Expanding the Reach of People with Disabilities Alternative Financing Programs offer more than affordable access to assistive technology for people with disabilities. These federal-state loan programs open doorways to enhanced participation in family and community life, education, employment and health care for individuals with disabilities by expanding options for obtaining and, ultimately, using assistive technology. If a person with a disability needs to purchase assistive technology (AT) such as a wheelchair or other mobility device, a specialized computer, home accessibility modifications, or an adapted car or van, these items may be out of reach because of their high costs. Other potential sources of AT financing, including health insurance, vocational rehabilitation programs or conventional bank loans, often are pursued by individuals with disabilities but many times provide little or no assistance because of funding limitations or eligibility. The Alternative Financing Program (AFP), authorized under Title III of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, was designed to help people with disabilities overcome these financial obstacle to accessing assistive technology. With the AFP, many people with disabilities can qualify for and receive low cost loans to purchase AT devices or services. The AFP was started in FY 2000 with $3.8 million in federal financing and a matching amount from state funds for the establishment and administration of alternative, state-based AT financial loan programs in six states. In FY 2001, federal funding provided $13.6 million and state funds provided $4.6 million for more states to establish loan programs. By the third year of operation (October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003), 16 states operated AFPs: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. In program year 2002-2003 the state AFPs provided $7.7 million in AT loans to 753 individuals with disabilities for the purchase of assistive technology. Since the program's inception, the AFPs have provided or facilitated loans totaling $15.5 million to 1,515 individuals with disabilities. The AFP is administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the U.S. Department of Education under Title III of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act). Loans Launch New Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities The immense value of AFP loans may be best understood through looking at the changes in the lives of individuals with disabilities around the country who have benefited from the assistive technology purchased through AFP funding. * For Quinn, an 11-year-old Utah student who lost his eyesight because of a rare hereditary eye disease, new assistive technology has given him essential tools to continue participating in his school's mainstream classes. Quinn's parents obtained a BrailleNote 18-a note-taking device that also is a portable book reader, word processor, scheduler and scientific calculator-through an AFP loan from the Utah Assistive Technology Foundation (UATF). The UATF serves people with disabilities throughout the state. Quinn, who continues to earn straight A's at his middle school, needed the AT immediately, so his parents chose an AFP loan rather than the longer process necessary to acquire the device through the school system. Quinn said the device keeps him one step ahead of students in his computer lab. "I get it (the assignment) turned in much sooner than them," he said about his work in the school's computer classes. The BrailleNote has allowed Quinn to connect to the school's printers, with the option of printing assignments in regular type or Braille, or even of providing speech output. The BrailleNote convinced Quinn's teacher that he could continue to participate in mainstream classes without much extra help. Quinn's incredible work ethic coupled with the use of his AT has enabled him to consistently produce excellent schoolwork, his teacher said. Instead of hindering the progress of other students, which was an initial concern of his teacher, Quinn "has helped lift the whole class," Quinn's teacher said. Moreover, Quinn's mother Karen now easily helps him edit homework as the BrailleNote can print his assignments from home. Previously, Quinn's parents had to spend time translating his work from Braille to print before they could assist him. * A 39-year-old mother, who has paraplegia, was able to continue working and to drive her infant son to his doctor's appointments after purchasing an adapted minivan with an AFP loan from the Louisiana Assistive Technology Loan Program. The van was purchased with a $17,000 loan for 7 years. "I am a T-8 paraplegic and now have a 5-month- old son," said Ms. F. "For me to be mobile with him, I needed to use my electric wheelchair, so this program helped me to finance a minivan." Mrs. F. said. The adapted transportation technology she now uses has eased the burden of care for her husband and relatives, who no longer have to transport her everywhere, she said. The Louisiana Assistive Technology Loan Program staff worked hard to meet her needs. "The representatives were very polite, knowledgeable and responded very quickly," she said. * The purchase of new hearing aids has significantly improved communication for a 51-year-old Kentucky resident at work and at home. The new technology has increased his ability to hear clearly at work, interact socially and to better remember and to learn. "I can hear a whole lot of things compared with what I could before," said Mr. F. "Now, people don't have to keep repeating themselves when they are talking to me and I think that is positive for everyone. My social interactions have improved immensely and that has affected my friends, family and acquaintances." Staff at the Kentucky Assistive Technology Loan Corporation were very helpful and promptly processed the loan needed for purchase of the hearing aids, Mr. F. said. Applying for an AFP loan was "convenient, easy, responsive and quick. My audiologist told me about it and I realized you did not have to make these big loan applications or jump through loops. It was easy," said Mr. F. * Home renovations to make a house more accessible for a Pennsylvania man have brought increased freedom and improvement in his quality of life. The 44-year-old Pennsylvanian used a guaranteed loan of $10,000 from the Pennsylvania Assistive Technology Foundation to build an accessible bathroom in his home. He said he has gained new independence in daily living activities. "Due to my disability I needed special accommodations that were very costly," said Mr. C. "It is wonderful to be able to freely do what so many take for granted-a shower on your own." Overall, the home accommodation has vastly improved his quality of life including his family relationships. "It has lessened the burden on my wife in assisting me and has improved the quality of my marriage," he said. AFPs Provide Innovative Ideas to Improve Services State AFPs have created innovative strategies to improve many aspects of their loan programs to better serve individuals with disabilities and their families. Since the start of the AFPs in October 2000, statewide AT Act Projects (authorized under Title I of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998) and AFPs have shared knowledge and contributed to each other's successes in assisting consumers with disabilities. The AT Act Projects have helped provide AT lending libraries and equipment tryout programs for the AFPs, and offered other resources such as AT demonstration centers. In turn, the AFPs have helped state AT Act Projects by providing accessible, attractive AT funding for people with disabilities. The partnership activities of the Wisconsin Title I state AT Act Project and Title III-alternative financing program illustrate some of the ways in which many state AT Act Projects have contributed to the work of the AFPs. The Wisconsin AFP, WisLoan, has