1. Introduction and Brief History of the Development
of the Suggested Program Performance Measures
Presented in this Document



Outcomes Task Force

The Outcomes Task Force was initiated by the AAUAP Board in 1993 in response to a technical assistance contract from ADD to engage a diverse group of interested people from the UAP network in an effort to operationally define "Independence, Productivity, Integration and Inclusion." The assumption motivating the effort was that having common definitions would guide efforts to revise the AAUAP database. The Task Force met at the spring and fall AAUAP meetings for several years as well as at two specially convened meetings culminating in the publication of "Outcome Measures: A Conceptual Model" in October, 1996. A major conceptual breakthrough and contribution made by this model lay in its recognition that establishing a causal link from UAP activities to the behavioral attainment of "independence, productivity, integration and inclusion" is not directly possible for a number of reasons including the fact that ultimate outcomes result not from only one or even a few activities, but from many activities and circumstances of which UAP activities are a necessary, but not sufficient contribution.

In the fall,1996 and spring, 1997, ADD convened meetings that included representation from DD Councils, P&As and UAPs as well as others which led to the development of "The ADD Programs' Roadmap to the Future" in which six Goals were articulated in support of the guiding principles of assisting children, families and adults with developmental disabilities to gain greater measures of independence, productivity, integration and inclusion. It was envisioned at that point that the ADD grantees (UAPs, DDCs and P&As) and their Associations would "refine and develop performance measures in support of these common goals...." Through the work of the Task Force members and AAUAP staff, a number of UAP "outcome measures" were proffered to OMB through ADD on behalf of the UAP network which were subsequently found not acceptable as "outcomes" because, while they accurately portrayed what UAPs do (at least in part), they were deemed to be too descriptive of "process," instead of "outcomes." This difficulty stalled the work of defining UAP program performance measures until June, 1998 when the Outcomes Task Force sponsored a workshop for a number of UAP directors designed to re-ignite the process. At that point, the group again continued to develop a "logic model" approach to defining UAP "outcome measures."

Program Performance Measures

One difficulty in building the conceptual scaffolding necessary to see the link between what UAPs do and the attainment of the Roadmap Goals that continued to plague the process was the use of the term "outcome measures." That term seemed to keep wanting to turn some members of the work group back to finding and describing the direct, causal contribution of UAP activity to the attainment of a given ultimate Roadmap goal. A second conceptual breakthrough came with the use of a model presented to participants at a meeting held in Washington, DC on November 9-10, 1998. The meeting ("ADD Outcomes and Results") was convened by ADD Commissioner Sue Swenson and included representatives of DDCs, P&As and UAPs as well as ADD staff members for the purpose of discussing the measurement of the performance of ADD's programs. The model was presented by Jeffrey Koshel, Director of State and Local Initiatives, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS and was labeled the "Program Performance Measures Model." Mr. Koshel also presented the essence of this approach to other recent forums, including the Training Directors' Symposium at the Fall, 1998 AAUAP Annual Meeting and at the ADD Commissioner's Forum in February, 1999. The logic inherent in the Program Performance Measures model proved to be what was needed to see the link between UAPs' activities and the Roadmap Goals. The work presented at the beginning of this current document is intended to describe that linkage of Koshel's Program Performance Model and terminology with UAP activity and terminology and to provide the reader with an understanding of the logic used to develop the specific program performance measures suggested at the end of the document.

The material in this document was reviewed by the AAUAP Board of Directors at its Winter Meeting on February 13, 1999 and instructed that it be made available for UAP network comment and input by posting it to the AAUAP web site for an appropriate period of time. This was done during the summer of 1999 and the document was revised accordingly in October 1999.

Readers are urged to review the succeeding sections of this document in order, ending with the complete presentation of the suggested UAP Program Performance Measures.

Back to Table of Contents   Next Page