GOVERNING BOARD (916) 486-1876 MEETING NOTICE DATE: …€¦ · 06/06/2015 · A4AA GOVERNING BOARD (916) 486-1876 MEETING NOTICE DATE: June 12, 2015 TIME: 10 a.m. to 12 noon PLACE:

A4AA GOVERNING BOARD (916) 486-1876

MEETING NOTICE

DATE: June 12, 2015

TIME: 10 a.m. to 12 noon

PLACE: Sacramento County

A4AA Conference Room

2260 Park Towne Circle, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95825

&

Sierra County (Via Teleconference)

61050 Hwy. 49, Sheriff Substation

Loyalton, CA 96118

(530) 993-1270

AGENDA

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

II. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Governing Board welcomes comments on any agenda item as it is

addressed. Individuals will be limited to five minutes; fifteen minutes for a representative of a group.

Comments may be made on any subject not on the agenda. The specific time limit will be established based on

the number of persons wishing to speak, for a total of fifteen minutes per subject.

III. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Adoption of Agenda

B. Approve 5/8/15 Minutes

C. Modification of Job Title and Responsibilities for Program Manager Position

IV. REPORTS

A. Executive Committee

B. Audit/ Finance Committee

C. Advisory Council

D. Grants Review Committee

E. Bylaws/Rules of Procedure

F. Personnel Committee

G. JPEC H. Executive Director

V. CORRESPONDENCE

VI. PRESENTATION

A. Recognition: Anne Israel Connolly, A4AA Program Specialist

B. Accept Audit of A4AA’s Financial Statements, Year Ending June 30, 2014

C. Coordinated Delivery of Senior Information & Assistance in Sacramento County VII. ACTION ITEMS

A. Sacramento Senior Information & Assistance (I&A) in SFY 2015-16

B. Approve JPEC Recommendations

C. Approve Renewal of Contract with Paratransit Services for SFY 2015-16 (for transportation services in

Western Nevada County)

D. Approve Funding of Proposals Submitted under the Revised 2015-19 RFP

VIII. DISCUSSION

A. 2015 Needs Assessment Rollout IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

X. ADJOURNMENT Committee Meetings

Personnel ………….9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.

Executive ………….9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.

Audit/Finance………9:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.

Please visit www.a4aa.com for additional information.

http://companyweb/sites/A4AA-Home/Public/Shared Documents/GOVERNING BOARD/GB 2015/Full Packets/June GB Agenda 6.12.15 1 (Autosaved).doc

A4AA GOVERNING BOARD (916) 486-1876

MEETING NOTICE

Board members' enclosures:

1. Consent Items

A. Agenda

B. Minutes – 5/8/15

C. Modification of Job Title and Responsibilities for the Program Manager Position

2. Action Items

A. Sacramento Senior Information & Assistance (I&A) in SFY 2015-16

B. Approve JPEC Recommendations

C. Approve Renewal of Contract with Paratransit Services for SFY 2015-16 (for transportation services in

Western Nevada County)

D. Approve Funding of Proposals Submitted under the Revised 2015-19 RFP

3. Attachments:

A. Map

B. Service Provider Activity Report 2014-15

C. 2014-15 July – March Performance

D. RFP Recommendation

If you need a disability-related reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact Tai Love at

(916) 486-1876, or [email protected] at least 3 days in advance with your accommodation request. Every effort will be

made to accommodate. However, we cannot guarantee we will be able to honor requests received less than 3 days in

advance.


AREA 4 AGENCY ON AGING

GOVERNING BOARD Meeting Minutes

Date: May 8, 2015 Location: Sacramento County, Area 4 Agency on Aging

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Miko Sawamura called the regular meeting of the Area 4 Agency on Aging (A4AA) Governing Board

to order at 10:04 a.m. and welcomed members and guests to the meeting.

Secretary, Peggy Goldstein called the roll. There was a quorum.

County GB Members Present – 16 Absent – 2

Nevada Supv. Beason Giuliani (E)

Placer Luce, Gustafson

Sacramento Burton, Felion, Karpinski-Costa,

Sawamura

Supv. Notolli (E)

Sierra Supv. Schlefstein, Fisher

Sutter Bowen, Rhoades

Yolo Allen, Goldstein, Supv. Provenza

Yuba Hollis, Supv. Fletcher

A4AA Staff Present: Pam Miller, Will Tift, Lynda Webb, Dave Soto, Sybil Eli, Lori Howton, Laura

Imbach-Mills, Tai Love, Laura Lester, Mike Selland and Mike Reaker

Guests Present: Steve Heath Community Link/2-1-1, Claire Buckley Seniors First, Jamee Horning

Seniors First, Trent Johnson Allister Homecare, Seth Johnson Allister Homecare, Ana Acton

FREED

II. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Miko Sawamura invited comments from the public on any agenda item as it is addressed, and

explained that in the interest of time, comments will be limited to 5 minutes for individuals, 15

minutes for group presentations. She stated that comments regarding non-agenda items may be made

following the business portion of the meeting.

III. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Adoption of Agenda, Approval of Resolution #234 and Approval of Resolution

#235 Miko asked for a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar including the agenda, Approval of Resolution

#234 authorizing the Executive Director to execute an agreement with CDA for Area Plan #AP1516-

04 and Approval of Resolution #235 authorizing the executive Director to execute an agreement with

CDA for HICAP #HI1516-04.

A motion was moved/seconded, John Hollis/Sheila Allen, to approve the Consent

Calendar including the agenda, Approval of Resolution #234 and Approval of Resolution

#235. One member, Scott Schlefstein abstained. Motion passed by consent.

A motion was moved/seconded, Supv. Nate Beason/Karla Gustafson, to approve the

4/10/15 meeting minutes as revised to reflect Jayna Karpinski Costa as absent/excused.

Three members, Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Liz Fisher and Supv. Scott Schlefstein

abstained. Motion passed by consent.


IV. PRESENTATION

A. A Look into the Future

Pam Miller and Will Tift provided a look into A4AA’s past, present and the future. They discussed

the reimaging process including the new logo, how the language of and the agency is changing to meet

the needs of the aging. Pam discussed Vision 2025, where the agency is going and mentioned that

A4AA will continue the legacy collaborating with other AAA’s, attending conferences and webinars

on how to meet the need of changing demographics.

Will provided a brief background of how A4AA operated in 1973 and the past compared to the present

and mentioned that A4AA is not “reinventing itself” but is “rediscovering itself.” He stated that A4AA

cannot be all things to everyone, but the goal is to be the leader for aging services in our area,

empowering others to serve themselves.

V. CORRESPONDENCE

Peggy Goldstein read a letter from Steve Heath requesting that A4AA stop the close out process of 2-

1-1 Sacramento for Senior Information & Assistance services in Sacramento County.

VI. REPORTS

A. Executive Committee

Supervisor Nate Beason reported that the committee met this morning to review and discuss the

agenda. There were no changes made.

B. Audit/Finance

Mike Selland. reported on the year-to-date operating expense budget for FY 2014-15 (as of March 31,

2015): Expenditures are 63.90% through 75.00% or nine (9) months of the year; Contracted Service

Budget for FY 2014-15 (as of March 31, 2015); Expenditures for Services Budget are 72.23% through

75.00% or nine (9) months of the fiscal year; Bank balances as of March 31, 2015: checking $527,467,

and money market is $1,317,011, for a total of $1,844,478.

