisfied 00 0%
Nonrespondent 01 2.33%
Total Surveyed 43
Response rate % 97.67%

G. Notes:

NA

Device Loan

A. Short-Term Device Loans by Type of Purpose

Loans By Purpose
Primary Purpose of Short-Term Device Loan Number
Assist in decision-making (device trial or evaluation) 505
Serve as loaner during service repair or while waiting for funding 33
Provide an accommodation on a short-term basis for a time-limited event/situation 21
Conduct training, self-education or other professional development activity 97
Total 656

B. Short-Term Device Loan by Type of Borrower

LOANS BY TYPE OF BORROWER
Type of Individual or Entity Number of Device Borrowers
Desicion-making All other Purposes Total
Individuals with Disabilities 478 64 542
Family Members, Guardians, and Authorized Representatives 02 01 03
Representative of Education 18 27 45
Representative of Employment 00 02 02
Representatives of Health, Allied Health, and Rehabilitation 04 08 12
Representatives of Community Living 00 06 06
Representatives of Technology 03 43 46
Total 505 151 656

C. Length of Short-Term Device Loans

Length of Short-Term Device Loan in Days 14

D. Types of Devices Loaned

Types of Devices Loaned
Type of AT Device Number of Devices
Desicion-making All other Purposes Total
Vision 127 92 219
Hearing 54 44 98
Speech Communication 263 180 443
Learning, Cognition and Developmental 188 161 349
Mobility, Seating and Positioning 43 25 68
Daily Living 151 149 300
Environmental Adaptations 175 138 313
Vehicle Modification and Transportation 00 00 00
Computers and Related 250 213 463
Recreation, Sports and Leisure 75 95 170
Total 1,326 1,097 2,423

E. Anecdote

Joe is a 62-year-old man who was diagnosed with Guillain Barre syndrome. Because of this condition he was not able to use his upper extremities to access and use his computer. Joe wanted to be able to use his computer to continue his work as a financial investor. Joe’s spouse contacted AzTAP to see if there was something available for him to be able to operate his computer so that he could maintain his employment. Our ATS met with Joe and his spouse and during his consultation he relayed the functions that he needed to do on the computer. Our ATS was able to trial/demonstrate several AT options with Joe. Of the AT options that he trialed, Joe found the HeadMouse Nano head controller worked the best for him for mouse movement and control. Using the Nano, he was able to accurately move the mouse pointer all around the screen, and with an on-screen dwell software, he was able to perform all the mouse operations to navigate webpages and to make selections. Joe was also able to make use of a virtual on-screen keyboard to type into text and number fields. Even though it took a little longer than a traditional mouse and keyboard, Joe was delighted that these devices were giving him back his independence and ability to use his computer. He wanted to purchase them on the spot, but since AzTAP does not sell AT devices, our ATS provided information about where he could purchase the equipment, and he went ahead and ordered his own equipment. Until it was received, AzTAP provided him a short-term loan of the adaptive equipment so that he could get up and running with it. Once he received his order, he returned the loaned equipment, and our ATS assisted him with setting up and configuring the devices to make sure they would work on his computer.

Impact Area

F. Access Performance Measures

Access Performance Measures
Response Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed Total
Education Employment Community Living
Decided that AT device/service will meet needs 202 26 117 345
Decided that an AT device/ service will not meet needs 71 08 49 128
Subtotal 273 34 166 473
Have not made a decision 01 00 05 06
Subtotal 274 34 171 479
Nonrespondent 19 02 05 26
Total 293 36 176 505
Performance on this measure 99.64% 100% 97.08%

G. Acquisition Performance Measures

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. 18 02 07 27
2. AT was only available through the AT program. 64 13 45 122
3. AT was available through other programs, but the system was too complex or the wait time too long. 01 00 01 02
4. Subtotal 83 15 53 151
5. None of the above 00 00 00 00
6. Subtotal 83 15 53 151
7. Nonrespondent 00 00 00 00
8. Total 83 15 53 151
9. Performance on this measure 100% 100% 100%

