2016 TOHONO OODHAM APPLICATIONS 7.PDF

Last updated: 02/04/2016
Page 1
General information
Organization Upward for Children and Families
Contact First name Doug
Contact Last name Carter
Contact e-mail doug.carter@upwardaz.org
Contact phone number 602-279-5801
Address
Street 6306 North 7th Street
City Phoenix
State Arizona
ZIP Code 85014
From what tribe is the organization requesting the grant?
Tohono O’odham Nation
Total grant amount request
100,000
1 of 1

•
RECEIVED ;TB 6 2012
ke IR S Department of the Treasury Servi ce
P.O. Box 2508, Room 4010 In reply refer to: 4077552422
Cincinnati OH 45201 Feb. 06, 2012 LTR 4168C 0
86-0221195 000000 00
00034908
BODC: TE
UPWARD FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
6306 N 7TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85014-1549
"-N17
011490
Employer Identification Number: 86-0221195
Person to Contact: Mr. R. Molloy
Toll Free Telephone Number: 1-877-829-5500
Dear Taxpayer:
This is in response to your Dec. 22, 2011, request for information
regarding your tax-exempt status.
Our records indicate that you were recognized as exempt under
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in a determination
letter issued in October 1969.
Our records also indicate that you are not a private foundation within
the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are described in
section 509(a)(2).
Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of
the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or
for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes
if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and
2522 of the Code.
Please refer to our website www.irs.gov/eo for information regarding
filing requirements. Specifically, section 6033(j) of the Code
provides that failure to file an annual information return for three
consecutive years results in revocation of tax-exempt status as of
the filing due date of the third return for organizations required to
file. We will publish a list of organizations whose tax-exempt
status was revoked under section 6033(j) of the Code on our website
beginning in early 2011.

4077552422
Feb. 06, 2012 LTR 4168C 0
86-0221195 000000 00
00034909
UPWARD FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
6306 N 7TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85014-1549
If you have any questions, please call us at the telephone number
shown in the heading of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
TitsyytaA
Cindy Thomas
Manager, EO Determinations

Applicant Information
Government Contact: Primary Contact:
Melody Henderson Doug Carter
Maricopa County Government Relations CEO
301 W Jefferson, 10th Floor Upward for Children and Families
Phoenix, AZ 85003 6306 North 7th Street
602-506-2798 Phoenix, AZ 85014
doug.carter@upwardaz.org
602-279-5801
Amount Requested from Tohono O'odham Nation: $100,000
Organization Description:
Upward's purpose is to help children and adults with special needs achieve their highest potential, while
empowering their families to thrive. Established in 1958 as Arizona Preschool and incorporated as a private,
nonprofit organization in 1969, Upward is the primary provider of special education for many of the Valley's
school districts that are unable to meet the needs of their students with developmental disabilities and/or
are medically fragile.
Narrative
a) Need and Project Description
Project Name: Lifting Children Upward
Project Need: The Upward campus sits on the site of the old Jungle Park Zoo on 7th Street just south of
Maryland Avenue. With the exception of the therapy building, the campus is comprised of "temporary"
modular units that were added 40 years ago. They are poorly designed for their use, expensive to
operate and maintain, and they are at capacity. Upward will create a new campus to better serve
the community. Once the expansion project is completed, Upward's enrollment can go from 322 to
424. Specifically, the need for the project and Upward's proposal by program is:

§ Special Education-Currently, there are no openings with a wait list for both special needs
preschool and K-5 classroom and limited openings in the 5-12th grade classroom. The
expansion plan will add two additional classrooms, expanding enrollment from 34 to 58.
§ Pediatric Outpatient Therapy-The clinic is limited to providing individual therapy for up to 260
and has no space for group therapy. With the addition of a larger therapy room, an additional
50 children can be served.
§ Adult Day Treatment-Every space in this program is filled. By adding another classroom,
Upward will double its capacity to serve 16 adults in this program.
§ Childcare-The center currently has the capacity to serve 20 children ages 18 months-pre-K. It is
estimated that only half of the childcare centers in Central Phoenix provide infant care. Upward
will expand the center to provide full-time care to 10 infants.
Project Description: Upward will build and equip 20,000 square feet of new construction to replace aging
and ill-suited facilities, remodel existing therapy building, create an outdoor playground and add a new
program in infant care--increasing its capacity to serve more children and their families and the community.
This project will create a new campus for Upward. Upward will construct and equip two new buildings and
upgrade its therapy center, increasing its capacity to meet the special education, childcare and therapy
needs of special needs children.
b) Population that Benefits
Special needs children and young adults from throughout Maricopa County will benefit from:
§ New Childcare and Administration Building (6,800 square feet) - Two infant and childcare rooms to
serve 10 infants and 20 children (18 months-pre-K), kitchen, group therapy room, office, conference
space.
§ New School Classrooms and Adult Day Treatment and Training (13,500 square feet) - Six classrooms to
serve 55 students ages 3 to 22, two adult day rooms to serve 16 young adults, two nursing stations,
sensory experience therapy room.
§ Covered outdoor play area including adaptive play equipment to accommodate multiple disabilities.
§ Renovate and remodel existing therapy building to enlarge and reconfigure rooms to improve access
and function, upgrade mechanical systems and equipment.
c) Project Budget
Budget Expense Total Amount Amount Requested from Budget description
Tohono O'odham
1. Building $2,813,000 $100,000 To name one of the six,
Construction and Site school classrooms the
Work Tohono O'odham Nation
Classroom.

2. Change Order $50,000 Estimate of cost of change
Reserve orders for construction
period.
3. Land Acquisition $225,000 Actual cost to purchase
south parcel for improved
parking and safety.
4. Preconstruction & $342,000 Design, engineering,
Professional Services architectural fees and project
manager.
5. FF&E $147,000 Furniture, fixtures and
equipment.
6. City & Utility Fees $47,000 Permits, additional utility
fees.
7. Short-term $237,000 Line of credit to begin
Financing construction.
8. Insurance, legal, $16,000 Includes additional policies
accounting during construction.
9. Contingency $90,000 Estimate based on project
scope.
10. Allowance for $150,000 3.5 percent of project total
Pledge Shrinkage
11. Fundraising Costs $313,000 Cost of feasibility study and
campaign management
services.
Total use of funds $4,430,000
d) Funding Requests Secured and Pending
Upward has received the following gifts of $100,000 or greater:
$1,000,000 Upward's funds from reserves
$500,000 Del E. Webb Foundation
$250,000 Kemper and Ethel Marley Foundation
Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority
$100,000 Thunderbird Charities, BHHS Legacy Foundation, J.W. Kiekheffer Foundation
Pending requests:
$500,000 Gila River Indian Community
$250,000 Kemper and Ethel Marley Foundation (second gift)
$200,000 Board of Visitors
$100,000 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Campaign goal: $4,400,000
Total committed to date: $3,024,775
Balance Required: $1,375,225

e) Other Tribal Funding
Upward has not received a 12% distribution from any Arizona tribes.
f) Alternate Contact Person
Sharon Graham, Director of Programs, 602-279-5801 x204, 602-279-0785 - Fax
sharon.graham@upwardaz.org
g) Priority Areas - Education and Health Care
§ Special Education - Serving children and young adults from age 3 to 22, Upward is the
only private day school in the Valley that provides special needs, sensory-based
preschool through grade 12, including therapy. Upward provides an individualized
education program for each student enrolled. Upward partners with more than 10
school districts throughout the Valley that turn to Upward to meet the needs of their
most severely disabled/medically fragile children.
§ Pediatric Outpatient Therapies - Upward provides a range of pediatric outpatient
therapies in five distinct disciplines to children with developmental disabilities including
occupational; physical; speech & language; feeding & swallowing; and music therapies.
§ Day Treatment & Training for Adults (DTA) - Upward is one of the few DTA programs in
the Valley serving severely disabled/medically fragile young adults. Focusing on physical,
social, emotional and cognitive needs, Upward provides continuity of care once students
leave school, and is there for others who have aged out of other programs for children.
Elements of this program may include education, medical assistance and therapy.
§ Childcare - Upward operates one of the few inclusive childcare facilities, providing
services for children with and without disabilities. This project will add infant care to our
existing childcare program.

Commemorative Gift Opportunities
The campaign leadership wishes to make a public and enduring record of those who have
invested generously to make the new UPWARD campus a reality. A beautiful donor wall will be
prominently displayed as a permanent reminder — for generations to come — of the
commitment and generous support of those who made this dream a reality. Gifts can be made
in memory or honor of a loved one or anonymously and will be recognized as such.
Permanent naming opportunities
This campaign will be a permanent legacy for our community. Permanent naming opportunities
are available beginning at $100,000. Dedicatory opportunities begin at $50,000.
COMMEMORATIVE SUGGESTED
GIFT NAMING OPPORTUNITIES GIFT
The UPWARD Campus $1,000,000
This naming opportunity creates a source of community pride and the
greatest visibility for the donor, including street-level marquee signage on
these beautiful buildings, viewed by passerby and UPWARD participants.
Classrooms and Adult Day Treatment Building - Reserved $500,000
Childcare and Administration Building $500,000
Therapy Building $250,000
Main Lobby and Reception Area $250,000
Playground - Reserved $250,000
Multi-Purpose Room - Reserved $100,000
Classrooms (6) - Reserved (1) $100,000
Therapy Gym - Reserved $100,000
Note: Amounts indicated do not necessarily reflect actual construction costs, but are an indication of the
memorial or tribute value. Donors will be offered selection of commemorative naming opportunities
based on the amount and date of their gift commitment.

