Brief One-page document to paste into a proposal
Program-wideotherMeasure 1
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
Program-wideoutcomeMeasure 2
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
Program-wideoutcomeMeasure 3
The outcome sits in a record another agency holds. You hold the participant list and count it.
You count your own participants; the school or district record confirms the outcome.
Program-wideoutcomeMeasure 4
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
Program-wideefficiencyMeasure 5
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
Program-wideoutcomeMeasure 6
The outcome sits in a record another agency holds. You hold the participant list and count it.
You count your own participants; the state wage record confirms the outcome.
Program-wideoutcomeMeasure 7
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
Program-wideoutcomeOutcome Measure 1
The outcome sits in a record another agency holds. You hold the participant list and count it.
You count your own participants; the state wage record confirms the outcome.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.1
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of policies and/or procedures created or changed.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.2
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of statutes and/or regulations created or changed.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.3
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of promising and /or best practices created or supported. Number of promising practices createdNumber of promising practices supportedNumber of best practices createdNumber of best practices supported
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.4
A count of people served, held in the organization’s own records.
If the people trained have a disability or are family members of someone with a disability, IFA 1.1 and/or 1.2 should be captured instead.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.5
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of collaborative activities with organizations actively involved.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 1.1
A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records.
You will be required to report aggregate data regarding race/ethnicity, geographic location (urban vs. rural), sex assigned at birth, and sexual orientation & gender identity (SOGI) of participants.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 1.2
A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records.
You will be required to report aggregate data regarding race/ethnicity, geographic location (urban vs. rural), sex assigned at birth, and sexual orientation & gender identity (SOGI) of participants.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.1
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
After participation in Council supported activities, the percent of people with developmental disabilities who report increasing their advocacy as a result of Council work.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.2
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
After participation in Council supported activities, the percent of family members of people with developmental disabilities who report increasing their advocacy as a result of Council work.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.3
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are better able to say what they want, or what services and supports they want, or say what is important to them.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.4
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are participating now in advocacy activities.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.5
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are on cross disability coalitions, policy boards, advisory boards, governing bodies and/or serving in leadership positions.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3.1
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people with developmental disabilities satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3.2
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of family members of people with developmental disabilities who are satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.3
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of promising and /or best practices created or supported. Number of promising practices created. Number of promising practices supported. Number of best practices created. Number of best practices supported.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.4
A count of people served, held in the organization’s own records.
If the people trained have a disability or are family members of someone with a disability, IFA 1.1 and/or 1.2 should be captured instead.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.5
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of collaborative activities with organizations actively involved.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 1.1
A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records.
Grantees will be required to report aggregate data regarding race/ethnicity, geographic location (urban vs. rural), sex assigned at birth, and sexual orientation & gender identity (SOGI) of participants.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 1.2
A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records.
Grantees will be required to report aggregate data regarding race/ethnicity, geographic location (urban vs. rural), sex assigned at birth, and sexual orientation & gender identity (SOGI) of participants.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.1
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
After participation in Council supported activities, the percent of people with developmental disabilities who report increasing their advocacy as a result of Council work.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.2
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
After participation in Council supported activities, the percent of family members of people with developmental disabilities who report increasing their advocacy as a result of Council work.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.3
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are better able to say what they want, or what services and supports they want, or say what is important to them.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.4
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are participating now in advocacy activities.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.5
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are on cross disability coalitions, policy boards, advisory boards, governing bodies and/or serving in leadership positions.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3.1
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people with developmental disabilities satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3.2
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of family members of people with developmental disabilities who are satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.1
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of policies and/or procedures created or changed.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.2
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of statutes and/or regulations created or changed.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.3
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of promising and /or best practices created or supported. Number of promising practices createdNumber of promising practices supportedNumber of best practices createdNumber of best practices supported
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.4
A count of people served, held in the organization’s own records.
If the people trained have a disability or are family members of someone with a disability, IFA 1.1 and/or 1.2 should be captured instead.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)SC 1.5
An output the funder classes as a count of activity.
The number of collaborative activities with organizations actively involved.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 1.1
A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records.