worked to offer persons with disabilities increased information about their choices in loans and the assistive technology they may want to purchase, according to Patti Kraemer, coordinator of WisLoan. In Wisconsin, the Title I state Assistive Technology Act Project is housed at independent living centers, and these independent living centers are subcontractors for WisLoan. The independent living centers take applications for AFP loans and do loan follow-up work. In addition, through their Title I AT work, the centers for independent living help consumers explore low or no-cost options for obtaining AT through other sources. Under their Title I AT responsibilities, the centers for independent living provide "loan closets" of specialized types of AT that persons with disabilities can try out, or borrow, before having to purchase AT through AFP loans or by using their own funds. Alternative Financing Program Activities in 2002-2003 Alternative Financing Programs are required to establish both administrative and financial partners for operation of the loan programs. State AFPs contract with community-based organizations (CBOs) to administer the program and the CBOs then contract with banks, credit unions, state financing authorities or other agencies to assist in the financial aspects of the loan programs. CBOs are required to involve individuals with disabilities in decision-making at all levels. Table 1 shows AFP partners for the 16 states in program year 2002-2003. ***** Table 1. Alternative Financing Program Partners in Program Year 2002-2003 State: Arizona Partners State Agency: Northern Arizona University CBO: Arizona Community Foundation AzLAT Consortium Lender: Arizona MultiBank Community Development Corp. State: Arkansas Partners State Agency: Arkansas Rehabilitation Services CBO: Revolving Loan Fund Committee Lender: Arkansas Development Finance Authority State: Florida Partners State Agency: Florida Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation Services CBO: Florida Alliance for Assistive Services and Technology (FAAST) Lender: AmSouth State: Illinois Partners State Agency: Illinois Department of Human Services CBO: Illinois Assistive Technology Project Lender: Security Bank State: Kansas Partners State Agency: University of Kansas CBO: Kansas Assistive Technology Cooperative Lenders: Alliance Bank MidAmerica Credit Union State: Kentucky Partners State Agency: Kentucky Department of Vocational Rehabilitation CBO: Kentucky Assistive Technology Loan Corporation Lender: Fifth Third Bank of Kentucky State: Louisiana Partners State Agency: Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals CBO: Louisiana Assistive Technology Access Network Lender: Union Planters Bank State: Maryland Partners State Agency: Maryland Technology Assistance Program, Office for Individuals with Disabilities CBO: AT Guaranteed Loan Program Board Lenders: Sun Trust Bank State Employees Credit Union of Maryland 1st Mariner Bank State: Michigan Partners State Agency: Michigan Department of Career Development CBO: Michigan Disability Rights Coalition Lender: Financial Health Credit Union State: Missouri Partners State Agency: Missouri Assistive Technology CBO: Missouri Assistive Technology Council Lender: Missouri State Treasurer State: Nevada Partners State Agency: Nevada Office of Community Based Services CBO: Care Chest of Sierra Nevada Lender: Nevada State Bank State: Oklahoma Partners State Agency: Oklahoma ABLE Tech CBO: Oklahoma Assistive Technology Foundation Lender: BancFirst of Stillwater State: Pennsylvania Partners State Agency: Institute on Disabilities, Temple University CBO: Pennsylvania Assistive Technology Foundation Lenders: United Bank Sovereign Bank First Union National Bank State: Utah Partners State Agency: Center for Persons with Disabilities, Utah State University CBO: Utah Assistive Technology Foundation Lender: Zions Bank State: Virginia Partners State Agency: Virginia Department of Rehabilitation CBO: Assistive Technology Loan Fund Authority Lender: SunTrust Bank State: Wisconsin Partners State Agency: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services CBO: IndependenceFirst Lender: Marshall and Ilsley Bank Source: Program Year 2002-2003 AFP Data ***** Features of Loan Programs The 16 states that received AFP funding during 2002-2003 used different loan models, including a direct (revolving) loan fund, an interest rate buy-down program and a loan guarantee program (see Table 2). Each state offered one or more financing mechanisms to consumers. With a direct loan, which was offered by three states (Arkansas, Missouri and Virginia), AFPs had the most flexibility in determining who should receive the financing and at what cost. Direct loans enabled AFPs to offer loans for small amounts, generally below $3,000. These loans typically were ones that AFP lending partners did not want to handle because of the high administrative costs associated with small loans. With direct lending, moneys lent ultimately will come back to the AFP and enable it to make additional loans to people with disabilities. Guaranteed loans helped individuals qualify for loans because these types of loans are backed by a promise, or guarantee, that even if the loan goes into default, the loan will be repaid to the financial institution by the AFP. Thirteen states (Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin) offered guaranteed loans. Interest rate buy-down loans made financing more affordable for borrowers by having the AFP "buy down" the interest rate charged by the lending institution. For example, an AFP buying down the interest rate by 3 percent could save a borrower slightly more than $200 per year on an average loan (on a $12,400 loan amortized over 5 years). Six states (Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Utah and Virginia) offered interest rate buy-downs. Some AFPs also helped facilitate non-guaranteed, low-interest loans for people with disabilities who had incomes and credit scores high enough to be able to obtain loans directly from a conventional lender. For the most part, the AFPs referred these individuals to their lending partners, which provided financing at or below the market rate for a typical consumer loan. A bank typically agreed to the lower interest rate in exchange for the AFP depositing money with the institution. Primarily in four states (Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada and Oklahoma), the AFPs worked closely with their lending partners to accommodate these borrowers. As shown in Table 2, the state AFPs varied widely in other loan features including the loan amounts available, range of interest rates charged to borrowers, repayment terms for loans and loan guarantee requirements. ***** Table 2. Features of Alternative Financing Programs in Program Year 2002-2003 State: AZ Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $500 - $3,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 9% Repayment Terms: 2-5 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 100% State: AR Loan Models: Revolving Loan Range of Loan Amounts: up to $50,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 4% Repayment Terms: up to 20 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: n/a State: FL Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $500 - $20,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 5% - 12.5% Repayment Terms: 2 - 6 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 100% State: IL Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan, Interest Rate Buy-Down Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $500 - $40,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: Up to 3.5% Repayment Terms: up to 20 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 100% State: KS Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $300 - $40,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 2.5% - 7.9% Repayment Terms: up to 15 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 