CAREing Center - Kennesaw State University

2004 FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF THE
Center for Active Retirement Education
FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW
IN 2002-2003
Prepared by
CAREing Center
May, 2004
I. Specific Plans and Priorities Adopted for Improving the Program's/Center's
Quality Since the Self-Study and UPRC Evaluation
Identify the specific plans and priorities adopted by the unit for improving the
quality of the program/center over the past two years, linking those plans to the
results of program review or other assessments.
Even if quality was rated as very strong with little room for improvement,
comment on how these exceptional strengths will be maintained. (Avoid
responses that suggest you have no plans for improving or maintaining high
quality.)
The following are activities underway or completed in the Center:
1. Hire a full-time Director of CAREing (which was a major concern of the
Council).
2. Revitalize the CAREing Advisory Board so as to include major leaders in the
aging network in Georgia and develop a strategic plan with the help of the newly
appointed advisory board
3. Clarify the working relationships among ILEC and CAREing staff so as to
optimize the quality of programming for both entities
4. Focus on collaborating with KSU faculty so as to facilitate coordination of agingrelated
activities on campus (work particularly with the eminent gerontology
scholar soon to be hired by the College of Health and Human Services)
5. Fine-tune our evaluation processes
6. Continue to build on our collaborative model of organizing and implementing
programs through expert steering committees
7. Continue to serve in a leadership position with the Georgia Gerontology Society
8. Clarify the Center’s relationship with TRAC in the RESPECT program.
9. Communicate with and visit other centers on aging to be in the forefront of
national developments
10. Seek additional revenue streams to support the work of the Center.

II. Evidence of Improvements Achieved to Date for Quality Enhancement
of the Program/Center
Of the plans and priorities cited in Section I, describe the improvements in
program/center quality actually achieved to date and present supporting
documentation of those achievements either here or in the Appendix (Section
VIII).
If substantial progress has been made on completing a particular action plan for
quality improvement and full achievement will occur soon, report those
developments here also. Otherwise, comments about any action plans which are
largely unfinished or are scheduled for implementation in the future should be
reported in Section VI.
1. The program review council was very concerned about the CAREing Center
Director’s divided responsibilities as a result of her taking on the Directorship of
the Institute for Leadership, Ethics and Character. As of January 1, 2004, there is
now a full time (Interim) Director of CAREing alongside the ILEC Director.
Their concern about “loss of focus and momentum” due to the merger of
CAREing with ILEC should no longer be a problem.
2. In January the CAREing staff met with the ILEC Director and President Siegel to
plan for the future, and the CAREing Advisory Board revitalization is underway.
Significant leaders in aging in Georgia have agreed to serve, such as the Director
of Aging Services for Georgia’s Department of Human Resources, an elder leader
from the Cobb Senior Citizen Council, as well as the KSU Deans of Health and
Human Services and of Humanities and Social Sciences. The Director of ILEC
will lead the advisory board in its strategic planning session on June 24, 2004, and
every intention of the staff involves developing quality programs that meet needs
and do not duplicate.
3. The Council also expressed concern about CAREing’s possible loss of identity
within ILEC, or in the case of emphasis only on leadership activities, CAREing’s
loss of a reason to exist. The CAREing staff are comfortable within ILEC, and
feel the Council misunderstood when it suggested CAREing had “changed its
focus to provide leadership programs for senior citizens.” Developing
professional leaders in the aging network remains a priority for CAREing.
Working with elders also involves nurturing leadership. We feel that our solid
emphasis on aging-related activities gives us a clear focus within ILEC. We do
not duplicate, but sometimes may collaborate. For example, last year’s successful
Conversations with Sages program, led by Barbara Hammond, ILEC Fellow for
Character, will become a collaborative venture this coming year with CAREing.
We have sent an e-mail to all faculty asking for their help in expanding the
2