Grantees will be required to report aggregate data regarding race/ethnicity, geographic location (urban vs. rural), sex assigned at birth, and sexual orientation & gender identity (SOGI) of participants.
Menuoutput2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 1.2
A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records.
Grantees will be required to report aggregate data regarding race/ethnicity, geographic location (urban vs. rural), sex assigned at birth, and sexual orientation & gender identity (SOGI) of participants.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.1
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
After participation in Council supported activities, the percent of people with developmental disabilities who report increasing their advocacy as a result of Council work.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.2
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
After participation in Council supported activities, the percent of family members of people with developmental disabilities who report increasing their advocacy as a result of Council work.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.3
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are better able to say what they want, or what services and supports they want, or say what is important to them.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.4
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are participating now in advocacy activities.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 2.5
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people who are on cross disability coalitions, policy boards, advisory boards, governing bodies and/or serving in leadership positions.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3.1
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of people with developmental disabilities satisfied with a project activity.
Menuoutcome2024 (awards beginning January 15, 2024)IFA 3.2
No rule matched this measure, so no tier is guessed.
The percent of family members of people with developmental disabilities who are satisfied with a project activity.
Results are attainment: actual divided by the promised value, for rows where the source gives both. Medians mix every measure a program reports; the measure pages split them.
Results by kind of promised value: 106 with a target printed beside the result.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
5 shown
Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC · FY2023-24
Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations)
80% → 80% (100% of target) · %
Source documentUnited Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties · FY2021-22
Classrooms met quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only)
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source documentBroward Children’s Center, Inc. · FY2021-22
Children demonstrated acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in time observations)
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source documentJewish Adoption and Foster Care Option, Inc. (JAFCO) (Summer Only) · FY2021-22
Classrooms met quality standards for Project Based Learning. (point in time observation)
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source documentArc Broward, Inc. · FY2023-24
Percentage of children improving academic performance and/or skills
70% → 55% (79% of target) · %
Source document| Grantee | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC | FY2023-24 | Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations) | 80% | 80% | % | 100% | document |
| United Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties | FY2021-22 | Classrooms met quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only) | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
| Broward Children’s Center, Inc. | FY2021-22 | Children demonstrated acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in time observations) | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
| Jewish Adoption and Foster Care Option, Inc. (JAFCO) (Summer Only) | FY2021-22 | Classrooms met quality standards for Project Based Learning. (point in time observation) | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
| Arc Broward, Inc. | FY2023-24 | Percentage of children improving academic performance and/or skills | 70% | 55% | % | 79% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 48 with a target printed beside the result.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
5 shown
Arc Broward · FY2020-21
Youth acquired measurable skills in Job Duties.
70% → 34% (49% of target) · %
Source documentUnited Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties · FY2021-22
Youth who are employed or pursuing post-secondary education 6 months post program completion.
50% → 32% (64% of target) · %
Source documentSmith Mental Health Associates, LLC · FY2019-20
Youth acquired measurable skills in Work-related Behaviors.
70% → 58% (83% of target) · %
Source documentUnited Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties (UCO) · FY2019-20
Youth acquired measurable skills in Work-related Behaviors.
70% → 87% (124% of target) · %
Source documentCenter for Hearing and Communication w/KID, Inc. as Fiscal Sponsor · FY2021-22
Youth acquired measurable skills in Daily Living Activities.