100% State: KY Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan, Interest Rate Buy-Down Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $500 - $25,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 3% -4.75% Repayment Terms: 2 - 10 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: Under $5,000 - 100% , Over $5,000 - 50%- 100% State: LA Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan, Non-Guaranteed Low Interest Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $1,500 - $50,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: Prime plus 1% - 2% Repayment Terms: 1 - 15 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 100% State: MD Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan, Interest Rate Buy-Down Loan, Non-Guaranteed Low Interest Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $500 - $30,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 3% - 4.75% Repayment Terms: 1 - 7 years, up to 20 years for home equity loan Loan Guarantee Requirements: 50% State: MI Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan Range of Loan Amounts: up to $20,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 5% - 7% Repayment Terms: up to 7 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 50% State: MO Loan Models: Revolving Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $500 - $10,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 2% - 4% Repayment Terms: up to 5 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: n/a State: NV Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan, Non-Guaranteed Low Interest Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $600 - $54,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 4% - 6.5% Repayment Terms: 3 - 10 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 50% State: OK Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan, Non-Guaranteed Low Interest Loan Range of Loan Amounts: no min. or max. set Interest Charged to Borrower: 5% - 5.75% Repayment Terms: up to 5 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 100% State: PA Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan, Interest Rate Buy-Down Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $500 - $25,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 3.5% - 4.25% Repayment Terms: up to 10 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 100% State: UT Loan Models: Interest Rate Buy-Down Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $800 - $50,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: 0% - 3% Repayment Terms: 2 - 5 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: n/a State: VA Loan Models: Revolving Loan, Guaranteed Loan, Interest Rate Buy-Down Loan Range of Loan Amounts: no min. or max., up to $30,000 for guaranteed Interest Charged to Borrower: 3% - 4% below interest charged by bank Repayment Terms: 3 - 20 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 50% State: WI Loan Models: Guaranteed Loan Range of Loan Amounts: $1,000 - $35,000 Interest Charged to Borrower: prime plus 2% Repayment Terms: 1 - 10 years Loan Guarantee Requirements: 20% Source: Program Year 2002-2003 AFP Data. ******* Analysis of Program Year 2002-2003 AFP Loan Activity In 2002-2003, 753 loans-with a total dollar amount of $7.7 million-were provided to individuals with disabilities in 16 states (see Table 3). The loans provided funding for 61 percent of the 1,239 applications received. Cumulatively, during the 3 years of AFP operation, from October 1, 2000, to September 30, 2003, $15.5 million in loans were provided or facilitated by AFPs to 1,515 borrowers with disabilities. Also during the last three years, the number of interest rate buy-down loans increased dramatically-either as loans by themselves or as part of guaranteed loans-from none in program year 2000-2001 to 141 in program year 2002-2003 (see Table 4). The state AFPs have shown a good loan portfolio performance in program year 2002-2003, as illustrated in Table 5. The dollar amount of defaulted loans (90 days past due) for the year was $272,192 for all states, with a low default rate of 2.42 percent for the fiscal year. The net loss rate for all AFP supported loans for the year also was low, with a 2.36 percent net loss rate recorded in program year 2002-2003. ***** Table 3. Loan Activity for Program Year 2002-2003 and since 2000 State: Arizona Applications Received: 21 Loans Made: 5 Dollar Value of Loans Made: $9,982 Historic Loan Volume: $9,982 State: Arkansas Applications Received: * Loans Made: * Dollar Value of Loans Made: * Historic Loan Volume: * State: Florida Applications Received: 50 Loans Made: 35 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 258,524 Historic Loan Volume: 258,524 State: Illinois Applications Received: 74 Loans Made: 50 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 670,426 Historic Loan Volume: 987,661 State: Kansas Applications Received: 96 Loans Made: 65 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 549,945 Historic Loan Volume: 884,515 State: Kentucky Applications Received: 113 Loans Made: 62 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 431,489 Historic Loan Volume: 614,166 State: Louisiana Applications Received: 76 Loans Made: 34 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 509,780 Historic Loan Volume: 684,003 State: Maryland Applications Received: 153 Loans Made: 83 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 1,094,642 Historic Loan Volume: 3,043,703 State: Michigan Applications Received: 97 Loans Made: 44 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 263,028 Historic Loan Volume: 501,099 State: Missouri Applications Received: * Loans Made: * Dollar Value of Loans Made: * Historic Loan Volume: * State: Nevada Applications Received: 79 Loans Made: 53 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 1,182,613 Historic Loan Volume: 1,716,726 State: Oklahoma Applications Received: 73 Loans Made: 59 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 337,230 Historic Loan Volume: 763,259 State: Pennsylvania Applications Received: 110 Loans Made: 85 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 1,324,438 Historic Loan Volume: 2,138,353 State: Utah Applications Received: 154 Loans Made: 104 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 538,788 Historic Loan Volume: 1,243,764 State: Virginia Applications Received: 1* Loans Made: * Dollar Value of Loans Made: * Historic Loan Volume: 2,117,849* State: Wisconsin Applications Received: 142 Loans Made: 74 Dollar Value of Loans Made: 526,325 Historic Loan Volume: 578,309 Totals Applications Received: 1239 Loans Made: 753 Dollar Value of Loans Made: $7,697,210 Historic Loan Volume: $15,541,913 Applications Received, Loans Made and Dollar Value of Loans Made are as of September 30, 2003. Historic Loan Volume is the total dollar amount of loans provided or facilitated by the AFP program since program inception in October 2000. Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. * Data not submitted to the Web-based applicant data system. However Arkansas, Missouri and Virginia did submit data for the annual program data collection. Arkansas had 5 applications received, zero loans made for program year 2002-2003. Missouri had 32 applications received, 21 loans made with a total dollar value of $76,176 for program year 2002-2003. Missouri's historic loan volume was $113,077. Only partial data from Virginia were recorded in the Web-based applicant system. Data for program year 2002-2003 included an additional 141 applications received, 66 loans made with a total dollar value of $1,381,667. Virginia's historic loan volume then would be the sum of loans provided or facilitated for program year 2002-2003 ($1,381,667) and the sum of the loan totals from the prior two program years ($2,117,849) which equals $3,499,516. Thus with these figures included, the final totals for the columns are: 1,417 applications received, 840 loans made, $9,155,053 dollar value of loans made and $17,036,657 historic loan volume. ***** ***** Table 4. Cumulative Loan Activity By Type of Loan Guaranteed Loans Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Number*: 134 Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Amount*: $1,271,482 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Number*: 297 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Amount*: $2,889,231 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Number*: 470 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Amount*: $4,541,169 Loan Totals All Years - Number*: 901 Loan Totals All Years - Amount*: $8,701,882 Interest Rate Buy-Down Loans Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Number*: 0 Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Amount*: 0 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Number*: 80 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Amount*: $715,753 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Number*: 141 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Amount*: $1,239,772 Loan Totals All Years - Number*: 221 Loan Totals All Years - Amount*: $1,955,525 Non-Guaranteed Low Interest Loans Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Number*: 28 Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Amount*: $333,212 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Number*: 83 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Amount*: $1,428,411 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Number*: 68 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Amount*: $1,040,763 Loan Totals All Years - Number*: 179 Loan Totals All Years - Amount*: $2,802,386 Guaranteed and Interest Rate Buy-Down Loans Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Number*: 0 Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Amount*: 0 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Number*: 0 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Amount*: 0 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Number*: 40 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Amount*: $518,177 Loan Totals All Years - Number*: 40 Loan Totals All Years - Amount*: $518,177 Direct Loans Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Number*: 6 Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Amount*: $25,460 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Number*: 9 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Amount*: $120,179 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Number*: 6 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Amount*: $32,660 Loan Totals All Years - Number*: 21 Loan Totals All Years - Amount*: $178,299 Other, No Response Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Number*: 57 Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Amount*: $637,235 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Number*: 68 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Amount*: $423,740 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Number*: 28 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Amount*: $324,669 Loan Totals All Years - Number*: 153 Loan Totals All Years - Amount*: $1,385,644 Total Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Number*: 225 Program Year 2000-2001 Loans - Amount*: $2,267,389 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Number*: 537 Program Year 2001-2002 Loans - Amount*: $5,577,314 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Number*: 753 Program Year 2002-2003 Loans - Amount*: $7,697,210 Loan Totals All Years - Number*: 1515 Loan Totals All Years - Amount*: $15,541,913 Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. * Does not include data from three states that did not submit data to the Web-based applicant data system. However, these three states (Arkansas, Missouri, and Virginia) did submit data for the annual program data collection. For program year 2001-2002, Missouri records indicate 11 direct loans totaling $36,901. For program year 2002-2003, Arkansas, Missouri and Virginia records indicate 27 direct loans totaling $90,271; 34 interest rate buy-down loans totaling $884,430 and 26 guaranteed and interest rate buy-down loans totaling $483,142. The combined grand totals for program year 2001-2002 would be 548 loans for a dollar value of $5,614,215; for program year 2002-2003 the total would be 840 loans for a dollar amount of $9,155,053. The loan totals for all three years would be 1,613 loans with a dollar amount of $17,036,657. ***** ***** Table 5. Loan Portfolio Performance for Program Year 2002-2003 Total Dollar Amount of Outstanding Loans: $11,234,509 Number of Defaulted Loans: 39 Dollar Amount of Defaulted Loans: $272,192 Default Rate: 2.42% Dollar Amount of Net Losses: $265,459 Net Loss Rate: 2.36% Source: 2002-2003 Annual Program Data. Total Dollar Amount of Outstanding Loans is the total amount of loans still outstanding (principal not paid in full), as of September 30, 2003. This total includes loans that were provided or supported by the AFP (direct, guaranteed and interest rate buy down loans) but does not include non-guaranteed loans provided solely by the lending institutions. Number of Defaulted Loans is the total number of loans defaulted (90 days past due), as of September 30, 2003. Dollar Amount of Defaulted Loans is the total dollar amount of the loans defaulted (90 days past due), as of September 30, 2003. Default Rate is the Dollar Amount of Defaulted Loans divided by Total Dollar Amount of Outstanding Loans and expressed as a percentage. Dollar Amount of Net Losses is equal to the total dollar amount lost on direct loans and guaranteed loan payouts minus recoveries from collateral in 2002-2003 as of September 30, 2003. Net Loss Rate is the Dollar Amount of Net Losses divided by the Total Dollar Amount of Outstanding Loans, expressed as a percentage. ***** Characteristics of Loan Borrowers In program year 2002-2003, the largest percentage of borrowers was between 40 and 69 years of age (demographic data-compiled from information provided by applicants-is shown in Table 6). The demographic data on race show that 71 percent of AFP loan recipients were white, 9.4 percent were African American, 2.7 percent were Hispanic, 1.8 percent were American Indian, Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, and 14.2 percent of borrowers did not respond to this question. About 70 percent of loan recipients were unemployed; about 17 percent were employed full time and 7 percent worked part time. Looking at the communities where borrowers resided during program year 2002-2003, about 27 percent lived in urban areas, another 27 percent lived in suburban areas and about 32 percent lived in rural areas. These percentages were similar to those in program year 2001-2002 when about 30 percent of borrowers lived in urban areas, 31 percent lived in suburban areas and about 30 percent lived in rural areas. **** Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Loan Applicants for Program Year 2002-2003 Sex of User Male Approved - Count: 384 Approved - Row %: 51.0% Denied - Count: 188 Denied - Row %: 47.7% Other* - Count: 43 Other* - Row %: 46.7% Female Approved - Count: 330 Approved - Row %: 43.8% Denied - Count: 185 Denied - Row %: 47.0% Other* - Count: 47 Other* - Row %: 51.1% No Response Approved - Count: 39 Approved - Row %: 5.2% Denied - Count: 21 Denied - Row %: 5.3% Other* - Count: 2 Other* - Row %: 2.2% Total Approved - Count: 753 Approved - Row %: 100.0% Denied - Count: 394 Denied - Row %: 100.0% Other* - Count: 92 Other* - Row %: 100.0% Age of User 0-9 years Approved - Count: 34 Approved - Row %: 4.5% Denied - Count: 12 Denied - Row %: 3.0% Other* - Count: 4 Other* - Row %: 4.3% 10-19 years Approved - Count: 51 Approved - Row %: 6.8% Denied - Count: 20 Denied - Row %: 5.1% Other* - Count: 10 Other* - Row %: 10.9% 20-29 years Approved - Count: 50 Approved - Row %: 6.6% Denied - Count: 25 Denied - Row %: 6.3% Other* - Count: 9 