HHS-2021-ACL-AOA-EJIG-0047.pdf

Administration for Community Living

Administration on Aging

Elder Justice Innovation Grants FY2021

HHS-2021-ACL-AOA-EJIG-0047

05/24/2021

Table of Contents Executive Summary

Additional Overview Content/Executive Summary

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Funding Options

Overview

References

II. Award Information

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

3. Responsiveness and Screening Criteria

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Address to Request Application Package

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

Letter of Intent

Project Narrative

Project Abstract

Project Relevance and Current Need

Approach

Proposed Intervention

Special Target Populations and Organizations

Outcomes

Organizational Capacity

Evaluation

Dissemination

Bibliography/Works Cited

Budget Narrative/Justification

Project Work Plan

Letters of Commitment from Key Participating Organizations and Agencies

3. Submission Dates and Times

4. Intergovernmental Review

5. Funding Restrictions

6. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

2. Review and Selection Process

3. Anticipated Announcement Award Date

VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

3. Reporting

4. FFATA and FSRS Reporting

VII. Agency Contacts

VIII. Other Information

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13)

Appendix

Instructions for Completing Required Forms

Budget Narrative/Justification- Sample Format

Instructions for Completing the Project Summary/ Abstract

ACL Center:

Administration on Aging Funding Opportunity Title:

Elder Justice Innovation Grants FY2021 Funding Opportunity Number:

HHS-2021-ACL-AOA-EJIG-0047

Primary CFDA Number:

93.747 Due Date for Letter of Intent:

04/24/2021 Due Date for Applications:

05/24/2021 Date for Informational Conference Call:

04/28/2021 Applications that fail to meet the application due date will not be reviewed and will receive no further consideration. You are strongly encouraged to submit your application a minimum of 3-5 days prior to the application closing date. Do not wait until the last day in the event you encounter technical difficulties, either on your end or, with https://www.grants.gov. Grants.gov can take up to 48 hours to notify you of a successful submission.

Executive Summary https://www.grants.gov/

Additional Overview Content/Executive Summary The Elder Justice Innovation Grants program is intended to support foundational work to create credible innovations, with benchmarks for adult maltreatment prevention, and for program development and evaluation. The Elder Justice Innovation Grants program supports the development and advancement of knowledge and approaches in new and emerging issues related to elder justice. Funded projects will contribute to the improvement of the field of adult maltreatment prevention and intervention at large by undertaking initiatives such as developing programs, interventions, materials, etc., or by establishing and/or contributing to the evidence-base of knowledge. Through this program announcement, ACL plans to award up to sixteen (16) cooperative agreements, ranging from $350,000 - $500,000 per year for a 24-month project period, to address the following priority areas:

Option 1: Improving Guardianship: Assess and implement improvements in the handling of the adult guardianship and conservatorship process by state courts. This includes enhancing the fairness, effectiveness, timeliness, safety, and integrity of adult guardianship/conservatorship proceedings; addressing access to guardianship revocation and alternative pathways and proceedings that promote less restrictive means of supported decision making; and developing innovations to improve the experiences of individuals at risk of guardianship/conservatorship.

Option 2: Adult Protective Services-Community Transitions: Assess and understand the various community services that produce better outcomes for persons transitioning from APS interventions which are emergent and short-term to the broader community-based programs that remediate and prevent recurrence of abuse over the longer term.

I. Funding Opportunity Description Abuse, neglect, financial exploitation and self-neglect of older adults and adults with disabilities is a significant public health and human rights problem (hereinafter this funding opportunity will use the term “adult maltreatment” and should be understood to include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; financial exploitation; neglect; and self-neglect of older adults and adults with disabilities). The most recent data available on the prevalence of adult maltreatment suggests that at least 10 percent of older Americans – approximately 5 million persons—experienced emotional, physical, or sexual abuse and neglect each year, and many of them experience it in multiple forms. [[1]] Adults with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more likely to become a victim of maltreatment than persons without disabilities.[[2]] In 2010, the age-adjusted serious violent crime (e.g. rape, robbery, assault) victimization rate for persons with disabilities was three times the rate of adults without disabilities.[[3]] In addition, data from state Adult Protective Services (APS) agencies show an increasing trend in reports of adult maltreatment.[[4]] These increases are concerning as other research estimates that as few as 1 in 23 cases of elder abuse,[[5]] and 1 in 44 cases of financial exploitation,[[6]] ever come to the attention of authorities.

It is widely documented that research in the area of maltreatment of older adults and adults with disabilities is still in its early stages, with limited knowledge of effective and evidence-based prevention, intervention, and remediation practices. Understanding of the phenomena of adult maltreatment is decades behind our understanding of either child maltreatment or intimate partner violence. Services for victims of adult maltreatment also lag far behind the system of services available to victims of other forms of family violence.