Dedicatory Opportunities
Music Therapy Room - Reserved $75,000
Bus Canopy - Reserved $70,000
Speech Therapy Room (2) - Reserved (1) $50,000
Speech/Feeding Therapy Room $50,000
Physical Therapy Room (2) $50,000
Occupational Therapy Room (2) $50,000
Digital/Media/Activity Center $50,000
Rock Garden $50,000
Parent Waiting Room $50,000
Adult Day Rooms (2) - Reserved (1) $50,000
Kitchen $50,000
Infant and Childcare Rooms (2) $50,000
Nurses Stations (2) $50,000
Staff and Volunteer Break room $50,000
Sensory Therapy Room $50,000
Transportation Center $50,000
CEO Office - Reserved $50,000
Administration $50,000
Landscaping $50,000
Patio $50,000
Patio/Walkway Tiles
• Gold (30) $25,000
• Silver (40) Reserved (9) $10,000
• Copper (30) Reserved (5) $5,000
Note: Amounts indicated do not necessarily reflect actual construction costs, but are an indication of the
memorial or tribute value. Donors will be offered selection of commemorative naming opportunities
based on the amount and date of their gift commitment.

Created: 05/09/2016
Last updated: 05/24/2016
Page 1
General information
Organization VisionQuest 20/20
Contact First name Lisa
Contact Last name Glow
Contact e-mail lisa.glow@cox.net
Contact phone number 602-448-2270
Address
Street 4113 E. Pinchot Ave
City Phoenix
State Arizona
ZIP Code 85018
From what tribe is the organization requesting the grant?
Tohono O’odham Nation
Total grant amount request
35,000
1 of 1


Tohono O’odham Nation—2016 Proposal From VisionQuest 20/20:
Protecting children and their families from the devastating academic, psychosocial, and lifelong
economic consequences of undetected vision disorders and preventable blindness.
Project Name: EyeSpy 20/20: Promoting Educational Success and Health for Arizona
Children through Vision Screening
Need --Vision disorders are the 4th leading health crisis for children in America, impacting up to
1 in 4 children. Arizona children are at particular risk for undetected vision disorders, as Arizona
is one of only eight states lacking a vision screening requirement by the schools. For low-
income children and children experiencing problems in school, studies show they are
disproportionately affected by vision problems.
The biggest impacts from undetected vision issues are: (1) Health challenges - Undetected vision
problems can result in irreversible vision loss, lifelong health challenges, and behavioral issues.
For example, if Amblyopia (lazy eye) is not detected and treated by age 9, monocular blindness
can result. Five million adults in the US have monocular blindness, most which could have been
prevented with early detection. Depth perception/stereopsis is also tested with EyeSpy 20/20 and
can identify the signs of whether a child's eyes are working together. Color blindness is another
challenge and important to identify so a child is not mislabeled as a poor performer, (2) Learning
challenges-80% of learning occurs visually and an estimated 60 percent of "problem learners"
have trouble seeing. The academic implications of undetected vision issues have a direct impact
on the ability of children to read and learn, and may also result in children being held back a
grade, and (3) Behavioral challenges-Some studies show correlations between undetected vision
problems and attention deficit disorders, bullying, risk for obesity, and even lifelong criminality.
VisionQuest 20/20 is committed to reaching the tens of thousands of Arizona children in
kindergarten through eighth grade whose vision issues are going undetected - silently suffering
and negatively impacting their health, education, self-esteem and quality of life.
Addressing the Need —Founded in 2003, the mission of VisionQuest 20/20 (VQ 20/20) is to
protect children and their families from the devastating academic, psychosocial, and lifelong
economic consequences of undetected vision disorders and preventable blindness. In 2015, 214
schools in Arizona trusted EyeSpy 20/20 to assess the vision of more than 66,000 children.
EyeSpy 20/20 is the screening technology that VQ 20/20 developed; EyeSpy 20/20 is more
efficient, accurate and easier to use than the standard eye chart, a 150 year old vision screening
method prone to significant user error. EyeSpy 20/20 accurately screens visual acuity, depth
perception and color vision while a child “plays” a 3-minute video game. Independently and
scientifically validated, EyeSpy 20/20 provides results comparable to those achieved by a
certified ophthalmic technician and does not require specialized training to administer. The
vision screening software is downloaded via the internet allowing school children in remote
locations access to accurate vision screenings previously unavailable. Results are immediately
reported and automated data collection, storage, and reporting with lifetime access to data in a
HIPAA-compliant repository allows for real-time assessment. Screening reports can be printed in
Spanish and English. Integration with school health information systems saves time, money, and
ensures data integrity.
1

VQ 20/20 provides the EyeSpy 20/20 video game software, vision screening materials, and
complete HIPAA-compliant data collection and reporting to the schools at no cost, as well as the
training needed to easily implement the program. Schools are provided a non-expiring, lifetime
user license, allowing schools to vision screen students in perpetuity
The EyeSpy 20/20 technology is more comprehensive, more accurate, and more cost effective
than any subjective vision assessment tool available for children today. VQ 20/20 is dedicated to
building the systems and sustainable infrastructures needed to reach all children; this
commitment is demonstrated through collaborative partnerships with schools, nonprofits, and
other partners.
“My son was having trouble in school with his writing. The doctor said his vision was fine and
he passed the wall chart screening in school. When he received the EyeSpy 20/20 screening, he
failed, including the 3D portion. We saw an eye specialist who diagnosed my son as having
amblyopia. He was fitted for glasses, uses an eye patch and now sees much better." Tiffani
Vold, School Nurse and Parent, Arizona*
One of VQ 20/20 goals this year is to expand EyeSpy 20/20 to more than 50 additional Arizona
schools, including all 33 elementary schools in the Peoria Unified School District. This year we
are also piloting the “Closing the Loop” Project to connect low-income children with an eye care
professional who will treat them for free, and with a partner to provide them with free eyewear.
This request would support expansion into the Peoria Unified School District. PUSD has the
program in one school and wants to implement the program in all of its elementary schools. Full
funding of the $35,000 request would allow a minimum of 12 Title 1 schools in the PUSD to
receive the full benefits of this screening technology, reaching an estimated 6,000-7,000 children
annually with screening. Not only would the schools receive the technology at no cost, they
would receive lifelong user licenses, allowing schools to screen in perpetuity and reach tens of
thousands of children.
The TO Nation would be recognized on every vision screening report sent home to parents in the
Peoria schools, as well as recognized on our website, at events, and on other collateral materials.
We would also be pleased to hold a check presentation ceremony with the Peoria School District.
b) Target Population: This program will serve Peoria Unified School District children in grades
K-8 in Title 1 schools and in low-income communities. There are 33 elementary schools in the
Peoria District serving 25,521 children. Seventeen of the schools are Title 1 Schools. VQ 20/20
will target the 17 Title 1 schools in Peoria for first implementation.
c) Total Request Amount: $35,000
At a cost of approximately $3,000 per school, $35,000 will support the implementation of
EyeSpy 20/20 in at least 12 schools within Maricopa County in the Peoria Unified School
District, targeting Title 1 schools for first implementation. Again, the District has asked for the
program and has already implemented the program in one school where they are experiencing
great success.
2

d) Other Funding Requests to Support Maricopa County Schools
Thunderbirds Charities: $20,000 (secured)
Suns Charities: $15,000 (pending and prior funder)
Valley Anesthesiology Foundation: $10,000 (pending and prior funder)
Board of Visitors: $35,000 (pending)
Gila River Indian Community: $75,000 (pending and focus would be in Chandler)
Cardinal Charities: $5,000 (to be pursued)
Cox Charities: $10,000 (to be pursued)
VQ 20/20 is also an Arizona Charitable Tax Credit agency and raises dollars from individuals
via the tax credit, as well as through other tax-deductible donations from supporters.
e) Tribal Support
In 2015, VQ 20/20 received a grant of $25,000 from the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian
Community. VQ 20/20 has not been a recipient of funding from the Tohono O’odham Nation.
f) Contact Persons:
Rich Tirendi, CEO Lisa Glow, Grant Writer
4113 E Pinchot Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Same
602-791-7140 602-448-2270
rtirendi@visionquest2020.org lisa.glow@cox.net
Fax: 480-336-2855 Same
Website: visionquest2020.org Same
g) Priority Area: Health Care
h) Fiscal Agent: Maricopa County
*Note: More testimonials can be provided upon request.
3