Other* - Row %: 9.8% 30-39 years Approved - Count: 57 Approved - Row %: 7.6% Denied - Count: 51 Denied - Row %: 12.9% Other* - Count: 6 Other* - Row %: 6.5% 40-49 years Approved - Count: 126 Approved - Row %: 16.7% Denied - Count: 81 Denied - Row %: 20.6% Other* - Count: 19 Other* - Row %: 20.7% 50-59 years Approved - Count: 148 Approved - Row %: 19.7% Denied - Count: 79 Denied - Row %: 20.1% Other* - Count: 19 Other* - Row %: 20.7% 60-69 years Approved - Count: 111 Approved - Row %: 14.7% Denied - Count: 53 Denied - Row %: 13.5% Other* - Count: 13 Other* - Row %: 14.1% 70-79 years Approved - Count: 71 Approved - Row %: 9.4% Denied - Count: 21 Denied - Row %: 5.3% Other* - Count: 6 Other* - Row %: 6.5% 80+ years Approved - Count: 35 Approved - Row %: 4.6% Denied - Count: 16 Denied - Row %: 4.1% Other* - Count: 3 Other* - Row %: 3.3% No Response Approved - Count: 70 Approved - Row %: 9.3% Denied - Count: 36 Denied - Row %: 9.1% Other* - Count: 3 Other* - Row %: 3.3% Total Approved - Count: 753 Approved - Row %: 99.9% Denied - Count: 394 Denied - Row %: 100.0% Other* - Count: 92 Other* - Row %: 100.0% Race of User White Approved - Count: 535 Approved - Row %: 71.0% Denied - Count: 208 Denied - Row %: 52.8% Other* - Count: 61 Other* - Row %: 66.3% African American Approved - Count: 71 Approved - Row %: 9.4% Denied - Count: 84 Denied - Row %: 21.3% Other* - Count: 12 Other* - Row %: 13.0% Hispanic Approved - Count: 20 Approved - Row %: 2.7% Denied - Count: 7 Denied - Row %: 1.8% Other* - Count: 1 Other* - Row %: 1.1% American Indian, Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian Approved - Count: 14 Approved - Row %: 1.8% Denied - Count: 14 Denied - Row %: 3.5% Other* - Count: 0 Other* - Row %: 0.0% Asian Indian, Asian Approved - Count: 3 Approved - Row %: 0.4% Denied - Count: 3 Denied - Row %: 0.8% Other* - Count: 1 Other* - Row %: 1.1% Other Approved - Count: 3 Approved - Row %: 0.4% Denied - Count: 5 Denied - Row %: 1.3% Other* - Count: 2 Other* - Row %: 2.2% No Response Approved - Count: 107 Approved - Row %: 14.2% Denied - Count: 73 Denied - Row %: 18.5% Other* - Count: 15 Other* - Row %: 16.3% Total Approved - Count: 753 Approved - Row %: 99.9% Denied - Count: 394 Denied - Row %: 100.0% Other* - Count: 92 Other* - Row %: 100.0% Primary Language of User English Approved - Count: 676 Approved - Row %: 89.8% Denied - Count: 347 Denied - Row %: 88.1% Other* - Count: 82 Other* - Row %: 89.1% Other Approved - Count: 12 Approved - Row %: 1.6% Denied - Count: 7 Denied - Row %: 1.8% Other* - Count: 2 Other* - Row %: 2.2% No Response Approved - Count: 65 Approved - Row %: 8.6% Denied - Count: 40 Denied - Row %: 10.2% Other* - Count: 8 Other* - Row %: 8.7% Total Approved - Count: 753 Approved - Row %: 100.0% Denied - Count: 394 Denied - Row %: 100.1%* Other* - Count: 92 Other* - Row %: 100.0% Employment Status of User Full-time Approved - Count: 127 Approved - Row %: 16.9% Denied - Count: 31 Denied - Row %: 7.9% Other* - Count: 17 Other* - Row %: 18.5% Part-time Approved - Count: 54 Approved - Row %: 7.2% Denied - Count: 27 Denied - Row %: 6.9% Other* - Count: 7 Other* - Row %: 7.6% Not Working Approved - Count: 524 Approved - Row %: 69.7% Denied - Count: 304 Denied - Row %: 77.2% Other* - Count: 61 Other* - Row %: 66.3% No Response Approved - Count: 47 Approved - Row %: 6.2% Denied - Count: 32 Denied - Row %: 8.1% Other* - Count: 7 Other* - Row %: 7.6% Total Approved - Count: 753 Approved - Row %: 100.0% Denied - Count: 394 Denied - Row %: 100.1%* Other* - Count: 92 Other* - Row %: 100.0% Community of User Primarily Rural Approved - Count: 245 Approved - Row %: 32.5% Denied - Count: 108 Denied - Row %: 27.4% Other* - Count: 39 Other* - Row %: 42.4% Primarily Suburban Approved - Count: 206 Approved - Row %: 27.4% Denied - Count: 98 Denied - Row %: 24.9% Other* - Count: 16 Other* - Row %: 17.4% Primarily Urban Approved - Count: 202 Approved - Row %: 26.8% Denied - Count: 114 Denied - Row %: 28.9% Other* - Count: 32 Other* - Row %: 34.8% Other Approved - Count: 1 Approved - Row %: 0.1% Denied - Count: 3 Denied - Row %: 0.8% Other* - Count: 0 Other* - Row %: 0.0% No Response Approved - Count: 99 Approved - Row %: 13.1% Denied - Count: 71 Denied - Row %: 18.0% Other* - Count: 5 Other* - Row %: 5.4% Total Approved - Count: 753 Approved - Row %: 99.9% Denied - Count: 394 Denied - Row %: 100.0% Other* - Count: 92 Other* - Row %: 100.0% Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. * Examples of "other" financing decision on applications include pending, tabled, withdrawn, and approved but not closed. Note: Due to rounding, some columns may not sum to exactly 100%. ****** Types of AT Purchased To meet their individual needs, loan recipients purchased many different types of assistive technology through AFP loans, as shown in Table 7. For the last two program years, the three most frequently purchased types of AT were adapted transportation, hearing aids and mobility equipment. Building modifications, equipment for daily living usage, computer equipment and seating and positioning devices were among the other devices frequently purchased by AFP borrowers during this same time period. Looking at the most frequently purchased types of AT in program year 2002-2003, about 41 percent of the AT was adapted transportation including modified vans and specialized devices for vehicles, such as hand controls and lifts. About 23 percent of AT purchased was for hearing aids, 15 percent was for mobility equipment, and about 11 percent was for building modifications. ***** Table 7. Types of AT Purchased by Borrowers Assistive Technology AT for Adapted transportation Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 307 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 40.8 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 242 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 45.1 AT for Hearing aids Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 172 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 22.8 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 68 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 12.7 AT for Mobility equipment Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 114 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 15.1 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 139 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 25.9 AT for Building modifications Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 85 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 11.3 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 54 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 10.1 AT for Daily living equipment Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 48 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 6.4 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 47 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 8.8 AT for Computer equipment Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 38 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 5.0 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 62 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 11.5 AT for Seating and positioning Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 19 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 2.5 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 18 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 3.4 AT for Computer access Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 13 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 1.7 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 35 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 6.5 AT for Medical equipment Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 11 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 1.5 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 10 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 1.9 AT for Visual aids Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 