Guardianships and conservatorships (hereinafter referred to as “guardianships” in this funding opportunity) describe legal relationships by which state courts empower individuals or entities to make personal and/or property decisions for other adults, or “protected persons,” who the court has determined are unable to make their own decisions regarding a range of fundamental life choices. Court-appointed guardians and conservators (hereinafter referred to as “guardians”) are legally entitled to make a wide array of decisions that impact a protected person’s well-being, including financial, medical, and residential decisions. As such, guardians are entrusted with significant power over protected persons who rely on their support. While many guardians exercise their duty honorably, others abuse the guardianship system, and cause significant financial, physical, and other harms to individuals in their care. State law defines guardianship systems, and state courts manage the system. State law generally requires guardianships to be an option of last resort after less-restrictive options have been considered, the guardian’s authority is limited, and the guardianship be monitored for abuse and accountability.[[7]]

However, guardianship laws, policies, and procedures are not always consistently enforced or followed, and more needs to be done to reform guardianship and protect those under guardianships from maltreatment. [[8]] As recently as 2018, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging conducted a study on guardianship and recommended several key areas for reform, including improving: oversight of guardians and guardianship arrangements, alternatives to guardianship and restoration of rights, and data collection.[[9]] Despite the recognized need for change, there are several challenges to guardianship reform, including the significant differences between court and state practices, the complexity of guardianship cases, the difficulty in balancing risks, protections, and self-determination, and the lack of funding to improve processes.[[10]]

Victims of adult maltreatment may require various services and supports, including help applying for victim assistance counseling, transportation to and from court, coordination of care with medical providers and long-term care facility staff, and referral to a whole network of programs available to older adults through the Older Americans Act. It is also known that provision of these services, such as receiving home delivered meals, can remediate social isolation and other conditions that are risk factors for adult maltreatment. Specific services or supports, such as social support and participation in supportive community social outlets, may be effective for mitigating negative outcomes of elder mistreatment, such as depression, generalized anxiety, and poor health [[11]] as well as future risk of mistreatment [[12]]. Further study is required to establish the research literature in how provision of Older Americans Act funded programs can remediate and prevent adult maltreatment.

These gaps in knowledge and practice have been noted consistently across multiple efforts, including:

Three Government Accountability Office (GAO) studies on the topic of abuse, neglect, and exploitation conducted from 2010-2013. The studies’ findings repeatedly recommend a coordinated, federal response to address the gaps in public awareness, prevention, intervention, coordination, and research of elder maltreatment.[[13]]

Multiple GAO studies conducted between 2004 and 2016 examined issues in guardianship systems, including abuse by guardians, and existing supports in place to protect older adults [[14]]. In particular, the 2016 study noted a lack of knowledge about the extent of elder abuse by guardians due to limited data on key factors, such as the number of guardians appointed to serve older adults at a given time, the number of older adults in guardianships, and the number of cases involving elder abuse by a guardian.

[[15]]

The Elder Justice Coordinating Council[[16]] has issued a set of recommendations for federal action that include enhancing response and outreach to individuals who experience abuse and developing a core set of service provision standards and best practices for APS.

In 2014, the Department of Justice, in partnership with HHS, released the results of a stakeholder engagement process whose purpose was to find consensus around the most important issues for the elder justice field. The report, titled the “Elder Justice Roadmap,”[[17]] identified priority action items on which the federal government - as well as others- should focus. Among the priority actions recommended were the need to evaluate the availability of emergency/transitional housing and other service options for older victims; evaluate the efficacy of programs designed to address adult maltreatment;

and develop national APS standards on topics such as feasible caseloads, collaborations, training requirements, and data collection.

The 2015 White House Conference on Aging (WHCOA) selected Elder Justice as one of its five focus areas. The Final Report of the WHCOA identified public comments collected during the Conference’s stakeholder engagement process. These comments stressed the lack of research focusing on elder abuse as a significant barrier to addressing the problem, and that very little is understood about the extent of the problem.[[18]]

In 2020, the Administration for Community Living published a Research Agenda for Adult Protective Services. Stakeholders identified multiple questions related to service provision, including what best practices exist around service planning, and what types of services are most effective for different maltreatment types [[19]].

Funding Options Overview In response to these calls for attention in the areas described above, in FY 2021 ACL is awarding new cooperative agreements under the “Elder Justice Innovation Grants” program. The Elder Justice Innovation Grants program is intended to support foundational work to create credible benchmarks for adult maltreatment prevention, and for program development and evaluation.

