States Responding: KS-3; OK-2; MO-1; TX-2; CO-1; AK–1; AZ–1.

What opportunities have you had, as a project director, to communicate with your delegate or alternate? Would you like more communication with your delegate?

Generally, members felt the delegates had done a good job communicating by email. One member said she would like an opportunity to talk about things other than legislative funding, for example program policies, models for successful programs that work well for RSVP. A Texas delegate said he/she had never been contacted personally in 12 years. Several said they would like additional communication with their delegates. Email was suggested as the most efficient way for delegates to communicate with members.

What challenges have been identified in your project and/or state?

Increased funding; recruiting baby boomers or younger seniors; diminishing purchasing power (a minimal increase in funding); changes in volunteer pool as well as employee pool; narrowing focus on definition of appropriate volunteer services/ outcomes; national priorities which do not fit specific community needs; time-consuming CNCS requirements such as requiring three signatures on volunteer hour reports; covering large areas on a very small budget; rising gasoline prices; lack of interest in keeping track of and reporting hours; changing interests for older volunteers; transportation issues; lack of opportunities in rural areas other than senior centers; funding “old” projects (funding level is below newer programs); recruiting and maintaining volunteers in a large area is very difficult with little or no staff; trying to place volunteers in homeland security – there are too many obstacles due to agencies’ requirements.

Successes/Innovative Strategies:

In Colorado, a Homeland Defense Project has been successful in developing leadership among volunteers and has helped to attract younger, healthier seniors who want to help the community. The project developed prototype emergency preparedness kits for home day care providers and trained 78% of local home daycare providers in a specialized 4-hour training course.

A Kansas director’s successes included collaboration with other agencies to produce community services, an active Advisory Council, and a community perception of the value of RSVP. RSVP of Emporia, KA, developed a Yellow Dot program to place readily available information in the cars of seniors with medical problems so that in case of accidents, first responders will know if the person may be suffering a diabetic reaction and is not drunk. This program will be distributed to all RSVP projects in the state.

An Oklahoma project collaborated with the Health Department, Neighborhood Watch and 12 other organizations to distribute emergency kits to homebound elderly and also walked the homebound individuals through the information in the kit. They offered training and services to volunteers by other volunteers, using their expertise to help other volunteers. A Texas project reported being funded for 185 volunteers, but has 1,400 volunteers with a staff of one full time and two part-time.

An Arizona director said her biggest success is just keeping up with the requirements (impact statements and reporting). Thanks to Project Star, she has been able to come up with good work plans and has been successful in recruiting new volunteers and sites. She uses email liberally, and also takes advantage of the Resource Center and Tech Center. Her program collaborates with many local entities (law enforcement, the state commission, etc.) to deal with community problems.

An Arkansas project distributes a brochure, “What can I do now that I’m retired?” to all human resource departments in the community; a brochure is given to each employee when they retire. This project also hosts an enrollee through Experience Works, a training program for seniors which places them with non-profit agencies (such as RSVP) at no cost to the agency.

What types of funding are being pursued by project directors? Have you been successful in securing additional funding?

An Oklahoma director said their program no longer does fundraising projects because they take too much staff time and energy. Instead they focus on grant writing and have been “fairly successful.” The staff “tries to keep up with all the positive partnerships that we are offered—but all of the partnerships take planning, development and nurturing. We look for those that are natural extensions of ones we are already doing and are planning for the next 3-5 years by identifying critical needs in our service areas.”

A project in Missouri has been able to secure additional funds from sources for a medical ride program, including ExxonMobile Foundation, and several individuals. A Texas director reported “any and all sources (of funding) are being explored.” The biggest problem is finding time to write grants. Funding comes from the local United Way and Lower Colorado River Authority money, and some county-city funds “in small quantities, never enough to be self sustaining.”

An Arizona director said that, as one person handling several counties with no staff, she has to choose between fundraising and directing the program.

What grants have you written? Were they funded?

A Colorado director reported receiving PNS grants for America Reads ($8,000) and Homeland Defense ($17,800). A Kansas project has received previous PNS, RWJF, Kansas Health Foundation and United Methodist Health Ministry grants funded at amounts ranging from $10,000 to $35,000. None are currently in force. Other successful grants have been written to local grant-makers.

An Oklahoma director reported that in the last three years, more than $65,000 has been secured in foundation grants, in-kind donations and new county dollars. PNS grants ranged from $8,000 to $14,000. A Texas program received grants through TEA, PNS, RWJF, State, State/Child Abuse Prevention-SBS (Shaken Baby Syndrome) and EPIC (Every Person Influences Children). Their sponsor agency Executive Director matches funds for the RSVP program.

An Arizona director received a PNS grant two years ago for $14,400. An Arkansas director has written local foundation grants, two PNS grants, AmeriCorps VISTA and Promise Fellow grants, and collaborated on an RWJF and Sisters of Charity grants. All were fully funded.