H. Customer Satisfaction

Satisfaction
Customer Rating of Services Number of Customers Percent
Highly satisfied 564 85.98%
Satisfied 58 8.84%
Satisfied somewhat 06 0.91%
Not at all satisfied 00 0%
Nonrespondent 28 4.27%
Total Surveyed 656
Response rate % 95.73%

I. Notes:

NA

Device Demonstration

A. Number of Device Demonstrations by Device Type

Type of AT Device / Service Number of Demonstrations of AT Devices / Services
Vision 32
Hearing 03
Speech Communication 177
Learning, Cognition and Developmental 03
Mobility, Seating and Positioning 24
Daily Living 07
Environmental Adaptations 09
Vehicle Modification and Transportation 00
Computers and Related 19
Recreation, Sports and Leisure 23
Total # of Device Demonstrations 297

B. Types of Participants

Type of Participant Decision-Makers Other Participants Total
Individuals with Disabilities 269 21 290
Family Members, Guardians, and Authorized Representatives 17 315 332
Representatives of Education 00 15 15
Representatives of Employment 00 01 01
Health, Allied Health, Rehabilitation 06 57 63
Representative of Community Living 02 17 19
Representative of Technology 03 18 21
Total 297 444 741

C. Number of Referrals

Referrals
Type of Entity Number of Referrals
Funding Source (non-AT program) 58
Service Provider 48
Vendor 06
Repair Service 00
Others 67
Total 179

D. Anecdote

An employment service agency contacted AzTAP about trialing the Kinova Robotic Arm with Christopher, one of their clients. Christopher had spinal muscle atrophy (SMA). AzTAP did not currently have this device in inventory, so our ATS contacted the company and coordinated to get a demo unit of the device. The Kinova Robotic Arm is a fairly involved device and requires either a representative and/or a durable medical equipment supplier support for configuration on the user’s power wheelchair. Our ATS arranged for the regional representative to meet with Christopher, his family, and several other members of his rehabilitation team to set up the arm on his power wheelchair so that he could trial it at the trade school he was planning on attending. In the hands-on trial, Christopher was able to demonstrate the ability use the robotic arm to open and close doors at the school as well as grasp and hold items such as cups and bottles to drink and to press elevator buttons in the school’s dormitory. It was also determined that with a 3D printed adaptation he should be able to hold and insert a security passcard for building access with the robotic arm. Christopher was also in the process of being fitted to drive an accessible vehicle. Through this trial the Certified Driving Rehabilitation Specialist (CDRS) was able to determine that the Kinova Arm, when installed on his power wheelchair, would not interfere with his adapted driving equipment, or affect his ability to drive with it on his power wheelchair. The team left the demonstration trial much more confident that this device would meet his needs and that it would allow him to complete daily tasks in school, daily life, and eventually employment. Based on his trial, the state RSA – VR agency was going to fund the device.

Impact Area

E. Performance Measures

Performance Measures
Response Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed Total
Education Employment Community Living
Decided that AT device/service will meet needs 13 16 250 279
Decided that an AT device/ service will not meet needs 02 00 15 17
Subtotal 15 16 265 296
Have not made a decision 00 00 00 00
Subtotal 15 16 265 296
Nonrespondent 00 00 01 01
Total 15 16 266 297
Performance on this measure 100% 100% 99.62%

F. Customer Satisfaction

Satisfaction
Customer Rating of Services Number of Customers Percent
Highly satisfied 675 91.09%
Satisfied 60 8.1%
Satisfied somewhat 00 0%
Not at all satisfied 00 0%
Nonrespondent 06 0.81%
Total 741
Response rate % 99.19%

