ki bois community action foundation, inc. and forms/2016 kcaf board outcomes... · ki bois...
TRANSCRIPT
KI BOIS Community Action Foundation,
Inc.
Accomplishments, Coordination of Funds
and Outcomes of Efforts
January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016
KI BOIS Community Action Foundation, Inc.
Accomplishments, Coordination of Funds
and Outcomes of Efforts
January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016
Table of Contents Strategic Thinking for Long-Term Solutions ............................................................................................................................ 1
Delivering High-Quality, Accessible, and Well-Managed Services ......................................................................................... 3
Top State Management Accomplishment .......................................................................................................................... 3
Top Agency Management Accomplishments ..................................................................................................................... 3
Mobilizing Resources to Support Innovative Solutions .......................................................................................................... 4
Providing Positive Results for Vulnerable Populations ........................................................................................................... 5
Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program ................................................................................................................ 8
Goal 1: Low-income people become more self-sufficient. ................................................................................................... 10
National Performance Indicator 1.1 Employment ........................................................................................................... 10
National Performance Indicator 1.2 Employment Supports ............................................................................................ 12
National Performance Indicator 1.3 Employment Asset Enhancement and Utilization ................................................. 14
Goal 2: The conditions in which low-income people live are improved. ............................................................................. 16
National Performance Indicator 2.1 Community Improvement and Revitalization ........................................................ 16
National Performance Indicator 2.2 Community Quality of Life and Assets ................................................................... 19
National Performance Indicator 2.3 Community Engagement ....................................................................................... 21
Goal 3: Low-income people own a stake in their community. ............................................................................................. 22
National Performance Indicator 3.1 Community Enhancement through Maximum Feasible Participation .................. 22
National Performance Indicator 3.2 Community Empowerment through Maximum Feasible Participation ................. 23
Goal 4: Partnerships among supporters and providers of services to low-income people are achieved ............................ 25
National Performance Indicator 4.1 Expanding Opportunities through Community-Wide Partnerships ....................... 25
Goal 5: Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results ................................................................................................. 27
National Performance Indicator 5.1 Agency Development ............................................................................................. 27
Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and other
supportive environments...................................................................................................................................................... 30
National Performance Indicator 6.1 Independent Living ................................................................................................ 30
National Performance Indicator 6.2 Emergency Assistance ............................................................................................ 32
National Performance Indicator 6.3 Child and Family Development .............................................................................. 35
National Performance Indicator 6.4 Family Supports (Seniors, Disabled, and Caregivers) ............................................. 38
National Performance Indicator 6.5 Service Counts ........................................................................................................ 41
Demographics ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Logic Models ......................................................................................................................................................................... 45
1 | P a g e
2016 Accomplishments and Coordination of Funds
Strategic Thinking for Long-Term Solutions
a. Please describe an agency strategy which addresses a long-term solution to a
persistent problem affecting members of the low-income community.
Smart Start’s mission is to lead Oklahoma in coordinating an early childhood system
focused on strengthening families and school readiness for all children. Smart Start
Oklahoma trained all their Community Coordinators in the ABLe Change Framework
approach to systemic change. The KI BOIS Community Action Smart Start Kiamichi
Country (SSKC) Action Coordination Team (ACT) embraced this approach and began
doing system scans to identify their target for change. Several issues were identified.
The ACT reviewed and researched the issues and chose an issue where they believed
they could achieve and measure change. Their charge was to align and coordinate
services and supports in Haskell County then ultimately service area. The targeted
problem: Not all children are ready for school. The SSKC ACT priority: Not all families
are accessing developmental screenings/well child checkups for their children 0-6 years
old.
Multiple agencies serving the targeted population are part of the ACT. These agencies
graciously provided their existing parent literature for review. The terminology used was
not consistent nor specific regarding Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and
Treatment (EPSDT)/developmental screenings. With the assistance of the Oklahoma
Health Care Authority representative for the service area, the ACT revamped the
brochures to be clear and concise in their explanation of the need for
EPSDT/developmental screenings for all children. Both the local and tribal Head Start
programs were willing to change their parent literature. New parent brochures were
also shared with other providers along with an explanation of the need for updated
materials.
The Oklahoma Health Care Authority representative shared this project with her state
agency. They were very pleased with the ACT process in addressing the priority
problem. Their intent is to use this as a pilot project and replicate the solutions with
their representative throughout the state.
Address the following questions:
i. How did the agency identify the community need?
The SSKC Coordinator facilitated a systems scan for Haskell County using the
ABLe Change Framework Process. The SSKC Action Coordination Team (ACT)
developed a parent survey to be conducted at various locations and events in the
county, namely, enrollment day for Kindergarten. Survey results were compiled,
refined and analyzed. Through a root cause analysis, it was determined parents
were not taking their children for their EPSDT/developmental screening
appointments at the prescribed ages. The older the children the lower the
2 | P a g e
percentage of children receiving appropriate screenings. It appeared parents
were unaware of the importance of these screenings either in whole or that
screenings are prescribed for older children as well as infants and toddlers. It
was noted that providers may not have a full understanding of the EPSDT
process. It was also noted that community information may be confusing or
misleading for parents. In many cases the term “well child checks” were used.
Well child checks can be interpreted differently depending on the provider.
EPSDT/developmental screening appointments are crucial to ensure school
readiness.
ii. How were CSBG funds used to plan, manage, and/or develop the
approach?
CSBG funds were used to pay staff salaries, printing, and overhead for the
meeting space.
iii. What local partners were involved, and how did each contribute to the
program?
Parents – input/feedback
KI BOIS Head Start – SSKC ACT members, access to Head Start Parents,
literature
KI BOIS Community Action Foundation – SSKC ACT members, meeting
space, printing, fiscal agent.
Choctaw Nation Head Start - SSKC ACT member, access to Head Start,
literature
Stigler Health & Wellness Center – networking to access data on Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, & Treatment (EPSDT) rates in service area.
Working to increase EPSDT rates
Family First Medical Clinic - networking to access data on Early and Periodic
Screening, Diagnosis, & Treatment (EPSDT) rates in service area. Working to
increase EPSDT rates
Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) – SSKC ACT member, provides
technical support on systems work and data/statistical reports.
iv. What outcome indicators did the agency use to measure success?
The OHCA and The Health and Wellness Center will provide agency reports that
will reflect EPSDT rates for children 0-6 years old. Incremental reports will be
compared with each other as well as base line reports.
3 | P a g e
v. What outcomes have resulted in FY 2015? If no outcomes yet, when?
There have been no specific outcomes related to an increase in
EPSDT/developmental screening rates at this time. The SSKC ACT will start
reviewing reports in April 2017.
Delivering High-Quality, Accessible, and Well-Managed Services
b. Please describe what you consider to be the top management accomplishment
achieved by your State CSBG office during FY 2015. Show how responsible,
informed leadership led to effective and efficient management of the CSBG
program.
Top State Management Accomplishment:
The Oklahoma Department of Commerce (ODOC), working with the Oklahoma
Community Action Agencies, has convened a community needs assessment
work group to review and standardize specific components of the assessment
process and final document. The final product will be extremely helpful to
agencies and ODOC alike. Agencies will have a clear understanding regarding
the minimum requirements and monitors will be able to look for components in
the same place and order at each agency. This should also simplify training
since all agencies will have the same basic process and layout.
c. Please describe what you consider to be the top three management
accomplishments achieved by your agencies during FY 2015. Show how
responsible, informed leadership and effective, efficient processes led to high-
quality, accessible, and well-managed services.
Top Agency Management Accomplishments:
1. KI BOIS Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program received
CARF accreditation in February 2016. CARF stands for Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. CARF approved new standards for
accreditation of rapid rehousing and homelessness prevention (RRHP)
programs to support grantees of the Department of Veterans Affairs' SSVF
program. The KI BOIS SSVF Program was certified under these new
standards. Accreditation demonstrates that the SSVF program has opened its
service delivery and business processes to outside scrutiny in order to
improve quality for the veterans served. It ensures the program continues to
strive to represent and work at a level true to the KI BOIS Community Action
name and reputation. The certification process is a long, arduous process
requiring the time and energy of the entire SSVF program staff. Receiving
CARF accreditation allows the SSVF program to apply for a 3-year grant
renewal instead of applying annually. KI BOIS Community Action has one
other CARF accredited program; The Oaks Rehabilitative Services Center.
4 | P a g e
Mobilizing Resources to Support Innovative Solutions
d. Please describe how your agency addressed a cause or condition of poverty in
the community using an innovative or creative approach. Showcase how your
agency relied on mobilization and coordination of resources to help reach interim
and final outcomes. Demonstrate how CSBG “works” as it funds staff activities,
investments, or services to meet a community need. Include the following
elements:
i. Agency name (no acronyms please)
KI BOIS Community Action Foundation, Inc.
ii. Program name
Mobile Smiles Dental Van
iii. CSBG service category
Linkages, Health
iv. Description of program (capacity, duration, targeted population, etc)
Through community needs assessments, KI BOIS Community Action Foundation
(CAF) has repeatedly identified dental services as a need. KI BOIS CAF has
partnered with local county coalitions in two counties to bring the Oklahoma
Dental Foundation mobile dental van to eastern Oklahoma for the last two years.