EyeSpy 20/20: 2016 Expansion Budget to Reach 50 Arizona Schools
Budget Items Amount requested Amount from other Total
from Tohono Funders
O’odham Nation
Salaries and Employee
Related Expenses:
Director of Operations and $15,000 $43,000 $58,000
Program Manager [Works
closely with the schools on
program implementation]
Director of Outreach
Coordinator [Works with $0 $30,000 $30,000
the schools, communities
and families who have
children with vision
disorders]
$5,000 $20,500 $25,500
IT Program Staff [Support
the installation of EyeSpy
20/20 into the schools,
along with training]
Materials and Supplies $15,000 $22,000 $37,000
for expansion into 50
schools. These costs
include the EyeSpy
20/20 software, as well
as all testing equipment
and materials that are
provided to the schools.
The schools are given
non-expiring licenses for
EyeSpy 20/20
Consulting support, $0 $0 $36,000
including Marketing and
Fundraising
Travel $0 $2,500 $2,500
Total $35,000 $154,000 $189,000
4

91st Psalm Christian School Phoenix 85042 DESERT OASIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOLLESON, AZ 85353
ALHAMBRA TRADITIONAL SCHOOL PHOENIX 85019 DESERT SANDS MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
Alhambra Tuition Out Phoenix 85019 Desert Star Academy Fort Mohave 86426
ALTA E BUTLER SCHOOL PHOENIX 85009 DESERT VALLEY ELEMENTARY BULLHEAD CITY 86442
AMY L. HOUSTON ACADEMY PHOENIX 85042 DESERT WINDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85027
ANDALUCIA MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85031 Diamondbacks Elementary School Bullhead City 86442
ARIZONA DESERT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOLLESON 85353 Dignity Healthcare Chandler 85224
Arizona Lutheran Academy Phoenix 85041 Dunbar Elementary School Phoenix 85007
Augustus H. Shaw Montessori School Phoenix 85034 EAGLE COLLEGE PREP Phoenix 85041
BARCELONA MIDDLE SCHOOL GLENDALE 85301 ED & VERMA PASTOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
Barker Branch Scottsdale 85257 ENCANTO SCHOOL PHOENIX 85013
BELLAIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GLENDALE 85308 ESPERANZA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85027
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN CHARTER SCHOOL - GILBERT GILBERT 85296 ESPERANZA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85009
BERNARD BLACK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041 ESTRELLA MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
Berumen Elementary School Avondale 85392 EXCELENCIA SCHOOL PHOENIX 85006
BETTY FAIRFAX HIGH SCHOOL Laveen 85339 FORT MOHAVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FORT MOHAVE 86426
Biltmore Preparatory Academy PHOENIX 85018 FOX CREEK JR HIGH SCHOOL BULLHEAD CITY 86442
BRADSHAW MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL PRESCOTT VALLEY 86314 FRANK BORMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
BRADSHAW MOUNTAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL DEWEY 86327 G. FRANK DAVIDSON PHOENIX 85033
BRET R. TARVER PHOENIX 85031 GARFIELD SCHOOL PHOENIX 85006
Bright Futures Preschool Prescott Valley 86314 GARY A. KNOX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YUMA 85364
BROOKS ACADEMY PHOENIX 85040 GATEWAY POINTE ELEMENTARY HIGLEY 85236
Brophy College Preparatory Phoenix 85012 GATEWAY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85008
BULLHEAD CITY JR HIGH SCHOOL BULLHEAD CITY 86442 GLASSFORD HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL PRESCOTT VALLEY 86314
C J JORGENSEN SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041 GLENN L. DOWNS SCHOOL PHOENIX 85031
C O GREENFIELD SCHOOL PHOENIX 85042 GRANADA EAST SCHOOL PHOENIX 85017
CAMP MOHAVE ELEMENTARY BULLHEAD CITY 86426 GRANADA PRIMARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85017
CAPITOL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85007 GRANVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRESCOTT VALLEY 86314
CARL T. SMITH MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85043 HEATHERBRAE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
CAROL G. PECK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GLENDALE 85301 HIGLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HIGLEY 85236
CARTWRIGHT SCHOOL PHOENIX 85031 HIGLEY HIGH SCHOOL GILBERT 85296
CATALINA VENTURA SCHOOL PHOENIX 85019 HOHOKAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCOTTSDALE 85257
CESAR E CHAVEZ COMMUNITY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85040 HOLIDAY PARK SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
Chandler CARE Center Chandler 85225 Hopefest Phoenix Phoenix 85018
CHARLES W. HARRIS SCHOOL PHOENIX 85035 HUMBOLDT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HUMBOLDT 86329
CHEATHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LAVEEN 85339 HURLEY RANCH ELEMENTARY TOLLESON 85353
Children First Academy Phoenix Phoenix 85034 IGNACIO CONCHOS SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
Children First Academy Tempe Tempe 85281 INGLESIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85018
Christ Lutheran School Phoenix 85018 ISAAC MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85009
CLARENDON SCHOOL PHOENIX 85013 ISAAC PRESCHOOL PHOENIX 85009
CLOVES C CAMPBELL SR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85042 J B SUTTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85009
COMPASS CENTER PHOENIX 85016 JAMES W. RICE PRIMARY SCHOOL Phoenix 85031
CONSTITUTION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85023 JOHN F KENNEDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85042
CORDOVA MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85017 JOHN F. LONG PHOENIX 85031
CORDOVA PRIMARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85019 JOHN R DAVIS SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
CORONADO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GILBERT 85297 JOSEPH ZITO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85035
COUNTRY GARDENS CHARTER SCHOOL LAVEEN 85339 JUSTINE SPITALNY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85031
COYOTE CANYON SCHOOL BULLHEAD CITY 86442 KENILWORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85003
COYOTE SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRESCOTT VALLEY 86314 KEYSTONE MONTESSORI CHARTER SCHOOL PHOENIX 85048
CREIGHTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85008 KIN DAH LICHII OLTA' CHARTER SCHOOL GANADO 86505
Crews'N Healthmobile Phoenix 85016 Kings Ridge Preparatory Academy Phoenix 85043
DEER VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85027 LAKE VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRESCOTT VALLEY 86314
DESERT CANYON ELEMENTARY SCOTTSDALE 85255 LARRY C KENNEDY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85016
Desert Meadows Elementary School Laveen 85339 LAVEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LAVEEN 85339