C. Advisory Council

Tai Love reported that the Advisory Council met April 16 in Sacramento County. There was a

presentation on the A4AA Reimaging Process presented by 3Fold Communications. The Council

recommended approval of 4 Action Items: 1) 2014-15 Area Plan Amendment, 2) 2015-16 Area Plan

Update, 3) Legislative Committee Recommendations and 4) Support of Assembly Bill 348 (Brown):

Long-Term Health Care Facilities. Committee reports were provided by the Executive Director,

Executive Committee, Governing Board, Legislative, JPEC, Area Plan, and Bylaws/Rules of

Procedure. There was a brief discussion pertaining to an exploratory group on an ad hoc data

committee. The next meeting is May 21, in Sacramento County.

D. Area Plan Committee

Will Tift reported that the committee met April 23 to review the Older Adults survey and to discuss

the distribution.

E. JPEC

Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa reported that the committee met last week. The committee reviewed

pending action and the next steps to be taken. The committee will meet again later in May to continue

the reviews and discussion of service provider performance.


F. Executive Director

Pam Miller announced that A4AA hosted an LGBTQ Awareness Training on Tuesday, April 21 at the

Martha Riley Community Library. A4AA Service Providers, Governing Board, Advisory Council

Members and staff were encouraged to attend. The event was successful.

She mentioned that A4AA staff are in the middle of the RFP process and funding recommendations

will be presented to the Board at the June meeting.

A4AA staff met with Bateman Meals, the preparer’s of the Yuba-Sutter Meals, to discuss potential

rate increases. There will not be an increase in cost at this time.

Pam Miller and Will Tift met with Donna Yee and David Morikawa of the Asian Community Center

(ACC) to view their new campus and discuss ways to collaborate.

VII. ACTION ITEMS

A. Approve 2014-15 Area Plan Amendment Will Tift mentioned that the California Department of Aging requires amendments to the Area Plan if

there are substantial changes after the annual update has been submitted.

He announced that public input was received on the proposed objective on March 27, 2015. The

proposed amendment to the current plan is as follows:

3.1c Lavender Heights Nutrition Program: NEW OBJECTIVE

A4AA will collaborate with local community partners to explore the development of an

alternative senior nutrition program in midtown Sacramento for underserved older adults who

support and/or identify with the LGBTQ community.

Start Date: May 8, 2015

End Date: September 2015

Participating Staff: Executive Director, Program Manager/Nutrition Services Manager,

Program Specialist, Contract administrator.

A motion was moved/seconded, Eldon Luce/John Hollis, to approve the 2014-15 Area

Plan Amendment. Motion passed by unanimous consent.

B. Approve 2015-16 Area Plan Update

Will Tift stated that A4AA is required to update certain elements of the Area Plan annually. Those

elements include: the estimated number of lower income ethnic seniors in the PSA for the coming year

(page 28), a summary of comments made at public hearing (page 32), updated service unit plans

(pages 56-79).

In addition, any other significant changes that have occurred with respect to A4AA must be reflected

in the Area Plan Update. Noteworthy items include:

1. Tables E & F respectively reflect changes to A4 Direct Services and a consolidation of

National Family Caregiver service categories: pages 15-16.

2. The newly expedited RFP process: page 18.

3. Changes to the Objectives, beginning on page 36. Please note that the deletion of an objective

does not preclude A4AA from participating in the same or similar efforts. It simply means we

do not foresee A4AA Staff playing a significant, ongoing role in that particular activity:

1.1a Elder Economic Security Standard Index: DELETE

Coordination phase is over. The Elder Standard is now incorporated into A4

planning by law.

1.1b Financial Security Activities: DELETE


A4AA hosted one event which was not well attended. Other entities can meet this

need.

2.1a Advance Care Planning Project: DELETE

A4AA was participating in a project that has now ceased.

2.1d Lifelong Learning: DELETE

Integrate into 5.1a (see below).

2.1f Northern California Fall Prevention Coalition: REVISE

NCFPC is now the StopFalls Sacramento Coalition; A4AA will participate but will not

lead the new Coalition.

2.1g Nevada County Fall Prevention Coalition: REVISE

Update staff participating in this effort.

2.1h Veterans Activities: DELETE

The VA has sufficient resources to do targeted outreach.

2.1i Tech Talk for Seniors: DELETE

Outlived usefulness; focus in future on removing barriers applicable to older adults’

access.

2.4a Evidence-Based Health Promotion Programs: DELETE

A4 Staff find it more cost effective to contract with certified providers.

4.1d Focal Point Enhancement: DELETE

A4AA can no longer provide focal points with OTO funds; several councils have

dissolved.

4.1e Housing Advocacy: DELETE

A4AA does not have a direct role in housing issues and does not have resources to

commit.

4.1f Legal Services Advocacy: REVISE

Update staff participating in this effort.

5.1a Community Education Presentations: REVISE

Add colleges and universities to the list of potential venues.

4. The Governing Board roster appears on page 95; and,

5. The updated Organizational Chart is on page 104.

A motion was moved/seconded, John Hollis/Supv. Nate Beason, to approve the 2015-16

Area Plan Update. Motion passed by unanimous consent.

C. Approve JPEC Recommendations

Dr. Jayna Karpinski Costa announced that the committee met on May 1 to address current compliance

issues and to review performance for A4AA funded programs through the 3rd quarter.

Will Tift gave an update on the City of Sacramento Triple R program, noting that he and another

A4AA staff person met with Triple R staff to discuss the compliance issues, and Triple R agreed to

make adjustments in order to comply for the remainder of the year.


The following JPEC Recommendations were also approved:

Referring to the Service Provider Activity Report through Third Quarter t: State Fiscal Year 2014-15

A3

Regarding Triple-R, During the 2015-19 RFP process, A4 Management concluded that the

Triple-R program was out of compliance with the Older Americans Act. A4

Staff met with Triple-R Staff today to determine if compliance could be

achieved by June 30 under the current contract. A general agreement has

been reached with final details to be settled soon.

JPEC Recommendations: Accept the Agreement between A4 staff and Triple-R to assure compliance

with respect to means testing through June 30. No sanctions.

B3

Regarding Gold Country Telecare, Gold Country Telecare (former Transportation provider in Nevada

County) has failed to conduct an audit for SFY 2013-14. Furthermore, the independent audit firm has

been unsuccessful in contacting anyone at Telecare to schedule the audit.

JPEC Recommendations: An effort should be made to retrieve A4AA equipment and records as soon

as possible. County Counsel should be asked to send a letter to Telecare explaining the potential

consequences of not completing an audit.

D3

Regarding Gold Country Lift’s Paratransit program in Nevada County (#65)

JPEC Recommendations: Direct staff to report on the meeting with Gold Country Lift and provide

year-to-date performance figures through May 31 at the June Board meeting, and request the Board

vote on a renewal of this contract for SFY 2015-16 at said meeting.

G3

Regarding LSNC’s Legal program in Sierra County (#62), it is understood that legal providers cannot

control representation hours; therefore, future reports should separate this service from Advice and

Counseling.

JPEC Recommendations: no action at this time.

H3

Regarding Del Oro’s Caregiver Respite program in Placer County (#61), it is hopeful that their

performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30.


I3

Regarding LSNC’s Kinship Legal program in Sacramento County (#60), it is hopeful that performance

will reach 95% of scope on either # by June 30.


O3

Regarding Del Oro’s Caregiver Respite program in Sacramento County (#54), it is hopeful that



A motion was moved/seconded, Karla Gustafson/Sister Jeanne Felion to approve the

aforementioned JPEC Recommendations as presented. Motion passed by consent.


