Former Volunteer at St. Vincent, a home for boys. Denver Gray Panthers. 1974-76. Dir. Denver Clergy. Duane Gall - Craig Hart has worked with Brothers Redevelopment, Preschool Services Coordinator. Weber County of Denver. VISTA trainer. Univ of Colorado. Denver Model City Program. Community Organizer. Currently free lance photographer. State Project Coordinater, Community Services Administration Retired School Administrator. Senior Citizen Center. RSVP KUEP. Community Services. Legal Services. Asst. Dir. Utah State Coalition of Senior Citizens. Human Resource Coordinator, Dept. of Community Affairs. Latino, Chicano Cannery Workers Project, Union Activist, Japanese - Univ. of California (davis), sociologist, Davis, Black, Black Federation of San Diego, Social Planner, Marion Jeffery White, Citizens Policy Center, New Enterprise (Dir), Santa Barbara former VISTA Korean, former Executive Dir. Chinatown YWCA. San Francisco. Puerto Rican, Puerto Rican Organization for Women (PROD) William G. Seline White, Board Member, Assoc for Administration of Volunteer White. Presently Dir. fo Rehabilitation programs for the White. Presently Executive Director, Housing and Mr. O'BRIEN. I guess also for the record the specific recommendations of the 10 Citizens Review Committees and of the special task force referenced on page 42 with respect to Retired Senior volunteer program. [The information follows:] Purpose EXTRACT FROM CITIZEN'S REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT B. RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) RSVP is a program that provides grants and technical assistance to establish and expand projects which provide meaningful part-time volunteer activities for retired persons age 60 and over. Although RSVP is currently fullfilling this purpose and there is great enthusaism for the program, little has been required of RSVP in the way of demonstrably useful community service. It is the only ACTION program without a poverty focus. Also, while many RSVP programs do provide very useful work, it is the one ACTION program vulnerable to criticism for sponsoring white, middle-class social gatherings. Working with people who are not members of any minority community and in settings where the income level is above the proverty line is an allowable use of RSVPs. However, it should not be the primary use. The purpose of RSVP should be revised and expanded so that: Projects that directly affect minority and low-income individuals and groups take precedence over projects that do not. Volunteers become advocates for the seniors with whom they work. Meaningful service is defined to include community service as well as personal satisfaction. Essentially, this would mean giving priority to programs which enhance lowincome and minority seniors ability to cope with such problems as fixed income, social security, income tax and health care. Projects which RSVPs may find to be personally satisfying but which have no community service component should be eliminated. Sponsors In RSVP, even more than in VISTA, sponsors are traditional agencies and institutions-state, county and local government agencies and large, established senior citizen organizations. Since RSVP is not focused toward low-income and majority communities, the sponsors are generally not responsive to the needs of those communities. Most sponsors are not even responding effectively to the RSVPs themselves. Many have only the most general and vague sense of the skills of the RSVP's and the needs of those who are receiving volunteer assistance. Less traditional and more community-minded and community-based sponsors will be needed if RSVP is going to address significant community problems and reflect the goals of the Agency. Sponsors should include senior citizen activist groups; institutions which meet important community needs but which require volunteer support to improve their effectiveness; groups which recognize and support the informal networks of volunteers which already exist in minority communities; and senior social groups whose boards and activities reflect the population and the social needs of their neighborhoods. RSVP's should never fill slots that deprive other people of jobs. Sponsors and project directors should: Spend more time developing new stations for RSVP service in areas that will have a significant impact on community needs. Assess the needs of a community and match the skills of the RSVPs to those needs. Provide an opportunity for senior advocacy. Provide adequate supervision and recognition for the volunteers. Recruitment RSVP recruitment practices need scrutiny. The size of an RSVP grant depends upon the number of volunteers involved in the program. Some projects follow the practice of simply signing up volunteers from already established social groups in order to increase their funding while providing minimum opportunities for useful volunteer work. Since RSVP programs require no community service, and since there is no clear definition of meaningful volunteer service, this practice is not illegal. The result, however, is that recruitment becomes a vehicle to increase funding levels, not a method of increasing service and assistance to the community. The sponsor, rather than the v becomes the principal beneficiary of the program. Although this does not occur in all projects, it occurs frequently enough to warrant special attention. ACTION can stop this practice by including community impact as a goal for RSVP service, and by focusing its recruitment efforts on older citizens who are not already involved in programs at existing senior citizen organizations. RSVP also needs to recruit more men. This will be easier if there is meaningful work to be done. An ASVP outreach program that provides pre-retirement orientation to people who might become volunteers would be one vehicle for increasing the number of volunteers and the number of men. Finally, sponsors need to write grants that specify the ratio of volunteers per project director to avoid the situation where one project director is attempting to place 800 or 900 volunteers. A realistic ratio would leave the project director time to find useful stations for volunteers as well as time to match volunteer skills to tasks