program, including both seven Conversations programs in 2004-05, as well as a
speakers bureau of elders available for class presentations on topics related to
class content (see Appendix for documentation of this point).
4. Another indicator of concern with quality of programming is the Center’s typical
approach of collaborative effort with faculty and community citizens. Both the
Art of the Golden Generation and the Poetry Contest/Celebration Day follow the
model of using a steering committee with expertise in the area (including in the
first case, visual arts faculty, and in the second case, English Department faculty)
to ensure quality. Although there is now a full time director of CAREing, we are
still a small staff and depend on working with those with expertise and passion
about a topic in order to bring off successful programs. The Council’s concern
about duplication of programs related to aging around the University is wellplaced,
and CAREing strives to serve in helping to improve coordination. More
and more, CAREing appears to be recognized as a focal point on aging concerns
on campus, as we receive requests for assistance from both individuals with
caregiving concerns in need of information and from others with professional
interests. Both HPS faculty and Career Services staff have recently contacted
CAREing about possible collaborative activities. We also wrote with Dr. Judy
Holzman a grant proposal for an intergenerational program directed toward
minority elders, which was not funded. We are pleased to be developing
credibility on campus as facilitators and supporters of activities related to aging.
5. Evaluation forms have been revised so as to get a clearer understanding of
participants’ needs and applicability of programs to work settings (see Appendix
for documentation of this point). The Council stated a concern in the program
review that indicators listed were “primarily productivity indicators not quality
indicators.” Program evaluation has been and remains a crucial goal for the
Center. We consider participants’ evaluations of programs to be indicators of
quality. Evaluation data are available upon request for our programs, including
the Professional Development in Gerontology Program (PDGC) and the
Northwest Crescent Consortium on Active Retirement and Aging (NCCARA).
We regularly receive highly positive evaluations, and we take seriously and act
upon the comments and suggestions made by participants. For example, Parc
Communities (senior living in East Cobb, Duluth, and opening soon, Buckhead)
approached CAREing to develop quarterly staff development activities for their
employees. (This relates to the question of public recognition received by the
Center, and the Council’s concern that awards had been received by individuals
not the Center itself. In addition, we are also in conversations with the Assisted
Living Federation of America to provide trainings for their independent living
members.) We now have an agreement to provide quarterly staff development
classes to Parc employees. They requested that we offer the same class twice, a
week apart, so that all their employees could participate. The first class
evaluation was highly positive, but we were asked if we could tie the class
presentation more directly into the work situation of the employees. The
instructor and CAREing staff immediately fine-tuned the next week’s repeat of
3

the class to allow for students to discuss the implications for their work situations.
The Regional Vice-President e-mailed the CAREing Director with thanks and the
comment that our responsiveness was “exceptional” (see Appendix for
documentation of this point).
Other indications of the quality of our programming involve indirect measures:
the increasing number of members of NCCARA, increasing numbers of
participants in NCCARA programs as well as the Professional Development in
Gerontology Certificate Program. This year’s PDGC class closed with the full
capacity of 20 students. Also, the fact that KSU staff and faculty come to us with
ideas for collaboration, and that outside groups like Parc Communities and the
Assisted Living Federation of America come to us for educational programming,
seem to be positive measures of the perceived quality of our work. At this time
we are in the process of implementing a needs assessment. Six hundred four
surveys were sent out and 65 have been returned so far (see Appendix for
documentation of this point).
6. The 2004 Phenomenal Women’s Conference is the most recent example of our
successful implementation of a program through the use of an expert steering
committee.
7. The CAREing Interim Director continues to provide regular e-mail blasts to
members of the GGS around the state and also was elected to the Board of the
GGS. She has assisted with a new process of encouraging wider participation in
the annual meeting by allowing for submission of proposals to present at the
annual meeting.
8. The Director has written the Director of TRAC seeking clarification of
CAREing‘s role in the RESPECT program (see Appendix for documentation of
this point).
9. The Interim Director attended the Association for Gerontology in Higher
Education meeting in February and participated in a roundtable discussion on
centers on aging (resulting in a continuing email contact with other center
directors). She also plans to visit the highly esteemed University of South Florida
Institute on Aging in June 2004 (using travel money remaining from her 2004
KSU Distinguished Service award, not CAREing travel money).
10. The Council was somewhat concerned about the return on investment made by
the University in the CAREing Center. Although we have gained a position in the
Director of the CAREing Center, no additional funding is being provided in
support moneys. We are working hard to develop additional revenue streams and
have obtained the following:
a. PDGC registration fees: The $500 course fee has been raised for the first
time, to the amount of $650, but this includes lunch and all course
materials including text book. If we manage to fill the class to capacity,
4

20 students will bring in a gross total of $13,000. Some of these fees are
covered by the Cobb Senior Citizen Council through their scholarship
program for Cobb residents.
b. NCCARA memberships mainly cover the cost of providing food to
participants, however, we do usually come out a little ahead, giving us the
chance to support other programming. There are 23 organizational
members and 32 individual members in 2004.
c. We received a $1000 grant from the American Society on Aging/MetLife
Foundation. A nationally renowned speaker will come at the expense of
ASA/MetLife.
d. We signed a Letter of Agreement with Parc Communities to provide staff
development for their employees, allowing us to pay faculty to present and
to add to our own budget.
e. The Cobb YMCA Kickers presented the Center with a small endowment,
and each year give us a contribution in varying amounts, this year being
$900.00.
III. Specific Plans and Priorities Adopted for Improving the Program's/Center's
Productivity Since the Self-Study and UPRC Evaluation
Follow the guidance given in Section I as it would pertain to adopted plans and
priorities for enhancing the productivity of the program/center.
1. Develop the CAREing web site to improve visibility and utility for potential
participants and persons in need of information related to aging.
2. Increase marketing capability so as to reach more potential participants
3. Offer new, innovative forms of staff development activities beyond the nine-
month, on-campus PDGC Program.
4. Remain active in national professional conferences so as to increase the
visibility of the Center in the national aging network
5. Increase monetary support for the Center so as to grow more programs
6. Involve more elders in our programming
7. Offer support, information, and material for the campus community in regard
to aging issues. In order better to serve the campus community in need of
information about caregiving resources and issues related to aging relatives,
we plan to develop a resource library to have answers and materials readily
available for questions that come in with some regularity. Eventually we may
offer such support on our web page and advertise it to faculty and staff.
IV. Evidence of Improvements Achieved to Date for Productivity
Enhancement of the Program
Follow the guidance given in Section II as it would pertain to improvements
achieved in the productivity of the program/center.
5