E3

Regarding Seniors First’s Congregate Meals program in Placer County (#64), it is hopeful that their


JPEC Recommendations: Accept the scope reduction proposed by Seniors First for the balance of SFY

2014-15.

A motion was moved/seconded, John Hollis/Supv. Nate Beason, to accept JPEC

recommendations for E3 regarding Seniors First’s Congregate Meals program in Placer

County. One member, Eldon Luce recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Motion

passed by consent.

F3

Regarding FREED’s Home Repair program in Nevada County (#63), it is hopeful that their


JPEC Recommendations: suggest A4AA staff send a letter to FREED’s Governing Board to caution

them about being prepared for staff disruptions, especially in small programs.

A motion was moved/seconded, Karla Gustafson/Sister Jeanne Felion, to accept JPEC

recommendations for F3 regarding FREED’s Home Repair program in Nevada County.

One member John Hollis recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Motion passed by

consent.

M3

Regarding Seniors First’s Transportation program in Placer County (#56)

JPEC Recommendations: No action at this time.

A motion was moved/seconded, Karla Gustafson/John Hollis, to accept JPEC

recommendations for M3 regarding Seniors First’s Transportation program in Placer

County. One member, Eldon Luce recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Motion

passed by consent.

D. Consideration of Sanction re: Yuba-Sutter Legal Center for Seniors

According to ARTICLE XV. INSURANCE AND HOLD HARMLES OF A4AA’s contractual

agreement with service providers who are receiving Older Americans Act funds, the Yuba-Sutter

Legal Center for Seniors is out of compliance. The latest certification of insurance for Worker’s

Compensation coverage on file at A4AA shows an expiration date of April 1, 2015. To date, the

necessary documentation has not been received by A4AA nor resolved.

JPEC recommends the following action: send a letter to the agency requesting that

communications and requested documents be received in a timelier manner. No further sanctions

or action will be taken.

A motion was moved/seconded, Karla Gustafson/Supv. Jim Provenza, to send a

letter to the agency requesting that communications and requested documents be

received in a timelier manner. No additional action will be taken. Motion passed

by unanimous consent.

VIII. DISCUSSION

A. 2015 Needs Assessment Rollout

A4AA staff Dave Soto, Laura Imbach-Mills and Will Tift discussed the Needs Assessment Rollout

and the process, noting that the committee is looking at where funding can make the most impact.

There will be a separate assessment conducted for service providers, and surveys will be printed in ads

starting May 31. The final report of the Needs Assessment will be issued in the fall.


IX. NEW/OLD BUSINESS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Sheila Allen announced that the Bylaws Committee will meet Friday, May 29 at 1 pm to finalize the

Bylaws/Rules of Procedure. The goal is to present the updates at the June meeting.

Dr. Jayna Karpinski Costa announced that the 8th annual Senior Health Fair will be held Thursday,

May 14 at the Citrus Heights Community Center.

Supv. Jim Provenza thanked Dave Soto for his attendance and guidance and the Yolo County

Commission on Aging meetings.

X. ADJOURNMENT

With no further business, a motion was moved/seconded, Supv. Nate Beason/John Hollis, to adjourn

the meeting at 12:09 p.m.


ACTION ITEM VII. A.

TO: A4AA GOVERNING BOARD

FROM: Pam Miller

DATE: June 5, 2015

SUBJECT: Sacramento Senior Information & Assistance (I&A) in SFY 2015-16

Recommendation:

Begin to Fully Transition Senior Information & Assistance from 211 to A4AA

(Option A below)

RECAP OF RECENT BOARD DIALOGUE (taken from Meeting Minutes or Board material) February 13 GB Meeting:

Executive Committee Report

Supervisor Nate Beason announced that the committee met this morning, there were no changes to the

agenda. The committee discussed the CDA monitoring visit, the RFP issue and concern regarding the

mandatory bidder’s conference and the closing of Community Link 2-1-1 Sacramento.

Executive Director Report 2-1-1 Sacramento will be closing for business effective June 30 due to financial hardship. 2-1-1 Staff has

been in conversation with various agencies in an attempt to find an agency that can acquire 2-1-1 and their

employees. A4AA may need to issue an RFP for I & A for Sacramento County.

March 13 GB Meeting:

Executive Director Report 2-1-1 Sacramento will be closing for business effective June 30 due to financial hardship. 2-1-1 staff has

been in conversation with various agencies in an attempt to find an agency that can acquire 2-1-1 and their

employees. A4AA is exploring the possibility of bringing this service in-house, which would increase the

number of inbound calls. If A4AA were to add this as a core service there would be no need to go out to

RFP. When directly asked for guidance, several Governing Board members expressed support; none

expressed concerns. The Executive Director was given approval to proceed.

April 10 GB Meeting:

PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Updates to the Current [Area] Plan:

A4AA is preparing to become the sole provider of Title III-B Senior Information and Assistance for

Sacramento County, as that program is defined in the Older Americans Act and in the California Code of

Regulations (this change would be reflected in objective 3.1a). Currently, A4AA is under contract with

Community Link (formerly the Community Services Planning Council) to augment their 211 Sacramento

program with Senior I&A funds. Community Link has announced that they will dissolve by the end of

calendar year 2015. Effective July 1 or sooner, a new organization will become the designated 211

provider for Sacramento County. A4AA wishes to exercise its authority to offer this program as a direct

service, as most agencies on aging already do. Public comment on this transition is welcome.

Summary of Oral Comments

Steve Heath, CEO, Community Link: 211 Sacramento ‘Several months ago, Community Link announced our intention to find new organizations to take over our

programs (including 211 Sacramento) and to dissolve as an entity. Initially, we were concerned that


nobody would be interested. We had so much interest that we needed to go through an RFP process. In

the end, we had four written proposals. Last week, our Board reached an agreement with Goodwill

Sacramento Valley to merge the two entities. So, 211 Sacramento and our other programs will continue to

operate as they are now. There will be no transfer of 211 designation with the California Public Utilities

Commission and no disruption of 211 services.

I have contacted A4AA to express our desire to continue under our current contract. We have a contract

with A4AA that is about $80,000/year. We use those funds to augment our 211 service to provide extra

help to seniors. A4AA has indicated it intends to bring Senior Information & Assistance (I&A) in-house

even though 211 is continuing. We have concerns about that.

We are on track to receive about 21,000 calls from seniors this year. That is roughly 20% of all calls

coming into 211. $80,000 cannot fund a call center. We also think A4AA may be underestimating the

number of calls that are coming in. About 40% of senior calls are Information calls (e.g., “what is the

phone number for X agency?”); about 60% of senior calls are Assistance calls (e.g., “I’m hungry; where

can I get food?”).

Also, having two different agencies that handle these kinds of calls will cause confusion among seniors.

What would happen is that a senior would call 211 and go into our automated queue. They would need to

navigate through that system then wait to talk to a 211 staff person. Once our staff determined the call

was an Assistance call, the senior would need to hang up and call A4AA.

In reality, what would probably happen because our staff know senior resources so well, our staff would

go ahead and serve the client anyway, and 211 would not be compensated for doing that. We don’t think

that’s really fair. So, what I am suggesting today is that we go back and revisit the plan. We’ve got time

to get it right. Thank you.’

May 8 GB Meeting:

Correspondence

Peggy Goldstein read a letter from Steve Heath requesting that A4AA stop the close out process of 2-1-1

Sacramento for Senior Information & Assistance services in Sacramento County. A4AA staff indicated

the close out process had been stopped. After much discussion, Supervisor Beason requested the item be

put on the June Agenda for Board action.