that need to be done. Purpose C. FOSTER GRANDPARENT PROGRAM (FGP) Foster Grandparents Program (FGP) provides grants and technical assistance to establish projects which provide help to children with special needs in health, education, welfare and related areas. Foster Grandparents must be low-income persons who are at least 60 years old. RSVP SUB TASK FORCE The attached two reports set forth the major problems and recommendations of the Citizens Review Committee and Field Day Work Groups with respect to RSVP. In our Task Force discussions, we concluded the area of principal concern in RSVP is the future direction of the program. At present, programs are designed to provide volunteers with meaningful roles. It has been suggested that this emphasis be shifted to require that the programs also meet a defined community need, which may or may not be poverty related. The suggestions ranged from requiring as a prerequisite to funding, a showing that a community need will be met, to the opposite approach that a community need is irrelevant to funding. The task force concluded, and therefore, recommends, a middle ground. We believe that a community need approach should be emphasized and met wherever possible. However, if should not be made a pre-requisite to funding. To this end ACTION should develop and disseminate new models of programs designed to meet community needs. RSVP SUB TASK FORCE I Set forth below is a compilation of problems noted in the Citizens Review Reports dealing with RSVP. We have listed them in order of major concern and have included a statement of possible solutions. 1. Seven regions have concluded that RSVP programs should be directed, whereever possible, to meet community needs while continuing to fulfill the personal needs of the volunteers. Recommendation.-In order to effect a shift in emphasis, ACTION should identify existing models, or develop new models of programs designed to meet community needs. The shift in emphasis should not result in RSVP becoming solely a poverty program at the expense of meeting volunteer needs. 2. Six regions concluded that the pattern of federal funding has not reflected the rising costs of operations. Sponsor staffs must spend an inordinate amount of time raising funds merely to keep pace with the declining rate of matching funds and the effects of inflation. Recommendation.-Increase funding levels to existing programs by making available, where needed, the 70 percent-30 percent matching fund formula provided in PSVP legislation. To accomplish this, ACTION must request an increase in RSVP appropriations. ACTION could also suggest that the 70-30 statutory ratio of ACTION-to-sponsor funds be amended to permit ACTION to increase funding levels in the neediest cases. This would require a statutory amendment. 3. Six regions have concluded that there is insufficient technical assistance and/or training given to ACTION staff and RSVP Directors, sponsors and Advisory Committees. Recommendation.-Design a training and technical assistance program to meet these needs. 4. Five regions concluded that ACTION places too much emphasis on numbers (volunteer hours of service, number of volunteers, etc.) at the expense of quality programming. Recommendation-Reevaluate goals and objectives and redesign reporting forms to include quality factors and not solely numerical standards. 5. Four regions concluded that there is a dearth of minority and male involvement in RSVP progams. Recommendations-Encourage RSVP to develop projects of interest to minorities and males. Train project directors and sponsors in minority and male recruiting. Assure that costs of volunteer participation does not preclude minority involvement. 6. Four regions have concluded that the rising cost of transportation is restricting volunteer participation. Recommendation-ACTION grants should recognize this increased cost of transportation and budget accordingly. 7. Three regions have included that RSVP lacks a strong identity both within and without the Agency. Recommendation-Reevaluate present publicity programs and design new materials which better convey the RSVP image. RSVP should also be provided a greater share of Agency time and effort. RSVP SUB TASK FORCE II In our earlier report we set forth a compilation of the problems noted in the Citizens Review Reports dealing with RSVP. This report will bring our prior effort up to date by presenting the recommendations of the Field Day Work Groups as set forth in their various documents. In many instances the Field Day Groups agreed with our recommendations and no attempt will be made to include them here. We will note only new proposals and request that you incorporate our earlier report by reference. For convenience sake the various new proposals with common characteristics will be grouped into separate categories. I. INFORMATION SHARING There was concern that information sharing among ACTION staff and various RSVP Directors has not been encouraged. Recommendations (1) Technical assistance packages and training programs should be established. (2) An RSVP newsletter should be established. (3) The Association of RSVP Directors should be encouraged to create and share new ideas. II. FUNDING As expected, additional RSVP funding was requested. However, certain qualifications were stressed. Recommendations (1) Request additional authorizations earmarked for RSVP. (2) Headquarters staff should not have total say on how new money would be used (expansions, one-time expenditures, new project development, etc.) Regions should be consulted. (3) Sponsors should not be accountable to RSVP for its own share of funding. (A minority view, with which our sub-task force tends to agree, suggests that some accountability is necessary.) (4) More flexibility should be given in allocating Federal moneys, in that sponsors should be able to decide how they wish to utilize Federal moneys. ACTION Grants Officer should not have total authority in this area. (5) Encourage funding assistance from state legislatures. (Sub-Task Force suggests that ACTION authorize use of RSVP name to independently funded programs if they agree to follow our guidelines.) New legislation None of the above recommendations would require any legislative changes. |