G. Notes:

NA

Overall Performance Measures

Overall Acquisition Performance Measure

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. 21 02 33 56
2. AT was only available through the AT program. 68 16 66 150
3. AT was available through other programs, but the system was too complex or the wait time too long. 01 00 02 03
4. Subtotal 90 18 101 209
5. None of the above 00 00 00 00
6. Subtotal 90 18 101 209
7. Nonrespondent 00 00 00 00
8. Total 90 18 101 209
9. Performance on this measure 98.89% 100% 98.02% 98.56%
ACL Performance Measure 85%
Met/Not Met Met

Overall Access Performance Measure

Access Performance Measures
Response Primary Purpose for Which AT is Needed Total
Education Employment Community Living
Decided that AT device/service will meet needs 215 42 367 624
Decided that an AT device/ service will not meet needs 73 08 64 145
Subtotal 288 50 431 769
Have not made a decision 01 00 05 06
Subtotal 289 50 436 775
Nonrespondent 19 02 06 27
Total 308 52 442 802
Performance on this measure 99.65% 100% 98.63% 99.1%
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 99.58% 95% Met
Response Rate 97.25% 90% Met

Training

A. Training Participants: Number and Types of Participants; Geographical Distribution

Training by Participant Type
Type of Participant Number
Individuals with Disabilities 237
Family Members, Guardians and Authorized Representatives 126
Representatives of Education 479
Representatives of Employment 219
Rep Health, Allied Health, and Rehabilitation 185
Representatives of Community Living 72
Representatives of Technology 120
Unable to Categorize 163
TOTAL 1,601

Geographic Distribution of Participants
Metro Non Metro Unknown TOTAL
1,326 216 59 1,601

B. Training Topics

Trainings by Topic
Primary Topic of Training Participants
AT Products/Services 1,298
AT Funding/Policy/ Practice 00
Combination of any/all of the above 80
Information Technology/Telecommunication Access 203
Transition 20
Total 1,601

C. Description of Training Activities

Describe innovative one high-impact assistance training activity conducted during the reporting period:

AzTAP commissioned a two-part workshop at its annual conference on the topical subject of AI. Named “A Hype-Free Discussion of Generative AI (Part 1): What It Is, How It Works, Opportunities, and Challenges” and “A Hype-Free Discussion of Generative AI (Part 2): Brainstorming Applications, Issues, and Best Practices,” the sessions focused on understanding how to harness the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) and make sound decisions about its use. This session was a guided interactive discussion on proposed applications for generative AI to enhance teaching and learning, how to identify significant issues that impact using generative AI in education, and best practices to encourage responsible and ethical use. The workshops were presented by Shelley Haven (assistive technology professional [ATP], rehab engineering technologist). Twenty-one people attended the workshop and gave the session a satisfaction score of 3.89 out of a possible 4.00.

Briefly describe one training activity related to transition conducted during the reporting period:

The Arizona Department of Education – Exceptional Student Services team presented a 75-minute presentation at our annual conference titled “Road to Independence: AT in Transition Planning for Students with Complex Support Needs.” The session focused on assistive technology, which is often overlooked when looking at a student's transition plan. During this session, attendees gained an understanding of the importance of AT in transition planning and ways to incorporate it for student success. Twenty participants attended the session and, of those, 18 completed the satisfaction survey, giving the session a score of 3.89 out of 4.00.

Briefly describe one training activity related to Information and Communication Technology accessibility:

AzTAP once again teamed up with AbleDocs, a leader in the accessibility field, to provide Information Communication Technology (ICT) trainings throughout the year. In all, five trainings were provided in different formats: three virtual webinars, one preconference, and one conference breakout session. The titles of the webinars were: “Accessibility 101,” “Accessibility in Social Media,” and “Understanding Digital Accessibilities.” These were delivered live via Zoom in November 2022, March 2023, and September 2023 and attracted 92, 34, and 42 attendees respectively. The preconference workshop involved six hours of instruction and was named “Making Accessible Content with Microsoft Word and PowerPoint,” while the 75-minute breakout session focused on “User Experience Examples.” These attracted nine and three attendees, respectively. Outcome results were collected and are reported elsewhere in this APR.