10 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 1.3 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 18 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 3.4 AT for Social and recreational Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 8 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 1.1 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 5 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 0.9 AT for Communication Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 7 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 0.9 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 8 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 1.5 AT for Environmental Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 7 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 0.9 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 5 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 0.9 AT for Work or school modifications Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 1 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 0.1 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 2 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 0.4 AT for Farm equipment modifications Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 1 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 0.1 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 0 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 0.0 AT for Other needs Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 22 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 loans: 2.9 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 4 Program year 2001- 2002 - % of 537 loans: 0.7 Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004 Note: Borrowers were asked to check as many responses as applied to their AT request, thus these numbers exceeded the number of borrowers. Type of Disabilities that AT is Expected to Influence AFP loan recipients provided information on the types of disabilities that the purchased AT would affect. The majority of AT financed in both fiscal years (61.9 percent in program year 2002-2003 and 67.4 percent in program year 2001-2002) affected the loan recipient's mobility, while the second most frequently cited affect was on social interactions (see Table 8). In both fiscal years, hearing was the third most frequently cited ability to be affected by AT, while the ability to talk and communicate was the fourth most cited ability to be affected by the AT. Other abilities noted by loan recipients that would be affected by AT included learning, memory, handling skills and seeing. ***** ***** Table 8. Function Affected by AT Purchased by Borrowers Function AT will affect mobility Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 466 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 61.9 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 362 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 67.4 AT will affect social interactions Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 346 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 45.9 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 133 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 24.8 AT will affect hearing Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 192 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 25.5 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 85 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 15.8 AT will affect talking and communication Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 180 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 23.9 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 77 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 14.3 AT will affect learning Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 85 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 11.3 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 71 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 13.2 AT will affect memory Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 60 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 8.0 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 37 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 6.9 AT will affect handling skills Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 36 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 4.8 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 22 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 4.1 AT will affect seeing Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 29 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 3.9 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 35 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 6.5 AT will affect other things Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 53 Program Year 2002-2003 - % of 753 Count: 7.0 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 29 Program Year 2001-2002 - % of 537 Count: 5.4 Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. Note: Numbers in these columns will not total the number of borrowers for the year as applicants were allowed to check as many responses as applied to their AT request. ***** For AFP loans in program year 2001-2002 and program year 2002-2003, the average and median dollar amounts of approved loans stayed close to the same level over the 2-year-period (see Table 9). In program year 2002-2003, the median AFP loan was $5,000 compared with $4,769 in program year 2001-2002. The mean dollar amount for a loan in program year 2002-2003 was $10,277 and in the previous year was $10,425. ***** Table 9. Dollar Amount of Approved Loans Median Program Year 2002-2003 (N=753): $5,000 Program Year 2001-2002 (N=537): $4,769 Mean Program Year 2002-2003 (N=753): $10,277 Program Year 2001-2002 (N=537): $10,425 Minimum Program Year 2002-2003 (N=753): $100 Program Year 2001-2002 (N=537): $87 Maximum Program Year 2002-2003 (N=753): $62,000 Program Year 2001-2002 (N=537): $90,000 Standard Deviation Program Year 2002-2003 (N=753): $10,663 Program Year 2001-2002 (N=537): $11,930 Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. AFP loans in program year 2002-2003 generally offered favorable interest rates to borrowers (see Table 10). In this third year of AFP operation, slightly less than one-half-45.29 percent-of loans provided or facilitated by the AFPs had low interest rates between 0 percent and 4 percent. An additional 35.59 percent of AFP loans had interest rates between 4.1 percent and 6.0 percent; about 16.0 percent of loans had interest rates between 6.1 percent and 8.0 percent. Most AFP loan rates in program year 2002-2003 were below the rates for typical consumer loans. A bank generally charged in the range of 6 percent to 8.5 percent for a consumer loan during program year 2002-2003. During the same time period, credit card interest rates typically were much higher than consumer loan rates. Consequently, about 80 percent of borrowers who obtained AFP loans in program year 2002-2003 received interest rates that were below the rates of most consumer or credit card loans. ***** Repayment terms for AFP loans varied in program year 2002-2003, with a majority of loans-53.4 percent-having repayment terms of 3 to 5 years. An additional 20.1 percent of the loans had terms of 6 to 10 years. About 18 percent of the loans had repayment terms of less than 3 years. Only 1.5 percent of loans had repayment terms of 11 years or more. Longer repayment terms lowered the monthly loan payments and this often made the loans more affordable for borrowers. ***** Table 10. Loan Interest Rates and Terms for Program Year 2002-2003 Interest Rates 0% to 2.0% Count: 142 %: 18.86 2.1% to 4.0% Count: 199 %: 26.43 4.1% to 6.0% Count: 268 %: 35.59 6.1% to 8.0% Count: 120 %: 15.94 8.1% or Higher Count: 14 %: 1.86 Not Reported Count: 10 %: 1.33 Total Interest Rates Count: 753 %: 100.01 Loan Repayment Terms Less than 3 years