For 2016, KI BOIS CAF committed CSBG funds to bring the mobile dental van to
three counties. The van spent one day in each county. The target population
was community residents with low incomes and no dental insurance. Depending
on the work needed by each patient, the dental van can accommodate 10 to 15
appointments each day.
v. How was the agency’s approach innovative or creative? Please be
specific.
For the first time, KI BOIS CAF was able to bring the local Federally Qualified
Health Center to the table. They were willing to provide a dentist and assistant to
work along-side the Dental Foundation’s staff. This increased the capacity each
day. KI BOIS CAF was also able to collaborate with two for-profit businesses to
provide meals and hotel rooms for the dental staff.
vi. Outcomes achieved (include the number of people enrolled and areas
affected)
Over three days the dental van served 39 patients and provided 212 procedures
thus improving the oral and physical health of the community residents treated.
vii. How were CSBG funds used? Please be specific.
CSBG funds were used to pay dental van fees, salaries, support salaries and
administrative expenses.
5 | P a g e
viii. What local partners were involved, and how did each contribute to the
program?
Partners include the following:
KI BOIS Community Action Foundation – provided staff time, scheduled
appointments, and cash to pay for the mobile dental van.
Oklahoma Dental Foundation – provided the mobile dental van, dentists and
assistants.
The Health and Wellness Center – scheduled appointments, provided a dentist
and assistant, and meals for dental staff.
Twin Lakes Hotel – provided two nights’ lodging for Oklahoma Dental
Foundation staff.
Kevin’s Restaurant – provided meals for dental staff.
Haskell County Health Department – provided referrals.
Volunteers - worked 36.5 hours.
Providing Positive Results for Vulnerable Populations
e. Please describe one youth-focused initiative that illustrates how CSBG funding
was used and coordinated with other programs and resources. Include the
following elements:
i. Description of initiative
Each year during May, KI BOIS Community Action sponsors events in each of its
base counties to celebrate Community Action Month and draw attention to
Community Action services available in their communities. Each County Office is
allowed to choose and plan their own event. The KI BOIS Community Action
Sequoyah County office chose to do a Shoes for Kids event. KI BOIS
Community Action partnered with the Journey Church and eight county schools
to provide new shoes for students. KI BOIS Community Acton staff went to each
school to meet with children, measure and fit them with a pair of brand new
shoes. The process made one think of Cinderella and the Prince as he slipped
the glass slipper on her foot to see if it was the perfect fit. The children were
smiling so brightly it appeared they were as happy as Cinderella.
6 | P a g e
ii. What local partners were involved, and how did each contribute to the
program?
KI BOIS Community Action – provided staff time to sort, prepare, deliver and fit
shoes to children.
Journey Church – donated over 1500 pair of shoes.
Public Schools – The following public schools provided time during the school
day for KI BOIS Community Action staff to come in and fit students with shoes;
Sallisaw, Marble City. Roland, Brushy, Belfonte, Gans, Moffet, and Vian
iii. Outcomes achieved (include the number of people enrolled and areas
affected)
One thousand four hundred sixty-two children were fitted with a new pair of
shoes to take home, call their own and provide protection for their precious feet.
iv. How were CSBG funds used? Please be specific.
CSBG funds are used to pay staff salaries.
f. Please describe one senior-focused initiative that illustrates how CSBG funding
was used and coordinated with other programs and resources. Include the
following elements:
i. Description of initiative
The National Foster Grandparent Volunteer Conference 2016 was held November
1 – 4, 2016, in the St Louis area in the small historic community of St. Charles. This
conference focused on the needs of volunteers and was a four day journey of
becoming more aware of how past and present trauma experiences can impact us
all in our daily functioning and the importance of self–care in our growth. The
underlying theme of the conference was our focus and attention will strengthen our
“heart, mind, body and soul.”
The KI BOIS Community Action Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) sent 20
volunteers, two staff members and one Advisory Council member to the conference.
Registration was $185 per person. As there are no funds in the budget to send
volunteers to a conference, the money had to be raised. The FGP volunteers
wasted no time and immediately started brainstorming how they would raise the
needed funds.
The volunteers were very creative and tireless in their fundraising efforts. In
Muldrow, Oklahoma, businesses donated goods for a large gift basket. Chances
were sold for the basket. In Mayes County, Oklahoma, one of the schools held
fundraisers to help their volunteers raise the money for their conference fees. Some
7 | P a g e
volunteers baked pies to sell. One volunteer, not making the trip, made two purses
and wallets on which her fellow volunteers sold chances. One church donated the
funds for a volunteer who is a member of their congregation. Two Cherokee Nation
Council Members made cash donations totaling $1500. The Muscogee Nation
made a 55 passenger bus available for the FGP Program to charter.
Upon arrival at the conference, volunteers were able to choose from a slate of
workshops including healthy lifestyles, the psychology of happiness, compassion
fatigue, emotional intelligence, Alzheimer’s, and a host of others. They were also
introduced to trauma informed care and the effects of trauma over a lifetime. When
the volunteers needed a break from sessions and workshops there was a craft room
full of fun things.
All attendees reported having a wonderful experience and returned recharged and
anxious to return to their volunteer post.
ii. What local partners were involved, and how did each contribute to the
program?
KI BOIS Community Action – paid travel fees for the Advisory Council member
and for the charter bus.
Muscogee Nation – provided access to a charter bus.
Cherokee Nation Council Members – cash donations.
Schools – fundraisers.
Muldrow Businesses – goods for gift basket.
Church – cash donation.
Volunteers – baked goods, home sewn items, lots of time and effort.
iii. Outcomes achieved (include the number of people enrolled and areas
affected)
Twenty volunteers, two FGP staff persons and one Advisory Council member
learned about events that can lead to a traumatic reaction, as well as the impact
trauma can have over a lifetime. Volunteers now have an understanding how
trauma informed care can be used to support the development of children. The
children assigned to these 20 FGP volunteers are better supported and equipped to
navigate their school and personal experiences.
iv. How were CSBG funds used? Please be specific.
CSBG funds were used to pay travel expenses for the Advisory Council member.
8 | P a g e
Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program –
“Working the way it was intended!”
Maria Rodriquez joined the US Armed Forces in California at age 18 and was a in the Army for 4
years and 3 months. During her time in the military she worked logistics and materials handling.
While enlisted she met and married another enlisted soldier. They stayed in the Army after
marrying and during that time had 2 children. After both she and her husband left the Army, they
had 2 more children. Following their discharge from the military, the family moved to Oklahoma,
specifically, the area where her husband’s family lived. Both she and her husband struggled while
adjusting to life outside the military. Maria was new in this area of the country and, as a Mexican
American, her first language is Spanish which created additional barriers. Maria and her husband
began to have marital issues which eventually lead to domestic violence. He kept her at home,
would not let her work and controlled every aspect of her life; from grocery shopping to presents
for the children and everything in between.
Maria tried to find a shelter with enough available beds for her and her children but was
unsuccessful. She made the decision to let her children stay with their grandparents while she
went to a homeless shelter so they could escape their abusive environment. On the day she left,
law enforcement had to come to the house to ensure her husband would not become violent with
her. When Maria came to the KI BOIS Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program,
she was a single veteran who had fled a terrible domestic violence situation. She was in a
homeless shelter and had voluntarily let her children stay with their grandparents so they would no
longer be in that toxic environment.
Once in the SSVF program, Maria made tremendous progress. Within a week she was moved
into emergency housing (out of the shelter) so she could have her children with her when they
were not in school. Within 45 days she was out of emergency housing and permanently housed.
The following month her children were able to move into the new home on a permanent basis.
The SSVF Program provided the initial assistance she needed to move into her own home. After
about 90 days, HUD Veterans Administration Supportive Housing (VASH) took over housing
payments. The SSVF Program continued to work with Maria to help her remove barriers and
achieve her goals.
Maria continued to thrive while in the Program. She was able to start working at the Veterans
Administration Medical Center (VAMC) in the Compensated Work Therapy Program. This was a
significant step for Maria. Her husband had not allowed her to work outside the home since her
discharge from the military. While she worked part time she saved her pay and was able to
purchase a vehicle. After four months of part time employment, she was hired on a permanent,
full time basis at the Jack C. Montgomery Medical Center. In less than one year, this single
mother with four children transitioned from being homeless with zero income to earning $16,000
per year and then on to earn $38,000 annually while living in her own home. Maria hopes she can
eventually find a suitable position with the VA in California that would allow her to transfer. In
doing so, she would be closer to her family.
9 | P a g e
Maria also worked with her Case Manager and a legal consultant, provided by the Program, to file
for a divorce. This effort was a success and she received her divorce decree. Her Case Manager
assisted her in developing a community based support system comprised primarily of women in
the Muskogee area. As she progressed through the Program, addressing barriers and achieving
goals, staff could see a mental and physical change in Maria that signaled she was moving toward
confidence and independence.
Maria and her children are still living in the home she moved into after being homeless. Maria and
her children are happy, healthy, and living in a loving home. She, and sometimes her children,
come by the office to drop off things they have made for the staff, to visit or even sometimes to get
advice or assistance with something new happening in her life. Maria is thriving as a single mom
in her independent life! One of the most amazing things was the joy she expressed at Christmas
time. After being in a controlling and abusive relationship for so many years, this was the first year
she was able to shop, choose and buy her children’s Christmas gifts.
