27
Engaging Leaders Program Senior Nutrition Program – Contribution Process Project Team: Rita Chard Tamara Henry Amanda Gallegos Jessica L. Gonzalez Johnny Sanchez Wathsna Sayasane Jami Spear

ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Engaging Leaders ProgramSenior Nutrition Program – Contribution Process

Project Team: Rita ChardTamara HenryAmanda GallegosJessica L. GonzalezJohnny SanchezWathsna SayasaneJami Spear

Page 2: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Senior Nutrition Meal Programi. Timeline

ii. Background

iii. Research

iv. Data

v. Recommendations

Page 3: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

City of Phoenix Senior Nutrition Meal Program (SNMP)

HSD Taskforce requested a raise to contribution• 2007

Program contracted to Selrico Services, Inc.• 2013

Review of Contributions• 2016

COP HSD Contributions Campaign•2008

Page 4: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

The Administration on Aging (AoA) Nutrition Meal ProgramCongregate Meal: • A federal program, authorized under Title III &

Title VI to administer grants to programs to deliver congregate and home delivery meals- City of Phoenix dedicates AoA grant funds to home delivery meal program only

• Meals served under the program must be 1/3 of the recommended dietary allowances

Page 5: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Average Budget for Older Adults

Source: The WOW-GI National Elder Economic Security Standard: A Methodology to Determine Economic Security for Elders

Average Healthcare Budget per month in Maricopa County

Couple SinglePoor $1,070 $535Good $724 $362Excellent $538 $269

Page 6: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Phoenix Senior Centers

Page 7: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Senior Center Services

Congregate Meal

Home Delivery Meal Programs Socialization

Page 8: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

How Phoenix ComparesCities Surveyed:• Chandler (1)• Gilbert (1)• Glendale (4)• Tempe (2)• Flagstaff (1)• Houston (36)• Austin (9)

Page 9: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

How Phoenix Compares

Phoenix Other Cities

# of CentersMandatory ContributionMandatory Membership Avg. # of Meals /day /centerContributions– SuggestedContributions – Actual  

15No$20 Annual40$2.50$.71

1 to 36NoNo10 to 85$1 to $4 $.25 to $3

Page 10: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

How Phoenix Compares: Commonalities • Satisfaction Level – Generally satisfied• Contributions are:

– Accepted but have declined since 2008– Voluntary– Collected in an anonymous, semi-private

manner• All entities struggle with encouraging

contributions– Greater need, transient population– Rising medical costs– Changing clientele with greater sense of

entitlement

Page 11: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

How Phoenix Compares: Differences

Phoenix Other Cities

Provider For-profit contracted vendor:• Selrico

Non-profit contracted providers:• Chandler Christian

Community Center • YWCA• Tempe Community Action

Agency• Meals on Wheels

Page 12: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

How Phoenix Compares: Differences

Phoenix Other Cities

Program Funding Source(s)

General Fund • Area Agency on Aging grants• Donations to contracted

nonprofit• United Way• Corporate/Local Businesses• General Fund (Tempe,

Scottsdale)Contributions Set by City of Phoenix Set by contracted provider or

Site Council

Page 13: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

How Phoenix Compares: Differences

Phoenix Other Cities

Role of City • Manage Selrico contract• Provide 15 host facilities,

including 3 kitchens• Provides funding from

General Fund• Collects contributions (go to

General Fund)

• Manage nonprofit contract/MOU

• Provide/host facilities

Role of Contracted Provider

• Food prep, catering and serving meals

• Food prep, catering and serving meals

• Secures funding via grants, donations to nonprofits, etc.

• Responsible for federal reporting, if grant funded

• Collect contributions which go directly back into the nonprofit

Page 14: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Survey• March 2016 • 15 Senior

Centers • 500

responses received

Page 15: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Survey Results - Highlights• What would encourage participants to visit

centers more frequently?7 days / week

3%

activities/ classes

45%

better food13%

nothing20%

people7%

time5%

other7%

#responses: 208

Page 16: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Survey Results - Highlights• What would encourage participants to contribute

more per meal?

Con-tribute $2.5022%

Better Food21%

Higher Income13%

Manda-tory18%

Lower Price8%

Nothing5%

Other13%

#responses: 210

Page 17: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 18: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Adult Centers: Branding

• Create a revised mission statement that embodies health and well being of adult clients

• Unified Adult Nutrition Program message for all 15 centers, emphasizing positive, healthy, actions in a community

• Consistent contribution donation process• Standardize newsletters; create a fill in template

Solution 1

15 Centers

Nutrition Services

One Outstanding Experience

Page 19: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Strengths Weaknesses

OpportunitiesThreats

Strengths Weaknesses

OpportunitiesThreats

Increases client well being when all foster the idea that they can count on one another

Will not affect perceptions about vegetable tenderness or temperature*

Entirely dependent on the possible uncertain actions of clients.

Transparent policies will create a bridge to relationships.

Recruiting VolunteersTraining Leadership

SWOTSolution 1

Page 20: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Request contributions• Send individualized benefit summaries to

participants • Lateral payments build bonds between clients• Enables the purchase of additional programming

(Most often requested item by 2016 surveyed)• Payment by voluntary contribution helps remove

the stigmas of free lunch • Effectively bring services to community achieving

Mission statement • Methods tried: monthly billing for budgeting ease• SWOT Rating : Low Risk

• Reported by the 109th Congress (2005-2006)

cont.

Solution 1

Page 21: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Target next procurement process to non-profits and community organizations with experience and similar mission.• Demonstrated best practice• Trend of other cities• Potential to reduce General Fund expense• City becomes host with vendor responsible for

operations

Utilize Community Partnerships

Solution 2

Page 22: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Strengths Weaknesses

OpportunitiesThreats

Strengths Weaknesses

OpportunitiesThreats

Reduced outputs on the oversight and liability for the program

Loss of long-standing City operational control

Non-responsive / inexperienced proposors

Joins powers of partners to focus on desired results

May scale to larger service operation

SWOTSolution 2

Page 23: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

City

Human Services Foundation

• 501(c)3 designated organization• Community board members with representatives

from Site Council and City ex-officio member

• Alternative revenue source– Fundraising events– Accept donations from private

individuals/organizations– Additional grant opportunities

• Supplement and enhance efforts of HSD

Site Council

Members

Service Provider Experts

Community

Solution 3

Page 24: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Strengths Weaknesses

OpportunitiesThreats

SWOTSolution 3

Reduced City oversight with increased external controls

Ease of accepting donations

Resources needed to establish / implement foundation

Improved economic conditions to attract private donations

Page 25: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Human Services Foundation• Fosters collaborative thinking among multiple

stakeholders • Focused efforts and resources to increase funding• Potential to raise greater awareness of human

services needs in Phoenix• Builds on momentum of increasing awareness of

living a healthier lifestyle• Consider time commitment from members and

differing perspectives• SWOT Rating : Low Risk

cont.

Solution 3

Page 26: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

SummaryProject Challenge• Increase average contribution rate• Raise member awareness regarding cost and

funding of SNMP and Senior Center Programs

3 Recommendations• Branding – Adult Nutrition Program• Utilize Community Partnerships –

Nonprofits/Community organizations• Human Services Foundation – Avenue for

additional funding sources and concentrated focus

Page 27: ELP_SNP2016 - Rev 061416

Thank you