D. IT/Telecommunications Training Performance Measure

IT/Telecommunications Training Performance Measure
Outcome/Result From IT/Telecommunications Training Received Number
IT and Telecommunications Procurement or Dev Policies 53
Training or Technical Assistance will be developed or implemented 31
No known outcome at this time 18
Nonrespondent 101
Total 203
Performance Measure Percentage 41.4%
ACL Target Percentage 70%
Met/Not Met Not Met

E. Notes:

Again, this year we did not meet the performance measure for the ICT outcome question. We believe the question had complex wording and, as a result, ICT training participants do not understand how it applies to them and/or their work. Therefore they are unlikely to respond. This year in our virtual trainings we started asking the question in a poll and we provided a verbal explanation to the participants. In FY 20-21 we had a 19.4% response rate, while in FY 21-22 we had a 22.6% response rate. In FY 22-23 we had a 41.4% response rate, so it appears we are on the right track since we have had a significant improvement in the response rate compared to previous years.

Technical Assistance

A. Frequency and Nature of Technical Assistance

Technical Assistance by Recipient Type
Education 00%
Employment 71%
Health, Allied Health, Rehabilitation 00%
Community Living 29%
Technology (IT, Telecom, AT) 00%
Total 100%

B. Description of Technical Assistance

Describe Innovative one high-impact assistance activity that is not related to transition:

In early 2023, AzTAP was contacted by Ability 360, our local CIL . They had a staff member, “Steve,” who had a disability and who they needed to assist in determining the A/V equipment and set-up that he would need to do a cooking show podcast from his home. Steve was a right hemisphere stroke survivor. He used a manual wheelchair for his mobility, had a L hemiplegia and had a mild left visual neglect. We agreed to take the project, so two of our ATSs and Clayton the AzTAP Director set up a home visit consultation to discuss his needs and goals and view his kitchen or “set” for his podcast. From this meeting we embarked on the investigative work on not only the A/V equipment that would allow him to do the podcast, but also the set-up and configuration he would need to accommodate his disabilities. Ability 360 purchased the suggested equipment and AzTAP assisted Steve with training his support staff with its configuration and set up. He has begun trial runs of his cooking podcast.

Breifly describe one technical assistance activity related to transition conducted during the reporting period:

Unfortunately, AzTAP did not have a TA project related to transition in the last fiscal year.

C. Notes:

NA

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 was asked to attend the annual Pacific Region ADA Conference held in downtown Phoenix. This conference provided training on disability related topics for city and county ADA coordinators of five states: Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, and Utah. AzTAP specifically provided a presentation on our program and services, staffed an information table, and brought a variety of AT devices useful to persons with disabilities in employment to show at our table. We had three staff attend to help set up/manage the AT devices, do the presentation, and be available to manage the table and answer questions/provide information to participants. Since it was a multistate conference, we provided information to attendees how to contact their own states’ AT Act program. Overall, 55 professionals attended the AzTAP program and services presentation, and 70 individuals stopped by the AzTAP booth to see AT devices, ask questions, and/or get more information about AT in general or for employment.

2. NA

Information And Assistance

Information And Assistance Activities by Recipient
Types of Recipients AT Device/
Service
AT Funding Total
Individuals with Disabilities 418 87 505
Family Members, Guardians and Authorized Representatives 470 40 510
Representative of Education 54 00 54
Representative of Employment 12 00 12
Representative of Health, Allied Health, and Rehabilitation 100 08 108
Representative of Community Living 42 11 53
Representative of Technology 21 02 23
Unable to Categorize 32 07 39
Total 1,149 155 1,304

Referral Types:

This past fiscal year, AzTAP has been able to fully return to regular pre-COVID operations with no further service barriers or restrictions on our community outreach. We provided 69 public awareness outreach events providing information on our programs and services to 2,189 individuals. We also hosted an annual statewide conference (the Evidence for Success Disability Conference) focused on AT and disability services, held in collaboration with the Institute for Human Development at Northern Arizona University (NAU-IHD), the Arizona Department of Education, the Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, and the Rehabilitation Services Administration. In total, between participants, exhibitors, community members, students, and volunteers we had 478 attendees. AzTAP also has an established multifaceted communication and outreach plan for the community that we follow consistently that provides trainings throughout the year on new/innovative AT; virtual trainings on ICT topics/information; and a regular email newsletter providing news and updates on our program/services as well as updates about our services/activities on social media. In addition, we have several consistent community events that we attend each year, but we make it a priority to identify and attend events that target new or underserved populations.