Maria is a true success story and a great example of a Veteran utilizing the SSVF Program to
launch herself out of homelessness and directly into long-term, stable housing…permanent
housing. Housing which is providing a safe, loving environment for her and her children.
10 | P a g e
Outcome of Efforts, FY 2015
National Performance Indicators
Goal 1: Low-income people become more self-sufficient.
National Performance Indicator 1.1 Employment
The number and percentage of low-income participants who get a job or become self-employed as a result of Community Action Assistance, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number of
Participants Enrolled in Program(s)
(#)
II.) Number of Participants Expected to
Achieve Outcome in Reporting
Period (Target) (#)
III.) Number of
Participants Achieving
Outcome in Reporting
Period (Actual) (#)
IV.) Percentage Achieving
Outcome in Reporting
Period [ III / II = IV ] (%)
Programs Reporting
A. Unemployed and obtained a job 68
68
68 100%
SSVF, ESG, PSH, CAPTAIN
B. Employed and maintained a job for at least 90 days
167
167
167 100%
SSVF, ESG, PSH, DD, CAPTAIN
C. Employed and obtained an increase in employment income and/or benefits
32
32
32 100% SSVF, ESG, PSH
D. Achieved "living wage" employment and/or benefits 0 0 0 0 None Reporting
Legend
SSVF - Supportive Services for Veteran Families, ESG - Emergency Shelter Grant, PSH - Permanent Supportive Housing, DD - Developmentally Disabled, CAPTAIN - Reporting Software
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Unemployed and obtained a job 149 68 -54% -81
B. Employed and maintained a job for at least 90 days 175 167 -5% -8 C. Employed and obtained an increase in employment income and/or benefits 29 32 10% 3 D. Achieved "living wage" employment and/or benefits 0 0 0 0
Explanations/Comments A. There was no expansion in the Developmental Disabilities Program in 2016.
B. There was no expansion in the Developmental Disabilities Program in 2016. SSVF had an
increase of 20.
C. SSVF had an increase. HUD Permanent Supportive Housing had a decrease.
11 | P a g e
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
A. Unemployed and obtained ajob
B. Employed and maintained a jobfor at least 90 days
C. Employed and obtained anincrease in employment income
and/or benefits
D. Achieved "living wage"employment and/or benefits
1.1 Employment
2013 2014 2015 2016
12 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 1.2 Employment Supports
The number of low-income participants for whom barriers to initial or continuous employment are reduced or eliminated through assistance from Community Action, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number of Participants Enrolled in
Program(s) (#)
II.) Number of
Participants Achieving
Outcome in Reporting
Period (Target) (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Obtained skills/competencies required for employment
257
257 SSVF, DD, PSH, ESG, HSN, HSS
B. Completed ABE/GED and received certificate or diploma 110 2 HSN, HSS
C. Completed post-secondary education program and obtained certificate or diploma 42 42 HSN, HSS
D. Enrolled children in before or after school programs
17
17 HSN
E. Obtained care for child or other dependent 0 0 None Reporting
F. Obtained access to reliable transportation and/or driver's license
65
65 SSVF
G. Obtained health care services for themselves and/or family member
1,272
910
HALT, Rx, SSVF, CAPTAIN
H. Obtained and/or maintained safe and affordable housing
478
478 SSVF, ESG
I. Obtained food assistance 0 0 None Reporting
J. Obtained non-emergency LIHEAP energy assistance 0 0 None Reporting
K. Obtained non-emergency WX energy assistance
102
31 Housing
L. Obtained other non-emergency energy assistance (State/local/private energy programs. Do not include LIHEAP or WX)
478
478 SSVF, ESG
Legend
SSVF - Supportive Services for Veteran Families, ESG - Emergency Shelter Grant, PSH - Permanent Supportive Housing, DD - Developmentally Disabled, CAPTAIN - Reporting Software, HSN - Head Start North, HSS - Head Start North, Navigator - Health Insurance Enrollment Assistance, HALT - Haskell and Latimer Tobacco Project, Rx - Rx for Oklahoma
13 | P a g e
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
1.2 Employment Supports
2013 2014 2015 2016
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016
%
Change
#
Change
A. Obtained skills/competencies required for employment 268 257 -4% -11
B. Completed ABE/GED and received certificate or diploma 403 2 -100% -401
C. Completed post-secondary education program and obtained certificate or diploma 0
42 100% 42
D. Enrolled children in before or after school programs 17 17 0% 0
E. Obtained care for child or other dependent 0 0 0% 0
F. Obtained access to reliable transportation and/or driver's license 68
65 -4% -3
G. Obtained health care services for themselves and/or family member 721
910 26% 189
H. Obtained and/or maintained safe and affordable housing 370 478 29% 108
I. Obtained food assistance 0 0 0% 0
J. Obtained non-emergency LIHEAP energy assistance 0 0 0% 0
K. Obtained non-emergency WX energy assistance 27 31 15% 4
L. Obtained other non-emergency energy assistance (State/local/private energy programs. Do not include LIHEAP or WX) 370 478 29% 108
Explanations/Comments
A. Head Start parents decreased, Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) increased. B. Head Start parents were incorrectly reported last year. All parents accessing GED services were reported instead of only those completing and receiving diploma. C. Reporting Head Start parents for the first time on this line item. D. SSVF helped 3 fewer clients with obtaining transportation. G. Tobacco Help Line numbers increased, Rx and Navigator numbers decreased. H. & L.. SSVF and the Emergency Solutions Grants served additional clients. K. 4 additional homes were weatherized.
14 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 1.3 Employment Asset Enhancement and Utilization The number and percentage of low-income households that achieve an increase in financial assets and/or financial skills as a result of Community Action assistance, and the aggregated amount of those assets and resources for all participants achieving the outcome, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number of
Participants Enrolled in Program(s)
(#)
II.) Number of
Participants Expected to
Achieve Outcome in Reporting
Period (Target) (#)
III.) Number of
Participants Achieving
Outcome in Reporting
Period (Actual) (#)
IV.) Percentage Achieving
Outcome in Reporting
Period [ III / II = IV ] (%)
V.) Aggregated
Dollar Amounts
(Payments, Credits, or
Savings) ($)
Programs Reporting
Enhancement A. Number and percent of participants in tax preparation programs who qualified for any type of Federal or State tax credit and the expected aggregated dollar amount of credits
1,051
1,051
1,051 100.0%
$1,139,332 VITA
Enhancement B. Number and percent of participants who obtained court-ordered child support payments and the expected annual aggregated dollar amount of payments 0 0 0 0
$ -
None Reporting
Enhancement C. Number and percent of participants who were enrolled in telephone lifeline and/or energy discounts with the assistance of the agency and the expected aggregated dollar amount of savings 0 0 0 0
$ -
None Reporting
Utilization D. Number and percent of participants demonstrating ability to complete and maintain a budget for over 90 days 347
347 347 100% N/A
KWS, PSH, SSVF, Budget Counseling
Legend
VITA - Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, KWS - Domestic Violence Programs, PSH - Permanent Supportive Housing
15 | P a g e
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
Enhancement A. Number and percent of participants in tax preparation programs who qualified for any type of Federal or State tax credit and the expected aggregated dollar amount of credits 929
1,051 13% 122
Enhancement B. Number and percent of participants who obtained court-ordered child support payments and the expected annual aggregated dollar amount of payments 0 0 0 0
Enhancement C. Number and percent of participants who were enrolled in telephone lifeline and/or energy discounts with the assistance of the agency and the expected aggregated dollar amount of savings 0 0 0 0
Utilization D. Number and percent of participants demonstrating ability to complete and maintain a budget for over 90 days 328
347 6% 19 Explanations/Comments A. Additional clients were served but their credits were less. D. Supportive Services for Veteran Families had an increase in client budget counseling.
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
A. Tax Credits B. Child Support C. Telephone Lifeline D. Maintain a Budget
1.3 Employment Asset Enhancement and Utilization
2013 2014 2015 2016
16 | P a g e
Goal 2: The conditions in which low-income people live are improved.
