NEW FILE BEGINS — Doe #/70 B&B INFORMATION & IMAGE MANAGEMENT 300 Peince Bereer’s BouLrvarD UPPER MARLEORD, MaRYLaAND 20772 ° UBA * (351) 249-D11D Rup NASSAU/SUIFOLK RM OOrb6 i TLE ALCUST 2074 BEVIN ! Application - This application requests $2, 141, 602 for support of ‘core staff, 343,328, four feasibility studies (23, 750) , one grantee FY, 76 contract $355, 000 and fifteen projects, $1,419,524. Since June Council recommended. no funding for the May application, this represents Nassau-Suffolk's total request for. support of the program from september through June 1975, . v Of the projects submitted: | | | « five were in the-May application and are requesting identical ’" funding. ‘ + - the sixth project was submitted as a feasibility study for $50, 000 in May, it is now requesting $252, 867 as a project. ¢ _« only cne project was dropped that was submitted in May and 10 other projects were added. Of these 10, one is a continuation & the rest are new. . - Five of the fifteen projects are requesting support until 6/76. The application includes CHP comments and the RMPs consideration of the one negative and one conditional comment. a E0/7/15/74 JULY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION : oe Critique: a . t . t - ” . ao eee - —~ - a Tope rete eee meats sarees ames oe ae et aren a eee ee ~ ~ . . ~~ ne a - - ee se ne ee seme me nee - eee ae ee ee mettre me mite ee ee * e . 1 . - _— - - - - - Bae - wee tee - ~ =~ eee a ne ne ne ee ee ere ee 1 e fer - wee eee ee ce ee ee en oe ee wee oe wee “ wre en eae meee ete nee = - 7 . wee - - wee eee + a TE me ne ee ena at eet ae cee tae renee ee ae nee es meee ee ete we ee a rors ~ - - HL awe meee a sete ae eee eee ee . - - - - + 5 ~ See meee a a We ee em me cee tee ee Pore mimpennnnn we ae manne a eer maemo ae ate eee meee OT649608T ~ OC. ~ OT649605T | “ "" “SWLOL NOISSY Cot enn ee meee oe ons mB SYNENGdWOD 30" ’ . , © Oo 99Z°OL 0 : vOCSOL . . . 493COUd G3 9 NOILYNIGHOOD 3SV3SIO IWNad €zo 91S*91t 0 91S49IL WVY90Nd ININIVUL SH3 9 S 220 o : 0 - - Lee oe anne a ne ne Tn AO OEOBZ OO osatese uous Sa ALNMOD AYSSYN = TZO0 aan) ~. €0€402 9 £0E40z ___ WY¥90¥d YONOO NVOWO WNOTOIY WIOd4NS QVSSVN ¥TO _, O , sto#se og 7 . st9*s2 1 xO WMOMLN NOTLVWROINI ONYG TWNOTOSY 6000 oO. etetzot =O, Bteteot NMVECHLIM = wvuso¥d S8v2 ANH BAISNFHARdHOD TOO ee 000*0s 0 / 000%0s suv AYOLVINGHY, wos AGALS 3S¥@ Viva 02 41OdANS © 4009 | _~ pees ee - we ee cee OST *H9E 0 OSTSH9E ; — a HAVLS WYNDOUd 0009 Oo © NoIsroga~~ AS3SN03SY ~~ LSSNDSY > isanoay woes . oo aan os ee nme mm ane me se maemo ONC NOLLVQOTIV Wi0L == LOBUTONT Loayia FILLL LNINOdWOD du0D _NUBLS / Fe ee a pguad oo aS AYSSYN + TL core oe NOI9Z. SLNSNOdNOD RMP Nassau-Suffolk RM 00066 MAY/JUNE 1974 REVIEW Request: $1,096,910 Committee Recommendation: -0- Overall assessment by individual reviewers: Poor Critique: This application requesting support for an expanded staff (from 8 to 15 professionals), six ongoing projects and’ one new project, was discussed at length by Panel B. The reviwers pointed out that this RMP had previously been an RMP-CHP agency under one director with priorities for the two-tounty area developed jointly by the RAG and CHP Council. The dichotimous arrangement was terminated last Fall, with the RMP concentrating on the non-planning priorities. In the past year the RMP has had three coordinators, but the program appears ' to represent a holdover from the original coordinator in the grand design of previous activity and programming. The present staff, it was noted, appears weak; no member has an advanced degree, including the coordinator and the backgrounds of the proposed new staff are in the fields of social sciences. The reviewers were concerned that staff does not have the leadership qualities and experience that are needed to develop health care programs based on the stated priorities. Furthermore, the reviewers questioned the effective functioning of the Regional Advisory Group and the grantee during the hiatus of staff leadership. The RMP has not complied with the RAG-grantee policy although it is understood by staff that this may be finally near resolution. The problem up to now has been a preponderance of corporate board members on the Regional Advisory Group. After considering the history of this RMP together with an analysis of the current application, Panel B recommended that this RMP grant have an early, orderly termination. The Panel reconsidered the recommendation upon reviewing all its actions, but came to the same conclusion. The Committee concurred. While no funds are recommended, Committee urges that Council and DRVP make available . additional funds that may be needed for appropriate phase-out costs. JULY/AUGUST REVIEW Estimated request as of May 1974: $850,000 £0/5/27/74 NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL. - June 13-14, 1974 Council concurred with Committee recommendation DRMP FUNDING DECISION - 0 -E0/7/2/74