Referral Sources:

AzTAP’s top five known referral sources for services that we track the referral source are the following: 1) referrals to our AAC evaluation and training program that come to us from individuals’ funder/health insurance provider (27% of referrals); 2) self-referrals, such as prior AzTAP clients that return for new or additional services and/or friends, family members, and acquaintances of previous AzTAP clients or persons that know about our services (23%); 3) healthcare and rehabilitation/technology providers like community occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, assistive technology professionals and durable medical equipment providers/suppliers (9%); 4) persons that find us on their own through online research (4%); and 5) referrals from education-related service providers (4%). Together these sources account for 67% of customers coming to AzTAP for our services.

Notes:

NA

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? 1

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 2023, the annual AzTAP/IHD Evidence for Success Conference returned to being a wholly in-person event. This was a two-day conference featuring three preconference workshops, three general sessions (opening and closing speakers and a lunchtime presentation), 70 breakout sessions, and an exhibit hall with 43 exhibitor booths (consisting of AT companies and social services/disability organizations). Thirty-three of the sessions and two of the preconference workshops were specifically focused on AT products, services, and ICT accessibility, with the others focused on advocacy and disability topics more generally. Collaborating partners were Arizona Department of Education (primary funder), Rehabilitation Services Administration (content/credentialing collaborator) and our parent organization NAU-IHD (technical support/marketing). The conference attracted 478 participants, broken down as follows: 261 conference attendees, 112 OT/SLP students, 18 exhibit hall only, and 87 exhibitors. Average attendance in each breakout session was 14.

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.

Ninety-two of the attendees responded to the post-conference survey, giving the conference an overall satisfaction score of 3.73 out of 4.00 and a lot of very positive feedback in the comments/ narrative portion of the survey. Eighty-eight percent of respondents reported that they gained new information about promoting increased access, positive attitudes, and inclusion for people with disabilities during the conference; 84% agreed that they will able to use the information in their professional and/or personal life to promote access, positive attitudes, and inclusion for people with disabilities; and a significant percentage (46%) indicated that, as a result of the information gained from attending the conference sessions, they are likely to engage in policy changes.

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
Federal$29,371DemonstrationTrue
Public/State Agency$185,173Device LoanTrue
Public/State Agency$336,075DemonstrationTrue
State Appropriations$45,000TrainingTrue
Public/State Agency$581,056TrainingTrue
Amount: $1,176,675

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


C. 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).

The Public/State Agency program listed in Section A for $581,056.00 is the Assistive Technology for Employment & Independence (ATEI) program. IHD entered into an ISA to oversee this service for our state RSA. The ATEI program provides AT device evaluations, provisions and purchasing of AT devices and systems, as well as hands on trainings for RSA referred clients. The ATEI program was launched last year (2022), it is now fully staffed and will be going into full operation in January 2024. In this fiscal year staff from the program did a small amount of AT related training and public assistance services and this data has been included in this APR. As the program goes into full operation, we expect that the ATEI staff will have more data on equipment loans, device demonstrations, information and assistance, trainings, and public awareness that we will include in the AzTAP FY23-24 APR. We will be including ATEI activities in the next AzTAP State Plan.


Center for Assistive Technology Act Data Assistance . Saved: Tue Feb 13 2024 13:59:58 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)


Back to state program information page | Top of page

This FY23 State AT Program Annual Progress Report was exported from the National Assistive Technology Act Data System (NATADS). NATADS was developed with partial support from the Center for Assistive Technology Act Data Assistance.