Lehi Branch Mesa 85203 PUEBLO DEL SOL MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85019
LELA ALSTON ELEMENTARY PHOENIX 85019 R E SIMPSON SCHOOL PHOENIX 85015
LIBERTY TRADITIONAL SCHOOL PRESCOTT VALLEY 86314 RALPH WALDO EMERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85006
LOMA LINDA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85016 Rául H. Castro Middle School Phoenix 85035
LONGVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85014 Red Mountain Branch Scottsdale 85256
LOWELL SCHOOL PHOENIX 85003 Redfield Elementary School Scottsdale 85260
MADISON #1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85016 RIVER VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL MOHAVE VALLEY 86440
MADISON CAMELVIEW ELEMENTARY PHOENIX 85016 RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85043
MADISON ELEMENTARY DISTRICT PHOENIX 85016 Rose Lane Branch Scottsdale 85250
MADISON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85020 ROSE LINDA SCHOOL PHOENIX 85040
MADISON MEADOWS SCHOOL PHOENIX 85013 Rotary International District 5510 Payson 85541
MADISON PARK SCHOOL PHOENIX 85014 Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Scottsdale 85286
MADISON RICHARD SIMIS SCHOOL PHOENIX 85020 SAN TAN ELEMENTARY GILBERT 85297
MADISON ROSE LANE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85014 SEVILLA PRIMARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85019
MADISON TRADITIONAL ACADEMY Phoenix 85016 SEVILLA WEST SCHOOL PHOENIX 85019
MAGNET TRADITIONAL SCHOOL PHOENIX 85009 SHEELY FARMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85037
MAIE BARTLETT HEARD SCHOOL PHOENIX 85015 SIERRA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85040
MANUEL PENA JR. SCHOOL PHOENIX 85035 SILVESTRE S HERRERA SCHOOL PHOENIX 85034
MARC T. ATKINSON MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85031 SOLANO SCHOOL PHOENIX 85015
Maricopa County Head Start Program Mesa 85210 SOUTHWEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85040 SOUTHWEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
MARY MCLEOD BETHUNE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85007 St. Gregory Elementary School Phoenix 85015
MAURICE C. CASH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041 St. John Bosco Interparish School Phoenix 85048
MAXINE O BUSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85042 St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic School Phoenix 85016
MAYER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MAYER 86333 STARLIGHT PARK SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
MAYER JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL MAYER 86333 SUNDANCE ELEMENTARY BUCKEYE 85326
McKee Branch Fountain Hills 85268 SUNLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
MIRAGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GLENDALE 85308 SUNRISE ELEMENTARY BULLHEAD CITY 86429
MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85009 SUNRISE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85053
MOHAVE ACCELERATED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BULLHEAD CITY 86442 SUNSET SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
Mohave Accelerated Learning Center Bullhead City 86442 T G BARR SCHOOL PHOENIX 85042
Mohave Accelerated Learning Center-East Campus Bullhead City 86429 Tavan Elementary Phoenix 86018
MOHAVE HIGH SCHOOL BULLHEAD CITY 86442 TAVAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85018
MOHAVE VALLEY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MOHAVE VALLEY 86446 TELESIS PREPARATORY ACADEMY LAKE HAVASU CITY 86403
MONTE VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85018 THOMAS A EDISON SCHOOL PHOENIX 85006
MONTEBELLO SCHOOL PHOENIX 85017 Thunderbirds Branch Scottsdale 85255
MORRIS K. UDALL ESCUELA DE BELLAS ARTES PHOENIX 85009 TOMAHAWK SCHOOL PHOENIX 85033
MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRESCOTT VALLEY 86314 TONALEA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCOTTSDALE 85257
MOYA ELEMENTARY PHOENIX 85009 TOPOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOPOCK 86436
New Way Academy Scottsdale 85257 TRAILSIDE POINT ELEMENTARY Laveen 85339
OSBORN MIDDLE SCHOOL PHOENIX 85013 Trinity Christian School Chino Valley 86323
P T COE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85009 UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOLLESON 85353
Paiute Branch Scottsdale 85251 V H LASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
PALM LANE PHOENIX 85035 VALLEY VIEW SCHOOL PHOENIX 85041
PAPAGO SCHOOL PHOENIX 85008 VENTANA ACADEMIC SCHOOL CAVE CREEK 85327
PARK MEADOWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GLENDALE 85308 Vestar Branch Phoenix 85050
PASEO HILLS ELEMENTARY PHOENIX 85027 VILLAGE MEADOWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85023
Peach Springs Branch Peach Springs 86434 WASHINGTON TRADITIONAL SCHOOL PRESCOTT 86301
PERALTA SCHOOL PHOENIX 85035 WESTWOOD PRIMARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85015
PERCY L JULIAN SCHOOL PHOENIX 85040 WHITTIER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85006
Pinal Gila Community Child Services, Inc. Coolidge 85128 WILLIAM T MACHAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PHOENIX 85006
Piper Branch Scottsdale 85258 YAVAPAI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCOTTSDALE 85257
PORFIRIO H. GONZALES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOLLESON 85353
POWER RANCH ELEMENTARY GILBERT 85297

2015 In Review
New Implementations Impact Summary
‣ Nearly 100 NEW schools in Arizona, California, Hawaii, ‣ 91,334 vision screenings performed
Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, and
South Carolina ‣ 230,762 data entries collected for SPOT vision screenings
conducted
‣ More than 100 school personnel / volunteers trained
‣ Average EyeSpy 20/20 test time of 2.6 minutes
‣ Memorandum of Understanding with State of Hawaii’s
Department of Education ‣ Referral rates: 25.7% Male / 30.1% Female (please note
that many new users this year choose to only screen
children exhibiting “concerns”)
EyeSpy 20/20 Program Enhancements
‣ 216 schools / locations 390 in 25 states!!
‣ During 2015, more than 60 software updates and
improvements were made to the EyeSpy 20/20 Vision ‣ Distribution of screenings as a function of child’s age:
Screening Software Program
‣ Addition of simplified user interface when used solely for
data collection from either SPOT or plusoptiX devices
‣ State specific screening configurations to meet varying
requirements
‣ Significant optimization of database configuration and
programming to dramatically improve performance
‣ EyeSpy 20/20 integration with new website training &
support modules including a user forum
‣ Development & deployment of real-time, user initiated,
secure aggregated data reporting features for
benefactors that underwrite EyeSpy 20/20 for specific
school districts ‣ Distribution of screenings as a function of month:
‣ Instituted live & recorded webinar training conducted
monthly and available 24/7 via our website
‣ Streamlined implementation procedure including
approval of terms, district & school registration, training,
pre & post surveys, and notification systems
‣ Development of real-time, web-based, aggregated data
mining & analysis tool
‣ Enhanced collateral and training materials for schools,
parents, technologists and advocates
‣ Design and deployment of new website that improves
donation process, materials & software ordering process,
locating additional resources, communication, and
mitigates technical support
4113 East Pinchot Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85018 www.visionquest2020.org 888-MY-VQ2020

VisionQuest 20/20: 2015 In Review
Exhibits, Presentations and Non-Government Awareness State & Federal Government Awareness Efforts
Efforts
‣ Presented EyeSpy 20/20 to:
‣ Presented at Rotary Arizona Statewide Conference • Congressional Members and Staff on Capitol Hill February &
June in Washington D.C.
‣ Presented to Dr. Pepin of Virginia G. Piper Charitable Trust • Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono
• Nevada Senator Harry Reid’s Office
‣ Exhibited at Vision Expo West • Arizona Representative Kyrsten Sinema
• Arizona Representative Ruben Gallego's Office
‣ Exhibited at American Academy of Ophthalmology • Arizona Representative Jay Lawrence, Health & Education
Committee Member and Radio Show Host
‣ Presented to The Translational Genomics Research • Arizona Senator Lesko (Health Committee and ALEC State
Institute (TGen) Chair)
• Arizona Senator Pancrazi (Health Committee Member)
‣ Presented to National American Indian Housing Council • Arizona Representative Heather Carter, Chair of Health
Legal Symposium Committee
• Arizona Senator Nancy Barto, Senate Health Committee Chair
‣ President of NAIOP Commercial Real Estate • Arizona Senator Katie Hobbs, Arizona Senate Minority Leader
• Melissa Taylor, Senior Policy Advisor to the Arizona Senate
Development Association President and Majority
• Hawaii Senator Rosalyn Baker
‣ Entertainment Software Association E3 Expo, Los Angeles • Hawaii Representative Della Au Belatti
‣ • Thomas Education M. Brady, Director of the Department of Defense
Presented to Arizona Foundation for Blind Children Activity (DoDEA)
‣ • with Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in collaboration
GS-Rx Global Performance Vision Centers - 2015 UNITY the Arizona Delegation
Lab of the Year by VSP Optics Group • Sac and Fox Nation Tribal Leaders
• Arizona Maria Dadgar, Executive Director of Inter-Tribal Council of
‣ Midwestern University, Dean of AZ College of Optometry,
Dean of Academic Affairs, Directors of Development • Arizona Department of Health Services Public Health Prevention
Services and Bureau of Women’s and Children’s Health
‣ Project Vision Hawaii • Massachusetts Department of Public Health
• Entertainment Software Association Federal Government Affairs
‣ Vision To Learn
‣ Submitted Language for Arizona State Vision Screening
‣ University of Hawaii, Manoa, School of Nursing Hawaii Bill
Keiki Healthy & Ready to Learn
Media Exposure
‣ Honolulu Eye Clinic
‣ Arizona Public Service Announcement
‣ Hawaii Family Vision Center ‣ Pre-show slide exposure at Arizona Harkins Theaters
‣ Dr. James Levine, Director of the Mayo Clinic/Arizona ‣ National Public Radio Interview
State University Solutions Initiative
‣ iHeart Media Radio Interview
‣ Tommy Espinoza, Arizona Man of the Year
‣ Entertainment Software Association Foundation Grantee
‣ Children’s Author Conrad Storad and Five Star Publishing Highlight featured in print, web, and video
‣ Clark Country School District ‣ Nominated for AZ School Board Assoc. HOPE Award
‣ iSenpai Technology President ‣ Received Maricopa Head Start Recognition Award
‣ Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ‣ Gold Star rating by GuideStar
‣ Top non-profit rating by GreatNonProfits.org
4113 East Pinchot Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85018 www.visionquest2020.org 888-MY-VQ2020