The Elder Justice Innovation Grants program supports the development and advancement of knowledge and approaches about new and emerging issues related to elder justice. Funded projects will contribute to the improvement of the field of adult maltreatment prevention and intervention at large, by undertaking initiatives such as developing programs, interventions, materials, etc., or by establishing and/or contributing to the evidence-base of knowledge.

In FY 2021, ACL is interested in stimulating work to understand the following areas.

Applications will be accepted to explore:

Option 1: Improving Guardianship: Assess the fairness, effectiveness, timeliness, safety, and integrity of adult guardianship proceedings, and the lack of access to alternatives to guardianship, and develop innovations to improve the experiences of individuals at risk of https://www.acl.gov/sites/default/files/programs/2016-09/Eight_Recommendations_for_Increased_Federal_Involvement.pdf https://www.acl.gov/sites/default/files/programs/2016-09/Eight_Recommendations_for_Increased_Federal_Involvement.pdf guardianship. This includes, but is not limited to: assessing the processes for appointing and monitoring the performance of court-appointed guardians, and implementing changes deemed necessary as a result of the assessments. Examples may include mandating background checks for all potential guardians, implementing systems to enable online completion, filing and review of annual accountings and other required conservatorship and guardianship filings, or other ways to simplify the filing process for conservators and guardians, addressing access to guardianship revocation and alternative pathways and proceedings that promote less restrictive means of supported decision making; and developing innovations to improve the experiences of individuals at risk of guardianship/conservatorship; as well as better enabling courts to identify discrepancies and detect fraud and the exploitation of protected persons.

Option 2: Adult Protective Services-Community Transitions: Assess and understand the various community services that produce better outcomes for persons transitioning from APS interventions which are emergent and short-term to the broader OAA and community-based programs that remediate and prevent recurrence of abuse over the longer term.

Each of the funding Options is explained in detail below. However, the following information is applicable to all grantees under any of the Options.

A. Eligible Applicants Domestic public or private non-profit entities including state and local governments, faith-based organizations, community-based organizations, hospitals, and institutions of higher education are eligible to apply under this funding opportunity.

See Section III.3 “Responsiveness and Screening Criteria” for more details on what applications under Options 1 and 2 must demonstrate to be considered for this funding opportunity.

B. Application Content Applications for funding under both Options must include the following (this information is provided in more detail in Section IV.2 below):

1. The specific issues or challenges to be explored/addressed,

2. What the applicant hopes to achieve with this funding,

3. Why the selected approach is likely to produce the most significant knowledge or impact over other, possible approaches,

4. How the approach will reflect ACL’s commitment to advancing equity, racial justice, and equal opportunity, including ensuring that people from underrepresented and underserved communities are at the table to inform the work in the execution of their grant activities,

5. A work plan that covers activities throughout the entire project period,

6. Products to be created as part of the grant.

C. Final Reports HHS grants policy requires all recipients of grant funding to submit a final project report. In addition to this report, any grantee under the Elder Justice Innovation Grants program must submit to ACL a final report, document, or briefing paper that is of professional quality for dissemination and sharing that discusses the funded project, its results, and implications and suggestions for furthering the knowledge base on the topic addressed.

D. Evaluation Applications must include a description of the method/s that will be employed to successfully measure whether or not the project has achieved its proposed outcome(s), as well as the overall goal for this funding opportunity. Grantee evaluations of their projects facilitate the government in assessing whether programs are effective in producing positive change. Therefore, ACL is committed to providing technical assistance to grantees with the refinement and carrying out of a project’s evaluation plan. Technical assistance to the grantees will be provided primarily by ACL program staff via regular conference calls and email correspondence. Applicants should be prepared to include progress and information/data on the project’s outcomes and the evaluation in semi-annual reports and at other times as agreed upon by the grantee and ACL.

E. Rights in Data ACL understands that the outcomes and results from these demonstration grants may be such that the awardee would like to publish an article or report on the project’s results, or disseminate the outcomes and results in some other public way. Per the HHS Grants Policy Statement (January 1, 2007), page II-69: “In general, [grant] recipients own the rights in data resulting from a grant-supported project or program….[A]ny publications, data, or other copyrightable works developed under an HHS grant may be copyrighted without OPDIV prior approval.” That is, grantees under this funding opportunity do not need to seek approval from ACL to publish reports, articles, or other material about their projects.

However, applicants should also note that Under 45 CFR Section 75.322(b), ACL reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use copyrightable works developed (or for which ownership was purchased) under this cooperative agreement for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so, including to disseminate the works and findings. The federal government right to such copyrightable works and data are explained further in the HHS Grants Policy Statement. For this funding opportunity, this means that grantees may not withhold from ACL data or information produced from or by this project, except as protected by privacy laws/regulations, including but not limited to outcome and evaluation data. At the conclusion of the grant period, the grantee must provide a final report that includes the data and materials produced by the grant.

