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 | 13 | 00 | 13 |
Approved Not made | 01 | 00 | 01 |
Rejected | 04 | 00 | 04 |
Total | 18 | 00 | 18 |
Lowest Income: | $3,197 | Highest Income: | $176,292 |
---|
Sum of Incomes | Loans Made | Average Annual Income |
---|---|---|
$855,369 | 13 | $65,798 |
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% |
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% |
Type of Loan | Number of Loans | Dollar Value of Loans |
---|---|---|
Revolving Loans | 00 | $0 |
Partnership Loans | 13 | $98,901 |
Total | 13 | $98,901 |
Lowest | 4.5% |
---|---|
Highest | 4.5% |
Sum of Interest Rates | Number of Loans Made | Average Interest Rate |
---|---|---|
59 | 13 | 4.53846153846154% |
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 |
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 |
Number Loans in default | 02 |
---|---|
Net loss for loans in default | $6,446 |
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 |
---|
How would you describe this state financing activity? | Other: Acquisition Assistance from Staff to Obtain Funding |
---|
County of Residence | Individuals Served |
---|---|
A. Metro (RUCC 1-3) | 1 |
B. Non-Metro (RUCC 4-9) | 1 |
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:
Type of AT Device / Service | Number of Devices Funded | Value of AT Provided |
---|---|---|
Vision | 1 | $4,000 |
Hearing | 0 | $0 |
Speech communication | 0 | $0 |
Learning, cognition, and developmental | 0 | $0 |
Mobility, seating and positioning | 0 | $0 |
Daily living | 0 | $0 |
Environmental adaptations | 0 | $0 |
Vehicle modification and transportation | 0 | $0 |
Computers and related | 0 | $0 |
Recreation, sports, and leisure | 1 | $320 |
Total | 2 | $4,320 |
How many state financing activities that allow consumers to obtain AT at a reduced cost were included in your approved state plan? | 0 |
---|
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.
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.
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% |
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% |
NA
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
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 |
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 |
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.”
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% |
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% |
NA
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 |
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 |
Length of Short-Term Device Loan in Days | 14 |
---|
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 |
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.
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% |
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% |
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% |
NA
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 |
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 |
Type of Entity | Number of Referrals |
---|---|
Funding Source (non-AT program) | 58 |
Service Provider | 48 |
Vendor | 06 |
Repair Service | 00 |
Others | 67 |
Total | 179 |
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.
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% |
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% |
NA
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 |
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 |
Customer Rating of Services | Percent | ACL Target | Met/Not Met |
---|---|---|---|
Highly satisfied and satisfied | 99.58% | 95% | Met |
Response Rate | 97.25% | 90% | Met |
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 |
Metro | Non Metro | Unknown | TOTAL |
---|---|---|---|
1,326 | 216 | 59 | 1,601 |
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 |
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.
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 |
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.
Education | 00% |
---|---|
Employment | 71% |
Health, Allied Health, Rehabilitation | 00% |
Community Living | 29% |
Technology (IT, Telecom, AT) | 00% |
Total | 100% |
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.
NA
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
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 |
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.
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.
NA
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 |
---|
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;
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 |
---|
Fund Source | Amount | Use of Funds | Data Reported |
---|---|---|---|
Federal | $29,371 | Demonstration | True |
Public/State Agency | $185,173 | Device Loan | True |
Public/State Agency | $336,075 | Demonstration | True |
State Appropriations | $45,000 | Training | True |
Public/State Agency | $581,056 | Training | True |
Amount: $1,176,675 |
NA
B. Public Health Workforce Grant Award |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All Section 4 AT Act grantees were awarded $80,000.00 in supplimental Public Health Workforce grant funding to increase the full-time equivalent (FTE) of staff withing the disability and aging network for public health professionals. Please document the status of these funds below. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)