National Performance Indicator 2.1 Community Improvement and Revitalization
Increase in, or safeguarding of, threatened opportunities and community resources or services for low-income people in the community as a result of Community Action projects/initiatives or advocacy with other public and private agencies, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number
of Projects
or Initiatives
(#)
II.) Number of
Opportunities and/or
Community Resources
Preserved or Increased (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Jobs created, or saved, from reduction or elimination in the community
1
1 SSVF
B. Accessible "living wage" jobs created, or saved, from reduction or elimination in the community
1
1 SSVF
C. Safe and affordable housing units created in the community 0 0
None Reporting
D. Safe and affordable housing units in the community preserved or improved through construction, weatherization or rehabilitation achieved by Community Action activity or advocacy
2
31 Housing, Wx
E. Accessible safe and affordable health care services/facilities for low-income people created, or saved from reduction or elimination 1 175
Health & Wellness
Center F. Accessible safe and affordable child care or child development placement opportunities for low-income families created, or saved from reduction or elimination 0 0
None Reporting
G. Accessible before-school and after-school program placement opportunities for low-income families created, or saved from reduction or elimination 0 0
None Reporting
H. Accessible new or expanded transportation resources, or those that are saved from reduction or elimination, that are available to low-income people, including public or private transportation 0 0
None Reporting
I. Accessible or increased educational and training placement opportunities, or those that are saved from reduction or elimination, that are available for low-income people in the community, including vocational, literacy, and life skill training, ABE/GED, and post-secondary education 0 0
None Reporting
Legend SSVF - Supportive Services for Veteran Families, Housing - Housing Programs, Wx - Weatherization
17 | P a g e
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Jobs created, or saved, from reduction or elimination in the community 1/1 1/1 0/0 0/0
B. Accessible "living wage" jobs created, or saved, from reduction or elimination in the community 1/1 1/1 0/0 0/0
C. Safe and affordable housing units created in the community 0 0 0 0
D. Safe and affordable housing units in the community preserved or improved through construction, weatherization or rehabilitation achieved by Community Action activity or advocacy 2/27 2/31 0%/15% 0/4
E. Accessible safe and affordable health care services/facilities for low-income people created, or saved from reduction or elimination 0 1/175 100% 1/175
F. Accessible safe and affordable child care or child development placement opportunities for low-income families created, or saved from reduction or elimination 0 0 0 0
G. Accessible before-school and after-school program placement opportunities for low-income families created, or saved from reduction or elimination 0 0 0 0
H. Accessible new or expanded transportation resources, or those that are saved from reduction or elimination, that are available to low-income people, including public or private transportation 0 0 0 0
I. Accessible or increased educational and training placement opportunities, or those that are saved from reduction or elimination, that are available for low-income people in the community, including vocational, literacy, and life skill training, ABE/GED, and post-secondary education 0 0 0 0
Explanations/Comments
C. 4 more houses were weatherized. E. New clinic opened.
18 | P a g e
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
2.1 Community Improvement and Revitalization
2013 2014 2015 2016
19 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 2.2 Community Quality of Life and Assets
The quality of life and assets in low-income neighborhoods are improved by Community Action initiative or advocacy, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number
of Program
Initiatives or
Advocacy Efforts
(#)
II.) Number of
Community Assets,
Services, or Facilities
Preserved or
Increased (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Increases in community assets as a result of a change in law, regulation or policy, which results in improvements in quality of life and assets 0 0
None Reporting
B. Increase in the availability or preservation of community facilities 0 0
None Reporting
C. Increase in the availability or preservation of community services to improve public health and safety 0 0
None Reporting
D. Increase in the availability or preservation of commercial services within low-income neighborhoods 0 0
None Reporting
E. Increase in or preservation of neighborhood quality-of-life resources 0 0
None Reporting
Legend None Reporting
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Increases in community assets as a result of a change in law, regulation or policy, which results in improvements in quality of life and assets 0 0 0 0
B. Increase in the availability or preservation of community facilities 0 0 0 0
C. Increase in the availability or preservation of community services to improve public health and safety 0 0 0 0
D. Increase in the availability or preservation of commercial services within low-income neighborhoods 0 0 0 0
E. Increase in or preservation of neighborhood quality-of-life resources 0 0 0 0
Explanations/Comments
N/A
20 | P a g e
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
A. Community Assets B. Community Facilities C. Public health and safety D. Commercial Services E. Neighborhood quality oflife resources
2.2 Community Quality of Life and Assets
2013 2014 2015 2016
21 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 2.3 Community Engagement
The number of community members working with Community Action to improve conditions in the community.
I.) Total Contribution by Community (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Number of community members mobilized by Community Action that participate in community revitalization and anti-poverty initiatives
4,137 All
B. Number of volunteer hours donated to the agency (This will be ALL volunteer hours)
148,387 All
Legend All - All programs report on these indicators
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Number of community members mobilized by Community Action that participate in community revitalization and anti-poverty initiatives
5,116
4,137 -19% -979
B. Number of volunteer hours donated to the agency (This will be ALL volunteer hours)
153,038
148,387 -3% -4651
Explanations/Comments
A & B. Foster Grandparent Program had more hours, Retired Senior Volunteer Program and County Offices had fewer volunteers and hours, Smart Start Kiamichi Country only operated for 6 months.
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
75000
90000
105000
120000
135000
150000
165000
180000
195000
A. Community Members Mobilized B. Volunteer Hours Donated
2.3 Community Engagement
2013 2014 2015 2016
22 | P a g e
Goal 3: Low-income people own a stake in their community.
National Performance Indicator 3.1 Community Enhancement through Maximum Feasible Participation The number of volunteer hours donated to Community Action
I.) Total Number of Volunteer Hours (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Total number of volunteer hours donated by low-income individuals to Community Action (This is ONLY the number of volunteer hours from individuals who are low-income)
125,876
FGP, HS, Board
Legend FGP - Foster Grandparent Program, HS - Head Start Thus, out of 148,387 total volunteer hours reported in 2.3B, 125,876
were from low income participants. Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016
%
Change
#
Change
A. Total number of volunteer hours donated by low-income individuals to Community Action (This is ONLY the number of volunteer hours from individuals who are low-income)
127,192
125,876 -1% -1316
Explanations/Comments
A. Fewer volunteers and hours through County Offices.
115000
120000
125000
130000
135000
140000
145000
150000
A. Low-income Volunteer Hours
3.1 Community Enhancement through Maximum Feasible Participation
2013 2014 2015 2016
23 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 3.2 Community Empowerment through Maximum Feasible Participation The number of low-income people mobilized as a direct result of Community Action initiatives to engage in activities that support and promote their own well-being and that of their community, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number of Low-Income People (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Number of low-income people participating in formal community organizations, government, boards or councils that provide input to decision-making and policy-setting through Community Action efforts
131
FGP, HS, RSVP, HSG, LC, SSKC,
KBBD B. Number of low-income people acquiring businesses in their community as a result of Community Action assistance 0
None Reporting
C. Number of low-income people purchasing their own home in their community as a result of Community Action assistance 0
None Reporting
D. Number of low-income people engaged in non-governance community activities or groups created or supported by Community Action
1,823
FGP, RSVP, HS, LC,
SSKC, HALT Legend FGP - Foster Grandparent Program, HS - Head Start, RSVP - Retired Senior Volunteer Program, HSG - Housing, LC - Latimer County, SSKC - Smart Start Kiamichi Country, KBBD - KI BOIS Board, HALT - The HALT Project
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Number of low-income people participating in formal community organizations, government, boards or councils that provide input to decision-making and policy-setting through Community Action efforts
268
131 -51% -137
B. Number of low-income people acquiring businesses in their community as a result of Community Action assistance 0 0 0 0
C. Number of low-income people purchasing their own home in their community as a result of Community Action assistance 0 0 0 0
D. Number of low-income people engaged in non-governance community activities or groups created or supported by Community Action
2,497
1,823 -27% -674
Other – Housing Counseling 61 69 113% 8
24 | P a g e
Explanations/Comments
A. Fewer low-income participants in Housing, Head Start, Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and the HALT Project no longer has an advisory board. D. Smart Start Kiamichi Country only operated 6 months. Other - more clients requested counseling.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
A. Formal CommunityOrganizations
B. Acquiring Businesses C. Purchasing a Home D. Non-gevernanceActivities
Housing Counseling
3.2 Community Empowerment through Maximum Feasible Participation
2013 2014 2015 2016
25 | P a g e
Goal 4: Partnerships among supporters and providers of services to low-income people are achieved
National Performance Indicator 4.1 Expanding Opportunities through Community-Wide Partnerships
The number of organizations, both public and private, that Community Action actively works with to expand resources and opportunities in order to achieve family and community outcomes.
I.) Unduplicated Number of
Organizations(#)
II.) Number of Partnerships(#)
Programs Reporting
A. Non-Profit Do not track 100 All B. Faith Based unduplicated 99 All C. Local Government 128 All D. State Government 13 80 All E. Federal Government 23 All F. For-Profit Business or Corporation 99 All G. Consortiums/Collaboration 81 All H. Housing Consortiums/Collaboration 21 All I. School Districts 148 All J. Institutions of postsecondary education/training
31 All
K. Financial/Banking Institutions 21 All L. Health Service Institutions 125 All M. State wide associations or collaborations 16 All
Tribal Nations 4 10 All
Sign Language Interpreters 2 2 All
Veteran Service Organizations 9 9 All
N. Total number of organizations and total number of partnerships CAAs work with to promote family and community outcomes
28 993
Legend All - All programs reported on these partnerships.
26 | P a g e
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change
#
Change
A. Non-Profit 149 100 -33% -49
B. Faith Based 101 99 -2% -2
C. Local Government 147 128 -13% -19
D. State Government 67 80 19% 13
E. Federal Government 30 23 -23% -7
F. For-Profit Business or Corporation 57 99 74% 42
G. Consortiums/Collaboration 38 81 113% 43
H. Housing Consortiums/Collaboration 9 21 133% 12
I. School Districts 160 148 -8% -12
J. Institutions of postsecondary education/training 29 31 7% 2
K. Financial/Banking Institutions 15 21 40% 6
L. Health Service Institutions 92 125 36% 33
M. State wide associations or collaborations 32 16 -50% -16
Tribal Nations 10 10 0% 0
Sign Language Interpreters 2 2 0% 0
Veteran Service Organizations 9 9 0% 0
Explanations/Comments
There were changes in various categories across agency programs. The Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program continues to form new partnerships through their 24 county service area and accounts for the majority of growth in G. and H. Agency does not track unduplicated organizations.