Count: 138 %: 18.30 3 to 5 years Count: 402 %: 53.40 6 to 10 years Count: 151 %: 20.10 11 years or more Count: 11 %: 1.50 Repayment not Recorded Count: 51 %: 6.80 Totals - Loan Repayment Terms Count: 753 %: 100.10 Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. Note: Due to rounding, columns do not sum to exactly 100%. ***** Follow-up and Outcomes of Borrowers The overwhelming majority of AFP loan recipients (ranging from 52 percent to 81 percent in each category) reported increases in significant areas of their lives including quality of life and participation in critical, everyday life activities because of the AT purchased through AFP loans. Table 11 provides information from borrowers on the productive impact of the loans and associated AT acquisitions. Table 11. Borrowers' Perceptions of the Impact of Approved Loans and Associated AT Acquisitions for Program Year 2002-2003 Impact Quality of life Got Better - Count: 127 Got Better - Row %: 81.4 Stayed Same - Count: 27 Stayed Same - Row %: 17.3 Got Worse - Count: 2 Got Worse - Row %: 1.3 Total Question Response* - Count: 156 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Participate in recreation, leisure or community, social or spiritual activities Got Better - Count: 113 Got Better - Row %: 78.5 Stayed Same - Count: 31 Stayed Same - Row %: 21.5 Got Worse - Count: 0 Got Worse - Row %: 0.0 Total Question Response* - Count: 144 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Do home/community living activities (e.g., shopping, cooking, laundry, cleaning) Got Better - Count: 105 Got Better - Row %: 75.5 Stayed Same - Count: 33 Stayed Same - Row %: 23.7 Got Worse - Count: 1 Got Worse - Row %: 0.7 Total Question Response* - Count: 139 Total Question Response* - Row %: 99.9 Move around in the community Got Better - Count: 102 Got Better - Row %: 73.9 Stayed Same - Count: 35 Stayed Same - Row %: 25.4 Got Worse - Count: 1 Got Worse - Row %: 0.7 Total Question Response* - Count: 138 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Participate in important life roles (e.g., parent, friend, advocate, etc) Got Better - Count: 95 Got Better - Row %: 70.4 Stayed Same - Count: 38 Stayed Same - Row %: 28.1 Got Worse - Count: 2 Got Worse - Row %: 1.5 Total Question Response* - Count: 135 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Manage health or personal safety Got Better - Count: 91 Got Better - Row %: 66.9 Stayed Same - Count: 42 Stayed Same - Row %: 30.9 Got Worse - Count: 3 Got Worse - Row %: 2.2 Total Question Response* - Count: 136 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Participate in learning and educational activities Got Better - Count: 87 Got Better - Row %: 68.5 Stayed Same - Count: 39 Stayed Same - Row %: 30.7 Got Worse - Count: 1 Got Worse - Row %: 0.8 Total Question Response* - Count: 127 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Control or manage the amount of physical assistance or attendant care used during the day Got Better - Count: 76 Got Better - Row %: 63.9 Stayed Same - Count: 38 Stayed Same - Row %: 31.9 Got Worse - Count: 5 Got Worse - Row %: 4.2 Total Question Response* - Count: 119 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Control life and life decisions Got Better - Count: 73 Got Better - Row %: 57.0 Stayed Same - Count: 53 Stayed Same - Row %: 41.4 Got Worse - Count: 2 Got Worse - Row %: 1.6 Total Question Response* - Count: 128 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Work or seek work, or participate in vocational or productive activities Got Better - Count: 72 Got Better - Row %: 65.5 Stayed Same - Count: 37 Stayed Same - Row %: 33.6 Got Worse - Count: 1 Got Worse - Row %: 0.9 Total Question Response* - Count: 110 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Stay in the home or current living situation, or have a choice in living situation changes Got Better - Count: 64 Got Better - Row %: 52.9 Stayed Same - Count: 57 Stayed Same - Row %: 47.1 Got Worse - Count: 0 Got Worse - Row %: 0.0 Total Question Response* - Count: 121 Total Question Response* - Row %: 100.0 Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. *The number of responses to each question varies because not all outcomes are relevant for all pieces of AT acquired. For Row Percents, percentages were added together across the row rather than down the columns. Note: Due to rounding, some rows may not sum to exactly 100%. ***** In addition, during voluntary follow-up surveys of loan recipients, the majority of survey respondents-75.3 percent-said they were satisfied with the loan programs, compared with 2.9 percent who reported dissatisfaction with the programs (20.4 percent did not respond to the question and 1.5 percent were neutral-see Table 12). Additionally, the majority of respondents, about 77 percent, said they would use the programs again and would recommend the programs to others, compared with 1.0 percent of respondents who answered negatively on these issues (additionally, 21.4 percent of borrowers did not answer the question). ***** Table 12. Satisfaction Outcomes of Borrowers Completing Follow-up Surveys Use the program again? Yes Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 158 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 76.7 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 256 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 79.3 Use the program again? No Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 2 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 1.0 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 7 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 2.2 Us the program again? No Response Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 46 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 22.3 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 60 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 18.6 Use the program again? Total Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 206 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 100.0 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 323 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 100.1 Recommend program? Yes Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 160 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 77.7 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 260 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 80.5 Recommend program? No Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 2 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 1.0 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 2 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 0.6 Recommend Program? No Response Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 44 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 21.4 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 61 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 18.9 Recommend Program? Total Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 206 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 100.1* Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 323 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 100.0 Satisfaction with services? Very satisfied Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 140 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 68.0 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 224 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 69.3 Satisfaction with services? Somewhat satisfied Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 15 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 7.3 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 13 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 4.0 Satisfaction with services? Neutral Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 3 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 1.5 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 1 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 