1. The CAREing web site has become very useful, advertising current events and
offerings, and allowing for online registration for activities. We consider this
to be a highly productive aspect of our setting within ILEC, as the web
manager works well for all ILEC and CAREing staff.
2. We have doubled the number and variety of people and organizations we now
market to. Attendees come from all over the metro area and state. For
example Christian City employees come from south of the Atlanta airport for
the quarterly NCCARA meetings. Ten of the twenty PDGC students in the
current class work at the federal agency in Atlanta, the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services. The number of NCCARA members has doubled since
the program review. The number of PDGC scholarships given by the Cobb
Senior Citizen Council has increased. NCCARA participation has increased
from an average of 60 to last year’s average of 90.
3. We have a memo of agreement to offer quarterly staff development activities
for Parc Communities at their East Cobb location.
4. We have presented on CAREing at the Association for Gerontology in Higher
Education, and will be presenting a second time at the Florida Council on
Aging in August 2004. We were one of ten recipients of a national grant
from MetLife (out of 97 applicants).
5. Last year AARP donated $750 in support of CAREing programs. We have
received a $1000 ASA/MetLife/MindAlert grant to bring a national scholar,
Dr. James Birren, for our August NCCARA conference. So far two Hospices
have signed on as sponsors for our October NCCARA conference which will
feature a nationally renowned speaker, Dr. Ira Byock.
6. We have invited faculty to suggest names of elder sages to participate in the
Conversations program as well as to be listed as possible class speakers.
V. Current Status of the Program's/Center's Viability
Report the current status of the program's/center's overall viability and comment
on any improvements or changes in the program's viability since the self-study
and UPRC evaluation.
Considering the Council’s major concern with the dilution of efforts on the part of
the ILEC/CAREing Center Director, the current separation of directorships of
ILEC and CAREing satisfies that concern. CAREing is finding a comfortable
place within ILEC, collaborating in some cases, focusing separately on agingrelated
issues. Momentum is strong, based on the solid basis developed over the
five years of the Center’s existence and the community and campus ties
established.
6

CAREing eagerly anticipates working closely with the new eminent scholar in
gerontology who will be located in the College of Health and Human Services.
The Interim Director participated in the hiring process and feels confident about
the viability of the potential relationship with the gerontology scholar.
Community and professional ties remain strong, as we honor the expertise of our
partners and seek to efficiently develop programs and facilitate what faculty
themselves lack the time to do. We are being asked to help with programming
now and are recognized for our efforts in gerontology.
We constantly attempt to remain in touch with our constituencies through regular
evaluations.
Strategic planning is very important to us, along with regular assessment of all our
activities. A copy of the new strategic plan, which will be developed by the
revitalized advisory board on June 24, 2004, will be forwarded as an Addendum
to this report.
VI. Specific Plans and Priorities for Continuing Program Improvement in the
Future
Comment on the status of the unit's plans and priorities for continuing
improvement of the program/center.
The staff of the Center are highly attuned to the developmental status of the
Center. Besides regular evaluations of our programs, we are developing our
report for the Advisory Board’s June strategic planning meeting, where we will
earnestly seek their expert advice and recommendations regarding our
programming so as to monitor and ensure program improvement.
VII. Timetable for and Progress Made Toward Removing the Program from
the Regents' Triggered List of Programs with Exceptionally Low
Productivity (If Applicable)
Insert "Not Applicable" unless the program was "triggered" by the Board of
Regents for special review because of low productivity in number of majors or
degrees awarded.
Describe and document annual gains made over the past two years in degree
productivity and/or enrollment of majors from the period of time when the
program was triggered for low productivity. If the Regents' productivity
minimums have not yet been surpassed, present a projected timetable for when
the program will achieve that goal. Describe all efforts currently underway or
planned to achieve gains toward that goal.
7

If it does not appear possible for the program to exceed the Regents' productivity
minimums in the future, explain why that is the case. In this instance, comment
on the offsetting measures taken and achieved to maximize program viability and
program quality despite low program productivity.
Not Applicable
VIII. Appendix of Supporting Documentation (If Needed)
Significant supporting evidence and documentation can be referenced in the text
and included in this appendix. Please avoid the inclusion of material of minor
significance in the appendix.
8