0
50
100
150
200
250
4.1 Expanding Opportunities through Community-Wide Partnerships
2013 2014 2015 2016
27 | P a g e
Goal 5: Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results
National Performance Indicator 5.1 Agency Development The number of human capital resources available to Community Action that increase agency capacity to achieve family and community outcomes, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Resources in Agency (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Number of Certified Community Action Professionals
13 KCAF
B. Number of Nationally Certified ROMA Trainers 0 KCAF C. Number of Family Development Certified Staff 0 HS
D. Number of Child Development Certified Staff
168 HS
E. Number of staff attending trainings
739 All
F. Number of Board Members attending trainings
126
FGP, HSG, RSVP, HALT, VITA, SPG,
G. Hours of staff in trainings
11,327 All
H. Hours of Board Members in trainings
649
FGP, HSG, RSVP, HALT, VITA, SPG,
Certified Domestic & Sexual Violence Response Professional 2 KWS
Certified Community Transit Manager, Certified Master Technician (Transportation) 1 CCTM, 5 CMT KATS
Certified Red Cross CPR Trainers 2 OAKS
Legend
KCAF - Agency wide, HS - Head Start, All - All programs reported, RSVP - Retired Senior Volunteer Program, VITA - Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, Suicide Prevention Grant
28 | P a g e
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Number of Certified Community Action Professionals
13 13 0% 0
B. Number of Nationally Certified ROMA Trainers 0 0 0% 0
C. Number of Family Development Certified Staff 0 0 0% 0
D. Number of Child Development Certified Staff 172 168 -2% -4
E. Number of staff attending trainings 1,013 739 -27% -274
F. Number of Board Members attending trainings 98 126 29% 28
G. Hours of staff in trainings 21,181 11,327 -47% -9854
H. Hours of Board Members in trainings 904 649 -28% -254.5
Certified Domestic & Sexual Violence Response Professional 2 2 0% 0
Certified Community Transit Manager, Certified Master Technician (Transportation) 1 CCTM, 5 CMT 1 CCTM, 5 CMT 0% 0
Certified Red Cross CPR Trainers 2 2 0% 0
Explanations/Comments
D. Increase in Head Start staff with certification. E. & G. No expansion this year so many fewer new staff requiring new hire and programmatic training. F. Head Start reported more board members. H. Board members had fewer hours of training (including not as much ROMA NG and Organizational Standards).
29 | P a g e
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
A. CCAP B. ROMATrainers
C. FamilyDevelopment
D. ChildDevelopment
E. StaffAttendingTraining
F. BoardMembersAttendingTraining
H. Hours ofBoard
Members
CDSVRP Transit Red CrossCPR
5.1 Agency Development
2013 2014 2015 2016
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
G. Hours of Staff
5.1 Agency Development
2013 2014 2015 2016
30 | P a g e
Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and other supportive environments
National Performance Indicator 6.1 Independent Living The number of vulnerable individuals receiving services from Community Action who maintain an independent living situation as a result of those services:
I.) Number of Vulnerable Individuals Living Independently
(#)
Programs Reporting
A. Senior Citizens (seniors can be reported twice, once under Senior Citizens and again if they are disabled under Individuals with Disabilities, ages 55-over)
2,372
KCC, DD, PSH, RSVP, ESG, FGP,
SSVF, CAPTAIN
B. Individuals with Disabilities
Ages 0-17 48 DD, SSVF,
ESG 18-54 122 DD, PSH
55-over 650 KCC, DD,
PSH, SSVF
Age Unknown
929 SSVF, RSVP, FGP, KCC
TOTAL individuals with disabilities (automatically calculates)
1749
Other – Substance Abuse 550 Legend
KCC - KI BOIS Community Care, DD - Developmentally Disabled, RSVP - Retired Senior Volunteer Program, FGP - Foster Grandparent Company, RSVP - Retired Senior Volunteer Program, CAPTAIN - Outcome reporting software, PSH - Permanent Supportive Housing, SSVF - Supportive Services for Veteran Families, ESG - Emergency Solutions Grant
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Senior Citizens (seniors can be reported twice, once under Senior Citizens and again if they are disabled under Individuals with Disabilities, ages 55-over) 990 2372 140% 1382
B. Individuals with Disabilities
0-17 35 48 37% 13
18-54 125 122 -2% -3
55-over 618 650 5% 32
Age Unknown 397 929 134% 532
TOTAL individuals with disabilities (automatically calculates)
1175
1749 49% 574
Other – Substance Abuse 550 100% 550
Explanations/Comments
31 | P a g e
A. & B. Supportive Services for Veteran Families, Emergency Solutions Grant and The Oaks Rehabilitative Services Center had increases in clients meeting the above criteria. Both A. & B. were adjusted to align with numbers reported on Section G in the same respective categories. Other - Reporting substance abuse clients for the first time under 6.1.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
A. Senior Citizens Disabilities 0-17 Disabilities 18-54 Disabilities 55-over
Disabilities AgeUnknown
Total Disabilities Other
6.1 Independent Living
2013 2014 2015 2016
32 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 6.2 Emergency Assistance
The number of low-income individuals served by Community Action who sought emergency assistance and the number of those individuals for whom assistance was provided, including such services as:
I.) Number of Individuals
Seeking Assistance (#)
II.) Number of Individuals
Receiving Assistance (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Emergency Food
7,192
7,192 Annual Report,
CAPTAIN B. Emergency fuel or utility payments funded by LIHEAP or other public and private funding sources
2,341
2,341
SSVF, ESG, PSH, CAPTAIN
C. Emergency Rent or Mortgage Assistance
2,106
2,106 SSVF, ESG, PSH,
CAPTAIN D. Emergency Car or Home Repair (i.e. structural, appliance, heating system, etc.)
65
65 SSVF
E. Emergency Temporary Shelter
433
433
SSVF, ESG, KWS, CAPTAIN
F. Emergency Medical Care
0
0 CAPTAIN
G. Emergency Protection from Violence
269
269 KWS
H. Emergency Legal Assistance
0 0 None Reporting
I. Emergency Transportation
148
148 SSVF
J. Emergency Disaster Relief
9
9 Outreach
Offices
K. Emergency Clothing
405
405 Annual Report,
CAPTAIN
Fans-3/Blankets-76 79 79 Annual Report,
SSVF
Vehicle Fuel 18 18 Annual Report,
SSVF Legend Annual Report - Agency report to Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies, CAPTAIN - Outcome Reporting Software, SSVF - Supportive Services for Veteran Families, ESG - Emergency Solutions Grant, PSH - Permanent Supportive Housing, KWS - KI BOIS Domestic Violence Programs,
33 | P a g e
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Emergency Food
11,979 7,192 -40% -4787
B. Emergency fuel or utility payments funded by LIHEAP or other public and private funding sources
2,011 2,341 16% 330
C. Emergency Rent or Mortgage Assistance
1,251 2,106 68% 855
D. Emergency Car or Home Repair (i.e. structural, appliance, heating system, etc.)
68 65 -4% -3
E. Emergency Temporary Shelter
587 433 -26% -154
F. Emergency Medical Care
1 0 -100% -1
G. Emergency Protection from Violence
218 269 23% 51
H. Emergency Legal Assistance 0 0 0% 0
I. Emergency Transportation
63 148 135% 85
J. Emergency Disaster Relief
7 9 29% 2
K. Emergency Clothing
534 405 -24% -129
Fans 3/Blankets 76 47 79 68% 32
Vehicle Fuel 13 18 38% 5
Explanations/Comments
A. The Stigler food pantry was open for a full year therefore serving additional clients. The Sequoyah County food boxes were moved to 6.4 F since they are more of a maintenance food service than emergency service. Instead of using the 3.14 household multiplier, 1.5 was used so the number of individuals would not be over inflated. B., C. & G. There was an increase in clients for Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF), Emergency Solutions Grant, and Permanent Supportive Housing. D. Three fewer clients needed emergency car repair. E. Last year the 3.14 formula was used to calculate the number of individuals. This year the actual number of individuals was used. F. There were no requests for emergency medical care. G. There was an increase in clients for SSVF and the Domestic Violence Programs. I. Included domestic violence clients receiving transportation for the first time on this line item. J. Fewer disaster relief clients. K. Fewer requests for clothing. There was no coat/clothing give away this year. Last year's event was a onetime event. Other - Increase in SSVF clients.