Please Note: The HHS Grants Policy Statement defines “data” as “recorded information, regardless of the form or media on which it may be recorded, and includes writings, films, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, designs or other graphic representations, procedural manuals, forms, diagrams, work flow charts, equipment descriptions, data files, data processing or computer programs (software), statistical records, and other research data.”

Option 1: Improving Guardianship Guardianships describe legal relationships by which state courts empower individuals or entities to make personal and/or property decisions for other adults who the court has determined are unable to make their own decisions regarding a range of fundamental life choices. Court-appointed guardians—who may be family members, friends, professionals, private non-profit or http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/grants/grants/policies-regulations/hhsgps107.pdf http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/grants/grants/policies-regulations/hhsgps107.pdf http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/grants/grants/policies-regulations/hhsgps107.pdf http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/grants/grants/policies-regulations/hhsgps107.pdf for-profit agencies, or public agencies—have a duty to care for the interests of the adult who is placed under a guardianship, often referred to as the “protected person.” As such, guardians are legally entitled to make a wide array of decisions that impact a protected person’s well-being, including financial, medical, and residential decisions. This substantial authority often means that a protected person loses basic rights, such as the right to make decisions about where they live, vote, marry, conduct relationships, buy or sell real estate, make decisions about their medical care or finances, or enter into other contractual agreements. With this wide range of legal authorities, there is potential for abuse.

Courts manage numerous steps and proceedings in their guardianship systems, such as making a determination about a protected person’s ability to make decisions, appointing the guardian, monitoring the guardianship, removing/reappointing different a guardian, and ending the guardianship. The various steps and moving parts create opportunities for fraud and abuse of the system and the protected person. States often lack the systems or capacity to adequately detect and address fraud and other abuses. Further, guardianships may not be the least-restrictive option for ensuring that an adult’s personal and property interests are protected.

Adequate court oversight, mechanisms, and resources are critical to manage the guardianship system and to mitigate the potential for fraud and abuse. With adequate resources and training, states are more able to thoroughly assess each case and ensure they are not inappropriately placing an individual in a guardianship when less-restrictive options are available.

Each of these complex systems differ by state, and as such, the methods by which to improve the guardianship system will also vary by state. For example, several states have established Working Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders (WINGS) to begin identifying and addressing issues with their guardianship systems. WINGS are predominantly chaired and hosted by highest state courts, and they primarily aim to prevent unnecessary and overbroad guardianships in favor of less-restrictive options and prevent, detect, and address abuses in the system. However, achieving significant and sustained improvement to these systems requires continued innovation to the approaches used to identify and address issues and the methods used to implement improvements.

Under Option 1: Improving Guardianship ACL aims to stimulate improvements in the states’ guardianship system. At a minimum, ACL expects that the information gathered through this project will result in suggestions for priority actions in each of three areas (research, practice, and policy) related to this topic. For Option 1, ACL seeks proposals from the highest courts of States with the following objectives:

1. Assess the fairness, effectiveness, timeliness, safety, and integrity of adult guardianship proceedings, access to alternatives to guardianship, examination of the processes for appointing and monitoring of the performance of court-appointed public and private guardians, and revocation of guardianship.

2. Develop and implement innovations to address issues determined during the assessment phase of the project.

3. Measure changes to the guardianship system implemented throughout the project.

Under Option 1: Improving Guardianship, ACL is interested in supporting projects that will perform a robust evaluation of the state’s guardianship system and develop solutions; implement identified solutions to improve state guardianship systems; and protect the interests of older adults who may encounter the guardianship system. Examples of innovations that meet the Option 1 goals and objectives include, but are not limited to, the following:

Establish processes and procedures to enable courts to better detect fraud and abuse of protected persons, such as by mandating and enforcing uniform reporting requirements for guardians, and monitoring the performance of court-appointed guardians to identify discrepancies in information reported by guardians, and address other system deficiencies that pose a risk to older adults who may encounter the guardianship system.

Reduce potential issues with the qualifications and conduct of guardians, such as through mandating background checks for all potential guardians, and digitalizing systems to simplify processes for guardians and enable courts to better track information (e.g., completing, filing, and reviewing court filings, and annual accounting).

Establish processes and procedures for the thorough assessments of the appropriateness of a guardianship, including ensuring that no less-restrictive option is available in a given case.

Establish and/or provide improved methods to manage the guardianship processes and protect the interests of older adults, such as through providing trainings and certifications, to all involved in the guardianship process, including members of the judiciary, members of the Bar, and guardians.

Implement and/or improve collection and analysis of guardianship data to enable ongoing evaluation of the guardianship system.