70% → 89% (127% of target) · %
Source document| Grantee | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arc Broward | FY2020-21 | Youth acquired measurable skills in Job Duties. | 70% | 34% | % | 49% | document |
| United Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties | FY2021-22 | Youth who are employed or pursuing post-secondary education 6 months post program completion. | 50% | 32% | % | 64% | document |
| Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC | FY2019-20 | Youth acquired measurable skills in Work-related Behaviors. | 70% | 58% | % | 83% | document |
| United Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties (UCO) | FY2019-20 | Youth acquired measurable skills in Work-related Behaviors. | 70% | 87% | % | 124% | document |
| Center for Hearing and Communication w/KID, Inc. as Fiscal Sponsor | FY2021-22 | Youth acquired measurable skills in Daily Living Activities. | 70% | 89% | % | 127% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 35 with a target printed beside the result.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
5 shown
Broward Children’s Center, Inc. · FY2024-25
Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations)
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source documentCity of Pembroke Pines (Summer Only) · FY2024-25
Percentage of classrooms meeting quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only)
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source documentDavid Posnack Jewish Community Center of South Broward · FY2024-25
Percentage of families who were satisfied with the camp experience
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source documentCenter for Hearing and Communication, Inc. · FY2024-25
Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations)
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source documentYMCA of South Florida, Inc. · FY2024-25
Percentage of classrooms meeting quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only)
80% → 100% (125% of target) · %
Source document| Grantee | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broward Children’s Center, Inc. | FY2024-25 | Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations) | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
| City of Pembroke Pines (Summer Only) | FY2024-25 | Percentage of classrooms meeting quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only) | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
| David Posnack Jewish Community Center of South Broward | FY2024-25 | Percentage of families who were satisfied with the camp experience | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
| Center for Hearing and Communication, Inc. | FY2024-25 | Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations) | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
| YMCA of South Florida, Inc. | FY2024-25 | Percentage of classrooms meeting quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only) | 80% | 100% | % | 125% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 31 with a target printed beside the result.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
4 shown
Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC · FY2020-21
Caregivers who experienced reduced stress.
85% → 70% (82% of target) · %
Source documentMemorial Healthcare System · FY2024-25
Percentage of caregivers reporting improvement in children's behaviors
85% → 100% (118% of target) · %
Source documentChristina G. Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC · FY2024-25
Percentage of caregivers experiencing reduced stress
85% → 68% (80% of target) · %
Source documentJewish Adoption and Foster Care Option, Inc. (JAFCO) · FY2021-22
Caregivers who experienced reduced stress.
85% → 100% (118% of target) · %
Source document| Grantee | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC | FY2020-21 | Caregivers who experienced reduced stress. | 85% | 70% | % | 82% | document |
| Memorial Healthcare System | FY2024-25 | Percentage of caregivers reporting improvement in children's behaviors | 85% | 100% | % | 118% | document |
| Christina G. Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC | FY2024-25 | Percentage of caregivers experiencing reduced stress | 85% | 68% | % | 80% | document |
| Jewish Adoption and Foster Care Option, Inc. (JAFCO) | FY2021-22 | Caregivers who experienced reduced stress. | 85% | 100% | % | 118% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 15 with a target printed beside the result.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
5 shown
Center for Hearing and Communication with KID, Inc. as Fiscal Sponsor · FY2024-25
Percentage of youth demonstrating proficiency in employability and job retention skills
70% → 82% (117% of target) · %
Source documentArc Broward, Inc. · FY2024-25
Percentage of youth reporting improvement in employability skills
70% → 98% (140% of target) · %
Source documentAnn Storck Center · FY2024-25
Percentage of youth demonstrating improvement in employability skills
70% → 86% (123% of target) · %
Source documentUnited Community Options · FY2024-25
Percentage of youth demonstrating proficiency in employability and job retention skills
70% → 93% (133% of target) · %
Source documentYMCA of South Florida, Inc. · FY2024-25
Percentage of youth employed or pursuing post-secondary education post program completion
50% → 60% (120% of target) · %
Source document| Grantee | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Hearing and Communication with KID, Inc. as Fiscal Sponsor | FY2024-25 | Percentage of youth demonstrating proficiency in employability and job retention skills | 70% | 82% | % | 117% | document |
| Arc Broward, Inc. | FY2024-25 | Percentage of youth reporting improvement in employability skills | 70% | 98% | % | 140% | document |
| Ann Storck Center | FY2024-25 | Percentage of youth demonstrating improvement in employability skills | 70% | 86% | % | 123% | document |
| United Community Options | FY2024-25 | Percentage of youth demonstrating proficiency in employability and job retention skills | 70% | 93% | % | 133% | document |
| YMCA of South Florida, Inc. | FY2024-25 | Percentage of youth employed or pursuing post-secondary education post program completion | 50% | 60% | % | 120% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 5 with a target printed beside the result.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Family Center on Deafness, Inc. · FY2020
Participants age 3-6 who are deaf of hard of hearing will demonstrate an increase in total score from pre-test to post-test on the Meadow-Kendall Social Emotional Assessment Inventory Preschool Age.