34 | P a g e
0500
100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000850090009500
1000010500110001150012000
A. Emergency Food B. Emergency fuel or utility paymentsfunded by LIHEAP or other public and
private funding sources
C. Emergency Rent or Mortgage Assistance
6.2 Emergency Assistance
2013 2014 2015 2016
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
6.2 Emergency Assistance
2013 2014 2015 2016
35 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 6.3 Child and Family Development
The number and percentage of all infants, children, youth, parents, and other adults participating in developmental or enrichment programs who achieve program goals, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number of
Participants Enrolled in Program(s)
(#)
II.) Number of
Participants Expected to
Achieve Outcome in Reporting
Period (Target) (#)
III.) Number of
Participants Achieving
Outcome in Reporting
Period (Actual) (#)
IV.)Percentage Achieving
Outcome in Reporting
Period [ III / II = IV ] (%)
Programs Reporting
Infant and Child A. Infants and children obtain age appropriate immunizations, medical, and dental care
2,422
2,157 2,422 112.3% HS, BTS
Infant and Child B. Infant and child health and physical development are improved as a result of adequate nutrition
3,167
2,902 3,167 109.1%
HS, CACFP, BPP
Infant and Child C. Children participate in pre-school activities to develop school readiness skills
6,591
6,326 6,591 104.2%
HS, RAR, SBE
Infant and Child D. Children who participate in pre-school activities are developmentally ready to enter Kindergarten or 1st Grade
817
817 817 100.0% HS
Youth E. Youth improve health and physical development
110
110 110 100.0%
SWAT, YAB, HALT,
CAMP
Youth F. Youth improve social/emotional development
168
168 168 100.0%
CASA, SS4TS, YAB
Youth G. Youth avoid risk taking behavior for a defined period of time
60
60 60 100.0%
SWAT, SS4TS, KWS
Youth H. Youth have reduced involvement with criminal justice system 0 0 0 0
None Reporting
Youth I. Youth increase academic, athletic, or social skills for school success
756
756 756 100.0%
KWS, BTS, SS4TS, WTRW
Adult J. Parents and other adults learn and exhibit improved parenting skills
1,724
1,724 1,724 100.0% HS
Adult K. Parents and other adults learn and exhibit improved family functioning skills
1,724
1,724 1,724 100.0% HS
Child and Adult Care Food Program Reimbursement
$ 1,664,837.85 0% CACFP
Legend
36 | P a g e
HS - Head Start, BTS - Back to School Events, CACFP - Child and Adult Care Food Program, BPP - Backpack Food Program, Fit 4 Fun - Smart Start Kiamichi Country physical activity program for young children, RAR - Raising a Reader Literacy Program, R4R - Read for the Record, SBE - Story Book Exchange, SWAT - Students Working Against Tobacco, YAB - Youth Advisory Board, HALT - The HALT Project, CAMP - Youth the HALT Project work with during summer camp, CASA - Court Appointed Special Advocates, SS4TS - Stigler Stand for The Silent anti-bullying chapter, KWS - KI BOIS Domestic Violence Programs, WTRW - Welcome to the Real World
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change Infant and Child A. Infants and children obtain age appropriate immunizations, medical, and dental care 2659 2,422 -9% -237 Infant and Child B. Infant and child health and physical development are improved as a result of adequate nutrition 2846 3,167 11% 321 Infant and Child C. Children participate in pre-school activities to develop school readiness skills 6612 6,591 0% -21 Infant and Child D. Children who participate in pre-school activities are developmentally ready to enter Kindergarten or 1st Grade 868 817 -6% -51 Youth E. Youth improve health and physical development 240 110 -54% -130 Youth F. Youth improve social/emotional development 235 168 -29% -67 Youth G. Youth avoid risk taking behavior for a defined period of time 182 60 -67% -122 Youth H. Youth have reduced involvement with criminal justice system 0 0 0% 0 Youth I. Youth increase academic, athletic, or social skills for school success 978 756 -23% -222 Adult J. Parents and other adults learn and exhibit improved parenting skills 1735 1,724 -1% -11
Adult K. Parents and other adults learn and exhibit improved family functioning skills 1735
1,724 -1% -11 Child and Adult Care Food Program Reimbursement 185 Homes
$ 1,539,969.06
$ 1,664,837.85 8% 124,868.79
37 | P a g e
Explanations/Comments A. & I. Back to School student numbers were down by 205. B. Increase in children at day care homes benefitting from Child and Adult Care Food Program. A., C. & D. There were slightly fewer Head Start children. E. Fewer youth attended camp. F. There was no teen conference. G. There was no teen dating violence awareness event. J. & K. There were slightly fewer Head Start parents.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
6.3 Child and Family Development
2013 2014 2015 2016
1000000
1150000
1300000
1450000
1600000
1750000
1900000
Child and Adult Care Food Program Reimbursement
6.3 Child and Family DevelopmentChild and Adult Care Food Program
2013 2014 2015 2016
38 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 6.4 Family Supports (Seniors, Disabled, and Caregivers)
The number of low-income individuals served by Community Action who sought emergency assistance and the number of those individuals for whom assistance was provided, including such services as:
I.) Number of
Individuals Seeking
Assistance (#)
II.) Number of
Individuals Receiving Assistance
(#)
Programs Reporting
A. Enrolled children in before or after school programs 0 0
None Reporting
B. Obtained care for child or other dependent 15
15 ADC
C. Obtained access to reliable transportation and/or driver's license 0 0
None Reporting
D. Obtained health care services for themselves and/or family member
1,056
1,056
OAKS KCC, CAPTAIN
E. Obtained and/or maintained safe and affordable housing
637
637
PSH, ESG, DD, SSVF
F. Obtained food assistance 4,041 4,041 SC, SSVF,
BPP G. Obtained non-emergency LIHEAP energy assistance 0 0
None Reporting
H. Obtained non-emergency WX energy assistance 0 0
None Reporting
I. Obtained other non-emergency energy assistance (State/local/private energy programs. Do not include LIHEAP or WX)
467
467 SSVF, ESG
Transportation - Elderly Rides
114,928
114,928 KATS
Transportation -Disabled & Disabled Rides
37,741
37,741 KATS
Transportation - Elderly Rides
50,148
50,148 KATS Legend ADC - Adult Day Care, OAKS - The Oaks Rehabilitative Services Center, PSH - Permanent Supportive Housing, DD - Developmentally Disabled, SSVF - Supportive Services for Veteran Families, ESG - Emergency Solutions Grant, SC – Sequoyah County, KATS - KI BOIS Area Transit System
39 | P a g e
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Enrolled children in before or after school programs 0 0 0 0
B. Obtained care for child or other dependent
42 15 -64% -27
C. Obtained access to reliable transportation and/or driver's license 0 0 0 0
D. Obtained health care services for themselves and/or family member
1,108 1,056 -5% -52
E. Obtained and/or maintained safe and affordable housing
632 637 1% 5
F. Obtained food assistance 0 4,041 100% 4041
G. Obtained non-emergency LIHEAP energy assistance 0 0 0 0
H. Obtained non-emergency WX energy assistance 0 0 0 0
I. Obtained other non-emergency energy assistance (State/local/private energy programs. Do not include LIHEAP or WX)
393 467 19% 74
Transportation - Elderly Rides
114,533 114,928 0% 395
Transportation -Elderly & Disabled Rides
34,342 37,741 10% 3399
Transportation - Elderly Rides
46,008 50,148 9% 4140
Explanations/Comments
B. Adult Day Care has been reduced to only one location. D. Slight reduction in substance abuse clients. E. Slight increases and decreases across all programs reported on this line. F. The Sequoyah County food boxes were moved from 6.2 A since they are more of a maintenance food service than emergency service. Instead of using the 3.14 household multiplier, 1.5 was used so the number of individuals would not be over inflated. I. Increase in clients for Supportive Services for Veteran Families and Emergency Solutions Grant. Other - Requests for rides increased.
40 | P a g e
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
6.4 Family Supports (Seniors, Disabled, and Caregivers)
2013 2014 2015 2016
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Transportation - Elderly Rides Transportation -Elderly & Disabled Rides Transportation - Elderly Rides
6.4 Family Supports - Transportation
2013 2014 2015 2016
41 | P a g e
National Performance Indicator 6.5 Service Counts
The number of services provided to low-income individuals and/or families, as measured by one or more of the following:
I.) Number of Services (#)
Programs Reporting
A. Food Boxes 4,795
Annual Report,
CAPTAIN B. Pounds of Food
110,578 Annual Report
C. Units of Clothing
129 Annual Report
D. Rides Provided
673,950 KATS E. Information and Referral Calls
None
Reporting
Legend
Annual Report - Annual report to the Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies, CAPTAIN - Outcome reporting software, KATS - KI BOIS Area Transit System
Comparison 2015-2016 2015 2016 % Change # Change
A. Food Boxes
3,815
4,795 26% 980
B. Pounds of Food
137,534
110,578 -20% -26956
C. Units of Clothing
504
129 -74% -375
D. Rides Provided
719,095
673,950 -6% -45145
E. Information and Referral Calls
210 0 -100% -210
Explanations/Comments
A. Stigler food pantry open for the full year. B. Decrease in the weight of food. C. There was no coat/clothing give away this year. Last year's event was a onetime event. D. Fewer requests for rides. E. Agency did not participate in the Navigator Program. Agency does not track other referrals.