0.3 Satisfaction with services? Somewhat dissatisfied Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 1 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 0.5 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 2 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 0.6 Satisfaction with services? Very dissatisfied Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 5 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 2.4 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 28 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 8.7 Satisfaction with services? No response Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 42 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 20.4 Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 55 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 17.0 Satisfaction with services? Total Program Year 2002-2003 - Count: 206 Program Year 2002-2003 - Col %: 100.1* Program Year 2001-2002 - Count: 323 Program Year 2001-2002 - Col %: 99.9 Source: AFP Outcomes Database and Management System, downloaded March 18, 2004. Note: Due to rounding, some columns may not sum to exactly 100%. ***** Summary The AFP provides an important source of loan funding for consumers with disabilities who are in need of assistive technology to improve their employment, education, health care and family and community living situations. By creating a federal-state partnership to serve individuals with disabilities, the AFP has become an important part of the solution to the dilemma faced by many people who do not have a financing source for assistive technology. In program year 2002-2003, the AFP operated in 16 states and provided $7.7 million in assistive technology loans to 753 individuals. The loan portfolio performance of all AFPs in program year 2002-2003 was excellent, with a net loss rate for all loans of only 2.36 percent. In the three years of AFP loan operations, the state AFPs have worked with consumers with disabilities and lenders to create effective, responsible operational systems in these participating states. Recognizing the immense need for assistive technology and financing options, the federal government has helped the AFP reach many consumers with disabilities. Overall, during 3 years of operation, the AFP has provided $15.5 million in assistive technology loans to serve 1,515 people with disabilities and their families. Alternative Financing Programs Program Year 2002-2003 Arizona Arizona Loans for Assistive Technology Program (AzLAT) Northern Arizona University Institute for Human Development 4105 North 20th Street, Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Project Director: Jill Sherman PHONE: 602/728-9532 PHONE: 800/477-9921 TTY: 602/728-9536 FAX: 602/728-9535 E-MAIL: jill.sherman@nau.edu WEB SITE: www.azlat.org Arkansas Arkansas Technology Equipment Loan Fund Arkansas Rehabilitation Services 4601 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 Project Director: Jim Moreland PHONE: 501/683-3008 FAX: 501/666-5319 E-MAIL: jdmoreland@ars.state.ar.us Florida Florida Alternative Financing Program Florida Alliance for Assistive Services and Technology (FAAST, Inc.) 325 John Knox Road, Bldg B Tallahassee, FL 32303 Loan Program Director: Scott Marcelais PHONE: 850/487-3278 TTY: 850/922-5951 FAX: 850/487-2805 E-MAIL: faast@faast.org Illinois TechConnect Low Interest Loan Program Illinois Assistive Technology Project 1 West Old State Capitol Plaza, Suite 100 Springfield, IL 62701-1200 Project Director: Sue Castles PHONE: 800/852-5110 PHONE: 217/522-7985 TTY: 217/522-9966 FAX: 217/522-8067 E-MAIL: scastles@iltech.org Kansas Alternative Financing Program Kansas Assistive Technology Cooperative 625 Merchant, Suite 210 Emporia, KS 66801 Executive Director: E. Basil Kessler PHONE/TTY: 866/465-2826 PHONE/TTY: 620/341-9002 FAX: 620/342-6400 E-MAIL: katcodir@sbcglobal.net WEB SITE: www.katco.net Kentucky Loan Initiative Networking Kentuckians for Assistive Technology (LINK AT) Kentucky Assistive Technology Loan Corporation P. O. Box 12231 Lexington, KY 40581 Director: Nancy Hansen PHONE: 877/675-0195 ext 25 PHONE: 859/246-2117 FAX: 859/246-2124 E-MAIL: Nancye.Hansen@mail.state.ky.us WEB SITE: www.kyatloan.org Louisiana Louisiana Assistive Technology Loan Program Louisiana Assistive Technology Access Network (LATAN) 3042 Old Forge Road, Suite D Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Loan Program Director: Kurt Hellmann PHONE/TTY: 225/925-9500 PHONE/TTY: 800/270-6185 (State) FAX: 225/925-9560 E-MAIL: khellmann@latan.org WEB SITE: www.latan.org Maryland Assistive Technology Guaranteed Loan Program Maryland Technology Assistance Program 2301 Argonne Drive, Room T-17 Baltimore, MD 21218 Loan Program Director: Tony Rice PHONE/TTY: 800/832-4827 PHONE/TTY: 410/554-9233 FAX: 410/554-9237 E-MAIL: loans@mdtap.org WEB SITE: www.mdtap.org Michigan Michigan Loan Fund c/o U.C.P. Michigan 3401 E. Saginaw, Suite 216 Lansing, MI 48912 Loan Fund Manager: Carolyn Brown PHONE: 517/203-1200 Ext. 31 FAX: 517/203-1203 E-MAIL: info@michiganloanfunds.org WEB SITE: www.michiganloanfunds.org Missouri $how Me Loans Missouri Assistive Technology Council 4731 South Cochise #114 Independence, MO 64055-6975 Loan Program Coordinator: Marty Exline PHONE: 816/350-5281 TTY: 816/373-9315 FAX: 816/373-9314 E-MAIL: mexline@swbell.net Nevada Nevada Assistive Technology Loan Fund Program CareChest 7910 N. Virginia Street Reno, NV 89506 Loan Program Coordinator: Randi Decasa PHONE: 775/829-2273 FAX: 775/829-8745 E-MAIL: loans@carechest.com Oklahoma Oklahoma Alternative Financing Program Oklahoma ABLE Tech 1514 West Hall of Fame Stillwater, OK 74078-2026 Loan Program Coordinator: Milissa Gofourth PHONE: 405/744-9864 TTY: 800/257-1705 FAX: 405/744-2487 E-MAIL: gmiliss@okstate.edu Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Assistive Technology Foundation 1004 West Ninth Avenue, First Floor King of Prussia, PA 19406 Executive Director: Susan Tachau PHONE: 888/744-1938 PHONE: 484/674-0506 TTY: 877/693-7271 FAX: 484/674-0510 E-MAIL: patf@amexcenters.com WEB SITE: www.assistive-technology4pa.org Utah Alternative Financing Program Utah Assistive Technology Foundation (UATF) Center for Persons with Disabilities 6835 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322 Executive Director: Marilyn Hammond, Ph.D. PHONE: 800/524-5152 (National) PHONE: 435/797-2025 TTY: 435/797-7089 FAX: 435/797-2355 E-MAIL: uatf@cpd2.usu.edu WEB SITE: www.uatf.org Virginia Assistive Technology Loan Fund Authority (ATLFA) 1602 Rolling Hills Drive, Suite 107 Richmond, VA 23229 Executive Director: Michael Scione PHONE: 866/835-5976 PHONE: 804/662-9000 FAX: 804/662-9533 E-MAIL: Mike.Scione@atlfa.org WEB SITE: www.atlfa.org Wisconsin WisLoan Independence First 600 W. Virginia St., Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53204-1516 WisLoan Coordinator: Patti Kraemer PHONE: 414/226-8306 TTY: 414/291-7520 FAX: 414/291-7525 E-MAIL: pkraemer@independencefirst.org March 2005 Produced by RESNA Technical Assistance Project 1700 North Moore Street, Suite 1540 Arlington, VA 22209-1903 703-524-6686 (V), 703-524-6639 (TTY) 703-524-6630 (FAX) This publication is available in alternative formats. The RESNA Alternative Financing Technical Assistance Project, Grant #H224C030002, is an activity funded by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), U.S. Department of Education (ED), under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998. The information contained herein does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of RSA/ED or the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA), and no official endorsement of the materials should be inferred. PHOTO ON FIRST PAGE Quinn using Barille Notetaker as father looks on. PHOTO CAPTION ON FIRST PAGE A loan from the Utah Assistive Technology Foundation allowed Quinn to obtain a Braille note taking device, For details see page 2. Photo Courtesy of Utah Assistive Technology Foundation