MOVING FORWARD

A4AA’s current contractual agreement with Community Link to provide Senior Information & Assistance

through 211 Sacramento {to appropriate clients as an additional service} expires on June 30, 2015.

Regarding SFY 2015-16, there are two general directions the Governing Board can take.

{Please Note: The options below only pertain to Sacramento County, and the option chosen is not expected to

have any direct impact on Sr. I&A contract agreements in any of the other 6 counties.}

Option A – Begin a process to fully transition Senior I&A to A4AA

General Provisions: A4AA would work with Community Link, GoodWill and the County of Sacramento

to:

1) Develop an ongoing agreement regarding the routing of information & referral inquiries by or about

“seniors”, and

2) Develop a transitional plan to bridge the gap between current operations and the terms of the new,

ongoing agreement.


Option B – Do not begin a process to fully transition Senior I&A to A4AA

Scenario (1) As soon as possible, A4AA secures alternate funding for the staff support needed to handle

increasing call volume at the Sacramento office.

Potential short-term solutions: Transfer Title III-B funds currently allocated elsewhere to support

dedicated staff to handle increasing call volume and/or request direct financial support from the

County of Sacramento.

Scenario (2) A4AA does not secure alternate funding for the staff support needed to handle increasing call

volume at the Sacramento office.

Potential short-term solutions: Limit call volume to A4AA by eliminating the option for the public to

leave voice messages after and/or during business hours. Take measures to route A4AA callers

directly to the appropriate city, county or state departments. Reduce or eliminate A4AA outreach to

targeted populations in the community.


ACTION ITEM VII. B.


FROM: Joint Program Evaluation Committee

DATE: June 2, 2015

SUBJECT: JPEC Recommendations

Discussion

The Joint Program Evaluation Committee (JPEC) met on May 29 to complete the agenda of items from their

May 1 meeting. Both meetings were pertaining to compliance issues and performance for A4AA-funded

programs through the 3rd Quarter of SFY 2014-15. No new items were discussed at the May 29 meeting.

There are 13 recommendations for Board action, and they are detailed in the final pages of the attached and

updated “Service Provider Activity” report (see pages 7-9). The “#”s referenced in said Report correspond

with the row numbers in the “July - March Performance” spreadsheet which is also attached (the same

spreadsheet was sent with the last Board meeting packet; no changes have been made to it).

The initial staff suggestions are only shown to provide context; JPEC recommendations supersede staff

suggestions. Should new, salient information become available during the few days between the JPEC

meeting and the Board meeting, staff will provide that information to the Board.


SERVICE PROVIDER ACTIVITY REPORT

SFY 2014-15: THIRD QUARTER PERFORMANCE (July - March) AND YEAR-TO-DATE UPATES ON OTHER MATTERS Compiled April 28, 2015 Revised May 1, 2015 Revised May 29, 2015

The scope of this report is limited to events that have occurred during State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2014-15. Nevertheless, going forward, service provider activity will be considered both episodically and cumulatively for the duration of each provider’s contract period.

I. OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT Due to time constraints, A4 staff recommend the method for recognizing Outstanding Achievement among service providers be discussed further at a later meeting with a time and date to be determined.

II. PENDING ACTIONS Update: Cordova Neighborhood Church or CNC: Caregiver Respite (Sacramento) Online data reporting for this service is now being transitioned to A4AA.

RESOLUTION: Caring Choices: Health Promotion (Yuba & Sutter counties) A4AA’s deadline for this provider to execute their service contract was extended. The contract is now in place, so the matter is resolved. NEW: City of Sacramento: Triple-R Adult Day Program (Sacramento) During the 2015-19 RFP process, A4 Management concluded that the Triple-R program was out of compliance with the Older Americans Act. A4 Staff met with Triple-R Staff today to determine if compliance could be achieved by June 30 under the current contract. A general agreement has been reached with final details to be settled soon.

Serving Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo & Yuba Counties

2260 Park Towne Circle, Suite 100 / Sacramento, CA 95825 / Phone (916) 486-1876 / Fax: (916) 486-9454 / Website: www.a4aa.com


III. UPDATE on NEW PROVIDERS/PROGRAMS California Caregivers: Personal Care (Sacramento County) For the first six months of the current contract, California Caregivers has served 34 clients with 3,193 hours of Personal Care Services. The provider is at 95% of their scope of service for July through March. Caring Choices: Health Promotion (Yuba & Sutter counties) This Community Transitions program began on December 1, 2014 and has been performing very well. The provider has completed 17 contacts for Yuba County at 133% and 13 contacts for Sutter County at 186% as of March 2015. Staff is recommending a scope review for FY 2015-16 since this is a new service. Dine Around Town: Restaurant Vouchers (Yuba & Sutter counties) The contract period began on January 1, 2015. The program is an alternative to a congregate meal program by providing restaurant vouchers to 35 participants who can use them for breakfast, lunch or dinner at 3 Yuba City restaurants. Current voucher redemption is at 90%. Changes have been made to the voucher distribution process which will increase redemption by June 2015. HICAP Services of Northern CA (A4AA region, El Dorado & San Joaquin) HICAP is the Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program. It is a volunteer-based program that helps Medicare beneficiaries and others with questions, enrollments and claims. Our regionally managed HICAP has a Coordinating Council with representatives from Area 4, El Dorado and San Joaquin counties who provide oversight. The current contract period began on November 1, 2014.

Legal Services of Northern CA: Kinship (Placer County) After several discussions, A4 staff and LSNC staff mutually concluded that this program is not viable at this time. LSNC voluntarily terminated the contract on March 31, 2015 with no open cases pending. Mature Edge: A4AA Job Readiness Program (A4AA Region) Update pending. Gold Country Lift: Paratransit (Western Nevada County only) The contract period began on December 1, 2014. Update pending. ResCare HomeCare: Personal Care (Placer County) This is a new provider taking over an existing service as of July 1, 2014. ResCare continues to perform well and has not been below 100% of scope for any quarter this year. Currently through the 3rd quarter, they have completed 2,540 hours of personal care which places them at 103%.


Tahoe Transportation District (Eastern Nevada & Placer Counties) Update pending.

IV. IMPACTED SERVICES This information remains pending at this time.

V. COMPLIANCE (Not including Units of Service) The new item in Section II above is a contractual compliance issue and is being addressed. A4 fiscal staff report that despite being granted two deadline extensions, Gold Country Telecare (former Transportation provider in Nevada County) has failed to conduct an audit for SFY 2013-14. Furthermore, the independent audit firm has been unsuccessful in contacting anyone at Telecare to schedule the audit. Inventory and records also need to be retrieved from Telecare’s office. A4 contract staff report that the Yuba-Sutter Legal Center for Seniors is out of compliance with regard to insurance requirements. The provider has failed to provide evidence of Workers’ Compensation insurance as of April 1. As of May 1, A4 staff is now uncertain if the policy has lapsed. All other A4AA-funded service providers are in compliance at this time.

VI. PERFORMANCE (Units of Service Only) Initially, the number of service units to be provided during the contract period are set by successful RFP applicants. In cases where only partial funding is awarded, these “scopes of service” are usually renegotiated between Area 4 staff and the service provider before a contract is executed. To deter applicants from overestimating service units in order to present a more cost-effective proposal, A4AA policy states that scopes of service cannot be changed in the first year of a contract period. The policy does not apply to direct services of A4AA whose scopes are approved as part of the Area Plan development, amendment and update processes.