42 | P a g e
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
A. Food Boxes C. Units of Clothing E. Information and Referral Calls
6.5 Service Counts
2013 2014 2015 2016
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
550000
600000
650000
700000
750000
800000
B. Pounds of Food D. Rides Provided
6.5 Service Counts
2013 2014 2015 2016
43 | P a g e
Demographics
1. Name of Agency OK
2a. Total Non-CSBG Resources Reported in Section F 40,451,696$
2b. Total Amount of CSBG Funds allocated 440,131$
Total Resources for FY2016 (2a+2b) 40,891,828$
3. Total unduplicated number of persons about whom one or more characteristics were obtained:9,859
4. Total unduplicated number of persons about whom no characteristics were obtained: 2,465
5. Total unduplicated number of families about whom one or more characteristics were obtained:6,929
6. Total unduplicated number of families about whom no characteristics were obtained: 1,528
7. Gender Number of Persons* 13. Family Size Number of Families***
a. Male 4,304 a. One 2,220
b. Female 5,142 b. Two 725
TOTAL* 9,446 c. Three 312
d. Four 187
8. Age Number of Persons* e. Five 72
a. 0-5 2,417 f. Six 46
b. 6-11 711 g. Seven 12
c. 12-17 568 h. Eight or more 5
d. 18-23 576 TOTAL*** 3,579
e. 24-44 2,123
f. 45-54 1,051 14. Source of Family IncomeNumber of Families***
g. 55-69 1,472 a. Unduplicated # Families Reporting
h. 70+ 909 One or More Sources of Income 4,964
TOTAL* 9,827 b. Unduplicated # Families Reporting
Zero Income 1,014
9. Ethnicity/Race Number of Persons*
I. Ethnicity TOTAL*** Unduplicated # Families Reporting
a. Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origins 484 One or More Sources of Income or Zero Income.5,978
b. Not Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origins 8,967 Below, please report the total # of Families
TOTAL* 9,451 identifying the applicable sources of income
c. TANF 148
II. Race d. SSI 674
a. White 6,863 e. Social Security 1,318
b. Black or African American 363 f. Pension 383
c. American Indian or Alaska Native 1,751 g. General Assistance 1,017
d. Asian 16 h. Unemployment Insurance 84
e. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 10 i. Employment + Other 74
f. Other 225 j. Employment Only 3,061
g. Multi-Race (any two or more of the above)223 k. Other 640
TOTAL* 9,451 l. Total (items c-k) 7,399
KI BOIS Community Action Foundation, Inc.
44 | P a g e
10. Education Levels of Adults #)Number of Persons* 15. Level of Family IncomeNumber of Families***
(# for adults 24 years or Older only) ((% of HHS Guideline)
a. 0-8 271 a. Up to 50% 2,078
b. 9-12/Non-Graduate 795 b. 51% to 75% 952
c. High School Graduate/GED 2,190 c. 76% to 100% 914
d. 12+ Some Post Secondary 397 d. 101% to 125% 499
e. 2 or 4 years College Graduate 164 e. 126% to 150% 243
TOTAL** 3,817 f. 151% to 175% 188
g. 176% to 200% 159
11. Other Characteristics Number of Persons* h. 201% and over 1,079
Yes No Total* TOTAL*** 6,112
a. Health Insurance 5,040 3,187 8,227
b. Disabled 1,749 7,449 9,198 16. Housing Number of Families***
a. Own 1,108
12. Family Type Number of Families*** b. Rent 1,783
a. Single Parent Female 1,088 c. Homeless 517
b. Single Parent Male 118 d. Other† 1,484
c. Two Parent Household 1,334 TOTAL*** 4,892
d. Single Person 2,220 e. †Please describe housing situations included in 16.d Other:
e. Two Adults NO Children 727
f. Other 334
TOTAL*** 5,821
NOTE: Provide comments below
Program Participant Characteristics COMMENTS
3. & 4. Several programs including Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF), Emergency Solutions
Grant (ESG), Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and the food banks had an increase in clients.
4. A multiplier of 1.5 was used on families receiving food boxes to extrapolate the number of individuals.
8.b Back to School events in 2 counties recorded minimal demographics for the first time. 8.c CAPTAIN
numbers showed an increase of 300 in this category. At this time we are unsure of the source(s) of the
increase.
9.I.a This is a difference of 15 or 3.2%. Given the influx of Hispanic persons this is not significant enough
to research. 9.II.b This is a difference of 9 or 2.5%, this is not significant enough to research. d. There
was a mistake in the Asian and Native American population reported by the SSVF Program. The numbers
were reported as Asian 105 and Native American 1. These should have been reversed. It should have
been reported as Asian 1 and NA 105. g. This is a difference of 6 or 2.7%, this is not significant enough to
research.
10.a & c. CAPTAIN numbers showed an increasein both these categories. The substance abuse facility
reported a large increase in category a. The agency has seen an increase in families requesting
assistance for the first time. It is believed that is responsible for a majority of the c. category increase.
12. a & c Head Start previously did not track single parent families by gender. As of this year they do and
thus it was reported on Section G.
13. e, f, g & h These are all minimal increases and will not be researched. e. shows the same number as
last year....therefore should require no explanation.
14.d There was a general increase over several programs. h. There was a general decrease over several
programs. i. The substance abuse facility reported an increase of 39 in this category.
15. e & g These are increases of 8 and 14 respectively, this is not significant enough to research.
Living with family, living with friends,
Psychiatric Hospital, Substance Abuse * The sum of this category should not exceed the value of Item 3
**The sum of this category should not exceed the value of Items 8e-h
*** The sum of this category should not exceed the value of Item 5
45 | P a g e
Logic Models
Ne
ed
Serv
ice
/
Act
ivit
y O
utc
om
e
Ou
tco
me
Ind
icat
or
Re
sult
s*
Me
asu
resm
en
t
Too
l
Dat
a So
urc
e, D
ata
Co
lle
ctio
n
Pro
ced
ure
s, P
ers
on
ne
l
(Wh
ere
, Ho
w, W
ho
)
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f D
ata
Co
lle
ctio
n a
nd
Re
po
rtin
g
*A
ctu
al
res
ult
s a
re o
nly
en
tere
d i
nto
th
is c
olu
mn
AF
TE
R s
erv
ice
s a
re p
rovi
de
d;
ho
we
ver,
yo
u c
an
us
e t
his
co
lum
n t
o r
eco
rd p
roje
cte
d s
ucc
es
s r
ate
s i
f d
es
ire
d,
an
d l
ate
r re
pla
ce t
he
m w
ith
act
ua
l re
su
lts
.
RO
MA
Lo
gic
Mo
de
l fr
om
th
e N
ati
on
al
Pe
er-
to-P
ee
r R
OM
A T
rain
ing
an
d C
ert
ific
ati
on
Pro
ject
RO
MA
LO
GIC
MO
DEL
Org
aniz
atio
n:
KI
BO
IS C
om
mu
nit
y A
ctio
n F
ou
nd
atio
n, I
nc.
Pro
gram
: F
oo
d P
antr
ies
Mis
sio
n:
KI
BO
IS C
om
mu
nit
y A
ctio
n F
ou
nd
atio
n, I
nco
rpo
rate
d is
a co
mm
un
ity
bas
ed o
rgan
izat
ion
ded
icat
ed t
o e
limin
atin
g th
e
cau
ses
of
po
vert
y an
d b
ette
rin
g th
e ec
on
om
ic, m
enta
l, p
hys
ical
and
so
cial
wel
l bei
ng
of
all p
eop
le, m
ost
imp
ort
antl
y th
e
dis
adva
nta
ged
, by
uti
lizin
g ef
fect
ive
coo
rdin
atio
n a
nd
adm
inis
trat
ion
of
avai
lab
le r
eso
urc
es a
nd
info
rmat
ion
.
Pro
xy O
utc
om
e:
Ind
ivid
ual
s
and
fam
ilies
wit
h lo
w-
inco
mes
nee
d
nu
trit
iou
s
foo
d t
o
pre
ven
t
hu
nge
r.
Nu
trit
iou
s
foo
d b
oxe
s
will
be
pro
vid
ed a
t
3 a
gen
cy
loca
tio
ns
to
60
0
ind
ivid
ual
s
and
fam
ilies
.
Ind
ivid
ual
s
and
fam
ilies
hav
e an
adeq
uat
e
sup
ply
of
nu
trti
on
al
foo
d t
o
pre
ven
t
hu
nge
r o
n
a tem
po
rary
bas
is.
60
0 o
f 6
25
ind
ivid
ual
s
and
fam
ilies
or
96
%
req
ues
tin
g
foo
d d
uri
ng
the
cale
nd
ar
year
20
16
will
rec
eive
a n
utr
itio
us
foo
d b
ox.
82
6
ind
ivid
ual
s
and
fam
ilies
rece
ived
a
min
imu
m o
f
on
e fo
od
bo
x d
uri
ng
the
cale
nd
ar
year
20
16
.
Foo
d P
antr
y
Inta
kes,
CA
PTA
IN, C
SBG
-
IS
Foo
d P
antr
y In
take
s ar
e
colle
cted
by
Pan
try
staf
f
at t
he
tim
e o
f se
rvic
e
then
giv
en t
o t
he
CA
PTA
IN d
ata
entr
y
staf
f, C
AP
TAIN
Rep
ort
s
pri
nte
d b
y th
e C
AP
TAIN
Ad
min
istr
ato
r, C
SBG
-IS
com
pile
d b
y th
e
Dir
ecto
r o
f P
lan
nin
g.