A pilot study evaluating the use of EyeSpy video game
software to perform vision screening in school-aged
children
Rupal H. Trivedi, MD, MSCR, M. Edward Wilson, MD, M. Millicent Peterseim, MD,
Kali B. Cole, MD, MPH, and Ronald G. W. Teed, MD
PURPOSE To compare the vision-screening results of school-aged children tested with EyeSpy soft-
ware and those of children examined by a pediatric ophthalmologist. We also compared
combined results of an electronic visual acuity (EVA) tester and stereopsis testing to the
results of a professional eye examination.
METHODS In this pilot study, all children were tested with an EyeSpy and ETDRS EVA tester, fol-
lowed by ocular examination including stereopsis assessment and cyclopegic refraction.
The order of presentation of the EVA and EyeSpy assessments was assigned randomly.
The EyeSpy test was performed twice (with an occlusive eyepatch and red-blue dissociative
goggles). EyeSpy registered pass or refer results for visual acuity testing at a threshold of
20/32 visual acuity and stereopsis of 300 arcsec. Similar threshold values were used in
the EVA/stereopsis testing.
RESULTS The average age of 72 subjects was 11.4 2.2 years. Prevalence of visual impairment was 25
(34.7%) of 72 as reported by the professional examination. The sensitivity, specificity, and
conventional positive likelihood ratio were 88%, 87%, and 6.8 when EyeSpy was used with
a patch; 88%, 74%, and 3.44 when EyeSpy was used with goggles; and 88%, 94%, and
13.79 for EVA/stereospsis, respectively, compared with the gold-standard professional
eye examination. EyeSpy screening results using a patch were not significantly different
than those of a professional examination (p 5 0.508). The 2 results concurred in 63
(87.5%) of 72 subjects.
CONCLUSIONS EyeSpy software has potential for use as a vision-screening device. The use of EyeSpy
with an occlusive patch outperformed EyeSpy with dissociative glasses. ( J AAPOS
2010;14:311-316)
ision screening for school-aged children is impor- Visual acuity is the most widely used method for screening
V tant to detect uncorrected refractive errors, prob- vision in school-aged children; however, visual-acuity test-
lems with binocular vision, and missed ing in schools is not standardized, and binocular vision is
amblyopia.1-6 Ideally, children should have repeated often not tested. Professional examinations provide a com-
vision screening as they age because refractive errors and prehensive assessment of vision but are cost prohibitive for
disruptions in binocular vision can develop at any age. repeated testing during school years for all children.
Vision screening in school-aged children has been made EyeSpy 20/20 (VisionQuest 20/20, Mesa, AZ) is an auto-
even more relevent by the results of a recent study suggest- mated computer program that assesses vision while a child
ing that amblyopia therapy is effective even at older ages.7 plays a video game. In addition to visual acuity, it incorpo-
rates an analysis of binocular function. The video game for-
Author affiliations: Miles Center for Pediatric Ophthalmology, Storm Eye Institute, mat, with highly engaging graphics, motion, and sound,
Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston appeals to children.3 Computers are readily available in
Supported in part by a grant from Amblyopia Foundation of America, NIH grant
EY-14793, and unrestricted grant to MUSC-SEI from Research to Prevent Blindness, most schools in the United States, and vision screening
Inc., New York, NY. software is easily distributed. Computer software applica-
Presented in part as a poster presentation at the 35th Annual Meeting of the American tions allow standardization of logic protocols for vision
Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, San Francisco, CA, April 17-21,
2009. screenings. In addition, the video game format allows for
Submitted August 24, 2009. automated testing, which eliminates the need for training
Revision accepted March 17, 2010. and certification of vision-screening proctors; thus it allows
Published online July 20, 2010.
Reprint requests: Rupal H. Trivedi, MD, MSCR, MUSC, Storm Eye Institute, 167 screenings to be performed by lay volunteers or other
Ashley Avenue, Charleston, SC 29425-5536 (email: trivedi@musc.edu). school personnel.
Copyright 2010 by the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Our pilot study aimed to compare vision-screening
Strabismus.
1091-8531/2010/$36.00 1 0 results using EyeSpy software on an off-the-shelf laptop
doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2010.03.008 computer performed by a lay screener to the results of
Journal of AAPOS 311

312 Trivedi et al Volume 14 Number 4 / August 2010
a gold-standard professional eye examination by a pediatric ter the concept of matching letters, EyeSpy has an initial compre-
ophthalmologist. We also compared combined results of hension phase in which large optotypes are presented. The letters
an electronic visual acuity (EVA) tester and stereopsis then rapidly decrease in size until they reach the threshold value,
testing, both administered by an ophthalmic technician, which is set at the pass/refer criteria. For this study, the threshold
to the results obtained from a professional eye examination visual acuity value was 20/32 (ability to read 20/32 required to
by a pediatric ophthalmologist. pass). These parameters are adjustable within the software but re-
mained at this value for all children enrolled in this study. For this
Subjects and Methods line to be counted as a pass, 3 of 4 optotypes must have been cor-
rectly identified. If fewer than 3 of 4 optotypes were correctly
Subjects
identified, a reinforcement phase was used in which larger opto-
This study complied with the Health Insurance Portability and types letters were shown. Optotypes were then subsequently di-
Accountability Act and was approved by the Institutional Review minished in size back to the pass/refer level so that a retest of
Board (IRB) for Human Research at the Medical University of the threshold level was performed prior to receiving a failing re-
South Carolina (MUSC). To attract study participants, advertise- sult. In addition, if the response time was 60% longer in one
ments approved by the IRB were sent out by the MUSC Broadcast eye than the other when wearing the red/blue goggles, the differ-
Email Messaging system, and letters were mailed to the school ence would trigger a referral rather than a pass for that child. The
nurses at nearby schools and to various Boy and Girl Scout Clubs. computer software was set to detect a 100% (doubling) or more
The advertisements included specific inclusion and exclusion difference in the speed of testing between the eyes when a patch
criteria. By parental report, children with developmental delay, was used. The difference would trigger a referral rather than
psychiatric or attention deficit disorders, or motor skill insuffi- a pass for that child.
ciency were excluded from consideration for the study. Children
8 to 16 years of age were enrolled. Informed written consent was
Electronic Visual Acuity Tester
provided by a parent of each enrolled subject. In addition, consent
was obtained from children older than 12 years of age before For the EVA (model 4-WRH), the stimuli were high-contrast,
testing. All subjects enrolled after prototype software evolved to black-and-white letters with luminance of 85 to 105 candelas/me-
the beta stage were analyzed. ter and contrast of 98% (Jaeb Center for Health Research Foun-
dation, Inc, Florida). Single letters were framed with crowding
EyeSpy Apparatus bars. With a high-resolution (1600 1200 pixels) 1700 monitor,
the system was capable of displaying letters from 20/800 to
The EyeSpy is a computerized eye chart and stereopsis tester. In
20/12 at a test distance of 3 meters.10,11
the current study we used HP laptop computers with 15.400 diag-
onal measurement screens with 1280 1024 resolution running
Windows XP. The minimum requirements, as stated by the soft- Evaluation procedures
ware designers, are (1) a laptop or desktop computer, an LCD Each child underwent 3 separate evaluations (EyeSpy testing,
monitor with a 13.300 to 3000 diagonal screen and 1024 768 min- EVA testing plus stereopsis, and a comprehensive professional
imum resolution; (2) Windows XP or Vista or Windows 7 oper- eye examination, including cycloplegic refraction). EyeSpy test-
ating system; and (3) 100 megabytes of available space on the ing was conducted twice by 2 lay examiners (one testing with an
primary hard drive. eye patch and the other with red/blue glasses). EVA and stereopsis
The stimuli for the visual acuity tasks were a subset of ETDRS testing was conducted by 2 ophthalmic technicians. The compre-
optotypes. The optotypes used in the software version evaluated hensive eye examination was conducted by a pediatric ophthal-
in this study contained the following letters: R, S, Z, and K.8 mologist. The order of evaluation by EVA and EyeSpy was
These letters were chosen by the manufacturers. The software al- assigned randomly. Children were evaluated without optical
lows modifying optotypes (eg, use of HOTV optotypes). EyeSpy correction. The children were monitoring during the testing,
presents differently sized optotypes with crowding bars one at which was conducted in the Storm Eye Institute MUSC pediatric
a time. The optotypes were presented with white crowding bars ophthalmology clinic.
on a black background and were white, red, or blue in color. The EyeSpy video-game and vision testing was performed
When patching was used to dissociate the eyes, the optotypes twice (once with an eye patch and once with red/blue glasses).
were always presented in white. When colored goggles to dissoci- Two laptop computers were used for the study: one exclusively
ate the eyes were used, the optotypes were presented either in to test all children with an eye patch, the other to test with
white (to evaluate both eyes), red (to evaluate the left eye), or goggles. This was not randomized; however, approximately
cyan/blue (to evaluate the right eye). Stimuli for the stereopsis one-half of the children underwent examination by patch first
assessment were randot stereograms that would present one of and the other half by red/blue glasses first.
four of the following shapes when stereo vision was present: circle, Red/blue glasses were used to dissociate the eyes to allow each
square, triangle, or diamond (Figure 1). eye to be tested separately. The testing distance was set to 10 feet
EyeSpy follows the Amblyopia Treatment Study visual acuity for our study. Children sat at a table positioned so that they were
testing protocol.9-11 E-Supplement 1 (available at jaapos.org) il- 10 feet from the computer screen. The game was played with the
lustrates the generic protocol for EyeSpy (provided by Dr. Jim use of a computer mouse placed on the table in front of the child.
O’Neil and Rich Tirendi). To establish the child’s ability to mas- The EyeSpy program allowed the child to choose from several
Journal of AAPOS