The A4AA Performance Standards Policy identifies six classifications based solely upon what percentage of the scope of service has actually been met for a particular program over a specified period of time (i.e, month, quarter, state fiscal year or year-to-date). The classifications are:


150% or More = Extreme Overperformance 125 – 149% = Overperformance 100 – 124% = Satisfactory Performance 95 – 99% = Minimally Acceptable Performance 86 – 94% = Underperformance 85% or Less = Out of Compliance Performance

Performance levels: The figures in the attached chart only cover results through the end of the third quarter of this State Fiscal Year (July 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015). Sanctions: At the end of the third quarter, Underperformance and Overperformance are both critical concerns as there is little time left for providers to achieve an Acceptable/Satisfactory service range by June 30. Cumulative Underperformance through three quarters may prompt a reduction of the grant award if the program is not expected to reach 95% of scope by year end and if the provider is not “drawing down” the full award. Cumulative Overperformance through three quarters requires a staff analysis, and barring extenuating or unforeseen circumstances, it may prompt a mandatory increase in scope for the program in the subsequent state fiscal year. The Executive Director and the Governing Board of A4AA both have authority to apply and to waive performance-related actions and sanctions. Regarding the A4AA policy against altering scopes of service during the first year of a contract, the Director has chosen not to recommend approving or denying any exceptions to that policy because she feels it is the role of JPEC to consider any such requests.

VII. QUALITY ASSURANCE A4AA is not aware of any quality assurance concerns at this time.

VIII. NEXT STEPS The recommendations made by JPEC will be noted below and immediately sent to the Governing Board for approval the following Friday. Affected service providers are welcome to attend either or both meetings and will have an opportunity to briefly speak prior to votes being cast. The A4 Staff suggestions below are based upon relevant information available at the time, including but not limited to Corrective Action Plans submitted by service providers. Staff is no longer able to predict when One Time Only (OTO) funds may


become available, thus staff is not suggesting specific dates when eligibility to receive OTO would be determined. Staff suggestions are subject to change. Members of JPEC are not obligated to accept suggestions from staff or requests from service providers.

Item A4 Staff Suggestions for JPEC action JPEC Recommendations for Board action

A3

Regarding Triple-R (see Section II above), staff is not making a suggestion. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever measures it sees fit.

Accept the Agreement between A4 staff and Triple-R to assure compliance with respect to means testing through June 30. No sanctions. GB Approved on 5/8.

B3

Regarding Gold Country Telecare (see Section II above), staff recommends an effort be made to retrieve A4AA equipment and records as soon as possible. Staff also recommends County Counsel be asked to send a letter to Telecare explaining the potential consequences of not completing an audit.

Accept staff suggestion. GB Approved on 5/8.

C3

Regarding the Yuba-Sutter Legal Center for Seniors (see Section II above), staff is hopeful the matter can be resolved today. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever measures it sees fit.

If the matter is not resolved on May 1, move this item to the May 8 Board Agenda. On 5/8, GB Voted to send a Letter of Reprimand.


D3

Regarding Gold Country Lift’s Paratransit program in Nevada County (#65), staff suggests a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible to re-evaluate the viability of this service. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever other measures it sees fit.

Direct staff to report on the meeting with Gold Country Lift and provide year-to-date performance figures through May 31 at the June Board meeting, and request the Board vote on a renewal of this contract for SFY 2015-16 at said meeting. GB Approved on 5/8.

E3

Regarding Seniors First’s Congregate Meals program in Placer County (#64), staff is inclined to believe it is very unlikely performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30. Staff suggests a 20% funding reduction be considered for the current state fiscal year. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever other

Accept the scope reduction proposed by Seniors First for the balance of SFY 2014-15. GB Approved on 5/8.


measures it sees fit.

F3

Regarding FREED’s Home Repair program in Nevada County (#63), staff is inclined to believe it is likely performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30. Staff suggests a letter be sent to FREED’s Governing Board to caution them about being prepared for staff disruptions, especially in small programs. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever other measures it sees fit.


G3

Regarding LSNC’s Legal program in Sierra County (#62), staff understand that legal providers cannot control representation hours; therefore, staff suggests future reports separate this service from Advice and Counseling. Staff recommends no action at this time. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


H3

Regarding Del Oro’s Caregiver Respite program in Placer County (#61), staff is inclined to believe it is possible performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30. Staff is currently undecided as to a suggestion. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever measures it sees fit.

Take no action at this time. GB Approved on 5/8.



I3

Regarding LSNC’s Kinship Legal program in Sacramento County (#60), staff is inclined to believe it is possible performance will reach 95% of scope on either # by June 30. Staff is currently undecided as to a suggestion. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever measures it sees fit.


J3

Regarding A4AA’s new Dine Around Town program in Sutter County (#59), staff suggests a scope adjustment be considered at a later time. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.

Item postponed on 5/8. JPEC moves GB accept staff suggestion.

K3

Regarding HHCM’s Caregiver Respite program in Yuba County (#58), staff is inclined to believe it is likely performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30. Staff suggests no action be taken. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


L3

Regarding Tahoe Transportation District’s new Transportation program in Placer County (#57), staff is inclined to believe it is very likely performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30. Staff commends the program for making a remarkable recovery during the third quarter! Staff suggests no action be taken. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


M3

Regarding Seniors First’s Transportation program in Placer County (#56), staff suggests no action be taken. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


N3

Regarding Triple-R’s Caregiver Respite program in Sacramento County (#55), staff is inclined to believe it is likely performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30. Staff suggests no action be taken. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


O3

Regarding Del Oro’s Caregiver Respite program in Sacramento County (#54), staff is inclined to believe it is very likely performance will reach 95% of scope by June 30. Staff suggests no action be taken.




P3

Regarding the programs in the Minimally Acceptable and Satisfactory Performance Categories (#25 – #53), staff suggests no action be taken. Staff commends the following providers for rising above the Under-performance level during the third quarter: Del Oro (#32 & #35), LSNC (#40), Dignity Health (#47), Gold Country Community Services (#48) and Cordova Neighborhood Church (#50). No action is necessary.

Item postponed on 5/8. JPEC moves GB take no action.

Q3

Regarding HICAP (#1), scopes of service for this program are set by the State and cannot be altered at the local level. Thus no action can be taken.

Item postponed on 5/8. For more effective evaluation, JPEC moves the GB direct the HICAP provider to independently establish realistic performance goals for persons counseled, by county, effective SFY 2015-16.

R3

Regarding All Programs with Overperformance Correction Plans Pending, staff suggests that scopes of service be adjusted to better reflect actual performance levels unless an unforeseen or extenuating circumstance exists. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


S3

Staff suggests that scopes of service be adjusted to better reflect actual performance levels for the following programs:

FREED Home Repair (#3 & #14)

A4AA Employment (#8)

Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


T3

Regarding HHCM’s Caregiver Respite program in Sutter County (#6), staff suggests no action be taken until further analysis can be done as to the demand for respite in the Yuba-Sutter area. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.




U3

Regarding LSNC’s Legal program in Sacramento County (#9), staff understand that legal providers cannot control representation hours; therefore, staff suggests future reports separate this service from Advice and Counseling. Staff recommends no action at this time. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


V3

Regarding Caring Choices’ new Health Promotion programs in Yuba and Sutter counties (#11 & #24), staff suggests a scope adjustment be considered at a later time. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


W3

Regarding A4AA’s HelpLine program in Nevada County (#15), no action is necessary because the program is ending on June 30.