Dat
a is
co
llect
ed a
s se
rvic
e is
pro
vid
ed a
nd
en
tere
d in
to
CA
PTA
IN, a
t a
min
imu
m,
mo
nth
ly.
CA
PTA
IN r
epo
rts
are
revi
ewed
mo
nth
ly, C
SBG
-IS
is
revi
ewed
an
nu
ally
.
Family
Community
Agency
46 | P a g e
Ne
ed
Serv
ice
/
Act
ivit
y O
utc
om
e
Ou
tco
me
Ind
icat
or
Re
sult
s*
Me
asu
resm
en
t
Too
l
Dat
a So
urc
e, D
ata
Co
lle
ctio
n
Pro
ced
ure
s, P
ers
on
ne
l
(Wh
ere
, Ho
w, W
ho
)
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f D
ata
Co
lle
ctio
n a
nd
Re
po
rtin
g
RO
MA
Lo
gic
Mo
de
l fr
om
th
e N
ati
on
al
Pe
er-
to-P
ee
r R
OM
A T
rain
ing
an
d C
ert
ific
ati
on
Pro
ject
*A
ctu
al
res
ult
s a
re o
nly
en
tere
d i
nto
th
is c
olu
mn
AF
TE
R s
erv
ice
s a
re p
rovi
de
d;
ho
we
ver,
yo
u c
an
us
e t
his
co
lum
n t
o r
eco
rd p
roje
cte
d s
ucc
es
s r
ate
s i
f d
es
ire
d,
an
d l
ate
r re
pla
ce t
he
m w
ith
act
ua
l re
su
lts
.
RO
MA
LO
GIC
MO
DEL
Org
aniz
atio
n:
KI
BO
IS C
om
mu
nit
y A
ctio
n F
ou
nd
atio
n, I
nc.
Pro
gram
: D
enta
l Car
e
Mis
sio
n:
KI
BO
IS C
om
mu
nit
y A
ctio
n F
ou
nd
atio
n, I
nco
rpo
rate
d
is a
co
mm
un
ity
bas
ed o
rgan
izat
ion
ded
icat
ed t
o e
limin
atin
g th
e
cau
ses
of
po
vert
y an
d b
ette
rin
g th
e ec
on
om
ic, m
enta
l, p
hys
ical
and
so
cial
wel
l bei
ng
of
all p
eop
le, m
ost
imp
ort
antl
y th
e
dis
adva
nta
ged
, by
uti
lizin
g ef
fect
ive
coo
rdin
atio
n a
nd
adm
inis
trat
ion
of
avai
lab
le r
eso
urc
es a
nd
info
rmat
ion
.
Pro
xy O
utc
om
e:
Ind
ivid
ual
s
and
fam
ilies
wit
h lo
w-
inco
mes
nee
d a
cces
s
to d
enta
l
care
to
imp
rove
thei
r o
ral
hyg
ien
e.
30
ind
ivid
ual
s
will
rec
eive
limit
ed
den
tal c
are
at n
o c
ost
.
Ind
ivid
ual
s
rece
ive
den
tal c
are
ther
eby
imp
rovi
ng
thei
r o
ral
hyg
ien
e
and
gen
eral
hea
lth
.
30
of
35
ind
ivid
ual
s
or
86
%
req
ues
tin
g
serv
ices
will
rece
ive
nee
ded
den
tal c
are
at 3
eve
nts
in 3
dif
fere
nt
cou
nti
es
du
rin
g th
e
cale
nd
ar
year
20
16
.
39
ind
ivid
ual
s
rece
ived
21
2
serv
ices
at
3 e
ven
ts in
3 d
iffe
ren
t
cou
nti
es
du
rin
g
cale
nd
ar
20
16
.
Mo
bile
Den
tal
Van
In
take
s,
CA
PTA
IN. C
SBG
-
IS
Den
tal v
an in
take
s
colle
cted
by
Okl
aho
ma
Den
tal F
ou
nd
atio
n
(OD
F) s
taff
an
d K
I B
OIS
ou
trea
ch s
taff
th
en ,
Mo
bile
Sm
iles
Rep
ort
s
gen
erat
ed b
y th
e O
DF,
CA
PTA
IN r
epo
rts
gen
erat
ed b
y th
e
CA
PTA
IN A
dm
inis
trat
or,
CSB
G-I
S co
mp
iled
by
the
Dir
ecto
r o
f
Pla
nn
ing.
Dat
a is
co
llect
ed a
s se
rvic
e is
pro
vid
ed a
nd
en
tere
d in
to
CA
PTA
IN a
t th
e co
mp
leti
on
of
each
eve
nt.
CA
PTA
IN r
epo
rts
are
revi
ewed
mo
nth
ly, C
SBG
-
IS is
rev
iew
ed a
nn
ual
ly.
Family
Community
Agency
47 | P a g e
Ne
ed
Serv
ice
/
Act
ivit
y O
utc
om
e
Ou
tco
me
Ind
icat
or
Re
sult
s*
Me
asu
resm
en
t
Too
l
Dat
a So
urc
e, D
ata
Co
lle
ctio
n
Pro
ced
ure
s, P
ers
on
ne
l
(Wh
ere
, Ho
w, W
ho
)
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f D
ata
Co
lle
ctio
n a
nd
Re
po
rtin
g
*Act
ua
l re
sult
s a
re o
nly
en
tere
d i
nto
th
is c
olu
mn
AFT
ER s
erv
ice
s a
re p
rovi
de
d; h
ow
eve
r, y
ou
ca
n u
se t
his
co
lum
n t
o r
eco
rd p
roje
cte
d s
ucc
ess
ra
tes
if d
esi
red
, an
d l
ate
r re
pla
ce t
he
m w
ith
act
ua
l re
sult
s.
RO
MA
Log
ic M
odel
fro
m t
he N
atio
nal P
eer-
to-P
eer
RO
MA
Tra
inin
g an
d Ce
rtif
icat
ion
Pro
ject
RO
MA
LO
GIC
MO
DEL
Org
aniz
atio
n:
KI
BO
IS C
om
mu
nit
y A
ctio
n F
ou
nd
atio
n, I
nc.
Pro
gram
: R
x fo
r O
klah
om
a
Mis
sio
n:
KI
BO
IS C
om
mu
nit
y A
ctio
n F
ou
nd
atio
n, I
nco
rpo
rate
d is
a
com
mu
nit
y b
ased
org
aniz
atio
n d
edic
ated
to
elim
inat
ing
the
cau
ses
of
po
vert
y an
d b
ette
rin
g th
e ec
on
om
ic, m
enta
l, p
hys
ical
an
d s
oci
al w
ell
bei
ng
of
all p
eop
le, m
ost
imp
ort
antl
y th
e d
isad
van
tage
d, b
y u
tiliz
ing
effe
ctiv
e co
ord
inat
ion
an
d a
dm
inis
trat
ion
of
avai
lab
le r
eso
urc
es a
nd
info
rmat
ion
.
Pro
xy O
utc
om
e:
Ind
ivid
ual
s,
incl
ud
ing
sen
ior
citi
zen
s, w
ith
low
-in
com
es
nee
d
pre
scri
bed
med
icat
ion
to
mai
nta
in t
hei
r
hea
lth
.
Rx
for
Okl
aho
ma
Inta
kes
are
colle
cted
by
Rx
staf
f at
th
e ti
me
of
serv
ice
then
giv
en t
o
the
CA
PTA
IN d
ata
entr
y
staf
f, C
AP
TAIN
Rep
ort
s
pri
nte
d b
y th
e C
AP
TAIN
Ad
min
istr
ato
r, C
SBG
-IS
com
pile
d b
y th
e
Dir
ecto
r o
f P
lan
nin
g.
Dat
a is
co
llect
ed a
s se
rvic
e is
pro
vid
ed a
nd
en
tere
d in
to
CA
PTA
IN, a
t a
min
imu
m,
mo
nth
ly.
CA
PTA
IN r
epo
rts
are
revi
ewed
mo
nth
ly, C
SBG
-IS
is
revi
ewed
an
nu
ally
.
Ad
voca
cy
serv
ices
will
be
pro
vid
ed
to h
elp
ind
ivid
ual
s,
incl
ud
ing
sen
ior
citi
zen
s,
app
ly t
o
ph
arm
aceu
tic
al p
atie
nt
assi
stan
ce
pro
gram
s fo
r
assi
stan
ce
wit
h lo
w o
r
no
co
st
med
icat
ion
s.
Ind
ivid
ual
s,
incl
ud
ing
sen
ior
citi
zen
s, h
ave
affo
rdab
le
acce
ss t
o
pre
scri
pti
on
med
icat
ion
to
mai
nta
in t
hei
r
hea
lth
.
40
0 o
ut
of
41
0
ind
ivid
ual
s
or
98
%
req
ues
tin
g
assi
stan
ce
du
rin
g FY
'17
will
rec
eive
thei
r
req
ues
ted
pre
scri
pti
on
med
icat
ion
at lo
w o
r n
o
cost
.
46
9
ind
ivid
ual
s
rece
ived
pre
scri
pti
on
med
icat
ion
assi
stan
ce
du
rin
g
FY'1
7.
Rx
for
Okl
aho
ma
inta
kes
and
logs
, CA
PTA
IN,
CSB
G-I
S
Family
Community
Agency