Volume 14 Number 4 / August 2010 Trivedi et al 313
detect any structural deformities in or around the eyes. A slit
lamp was used at the examiner’s discretion. Cycloplegic retinos-
copy and indirect ophthalmoscopy were performed 30 to 40
minutes after instillation of 1 drop of 0.5% proparacaine, fol-
lowed by 1 drop each of 1% cyclopentolate and 1% tropica-
mide. A second set of drops was instilled at the examiner’s
judgment. In circumstances where retinoscopic reflexes were
difficult to interpret, subjective cycloplegic refraction was also
performed.
The subject was considered as affected or having an eye prob-
lem if during a professional eye examination a pediatric ophthal-
mologist detected any of the following eye abnormalities:
clinically significant ocular pathology, including blepharoptosis,
strabismus, corneal or lenticular opacities, and retinal disorders,
hyperopia 14.00 D or greater, hyperopia 12.00 D or greater as-
sociated with esotropia, anisometropia 11.00 D or greater
spherical equivalent, astigmatism 11.25 D or greater, or myopia
1.00 sphere or greater. The subject as a whole was considered
FIG 1. Screen shot of EyeSpy stereo protocol (provided by Jim O’Neil,
to be an appropriate referral if either eye was affected.
MD, and Rich Tirendi).
Results of each examination were masked to each examiner.
animated characters. The chosen character then moved through The results were not discussed with the subject or parents until
the game as directed by the child using the mouse. The software all examinations were completed. The examiner and subject or
program took the child through a series of video game tasks while parents were instructed not to discuss the performance of the
it performed visual acuity testing. The child had to use the com- previous examination with the subsequent examiner. Each ex-
puter mouse to select the corresponding optotype from 1 of 4 aminer was given a separate copy of the data recording form.
choices located along the top of the screen. The proper matching Statistical analysis was performed by the use of SPSS for Win-
selection was necessary for the child to move to the next stage of dows (SPSS, Chicago, IL). The data analyses were performed by
the video game. For purposes of this study, EyeSpy registered the use of sensitivity and specificity tests along with confidence
pass/refer for threshold visual acuity testing at 20/32 (ability to interval values. We also calculated conventional positive and
read 20/32 required for a pass) and the presence or absence of negative likelihood ratios. These analyses were performed
low-grade stereopsis (300 arcsec). To perform uninterrupted test- with an online calculator (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/
ing on the computer, stereopsis was tested at the same distance as VassarStats.html). The results of the 2 tests were compared by
visual acuity, that is, 10 feet. Red/blue glasses were used for stere- the use of a paired data test (McNemar’s test).
opsis testing regardless of the method of dissociation used during
visual acuity testing (patch or goggles).
Results
The standard visual acuity testing was performed by an oph-
thalmic technician using the EVA tester while the child wore an The average age of the 72 subjects was 11.4 2.2 years
eye patch over the eye not being tested. The ETDRS visual acuity (range, 8.2-15.8 years). Forty-three subjects were female
testing protocol was used. It consisted of an initial screening phase (59.7%). Racial distribution was as follows: white, 42; Afri-
followed by a testing phase. The smallest line for which at least 3 can American, 20; Asian, 8; and Hispanic, 2. Table 1 illus-
of 5 letters could correctly be identified was recorded as the visual trates the overall results of the study. The sensitivity,
acuity for that eye. specificity, and conventional likelihood ratios are shown
Stereopsis testing was performed by the use of the Random dot in Table 2. Results of the professional examination were
E stereotest (Stereo Optical Co, Inc, Chicago, IL) at 50 cm while similar to (not significantly different from) the EyeSpy
the subject wore polarized glasses. The presence or absence of screening results with a patch (p 5 0.508). In 63 of 72 sub-
near stereopsis at 300 arcsec was recorded. Stereopsis testing jects (87.5%) the results of EyeSpy concurred with that of
was performed as per the Prevent Blindness America physician the professional eye examination. In the remaining 9 sub-
protocol, which requires that the subject correctly select a stereop- jects (12.5%), the EyeSpy results differed from that of
sis random E from a blank card 4 times in a row with a maximum the professional eye examination. However, there was
of 6 attempts. The patient was asked to distinguish between less agreement (a signficant difference) between the profes-
a raised E and a nonstereo target. sional examination and the EyeSpy in which goggles were
The subject was assigned ‘‘refer’’ if the child could not read 20/ used (p 5 0.035). In 15 of 72 subjects (20.8%), the EyeSpy
32 optotypes with either the right eye or the left eye, if there was results in which goggles were used did not concur with that
two lines difference in visual acuity between the eyes, or if stere- of the professional examination.
opsis was not demonstrated. The prevalence of visual impairment was 25 of 72 sub-
The professional eye examinations included routine clinical jects (34.7%) as reported by the professional examination.
assessments, including ocular motility. A penlight was used to The most common cause for a refer rather than pass
Journal of AAPOS

314 Trivedi et al Volume 14 Number 4 / August 2010
Table 1. Professional examination and EyeSpy with the use of ence would trigger a referral rather than a pass for that
a patch, EyeSpy with the use of goggles, and EVA child.
Professional examination The sensitivity value was 88% when the EyeSpy video-
Affected Not affected Total game vision screening was compared with the gold-
standard professional eye examination, whereas specificity
EyeSpy with patch
was 87% and 74% (using eye patch and goggles, respec-
Refer 22 6 28
Pass 3 41 44 tively). The published reports for vision screening in youn-
Total 25 47 72 ger children have sensitivities and specificities of
EyeSpy with goggles approximately 85% to 90%.12-18 The results obtained in
Refer 22 12 34 our study of school-aged children cannot be directly com-
Pass 3 35 38
pared with published studies reporting the screening of
Total 25 47 72
EVA younger children; however, the results of our study
Refer 22 3 25 comparing EyeSpy with a professional eye examination
Pass 3 44 47 are encouraging.
Total 25 47 72 When compared with a gold-standard professional eye
examination, the sensitivity was 88% with all 3 compari-
sions—EyeSpy using a patch, EyeSpy using goggles, and
designation on the professional examination was myopia EVA/stereopsis. This finding suggests that EyeSpy was
(21/25, 84%). Of the 21 children found to have a visual def- comparable with EVA in identifying actual positives with
icit, 17 had myopia in both eyes. For the remaining 4 sub- vision impairment who are correctly identified as such.
jects, the causes for visual impairment were as follows: However, similar values for specificity were high when
astigmatism in one eye, astigmatism in both eyes, strabis- EVA/stereopsis was used (94% for EVA/stereopsis, 87%
mus and astigmatism, and myopia both eyes with anisome- when EyeSpy was performed with a patch, and 74%
tropia. If only the EVA analysis had been used, 25 subjects when EyeSpy was performed with goggles). This finding
would have been referred for visual problems (visual acuity suggests that EVA/stereopsis was better in identifying sub-
\20/32 in both eyes, n 5 16; visual acuity \20/32 in one jects without vision impairment who truly did not have vi-
eye, n 5 8; one subject failed stereopsis). Average time sion impairment. However, the results of EyeSpy with
taken for EyeSpy with goggles was 4.43 1.91 minutes a patch were better compared with the results of EyeSpy
(n 5 71); for patching the average time was 3.92 1.37 with goggles. We did not set out to directly compare the
minutes (n 5 59). results of EyeSpy with that of EVA/stereopsis, but these re-
sults were also encouraging, with sensitivity of 92% and
specificity of 89%.
Discussion
In 9 of 72 subjects (12.5%), the results of EyeSpy did
We evaluated vision screening performed by lay examiners not concur with that of the professional eye examination.
who used EyeSpy automated software in school-aged chil- Although these results were not statastically significant
dren. A professional examination by a pediatric ophthal- (p 5 0.508), they may be clinically important. EyeSpy
mologist was used as the gold standard for comparison. with the use of a patch performed better than EyeSpy
An exact visual acuity is not obtained with the EyeSpy with goggles. One of the most important concerns about
threshold testing used in our study; it simply states whether using goggles to dissociate the 2 eyes is the possibility of
a child is able to see 20/32 or better. The importance of bleed-through, where the eye not being tested is able to
threshold testing as opposed to an exact visual acuity test see the testing optotypes as opposed to being fully
is that threshold testing is performed much more rapidly. blocked by an eye patch. Additionally, goggles have lower
One disadvantage of threshold testing, however, is that contrast sensitivity. It may be possible that in the presence
some traditional vision screening programs use a 2-line dif- of refractive error and amblyopia, the reduced contrast
ference as additional failing criteria. The EyeSpy software sensitivity could influence the visual acuity pass/fail
can be set to detect a 2-line difference, but at the cost of threshold results.
a much longer testing time. A trained vision screener often The odds of having a failed examination by a pediatric
notices when a child reads the eye chart rapidly with one ophthalmologist increased 6.8 times when EyeSpy results
eye but is hesitant or slow to read the eye chart with the suggested a vision problem. When an EyeSpy test was neg-
other eye even though he or she may ultimately identify ative for a vision problem, the odds of having a vision prob-
the letters correctly. On the basis of early clinical experi- lem decreased. We reported the likelihood ratio instead of
ence, it was determined by software manufacturers that if predictive values. The predictive values are dependent on
the response time was 60% longer in one eye than the the prevalence of the disease, whereas sensitivity, specific-
other, it was suggestive of a true visual disparity when wear- ity, and likelihood ratio are independent of prevalence of
ing the red/blue goggles. The computer software was set to the disease.19 The greater the prevalence of the disorder,
detect a 100% (doubling) or more difference in the speed of the greater the positive predictive value of the test.20
testing between the eyes when a patch is used. The differ- Thus, with a different prevalence of at-risk subjects, the
Journal of AAPOS