Under Option 1: Improving Guardianship, successful applicants will be an entity that demonstrates the following responsiveness criteria (from Section III.3):

1. The applicant is the highest court of the State, including an office that conducts administrative and/or policy functions within the highest court of the State.

2. The applicant has the authority to implement changes to the statewide guardianship system, including changes affecting members of the judiciary, members of the Bar, guardians, protected persons, and proposed protected persons.

3. The application includes a plan to address all aspects of the project as outlined in the funding option description above, including: (i) assessment of the statewide guardianship system, (ii) development and implementation of innovations designed to improve the system and protect the interests of older adults who may encounter system, and (iii) measurement of changes to the system.

4. The applicant is substantively and meaningfully involved in the activities of the project, and does not appear to be serving as a “conduit” or “pass through” for funding.

5. Letters of Commitment are included for agencies, organizations, consultants, or entities that are specifically named to carry out any aspect of the project, other than the applicant.

The letters of commitment are on the letterhead of the committing entity, details the specific role and resources/activities that will be provided in support of the applicant’s project, and are signed.

6. CVs/Resumes are included for each person identified as "key personnel," each of whom is an authorized representative of the highest court of the state.

7. Application includes a budget covering all 2 years (24 months) of the project.

8. Application includes a work plan covering all 2 years (24 months) of the project.

Option 2: APS-Community Transitions Adult Protective Services (APS) is a social services program provided by state and local governments serving older adults and adults with disabilities who need assistance because of abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or financial exploitation (adult maltreatment). In all states, APS is charged with receiving and responding to reports of adult maltreatment and working closely with clients and a wide variety of allied professionals to maximize client safety and independence.

Most APS programs serve both older and younger vulnerable adults.

Congress passed the Older Americans Act (OAA) in 1965 in response to concern by policymakers about a lack of community social services for older persons. The original legislation established authority for grants to states for community planning and social services, research and development projects, and personnel training in the field of aging. The law also established the Administration on Aging (AoA) to administer the newly created grant programs and to serve as the federal focal point on matters concerning older persons.

Beyond the Older Americans Act, older adults receive services under many other federal programs, including but not limited to Medicare and Medicaid, SNAP, VOCA, housing supports, and the broad array of federally funded home and community based services.

Under Option 2: APS-Community Transitions, ACL seeks to understand more about the various community services that produce better outcomes for persons transitioning from APS interventions, which are emergent and short-term, to the broader array of federally funded community-based programs. At a minimum, ACL expects that the information gathered through this project will result in suggestions for priority actions in each of three areas (research, practice, and policy) related to this topic. ACL is interested in supporting projects aimed at addressing the following objectives:

1. Identify, assess, and understand the connections/relationships between APS and community-based programs, and

2. Identify, assess, and understand how the transition of APS clients to community-based programs can remediate and prevent future abuse.

In pursuit of these objectives, ACL seeks applications that address all the following questions:

1. Which community services (human, social, and civil legal) produce better outcomes for persons transitioning from APS interventions, efficiently and effectively restoring them after experiencing abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation?

2. Which services or combinations or services produce better outcomes for specific forms of maltreatment?

3. Which services or combinations of services best respond longitudinally to the needs of those of have experienced maltreatment?

4. What APS service planning practices have demonstrated success?

5. What practices have demonstrated success developing and promoting durable, sustainable, and effective systemic relationships that better address the needs of people in the short- and long-term who have experienced abuse, that preserve their autonomy, and that mitigate risks of recurrence?

Successful applicants under Option 2: APS-Community Transitions will be organizations that meet the following responsiveness criteria (from Section III.3):

1. Demonstrated knowledge of APS systems;

2. Demonstrated knowledge of Older Americans Act and other programs that offer support to older adults in recovery from abuse, neglect and/or exploitation;

3. Demonstrated knowledge of the programs to prevent, detect, identify, assess, intervene in, investigate, and respond to maltreatment of older adults and adults with disabilities;

4. Demonstrated knowledge of data collection, statistical methods, and outcomes research;

5. Demonstrated capacity and experience to design, plan, and execute projects that contribute to the scientific literature; and

6. Identified a project director who has demonstrated expertise in criteria 1-5 above.

References

1. Acierno, R., Hernandez-Tejada, M. A., Anetzberger, G. J., Loew, D., & Muzzy, W.

(2017). The National Elder Mistreatment Study: An 8-year longitudinal study of outcomes. Journal of elder abuse & neglect, 29(4), 254–269. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.201

2. Petersilia, J. (2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities: A Review Essay.

Criminal Justice & Behavior, 28(6), 655–694.

3. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2017). Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2008-2010

– Statistical tables. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd0915st_sum.pdf

4. Teaster, P. B., Dugar, T., Mendiondo, M., Abner, E. L., Cecil, K. A., & Otto, J. M.

(2004). The 2004 Survey of Adult Protective Services: Abuse of Vulnerable Adults 18 Years of Age and Older. Washington, D.C.: National Center on Elder Abuse, U.S.

