Virginia’s No Wrong Door Virginia Department for the Aging, SeniorNavigator, and the SeniorNavigator, and the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Tech January 25, 2008

Virginia’s No Wrong Door Model Decentralized model utilizing technology to coordinate access to the public and private health and human services for adults in Virginia: Decentralized model utilizing technology to coordinate access to the public and private health and human services for adults in Virginia:  By phone  On-line  Physical locations

Collaboration with Private Partners

Attracting New Providers and Maintaining Accurate Service Information Key Strategies: Make it Personal and Efficient!   Motivate providers to take ownership of their information by making it available on demand.   Encourage local community partners to engage in outreach and get funding for this as part of federal and local grants.   Transfer already validated information electronically whenever possible.

Attracting New Providers and Maintaining Accurate Service Information Key Strategies: Make it Personal and Efficient!   On-Line Updates for Providers   Local Community Partners   Electronic Transfer of Information

On-Line Updates for Providers SeniorNavigator continues to enhance the on-line update process, and a steady increase in the number of providers updating their own information has been seen.   More accurate   Saves resources   Continually educates providers about the system

Local Community Partners SeniorNavigator identifies local groups that are motivated to make resources available for their particular consumers. SeniorNavigator provides a list of the service providers in the database and the partners then approach local providers to update their information, add new programs or contact key providers who are not in the database to add their agency.

Local Community Partners Some partners include:   Aging Together – a local coalition operating under a grant from Robert Wood Johnson to educate the community about aging issues and resources contacts providers who need to update/add services and providers who should be in the database.   Association of Retarded Citizens (Arc) – a non-profit that received a county government grant to enroll service providers used by their consumers.   Senior Services Coalition – a non-profit that took on the project of contacting providers to update and add new information in their area.   Williamsburg Community Health Foundation – a non-profit that co-funded the local area agency on aging and SeniorNavigator to make it affordable for small non-profits to participate in the system and for SeniorNavigator to work with local providers to identify key disability services.   CareFax – a non-profit organization is handling the screening of individual home care companions and maintaining the accuracy of the information on those individuals’ as well as providing an opportunity for consumers to report any problems they have had with the individual provider.   Community Specialists – SeniorNavigator has part-time staff located throughout the state who maintain contacts with local providers, make presentations and train service providers at 546 SeniorNavigator Centers to assist consumers with locating services.

Electronic Transfer of Information SeniorNavigator is developing processes for automatic uploads of information from state Medicaid, mental health, and transportation agencies.

Provider Relationships At the local level, each implementation site is responsible for the coordination of an advisory council. The advisory council, in turn, is responsible for specifically addressing community practices around No Wrong Door:   Public Agencies   Private Providers   Non-Profit Providers The implementation sites’ advisory councils are composed of representatives from local public and private service providers.

2007 Advisory Council Survey September the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Tech sent a brief advisory council survey instrument to the advisory council members for PAA, Sr. Connections, and VPAS (the first three NWD/ADRC pilot sites):September the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Tech sent a brief advisory council survey instrument to the advisory council members for PAA, Sr. Connections, and VPAS (the first three NWD/ADRC pilot sites): PAA - Peninsula Advisory CouncilPAA - Peninsula Advisory Council Senior Connections - Richmond Planning District 15 Leadership Council for Service CoordinationSenior Connections - Richmond Planning District 15 Leadership Council for Service Coordination VPAS - Central Shenandoah Valley Advisory CouncilVPAS - Central Shenandoah Valley Advisory Council  A total of 55 advisory council members were invited to participate in the assessment.  The survey with instructions was administered via mail or .  The response rate was 58%, with 32 of the 55 council members completing and returning their surveys.

2007 Advisory Council Survey: Survey Design The advisory council survey instrument was comprised of 14-itemsThe advisory council survey instrument was comprised of 14-items  10 Structured Items with force-choice response set  4 Open-ended Questions which assessed the advisory council members’: Current knowledge, perceptions, and satisfaction with the NWD/ADRC initiative at the local and state levelsCurrent knowledge, perceptions, and satisfaction with the NWD/ADRC initiative at the local and state levels Beliefs about the future implementation and success of the programBeliefs about the future implementation and success of the program

2007 Advisory Council Survey: Findings The majority of the respondents reported that they understood the overall vision and goal of the NWD/ADRC project.The majority of the respondents reported that they understood the overall vision and goal of the NWD/ADRC project.  Almost two-thirds of the council members understood the purpose of their role and of the project.  Their responses to the open-ended questions substantiate this assessment. But some respondents felt less clear about the overall vision and goal and how their role fit into the context.But some respondents felt less clear about the overall vision and goal and how their role fit into the context.  One-third reported they did not know the purpose of their role and disagreed with the statement that council members shared a common vision and goal for the program.

2007 Advisory Council Survey: Conclusions Overall, the responses of the advisory council members were positive and suggested that they:Overall, the responses of the advisory council members were positive and suggested that they:  Understand the NWD/ADRC initiative, and  Are satisfied with their role on the local advisory council Advisory council members also indicated that they appreciate the challenges of making a system-wide change, and recognize that statewide success of the NWD/ADRC initiative starts at the local level.Advisory council members also indicated that they appreciate the challenges of making a system-wide change, and recognize that statewide success of the NWD/ADRC initiative starts at the local level. Future Activities:Future Activities:  Assess Consumer Satisfaction.

Thank you!!