Volume 14 Number 4 / August 2010 Trivedi et al 315
Table 2. Vision screening results of EyeSpy software with the use of patch or goggles and EVA/stereopsis testing to the reference standard
professional examination
EyeSpy (with patch) EyeSpy (with goggles) EVA/stereopsis compared
compared with professional compared with with professional
examination professional examination examination
Sensitivity (95% CI) 88% (68-97) 88% (68-97) 88% (68-97)
Specificity (95% CI) 87% (73-95) 74% (59-85) 94% (81-98)
Positive likelihood ratio 6.8 (3.21-14.75) 3.4 (2.07-5.73) 13.8 (4.57-41.6)
(95% CI)
Negative likelihood ratio 0.13 (0.04-0.40) 0.16 (0.05-0.47) 0.13 (0.04-0.37)
(95% CI)
EVA, electronic visual acuity; CI, confidence interval.
same test with the same cutoff value has greatly differing study has now undergone several upgrades, which may
predictive values. The prevalence of children having eye help improve outcomes, shorten the testing time, and
problems that require either glasses or treatment for stra- minimize bleed-through by using red-blue goggles. The
bismus was reported as about 10% of 5- to 6-year-old chil- results of our current study may not be directly compara-
dren.21 Although we intended to mimic the general ble with the results of future studies performed after soft-
population as much as possible, our study participants ware upgrades.
had a higher percentage of children with eye problems In conclusion, EyeSpy has potential for use as a vision
than in the general population (34.7%). For example, screener for school-aged children: compared with the re-
many children came because they failed a vision screening sults of professional eye examinations, it effectively iden-
examination in their school. Thus we are not reporting pre- tifies children with visual impairment.
dictive values.
Average total testing time taken, from the start of the
game to completion, for EyeSpy using goggles (4.43 min-
utes) and patching (3.92 minutes) seems comparable to References
other screening tools. Salcido and colleagues22 reported 1. Ganley JP, Roberts J. Eye conditions and related need for medical care
a mean time of 2.5 minutes using photoscreening and 5.9 among persons 1-74 years of age: United States, 1971-72. Vital
minutes with traditional screening. Health Stat 1983;11:21.
We did not use uniform guidelines for reporting 2. Lai YH, Hsu HT, Wang HZ, Chang SJ, Wu WC. The visual status of
results of vision screening studies.23 These guidelines children ages 3 to 6 years in the vision screening program in Taiwan.
J AAPOS 2009;13:58-62.
were for preschool vision screening. Our study included 3. Proctor SE. Vision screening: New and time-honored techniques for
school-aged children. EyeSpy vision screening serves school nurses. Nasnewsletter 2009;24:62-8.
not only to identify amblyogenic risk factors but also 4. Rutstein RP, Corliss DA. BVAT distance vs nearstereopsis screening of
any cause of visual impairment in school-aged children strabismus, strabismic amblyopia and refractive amblyopia: A prospec-
which could negatively affect their quality of life. Thus tive study of 68 patients. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 2000;15:229-36.
our results may differ in the rate of failed screenings 5. Rose K, Younan C, Morgan I, Mitchell P. Prevalence of undetected
ocular conditions in a pilot sample of school children. Clin Experi-
and, in particular, the rate of identification of visual
ment Ophthalmol 2003;31:237-40.
impairment. 6. Jamali P, Fotouhi A, Hashemi H, Younesian M, Jafari A. Refractive
This study has several limitations. For this pilot re- errors and amblyopia in children entering school: Shahrood, Iran.
search trial, older children with average comprehension, Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:364-9.
attention, and cooperation skills were enrolled in the 7. Scheiman MM, Hertle RW, Beck RW, et al. Randomized trial of
study. We enrolled older children because the assessment treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years. Arch Ophthal-
process used in the study design necessitated several tests mol 2005;123:437-47.
8. Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity
being performed on the same day and thus longer periods
charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982;94:91-6.
of attention than required for a normal vision screening. 9. Holmes JM, Beck RW, Repka MX, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Inves-
Further study in a younger age group is warranted based tigator Group. The amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing
on the promising results in our older cohort. The small protocol. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1345-53.
sample size is an additional limitation. This was a pilot 10. Moke PS, Turpin AH, Beck RW, et al. Computerized method of vi-
study of the EyeSpy software; therefore, we used a smaller sual acuity testing: Adaptation of the amblyopia treatment study visual
sample size. Subsequent studies could include a wider acuity testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132:903-9.
11. Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH, et al. A computerized method of vi-
range of age groups and larger numbers. Although we
sual acuity testing: Adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic reti-
avoided using children from the pediatric ophthalmology
nopathy study testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135:194-205.
clinic, the prevalence of visual impairment was high in 12. Ying GS, Kulp MT, Maguire M, Ciner E, Cyert L, Schmidt P. Sensitiv-
our study. The number of false positives may be high in ity of screening tests for detecting vision in preschoolers-targeted vision
a normal population. The EyeSpy software used in the disorders when specificity is 94%. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:432-8.
Journal of AAPOS

316 Trivedi et al Volume 14 Number 4 / August 2010
13. MollAM,RaoRC,RotbergLB,RoartyJD,BohraLI,BakerJD.Therole 19. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ
of the random dot Stereo Butterfly test asan adjunct test for the detection 1994;309:102.
of constant strabismus in vision screening. J AAPOS 2009;13:354-6. 20. Stewart SH, Connors GJ. Screening for alcohol problems: What
14. Arthur BW, Riyaz R, Rodriguez S, Wong J. Field testing of the plu- makes a test effective? Alcohol Res Health 2004;28:5-16.
soptiX S04 photoscreener. J AAPOS 2009;13:51-7. 21. Traboulsi EI, Cimino H, Mash C, Wilson R, Crowe S, Lewis H. Vi-
15. Ottar WL, Scott WE, Holgado SI. Photoscreening for amblyogenic sion First, a program to detect and treat eye diseases in young chil-
factors. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1995;32:289-95. dren: The first four years. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2008;106:
16. Kennedy RA, Thomas DE. Evaluation of the iScreen digital screening 179-85, discussion 185-6.
system for amblyogenic factors. Can J Ophthalmol 2000;35:258-62. 22. Salcido AA, Bradley J, Donahue SP. Predictive value of photoscreen-
17. Schmidt P, Maguire M, Dobson V, et al. Comparison of preschool vi- ing and traditional screening of preschool children. J AAPOS 2005;9:
sion screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in 114-20.
the Vision in Preschoolers Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111:637-50. 23. Donahue SP, Arnold RW, Ruben JB. Preschool vision screening:
18. Van Eenwyk J, Agah A, Giangiacomo J, Cibis G. Artificial intelligence What should we be detecting and how should we report it? Uniform
techniques for automatic screening of amblyogenic factors. Trans Am guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies.
Ophthalmol Soc 2008;106:64-73, discussion 73-4. J AAPOS 2003;7:314-6.
Journal of AAPOS

Created: 05/10/2016
Last updated: 05/24/2016
Page 1
General information
Organization VALLEYLIFE
Contact First name Ann
Contact Last name Polunsky
Contact e-mail apolunsky@valleylifeaz.org
Contact phone number 602-216-6385
Address
Street 1142 W. Hatcher Rd.
City Phoenix
State AZ
ZIP Code 85021
From what tribe is the organization requesting the grant?
Tohono O’odham Nation
Total grant amount request
8,000
1 of 1