Administration for Community Living.

5. Multiple studies to measure the incidence and prevalence of adult maltreatment have bee n undertaken in recent years. Including:

National Research Council. (2003). Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

New York City Dept for the Aging; Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc., & Weill Cornell Medical Ctr of Cornell University. (2011). Under the Radar: New York State Elder Abuse Prevalence Study. Rochester: Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc.

Acierno, R., Hernandez, M. A., Amstadter, A. B., Resnick, H. S., Steve, K., Muzzy, W., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2010). Prevalence and Correlates of Emotional, Physical, Sexual, and Financial Abuse and Potential Neglect in the United States: The National Elder Mistreatment Study. Am J Public Health, 100(2), 292–297.

6. New York City Dept for the Aging; Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc., & Weill Cornell Medical Ctr of Cornell University. (2011). Under the Radar: New York State Elder Abuse Prevalence Study. Rochester: Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc.

7. ABA Commission on Law and Aging. (2020). WINGS Briefing Paper Advancing Guardianship Reform and Promoting Less Restrictive Options.

https://doi

8. U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. (November 2018). Ensuring Trust:

Strengthening State Efforts to Overhaul the Guardianship Process and Protect Older Americans.

9. U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. (November 2018). Ensuring Trust:

Strengthening State Efforts to Overhaul the Guardianship Process and Protect Older Americans.

10. ABA Commission on Law and Aging. (2020). WINGS Briefing Paper Advancing Guardianship Reform and Promoting Less Restrictive Options.

11. Acierno, R., Hernandez-Tejada, M. A., Anetzberger, G. J., Loew, D., & Muzzy, W.

(2017). The National Elder Mistreatment Study: An 8-year longitudinal study of outcomes. Journal of elder abuse & neglect, 29(4), 254–269. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.201

12. Burnes, D. P., Rizzo, V. M., & Courtney, E. (2014). Elder Abuse and Neglect Risk Alleviation in Protective Services. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(11), 2091–2113.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513516387

13. GAO. (March 22, 2011). Elder Justice: Stronger Federal Leadership Could Enhance National Response to Elder Abuse. Washington, D.C. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316224.pdf

14. Multiple GAO studies on guardianship:

GAO. (July 2004). Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect Incapacitated Elderly People.

Washington, DC.

GAO. (September 2010). Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors. Washington, DC.

GAO. (November 16, 2016). The Extent of Abuse by Guardians Is Unknown, but Some Measures Exist to Help Protect Older Adults. Washington, D.C. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-33

15. GAO. (November 16, 2016). The Extent of Abuse by Guardians Is Unknown, but Some Measures Exist to Help Protect Older Adults. Washington, D.C. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-33

16. Elder Justice Coordinating Council. (2014, May). Eight Recommendations from the Elder Justice Coordinating Council for Increased Federal Involvement in Addressing Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation . Retrieved January 26, 2021, from U.S.

Administration for Community Living Website:

https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/programs/2016- 09/Eight_Recommendations_for_Increased_Federal_Involvement.pdf

17. Connolly, M., Brandl, B., & Breckman, R. (2014). The Elder Justice Roadmap.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/file/852856/download

18. White House Conference on Aging. (2015). The White House Conference on Aging, Final Report. Washington, D.C. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://whitehouseconferenceonaging.gov/2015-WHCOA-Final-Report.pdf

19. New Editions Consulting, Inc. (2020). Building the Evidence Base for Adult Protective Services - APS Research Agenda. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Administration for Community Living. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/programs/2020-10/APS%20Research%20Agenda.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513516387 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-33 https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/programs/2016-09/Eight_Recommendations_for_Increased_Federal_Involvement.pdf https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/programs/2016-09/Eight_Recommendations_for_Increased_Federal_Involvement.pdf https://whitehouseconferenceonaging.gov/2015-WHCOA-Final-Report.pdf

Statutory Authority The statutory authority for grants under this Program Announcement is contained in Sections 201(e)(2) and 411 of the Older Americans Act, as amended, and Title XX of the Social Security Act, Subtitle B, the Elder Justice Act of 2009, Section 2042(a)(1) and (c)(2)-(3).