Item postponed on 5/8. JPEC moves GB take no action.

X3

Regarding Community Link’s 211 program in Sacramento County (#17), staff suggests no action be taken at this time because both parties are in discussions about how calls should be handled moving forward. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.

Accept staff suggestion. GB Approved on 5/8

Y3

Regarding Yuba Sutter Legal Center’s program in Sutter County (#23), staff understand that legal providers cannot control representation hours; therefore, staff suggests future reports separate this service from Advice and Counseling. Staff recommends no action at this time. Staff defers to JPEC to consider other measures.


Item Additional JPEC Action

Z Next JPEC meeting set for Friday, May 29, 2015 at A4AA, beginning at 9:30 AM. If time permits, discuss the A4 Sanction Policy at the 5/29 meeting.

AA

Next JPEC meeting set for Friday, July 31, 2015 at A4AA, 9:30 – 11:30 A.M. Review Year-End performance and Compliance issues; adjust the performance worksheet as follows: 1) show separate figures for legal representation versus advice/counseling; 2) where a provider is offering related services in the same county, group those line items together; and 3) group together the Yuba-Sutter line items by service provider. Continue discuss on Sanction Policy & Re-visit Performance Standards Policy

AB If needed, second JPEC meeting held for Friday, August 7 at A4AA, 9:30 A.M.

May 1, 2015 JPEC Meeting Notes: Committee Members present: Dr. Karpinski-Costa (Chair), Goldstein (Vice-Chair), Bowen, Brunner, Burton, Feldstein, Hollis & Dr. Herman

A4 Staff present: Tift (committee liaison), Howton, Lester, Selland, Soto & Stan

Programs Represented: 211 Sacramento, Del Oro Caregiver Resource Center & Seniors First


May 29, 2015 JPEC Meeting Notes: Committee Members present: Dr. Karpinski-Costa (Chair), Goldstein (Vice-Chair), Bowen, Brunner, Burton, Hollis & Dr. Herman

A4 Staff present: Tift (committee liaison)

Programs Represented: Legal Services of Northern California (Sacramento Office)


ACTION ITEM VII. C.


FROM: Pam Miller

DATE: June 4, 2015

SUBJECT: Renewal of Contract with Paratransit Services for SFY 2015-16

(for transportation services in Western Nevada County)

Recommendation:

Approve a Conditional Renewal of Services

Discussion

On May 8, the Governing Board approved a slate of JPEC Recommendations. Among them was item D3

regarding the Gold Country Lift service being provided in Western Nevada County by Paratransit Services.

That item appears below:


D3

Regarding Gold Country Lift’s Paratransit program in Nevada County (#65), staff suggests a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible to re-evaluate the viability of this service. Staff defers to JPEC to consider taking whatever other measures it sees fit.

Direct staff to report on the meeting with Gold Country Lift and provide year-to-date performance figures through May 31 at the June Board meeting, and request the Board vote on a renewal of this contract for SFY 2015-16 at said meeting. GB Approved on 5/8.

Well before May 8, A4AA staff and Paratransit Services staff had mutually agreed that the service model was

to blame for the lack of response to the service that had been offered since January 2015. Nevertheless, no

alternative had been found until recently. A4AA staff thank Supervisor Beason for facilitating a

programmatic solution which effectively reintroduces the popular, long-time “Sunday Service” program

previously operated by Gold Country Telecare.

A4AA staff do strongly recommend a new name be chosen to reduce the likelihood that people will assume

this is a transit program for older church members who no longer drive. Last summer, A4AA did amend the

service definition of Transportation to include the clause, “Trips for medical, financial, shopping, and

nutritional purposes shall be prioritized.” Every month, all A4AA-funded transportation providers are

required to report the type of rides being provided.


A4AA staff is amenable to Paratransit’s basic transitional plan to:

A. Cease operations of the A4AA-funded portion of Gold Country Lift on June 1

B. Promote the second coming of the “Sunday Service”

C. Begin “Sunday Service” on July 12

Because the people of Western Nevada County have consistently rated Transportation as one of their top

needs, and because no other applicant responded to the recent RFP to offer such services in Western Nevada

County, A4AA staff support renewal of the service contract for SFY 2015-16 with the following condition:

1) Tiered scopes of service for both unduplicated clients served and annual one-way-rides provided shall

be explicitly approved by the A4AA Governing Board members representing Nevada County and

shall originate from negotiations between staff of A4AA and Paratransit Services.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that federal dollars were granted and were expended under contract to

complete a specific scope of work during SFY 2014-15, and virtually no one received a service. Currently,

Paratransit Services is classified as Out of Compliance and therefore not in Good Standing with A4AA and

therefore ineligible for contract renewal until they can return to Good Standing.

Consequently, A4AA staff shall withhold final reimbursement for monthly expenditures for SFY 2014-15

pending a year-end performance review by JPEC (scheduled for July 31) and pending subsequent Governing

Board action on the JPEC recommendations (scheduled for August 14).


ACTION ITEM VII. D.


FROM: Pam Miller

DATE: June 4, 2015

SUBJECT: Approve Funding of Proposals Submitted under the Revised 2015-19 RFP

Recommendation:

Vote to Fund the Best Eligible Applicants in Each Service Category

Discussion

In May, A4AA staff reviewed the eligible proposals submitted in response to the Revised (partially re-issued)

2015-19 Request for Proposals (RFP) and developed their initial recommendations and assessments based

upon the contents of the applications.

On June 2, the Grants Review Committee (GRC) met to discuss their impressions of each proposal, to hear

the staff recommendations, to hear from applicants who were present, to deliberate among themselves, and

finally to vote on their recommendations. Only those GRC members who had read a given application were

permitted to vote on that application.

Today, A4AA staff finalized its rationales and arrived at a recommendation for the Grandparent Services

category (staff was undecided on the two applications for that category going into the GRC meeting).

The funding recommendations described above are summarized on the following pages.

The proper procedures for this action item are explicitly described in the RFP itself for the mutual

understanding of applicants and staff. They are as follows:

D. Recommendation and Approval Process Meetings of the Grants Review Committee and Governing Board are open to the public. Representatives from applicant organizations will be allowed to make brief presentations on behalf of their proposal and may be asked questions about it (see RFP Timeline for dates and locations of meetings).

…

(3) Governing Board: All members of the Governing Board will be given advance access to all proposals submitted under an RFP, and they are welcome to conduct their own independent reviews as they see fit. Approval of funding under an RFP will be a Board Meeting action item and will be handled in accordance with standard rules of procedure. More specifically, the item would first be presented by staff and a representative from the Grants Review Committee, a motion would need to be made and seconded, a discussion period would commence, public comment (including comments from Applicants) would be received, questions may be posed and answered, further deliberation may follow, then votes will be held. Motions to award funds under an RFP should include a clear, sound rationale.


The A4AA Governing Board has the authority to make awards based upon factors other than those explicitly stated in the Application Evaluation Tool (Section 4). In such cases, a justification for the decision shall be documented.

The Governing Board has the authority to approve funding requests from governmental and nonprofit organizations; however, the California Department of Aging (CDA) reserves the right to overturn such a decision given sufficient cause (See Section E. below).