90% → 100% (111% of target) · %
Source document| Grantee | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Center on Deafness, Inc. | FY2020 | Participants age 3-6 who are deaf of hard of hearing will demonstrate an increase in total score from pre-test to post-test on the Meadow-Kendall Social Emotional Assessment Inventory Preschool Age. | 90% | 100% | % | 111% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 208 with a target printed beside the result; 186 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities · FY2005
Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands)
$ 4,174.0 → $ 2,577.2 (62% of target) · $
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities | FY2005 | Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands) | $ 4,174.0 | $ 2,577.2 | $ | 62% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 146 with a target printed beside the result; 139 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2008
Number of individuals served in private Intermediate Care Facilities and Mental Retardation facilities (ICF/MR), including Skilled Nursing Facility/Pediatrics
6,600 → 6,620 (100% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2008 | Number of individuals served in private Intermediate Care Facilities and Mental Retardation facilities (ICF/MR), including Skilled Nursing Facility/Pediatrics | 6,600 | 6,620 | 100% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 128 with a target printed beside the result; 124 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2018
Persons competitively employed
5,600 → 5,169 (92% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2018 | Persons competitively employed | 5,600 | 5,169 | 92% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 115 with a target printed beside the result; 103 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2013
New service plans developed
12,250 → 11,658 (95% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2013 | New service plans developed | 12,250 | 11,658 | 95% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 81 with a target printed beside the result; 72 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2020
Number of individuals served in SODCs
1,645 → 1,659 (101% of target) · count
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2020 | Number of individuals served in SODCs | 1,645 | 1,659 | count | 101% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 73 with a target printed beside the result; 71 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2017
Average monthly cost of in-home services per client (in dollars)
$ 1,555.00 → $ 1,573.00 (101% of target) · $
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2017 | Average monthly cost of in-home services per client (in dollars) | $ 1,555.00 | $ 1,573.00 | $ | 101% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 42 with a target printed beside the result; 34 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2020
Average monthly full-time equivalents
460.0 → 460.0 (100% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2020 | Average monthly full-time equivalents | 460.0 | 460.0 | 100% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 27 with a target printed beside the result; 23 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2022
Number of persons with disabilities receiving core independent living (rehabilitation) services
10,660 → 10,706 (100% of target) · count
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2022 | Number of persons with disabilities receiving core independent living (rehabilitation) services | 10,660 | 10,706 | count | 100% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 24 with a target printed beside the result; 24 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2023
Number of children enrolled in specialized rehabilitation residential schools
370.0 → 356.0 (96% of target) · count
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2023 | Number of children enrolled in specialized rehabilitation residential schools | 370.0 | 356.0 | count | 96% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 26 with a target printed beside the result; 22 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2020
Average monthly full-time equivalents
15.0 → 15.0 (100% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2020 | Average monthly full-time equivalents | 15.0 | 15.0 | 100% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 27 with a target printed beside the result; 12 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2003
Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands)
$ 1,243,517.3 → $ 1,236,249.9 (99% of target) · $
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2003 | Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands) | $ 1,243,517.3 | $ 1,236,249.9 | $ | 99% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 16 with a target printed beside the result; 15 with a goal set before the period. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Department of Human Services · FY2022
Number of persons receiving an assistive technology evaluation
710.0 → 671.0 (95% of target) · count
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Human Services | FY2022 | Number of persons receiving an assistive technology evaluation | 710.0 | 671.0 | count | 95% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 23 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Projects with Industry for People with Disabilities · 2007
The percentage of projects whose annual cost per placement is no more than $11,000.