II. Award Information Funding Instrument Type:

CA (Cooperative Agreement) Estimated Total Funding:

$ 5,900,000 Expected Number of Awards:

Award Ceiling:

$ 500,000 Per Budget Period

Award Floor:

$ 350,000 Per Budget Period

Length of Project Period:

24-month project period with two 12-month budget periods Additional Information on Project Periods and Explanation of 'Other' Under this competition, ACL will award approximately sixteen (16) new, cooperative agreements ranging from $350,000 - $500,000 each. The award ceiling and floor is the same across all funding options. The project period for all awards will be for 24-months (or, 2 years), and the budget periods will be two (2), 12-month periods. Applications for continuation funding beyond the initial year will be reviewed on a non-competitive basis, subject to the availability of funds, contingent on satisfactory progress of the grantee, and a determination by ACL that continued funding will be in the best interest of the government.

Final award decisions will be made by the ACL Administrator and will be based on recommendations of the review panel (See Section V), reviews for programmatic and grants management compliance, geographic distribution, and the reasonableness of the estimated cost considering the available funding and anticipated results.

This funding opportunity announcement is for a new cooperative agreement. As provided by the terms of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-224), this Cooperative Agreement provides for the substantial involvement and collaboration of ACL in activities that the recipient organization will carry out in accordance with the provisions of the approved grant award.

By accepting an award under this funding opportunity announcement, the grantee agrees to execute the responsibilities outlined below:

1. Fulfill all of the requirements of the grant initiative as outlined in this program announcement, as well as carry out project activities as reviewed, approved, and awarded.

2. Collaborate with the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in the execution of the work plan, and collaborate with ACL in understanding the programmatic and budgetary issues of the project. Based on these negotiations and emerging issues in the field, if necessary, the grantee will revise the project work plan and/or budget detailing expectations for major activities and products during the grant period.

3. Evaluate the impact of project activities, and provide recommendations to ACL on ways to enhance the program.

4. Meet with the ACL project officer at least once each month, or at such other times as are agreed upon, to improve the effectiveness of the activities carried out under this Agreement.

5. Create products and/or materials under this award that are accurate, objective, unbiased, and of high professional quality, and that do not violate federal, departmental, or agency grant rules. Before publicly disseminating materials developed under this grant, grantee will provide the ACL project officer a copy of the final product in order for the ACL project officer to have at least 15 business days to ensure the product meets the requirements set forth in the program announcement and cooperative agreement.

6. Submit to the ACL project officer a final, clean copy of all data developed or supported with these grant funds, in the format in which it was developed or produced, as provided for in the HHS Grants Policy Statement and referenced in the Notice of Award. The HHS Grants Policy Statement defines “data” as: “recorded information, regardless of the form or media on which it may be recorded, and includes writings, films, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, designs or other graphic representations, procedural manuals, forms, diagrams, work flow charts, equipment descriptions, data files, data processing or computer programs (software), statistical records, and other research data” (HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II, “Rights in Data”, page II-69).

7. Include the following disclaimer on all products produced using grant funding, including those produced by sub-awards: "This (report/document/etc.) was supported, in part, by a grant (No. XXX) from the Administration for Community Living (ACL), U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Grantees carrying out projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and conclusions.

Therefore, points of view or opinions do not necessarily represent official ACL or DHHS policy."

The ACL project officer will execute the responsibilities outlined below:

1. Perform the day-to-day federal responsibilities of managing a grant initiative and will work with the grantee to ensure that the minimum requirements for the grant are met.

2. Work cooperatively with the grantee to clarify the programmatic and budgetary issues to be addressed by the grantee project, and, as necessary, negotiate with grantee to achieve a mutually agreed upon solution to any needs identified by the grantee or ACL.

3. Assist the grantee project leadership in understanding the policy concerns and/or priorities of ACL, and the Department of Health and Human Services by conducting periodic briefings and by carrying out ongoing consultations. ACL will also share information with the grantee about other federally sponsored projects and activities relevant to the interests of the grantee and their activities.

4. Provide technical advice on grantee work products to ensure they are accurate, objective, unbiased, and of high professional quality, and that they do not violate federal, departmental, or agency grant rules. Before publicly disseminating materials developed under this grant, grantee will provide the ACL project officer a copy of the final product, and within 15 business days, the ACL project officer will provide guidance and feedback on whether the product meets the requirements set forth in the program announcement and this cooperative agreement.

5. Provide consultation to the grantee in identifying emerging issues and modifying work plan as necessary.

6. Meet with the grantee project director at least once each month, or at such other times as are agreed upon, to improve the effectiveness of the activities carried out under this Agreement.