…

Staff suggests the proposals be heard and acted upon in the following order:

1. Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Programs (Placer County Only)

(4 Applications were submitted; 2 Applications are Eligible)

2. Caregiver Respite Care Services (Yuba & Sutter Counties Only)

(1 Eligible Application submitted)

3. Services for Grandparents Raising Grandchildren (Sacramento County Only)

(2 Eligible Applications submitted)

In accordance with the Brown Act, Governing Board members must recuse themselves from all discussions in

which they have a real or perceived Conflict of Interest, and said members may not vote on those particular

applications. We ask that Board members notify A4AA of any Conflicts prior to the June 12 meeting.


Title IIID Disease Prevention and Health Promotion – Placer County ($54,470) (1) Caring Choices requests $54,470 for the Caring Choices HomeMeds Program

Provide a concise recap of the key elements that have been stated in this proposal. Please note this

information will be used to provide a brief description of the proposed activities; it will NOT be

evaluated/rated.

“Caring Choices, will partner with Home Health Care Management (HHCM) to provide the HomeMeds

evidence-based medication care management program. The HomeMeds program has been designed for

Medicare certified home health agencies and for home health agencies providing services under

California's 1915(c) Medicaid waiver programs for seniors, including post -hospital transition programs.

HHCM is a Medicare Certified home health agency and provides services under 1915(c) waiver in

Placer County. Both Caring Choices and HHCM have experience providing post-hospital transitional

care services. We will provide the services to seniors who are receiving home health or Waiver services,

or are identified by their MD as being at risk. Registered Nurses will complete assessments with the

client regarding their medications, addressing the four of the common medication problems:

unnecessary therapeutic duplication; cardiovascular medication problems; falls, dizziness or confusion

caused by inappropriate psychotropic drugs; and inappropriate use of NSAIDS. About one third of

these clients will have problems that require the RN to consult with the program pharmacist. If

necessary, the RN will follow up with the client's physician after discussing the problems with the

pharmacist. Written information will be given to all clients regarding their medications. We will follow

up with the clients to document an hospitalizations during the year for medication related problems.”

A4AA STAFF RECOMMENDATION & RATIONALE:

Fully Fund Request at $54,470 with Conditions

A4AA staff would require (as a condition) that a Letter of Commitment be provided by a pharmacist

or pharmacy to fulfill that component of the program. Caring Choices indicated there would be no

difficulty in meeting this requirement.

A4AA staff recommend this program be fully funded on the grounds that the misuse of medications is

a serious concern among older adults that threatens their ability to remain in their own homes and that

the HomeMeds program has been proven to be effective in addressing this concern.

GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION & RATIONALE:

Fully Fund Request at $54,470.

GRC recommends this program be fully funded on the grounds that it is a needed service and that the

applicant has the ability to deliver the service. Vote: 3-1

GOVERNING BOARD ACTION & RATIONALE:

To Be Determined on June 12, 2015


(2) Geri-Fit Company LLC requests $6,930 for the Ger-Fit Strength Training Workout for Older

Adults Provide a concise recap of the key elements that have been stated in this proposal. Please note this


evaluated/rated.

“There are six Senior Centers and/or Community in Placer County that could initiate video-led exercise

classes for this evidence-based health promotion program for seniors. The traditional way our Licensed

Geri-Fit program was set up was for the facility or agency to purchase a Facility License and then the

facility or agency would provide and choose two of their own instructors to go through training.

Because our company does not staff licensed facilities with instructors of our choosing, the only other

option to provide our health promotion service is through video dvd. We are proposing that the Geri-Fit

evidence-based strength training video program for older adults be implemented at each of these six

centers. Public Performance Licenses run $150 per video/dvd per facility, and instructor training fees

are $315 per instructor in order for them to become a Geri-Fit Video Supervisor. Stretch bands would

be provided to those that take the video-led classes at the facilities, and the remaining dvds and stretch

bands would be distributed to those that prefer to exercise in the privacy of their homes. If the program

is well-received and more inventory is needed in order to satisfy the need for in-home video training,

then additional dvd units and stretch bands could be ordered using the cost basis of $10 per dvd and $5

per stretch band. We used a conservative figure of 150 dvd units and stretch bands for this RFP.”


Do Not Fund

A4AA staff find the proposal implausible. It is our understanding that local implementation of the

proposal is completely contingent upon volunteers who would complete a training program before

committing to lead/oversee sets of ongoing classes at 2 hours each week with no compensation for

their efforts. It is also our understanding that local administrative support for the program is

contingent upon agreements with six senior/community centers who would provide the physical space

where these classes would be held, also with no apparent compensation for that otherwise potentially

fee-generating space.

A4AA staff also infer from the proposal that the requisite agreements with local facilities have not

been made, nor have 12 volunteers successfully been retained to provide the Geri-Fit program.

Clarification on those points is requested from Geri-Fit.


Do Not Fund

GRC finds this proposal impractical, primarily due to the burden on local community centers. Vote: 4-0

NOTE: No Geri-Fit representative was present at the Grants Review Committee meeting.



(3) Geri-Fit Company LLC requests $45,000 for the Geri-Fit Strength Training Workout for

Older Adults Television Show Provide a concise recap of the key elements that have been stated in this proposal. Please note this


evaluated/rated.

“A television show featuring the Geri-Fit exercise program has greater appeal to the mass of the senior

population living in Placer County. The participants shown in the taped classes would be exercising in


three different levels: beginner, intermediate and advanced. Substitute exercises will be shown for those

that cannot do a particular exercise, i.e., do a leg extension instead of a squat.”

A4AA STAFF FINDING:

Request is Non-responsive and Ineligible for Funding Consideration

A4AA staff find the proposal is for a project, not a service. As such, the proposal does not

fulfill the intent of the Program Specifications for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion as

described in the RFP. Furthermore, the costs incurred in the proposed effort could not be reimbursed

under A4AA fiscal policy. A4AA staff have deemed this proposal ineligible for funding consideration

under this RFP.

GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

GRC accepts Staff’s Non-Responsive determination

GOVERNING BOARD ACTION:

Not Applicable


(4) Placer Independent Resource Services requests $25,000 for the Walk With Ease Program Provide a concise recap of the key elements that have been stated in this proposal. Please note this


evaluated/rated.

“This proposal seeks $25,000 under Title IIID- Health Promotion to continue our Walking With Ease

Program serving western Placer County. This highly-credentialed evidence-based program was created

under the auspices of the Arthritis Foundation (AF) and they own the rights to the program. The

training for instructors and volunteers is done online through AF, and the workbooks for the participants

must be purchased from them as well. We plan to serve 47 adults over age 60, and primarily residing in

rural areas such as Loomis, Penryn, Newcastle, Foresthill, Applegate, Meadow Vista, Colfax and the

area surrounding Lincoln. Although the program was created for those with arthritis, it is equally

effective for anyone that has difficulty walking. So any adult age 60 and over that wants to participate

can enroll.

Staff of the program consists of the part time Training Program Coordinator (50% time) and a couple

volunteers to be recruited from among former participants. The volunteers will assist the Coordinator to

prepare for each class, and will escort the participants as they walk to ensure safety of those that are frail

or use a walker. the curriculum consists of two parts - an educational discussion on an array of topics

followed by time for walking. Participants move at their own pace on a predefined path that is level and

safe from tripping hazards. The path is designed either to have several points at which one can choose

to return to the start point, or as two separate paths - one short and one long.

The primary goal is encouraging participants to become more active by developing the habit of walking,

which the evidence has shown improves their health by losing weight, increasing their flexibility and

stamina, reducing their pain, and providing socialization. Ultimately they can remain in their homes as

long as possible and safe to do so, and avert unnecessary or premature institutionalization. Evidence

also shows that older adults want to remain in their homes. Furthermore, being able to remain in one's

home reduces isolation and the associated incidence of depression, and individuals tend to be healthier

and more active for much longer than if residing in a care home or institution. They can age in place

and continue to participate in community activities, maintain their social network and supports, and have

maximum independence to choose how to live their lives (AARP Foundation studies).”