74% → 80.8% (109% of target) · %
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Projects with Industry for People with Disabilities | 2007 | The percentage of projects whose annual cost per placement is no more than $11,000. | 74% | 80.8% | % | 109% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 20 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Developmental Disabilities Grant Programs · 2005
By the end of FY 2007, percentage of individuals who have their complaint of abuse, neglect, discrimination or other human or civil rights corrected will increase from 87% to 93%. (P&As)
91.0% → 91.0% (100% of target) · %
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developmental Disabilities Grant Programs | 2005 | By the end of FY 2007, percentage of individuals who have their complaint of abuse, neglect, discrimination or other human or civil rights corrected will increase from 87% to 93%. (P&As) | 91.0% | 91.0% | % | 100% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 18 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants · 2002
Percent of State VR agencies (excluding VR agencies for the Blind) that assist at least 55.8 percent of individuals receiving services to achieve employment.
78% → 75% (96% of target) · %
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants | 2002 | Percent of State VR agencies (excluding VR agencies for the Blind) that assist at least 55.8 percent of individuals receiving services to achieve employment. | 78% | 75% | % | 96% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 16 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
IDEA Special Education Grants for Infants and Families · 2006
Number of states that serve at least 2 percent of infants and toddlers in the general population birth through age 2 through the Infants and Families program.
31 → 30 (97% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDEA Special Education Grants for Infants and Families | 2006 | Number of states that serve at least 2 percent of infants and toddlers in the general population birth through age 2 through the Infants and Families program. | 31 | 30 | 97% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 16 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
IDEA Special Education Grants to States · 2005
The percentage of eighth-grade public school students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
32 → 31 (97% of target) · %
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDEA Special Education Grants to States | 2005 | The percentage of eighth-grade public school students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). | 32 | 31 | % | 97% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 10 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
IDEA Special Education Preschool Grants · 2006
The average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special Education Program's response to the state.
113 → 50 (44% of target) · count
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDEA Special Education Preschool Grants | 2006 | The average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special Education Program's response to the state. | 113 | 50 | count | 44% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 6 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities · FY2007
The Federal Program Performance Report completed
1.0 → 1.0 (100% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities | FY2007 | The Federal Program Performance Report completed | 1.0 | 1.0 | 100% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 3 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
Independent Living for People with Disabilities · 2006
Number of months from the end of each annual performance rating period until data are made publicly available.
5 → 5 (100% of target)
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Living for People with Disabilities | 2006 | Number of months from the end of each annual performance rating period until data are made publicly available. | 5 | 5 | 100% | document |
Results by kind of promised value: 1 with a target printed beside the result. These are agency-reported program figures, not individual grantees.
Example results (a fixed pick, not a ranking)
1 shown
IDEA Special Education Personnel Preparation Grants · 2006
Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance.
1% → 1.7% (170% of target) · %
Source document| Reporting entity | Period | Measure | Promised | Actual | Unit | % of target | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDEA Special Education Personnel Preparation Grants | 2006 | Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance. | 1% | 1.7% | % | 170% | document |
This source lists 9 rows for this program but none carries both a target and a result, so no attainment is computed.
This source lists 6 rows for this program but none carries both a target and a result, so no attainment is computed.
This source lists 2 rows for this program but none carries both a target and a result, so no attainment is computed.
Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.
Showing clauses from HHS and Education. All clauses
Quote
“you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan”
It lets you write: Enter 0 as the target, mark it TBD, and commit to revising it within six months.
Source document, 2023Paraphrase
An applicant that lacks a baseline explains how and when it will establish one.
It lets you write: State that no baseline exists yet, and say how and by when you will establish it.
Source document, 2024Quote
“grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year”
It lets you write: Set annual goals and state that you will revise them with your project officer in each year's first quarter.
Source document, 2022Quote
“target setting will be an iterative process throughout implementation as more performance data is available”
It lets you write: Describe target setting as iterative, with targets reset as performance data arrives.
Source document, 2025Paraphrase
Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award.
It lets you write: Give a baseline estimate and commit to confirming or updating it within six months of award.
Source document, 2026Paraphrase
Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data.
It lets you write: List milestones for year 1 and state that later-year milestones will be renegotiated from year-1 data.
Source document, 2025Paraphrase
A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it.
It lets you write: Plan a post-award baseline assessment and set the targets from its results.
Source document, 2026Quote
“confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email”
It lets you write: Existing awardees can ask for an adjusted patient target during the renewal process.
Source document, 2022