Upon execution of this cooperative agreement, requests to modify or amend it or the work plan may be made by ACL or the awardee at any time. Modifications and/or amendments of the Cooperative Agreement or work plan shall be effective upon the mutual agreement of both parties, except where ACL is authorized under the Terms and Conditions of award, 45 CFR Part 74 or 92, or other applicable regulation or statute to make unilateral amendments. When an award is issued the cooperative agreement terms and conditions from the program announcement are incorporated by reference.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants Domestic public or private non-profit entities including state and local governments, Indian tribal governments and organizations (American Indian/Alaskan Native/Native American), faith-based organizations, community-based organizations, hospitals, and institutions of higher education.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching Cost Sharing / Matching Requirement:

Yes For awards that require matching or cost sharing by statute, recipients will be held accountable for projected commitments of non-federal resources (at or above the statutory requirement) in their application budgets and budget justifications by budget period, or by project period for fully funded awards. The applicant will be held accountable for all proposed non-federal resources as shown in the Notice of Award (NOA). A recipient's failure to provide the statutorily required matching or cost sharing amount (and any voluntary committed amount in excess) may result in the disallowance of federal funds. Recipients will be required to report these funds in the Federal Financial Reports.

For awards that do not require matching or cost sharing by statute, recipients are not expected to provide cost sharing or matching. However, recipients are allowed to voluntarily propose a commitment of non-federal resources. If an applicant decides to voluntarily contribute non-federal resources towards project costs and the costs are accepted by ACL, the non-federal resources will be included in the approved project budget. The applicant will be held accountable for all proposed non-federal resources as shown in the Notice of Award (NOA). A recipient's failure to meet the voluntary amount of non-federal resources that was accepted by ACL as part of the approved project costs and that was identified in the approved budget in the NOA, may result in the disallowance of federal funds. Recipients will be required to report these funds in the Federal Financial Reports.

Under this ACL program, ACL will fund no more than 75% of the project’s total cost, which means the applicant must cover at least 25% of the project’s total cost with non-federal resources. In other words, for every three (3) dollars received in federal funding, the applicant must contribute at least one (1) dollar in non-federal resources toward the project’s total cost.

This “three-to-one” ratio is reflected in the formula included under Item 18 in the “Instructions for Completing Requested Forms.” You can use this formula to calculate your minimum required match. A common error applicants make is to match 25% of the federal share, rather than 25% of the project’s total cost.

There are two types of match: 1) non-federal cash and 2) non-federal in-kind. In general, costs borne by the applicant and cash contributions of any and all third parties involved in the project, including sub-grantees, contractors and consultants, are considered matching funds.

Volunteered time and use of facilities to hold meetings or conduct project activities may be considered in-kind (third party) donations. Examples of non-federal cash match includes budgetary funds provided from the applicant agency’s budget for costs associated with the project. ACL encourages you to not exceed the minimum match requirement. Applications with a match greater than the minimum required will not receive additional consideration under the review. Match is not one of the responsiveness criteria as noted in Section III, 3 Application Screening Criteria.

3. Responsiveness and Screening Criteria Application Responsiveness Criteria Applications that do not meet the following responsiveness criteria for the Option under which they are applying will be administratively eliminated and will not be reviewed.

Eligible applicants under Option 1: Improving Guardianship are defined by Title XX of the Social Security Act, Subtitle B, the Elder Justice Act of 2009, Section 2042(c)(2)-(3). The successful applicant will be an organization that meets the following eight (8) responsiveness criteria:

1. The applicant is the highest court of the State, including an office that conducts administrative and/or policy functions within the highest court of the State.

2. The applicant has the authority to implement changes to the statewide guardianship system, including changes affecting members of the judiciary, members of the Bar, and guardians.

3. The application includes a plan to address all aspects of the project as outlined in the funding option description above, including: (i) assessment of the statewide guardianship system, (ii) development and implementation of innovations designed to improve the system and protect the interests of older adults who may encounter system, and (iii) measurement of changes to the system.

4. The applicant is substantively and meaningfully involved in the activities of the project, and does not appear to be serving as a “conduit” or “pass through” for funding.

5. Letters of Commitment are included for agencies, organizations, consultants, or entities that are specifically named to carry out any aspect of the project, other than the applicant.

The letters of commitment are on the letterhead of the committing entity, details the specific role and resources/activities that will be provided in support of the applicant’s project, and are signed.

6. CVs/Resumes are included for each person identified as "key personnel," each of whom is an authorized representative of the highest court of the state.

7. Application includes a budget covering all 2 years (24 months) of the project.

8. Application includes a work plan covering all 2 years (24 months) of the project.

Eligible applicants under Option 2: APS-Community Transitions are defined by Section 201(e)(2) of the Older Americans Act, as amended, and Title XX of the Social Security Act, Subtitle B, the Elder Justice Act of 2009, Section 2042(a)(1).The successful applicant will be an organization that meets the following nine (9) responsiveness criteria:

1. Demonstrated knowledge of APS systems;

2. Demonstrated knowledge of Older Americans Act programs and other programs, services and benefits that enable APS clients to transition to longer-standing supports to remedy abuse, neglect and/or exploitation and mitigate recurrence;

3…