A4AA STAFF FINDING:

Request is Non-responsive and Ineligible for Funding Consideration

PIRS has violated repeated, explicit instruction in the RFP not to modify the Narrative application form

in any way. The form submitted is a fusion of the form used in the previous RFP and the form required

to be used in this RFP; subsequently, certain information is out of sequence or is missing altogether.

A4AA staff have deemed this proposal non-responsive and ineligible for funding consideration under

this RFP.

GRANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

GRC accepts Staff’s Non-Responsive determination

GOVERNING BOARD ACTION:

Not Applicable

Title III-E Caregiver Respite Care Services – Yuba & Sutter Counties ($33,334) (5) Caring Choices requests $33,334 for the Caring Choices In-Home Respite Program

Provide a concise recap of the key elements that have been stated in this proposal. Please note this


evaluated/rated.

“Caring Choices, will partner with partner Home Health Care Management (HHCM) to provide in-home

respite services to caregivers in Yuba and Sutter Counties who are caring for seniors (care recipient) age


60 and older who need assistance with activities of daily living. There will also be a priority to provide

respite services for those caring for a senior with Alzheimer's disease or related disorders. This respite

will be provided by trained personal care attendants PCAs, in order to provide a break to the caregiver

from their care-giving duties. The focus of the respite services will be on provision of personal care,

including bathing, meal preparation, toileting, dressing and supervision of the care receiver based on the

needs of the caregiver and receiver. Caring Choices will provide the fiscal and program management

and HHCM will provide the actual in-home respite based on the needs of the caregiver and care

receiver. Hours will be flexible based on their needs. In addition, HHCM will provide Registered

Nurses (RNs) who will provide case management services to assess the needs of the caregivers and care

receivers. The RNs will address health and safety issues, fall risks, nutritional needs, basic financial

issues, medication management difficulties, and caregiver burden issues. The RNs will visit each

caregiver and senior at least quarterly to reassess their changing needs, link them with additional

services as needed, and oversee the respite services that are being provided.”

A4AA STAFF RECOMMENDAITON & RATIONALE:

Fully Fund

A4AA staff recommend this program be fully funded on the grounds that respite is a needed service and

that the subcontracted entity (Home Health Care Management) has successfully provided medication

management services for many years.


Fully Fund

GRC recommends this program be fully funded based upon their ability to provide care and for offering

flexibility to clients as to the types of service they will receive. Vote: 3-0




Title III-E Caregiver Grandparent Services – Sacramento County ($30,000) Legal Services of Northern California requests $30,000 for the Legal Services for Older

Adults Raising Grandchildren or Related Children program Provide a concise recap of the key elements that have been stated in this proposal. Please note this


evaluated/rated.

“LSNC's Senior Legal Hotline (SLH) proposes to continue providing high quality, free legal assistance

to Sacramento County residents age 55 or older caring for and raising their grandchildren or a relative's

children. The project will provide older adult caregivers legal resources and community education on

caregiving for minor children and individuals with disabilities.

SLH will provide timely, confidential and useful legal advice and assistance to ensure that Sacramento

County grandparents and relative caregivers understand how to successfully navigate (and benefit from)

our legal system. In particular, SLH proposes to provide legal assistance regarding the guardianship

process, information and increased access to the probate and family court systems, and training on

grandparent visitation. Through one-on-one assistance, SLH aims to empower this group of caregivers.

Further, these clients will also receive assistance with the completion of forms and documents in an

effort to save them time in what can often be a complex bureaucratic maze.

SLH will also provide regular training and community legal education. Such training will include

"Know Your Rights" presentations, in order to further educate and empower this community.”


Do Not Fund

A4AA staff feel the proposal is fundable as submitted. However, we feel there is a better option.

Under the original 2015-19 RFP issued in January of 2015, LSNC did not apply to continue services in

this same service category and would have ceased services on June 30, 2015 had A4AA not decided to

re-issue the RFP in this category. During the GRC meeting, LSNC explained the primary reason for not

applying previously was that their current subcontract with the Mutual Assistance Network (MAN) to

provide support groups for grandparents raising grandkids was ending on June 30, 2015. LSNC also

explained that it was MAN that initiated the end of the sub-contractual relationship because they felt that

additional legal resource information was neither needed nor desired, based upon feedback from support

group participants.

Thus the proposal submitted by LSNC under this RFP does not include a support group component.

Instead, LSNC plans to conduct community education activities and anticipates reaching between 5 and

30 people at any given activity. A4AA staff feel that holding community education activities in a

variety of locations is not the most effective way to maximize LSNC’s legal expertise.

A4AA staff also feel that grandparents who are dealing with Child Protective Services (CPS) would be

high priority clients. LSNC’s testimony suggests there is not a strong, collaborative relationship

between the existing program and CPS in Sacramento County.

Finally, A4AA staff feel the primary benefits for prospective clients under this proposal would be in the

narrow realm of legal services. While grandparents raising grandchildren have unique legal challenges,

in playing the role of parents, they also have a broad spectrum of issues and concerns.


Fully Fund

GRC recommends this program be fully funded on the grounds that they will provide one-on-one legal

resources and that they will be able to reach grandparents through community education. Vote: 3-1




(7) Lilliput Children’s Services requests $30,000 for the Lilliput Kinship Support Services

Program Provide a concise recap of the key elements that have been stated in this proposal. Please note this


evaluated/rated.

“To address the growing population of older grandparents and relatives raising children, Lilliput will

offer two support groups per month specifically designed to meet the needs of relative caregivers age 55

years and over, including reducing social isolation, strengthening support networks, building parental

resiliency and alleviating stress. Lilliput will also offer a warm line 10 hours weekly to assist senior

relatives with navigation and linkage to the appropriate community based services and supports to

address their complex needs.”


Fully Fund with Conditions

A4AA staff feel the proposal is fundable upon the condition that Lilliput revises their scopes of service

as appropriate. {Community Education on Caregiving is defined as a service provided to groups of

people, not to individuals. Staff’s understanding is that the “warm line” is a one-to-one service and that

it constitutes some portion of the proposed unduplicated count and scope of service under Community

Education. That portion needs to be omitted.}

Lilliput proposes to expand existing support groups, suggesting an existing demand to do so among

grandparents raising grandchildren they currently reach. A4AA staff feel that meeting existing demand

for service is a higher priority than seeking new clients to serve. A4AA staff also feel the service model

that has been funded for many years (under contract with LSNC) is a good one; that model includes

support groups. Only Lilliput is proposing to do support groups.

A4AA staff also feel that grandparents who are dealing with Child Protective Services (CPS) would be

high priority clients. Lilliput’s testimony is that 45% of all referrals coming into their organization are

from CPS in Sacramento County.

Finally, A4AA staff feel that because raising grandchildren is a time-limited experience (because

children become young adults), in the long term it is more advantageous to have referral sources from

schools and/or child-centered organizations. A4AA staff feel Lilliput has a distinct advantage in this

area given their organization’s mission, purpose and existing partner network in Sacramento County.


Do Not Fund by Default

GRC felt the proposal was fundable.

GRC as a whole provided no rationale for not funding this applicant (individual concerns were voiced).

By default, the GRC recommendation to fully fund LSNC leaves no funding available in this service

category.