How much state funding will your project receive in the coming fiscal year? Is this an increase or decrease over last year? Is it new or continuing funding?

In Colorado, state funding has come through the Governor’s Commission on Community Service for Homeland Defense Project. Projects received $8,500 the first year and $5,000 the second; it is not annual funding. The Colorado State Legislature has not allocated any funding for RSVP projects.

A Kansas project receives transportation expense reimbursement from the Kansas Department of Transportation. It increased over the past year from $2,960 to $3,568. Previously RSVP received state money through the Department on Aging, but the line item was cut several years and has not been restored.

In Oklahoma, state funding is approximately $32,000- $34,000. The funding is continued funding at the same level as last year. Texas receives continuation level funding $25,471, $30,136 and $39,268 to the three programs reporting.

Does your state association apply for and receive any type of funding?

Colorado, Kansas, Arizona and Oklahoma state associations have talked about securing funding, but have not done so. Missouri does not have a state association.

The Texas state association is actively seeking grants and corporate funding and has a professional volunteer fundraiser working with the programs. Dollars are to be divided equally among the RSVP projects. Arizona is developing a strategy for 2005-06 funding. The monies would likely be used for public relations development – state wide as well as for individual projects – and for an overall action plan. Arkansas receives $5,575 from the state legislature – the amount has been the same for many years. Over the last three years, the state legislature has provided additional discretionary funds left in the district budget.

What contacts have been made with your state’s congressman?

A congressman from Colorado flew in from Washington DC just to give the keynote address at volunteer recognition in April, 2005. A Texas director reported that every RSVP director in the state writes letters, makes phone calls and visits their legislators often at their home office and at the Capitol. At their last state meeting, all directors visited the capitol in Austin and every state official was visited. At their “Senior Day at the Capitol” in February this year, 1,500 Senior Corps volunteers visited their elected officials on behalf of the programs. The Texas Association officers send constant information and updates to every level from the local town mayors up to the President. All projects are strongly encouraged to invite every possible official to recognitions, adding them to newsletter lists etc. as well. The Texas State Association also has a public relations committee and is developing a web site. A state video is in the planning stages. RSVP staff, volunteers and advisory council members have written numerous letters to Senator Eddie Lucio and Congressmen Hinojosa stressing the importance of increasing Senior Corps funding levels. Directors from other states also reported good communication and good rapport with state and national officials. Arizona directors have been requesting information from other state associations over NSSCTalk to share their strategies for securing state funding with them.

What networking has been done on the part of state associations or projects with the state commissions? Other CNCS programs?

Several RSVP directors from the Cluster were members of the Governor’s State Service Commissions; many participated in cross-stream conferences; all reported collaboration with FGP, SCP and/or AmeriCorps; and some took part in state commission-sponsored trainings.

What issues have been identified in your state as priorities for the NARSVPD board?

Continued federal funding and reducing paperwork requirements were two priorities identified. Benefits and wages for directors were also mentioned as priorities, as many directors do not get benefits such as health care insurance or 401K plans.

Any additional information you’d like to include?

· I would like to know how impact programming has helped to improve the image and public awareness of RSVP projects throughout the country. Also, how are projects making the transition from being focused on numbers of volunteers/hours to impact information? How are they doing all of this measurement with current staffing?

· I feel we need a better way to communicate any needs that arise with NARSVPD board members and the others involved with RSVP.

· State conferences are good, but not when combined with other Senior Corps agencies. We need program-specific training and ongoing contact with our delegates and the state office.

· I will not be attending the national conference this year. Since our funds are limited, I feel that incurring the cost of attending the conference set for August in Washington, DC, is far too high. Further, I must say last year’s experience was disappointing. While I understand the conference in 2004 was tied into the Points of Light event, I felt the conference had far too little to offer Senior Corps programs and was geared too much toward AmeriCorps.

· What resources are being made available? Why are we not hearing from our lobbyist? I think we could all use more information about what’s happening in Washington - basic info that we can pass on to volunteers, advisory councils, partners, etc., not just requests for letters to end in support, but clear information.

· I just attended a state meeting and several people asked me exactly what was the NARSVPD doing for them? Where were the dues going? They need answers.

· Established RSVP projects should be brought up to the new project funding based on geographical size and number of volunteers. I believe we could use more information and distribute it to Advisory Council members, volunteers, volunteer stations and other organizations that we partner with.

· I hope that RSVP doesn’t forget the traditional volunteer and the importance of volunteering at a senior center or other “warm and fuzzy” stations that are not impact related. Those senior volunteers who serve as greeters, serve food or do tableware wrapping know their service is necessary, and it certainly plays a part in how they feel about themselves.

· I am concerned about what I see coming down the road for rural projects especially. The “streamlining” of our programs is a good thing overall, but unless projects are funded at a reasonable rate, sponsors will have to drop us because it is costing them too much to have the program.

I would like to see more suggestions for additional funding sources. Perhaps the 401K would be something that the National could take on as a project.

Revised