VALLEYLIFE PROPOSAL
May 2016
a. Need
The need is for grief counseling for our residents with developmental disabilities (called
members) to provide them with coping mechanisms when they experience loss. This
population is unable to appropriately display the grief responses to the emotions they
are feeling: a mixture of sadness, anger, anxiety, confusion, and pain. The results are
intense behaviors, such as self-injury; emotional outbursts; physical aggression and
inappropriate language. They lose control and become difficult for staff and family
members to manage.
Any change, even moving to a different group home, generates feelings of
abandonment and high anxiety, which can lead to behavioral incidents. For those who
suffer from seizure disorders, these emotions exacerbate their conditions, resulting in
an escalation of behaviors and general confusion and fear about what is happening to
them.
VALLEYLIFE employees and caretakers are surrogate families for the members that
live in their group homes. While many members have natural families who are involved
with them, they spend most of their time at VALLEYLIFE. The remaining members have
no family other than their housemates and VALLEYLIFE staff, especially those who are
older and have been living in their group homes for most of their lives. Because of this,
facing the loss of a housemate has a very powerful impact on the other members in the
home.
Professional grief counseling addresses this need by:
1) Providing members with an opportunity to share their feelings in a safe venue;
2) Teaching members techniques for managing their behavior to prevent physical
outbursts and violent behavior;
3) Teaching staff members methods of relieve stress on members suffering loss
b. Population Benefitting
VALLEYLIFE serves a diverse range of individuals with disabilities through our 25 group
homes, 11 day activity centers, vocational program and home-based services. A total of
500 members are provided with services.
Disabilities include mild to profound mental disabilities, neurological disorders, traumatic
brain injury, mental illness, behavioral disorders and severe physical and sensory
impairments. Members also present other conditions such as cerebral palsy, Down’s
syndrome, ADHD and autism.
VALLEYLIFE has six senior group homes with 25 members who have been with us for
most of their lives. As they age, members are vulnerable to the loss of family members
and housemates.

c. Budget
Tohono O’odham Total
Counseling (Group & Individual)………………………… 8,000
23,400
(30hr/mo. X $65/hr x 12 months = $23,400)
Total $8,000
$23,400
d. Other Funding Requests
City of Peoria - $2,000 - Funded
Bernice Kussell Society – $2,000 Pending
American Family - $8,000 - Pending
Glendale CDBG - $5,000 - Pending
e. 12% Funds
No other 12% funds have been received for this project
f. Contacts
Alternate:
Ann Polunsky, Grant Writer Margaret Stephens Reed, Development
Director
1142 W. Hatcher Rd. Address: Same
Phoenix, AZ 85021
Phone: 602-216-6385 Phone: 602-331-2414
Fax: 602-944-8749 Fax: Same
apolunsky@valleylifeaz.org mreed@valleylifez.org
g. Priority Area: Health Care
h. Government Entity: Maricopa County


Grief Counseling Success Story
VALLEYLIFE members with developmental disabilities typically have limited communication
skills and do not always understand the life situations they encounter, such as the loss of a
loved one or housemate.
Peoria resident Melissa meets in a weekly group counseling session dealing with the loss of
family members. Setting rules for behavior in the sessions was a first task so each member
behaved respectfully toward the others in the group. After a few sessions, Melissa and the
other members were able to control their desire to only discuss their own issues.
Melissa has been helpful to the other members in processing their grief. She has been
receptive to utilizing the coping strategies suggested for managing her emotions, such as
sharing pictures and other mementos of her mother, who recently died. She also found that
listening to music was calming and helped her deal with her feelings of sadness and agitation.
Most of all, Melissa has been able to communicate with staff in an appropriate manner to ask for
help when she feels these emotions welling up.

Created: 05/13/2016
Last updated: 05/24/2016
Page 1
General information
Organization Center for Neighborhood Leadership
Contact First name Jeremiah
Contact Last name Smith
Contact e-mail jeremiah.smith@everyonesagrantwriter.org
Contact phone number 6024055330
Address
Street 816 N 1st Avenue
City Phoenix
State AZ
ZIP Code 85003
From what tribe is the organization requesting the grant?
Tohono O’odham Nation
Total grant amount request
15,000
1 of 1


05/24/2016
Chairman Edward D. Manuel
Tohono O’odham Nation
P.O. Box 837
Sells, Arizona 85634
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Each year, the Foundation for Child Development and the Child and Youth Well-Being Index
Project at Duke University issue a comprehensive measure of how children are faring in the
United States. The resultant National Child and Youth Well-Being Index (CWI) is based on a
composite of 28 Key Indicators of Well-Being, grouped into seven Quality-of-Life/Well-Being
Domains. These Domains are: Family Economic Well-Being, Safe/Risky Behavior, Social
Relationships, Emotional/Spiritual Well-Being, Community Engagement, Educational
Attainment, and Health.
According to the Foundation for Child Development's latest CWI, Arizona is the sixth worst state
for a child. Reading levels, graduation rates, and young-adult employment rates are all among
the worst in the nation. Low income, students of color face a range of challenges: low
performing schools, limited community resources, a lack of family support, and inadequate
assistance from systems charged with serving them. Failure to improve outcomes for these
students negatively affects both the individual and their communities, costing taxpayer dollars,
increasing criminal activity, and depriving the workforce of skilled potential employees.
The Academic and Leadership Accelerator for Service (ALAS or “Wings” in Spanish) is a 8-
month college/career readiness program that focuses on preparing low income or students of
color for a life with purpose and stewardship in our community. Our mission is to prepare
students with knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be successful life-long learners and future
community leaders.
ALAS ignites the spirit of service and understanding that student’s actions in college, career, and
life have an impact in our neighborhoods and community. By expanding access to higher
education and opening avenues to professional development, students form the foundation of
personal success and community empowerment. Additionally, students gain exposure to dynamic
and diverse business leaders, nonprofit organizations, and community members that serve as
subject matter experts and mentors in college readiness and professional development.
Working in partnership with Dream Zone, Scholarships AZ, Be a Leader Foundation, and
College Depot, each student completes a College Readiness Plan that includes career
exploration, selecting an academic major, research of colleges and universities, college
application process, and securing college funding. Students also develop career and professional
knowledge, such as resume writing and interviews, strategic planning, and financial planning.
Last year, 54% of the students entered ALAS with a grade point average between 1.0 and 2.9. At
the end of the first cohort, half of those same students raised their GPAs to over 3.0. Students

also dramatically improved their understanding and attitude toward values, (SMART) goals,
college readiness (including enrollment, choosing a major, cost, financial assistance, FAFSA, and
scholarships), financial literacy, and professionalism.
ALAS is interrupting the cycle of poverty by preparing students for success in college, career,
and community. ALAS ignites the spirit of service and helps students live a life of purpose that
makes a positive impact in our community.
Social inequality and injustice are the result of a shortage of strong leaders from under-
represented, low-income communities. Center for Neighborhood Leadership members are
everyday people who can build effective coalitions that define their own priorities and implement
the solutions necessary to improve their lives.
Center for Neighborhood Leadership trains, mentors, coaches, community organizers and
grassroots leaders in our neighborhoods. We strengthen and connect our communities through
advocacy and civic participation in order to ensure their seat at the decision making table.
Additionally, CNL provides support for community development and community-driven public
policy through proactive and sustainable engagement coalitions.
The ALAS program works with high school students from the Phoenix Union, Maryvale,
Glendale Union, and Tolleson School Districts. The majority of the target students in these
districts are Latino or Hispanic (92%). Students in the ALAS program must live in a low-income
household (median household income of less than $36,000). While there are a number of
contributing factors to poverty, the lack of educational attainment is of primary concern for
future generations. 65% of parents within ALAS targeted districts never attended college or
university. Over half of participating students will be the first in their family to attend college.
Current ALAS funders include: Univision; Desert Schools; Robert Cialdini & Bobette Gorden
Family Foundation; and the United Food & Commercial Workers. CNL has not requested
support, in any form from any Arizona tribe other than the Tohono O’odham Nation. In fact,
CNL has never received 12% funds form any tribe. However, in 2014 CNL received $5,000 from
the Desert Diamond Casino to support scholarships for students in the west valley.
ALAS Contacts:
Ken Chapman - ken@azcnl.org; (480) 600-2758
Jessica Rubio - Jessica@azcnl.org; (602) 432-9500
816 N 1st Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003

Funding Total Tohono O'odham Request Description
Arizona Community Foundation $ 10,000
UFCW Educational Grant $ 5,000
State Farm $ 13,000
AzCNL Support via Individual Partner Gifts $ 4,000
In-Kind $ 12,280
Tohono O'odham (requested) $ 15,000
Total Funding $ 59,280
Expense
Staffing
Program Coordinator $ 24,000 $ -
Program Interns (2) $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $500 per month per intern for 8 months
Sub Total $ 32,000 $ 8,000
Program
Breakfast/Lunch for 120 Participants & 5 Facilitors $ 14,400 12 Workshops @ $10 per person
Transportation $ 2,000 20 Individual bus passes for 40 participants @ $2.50 each
Materials $ 3,120 $ 3,000 Paper, supplies, copying, binders @ $26 per person
Program T-shirts and Awards $ 875 T-shirts and plaques @ $35 per person
Mentor Mixer $ 1,560 $ 1,500 Catered reception for 75 people @ $13 per person
Graduation $ 2,925 $ 2,500 Catered reception for 225 people @ $13 per person
Etiquette Dinner $ 2,400 Etiquette dinner for 120 participants @ 20 per person
Sub Total $ 27,280 $ 7,000
Total Expenses $ 59,280 $ 15,000