1 

Texas Congregate 

Meal Initiative Principal Investigators 

Keely Lee, TCMI Project Director

ADRC Director, Texas Health and Human Services Commission

& 

Nandita Chaudhuri, Ph.D., TCMI Research Lead at Texas A&M

Research Scientist, Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University

Authors 

Laila Alvi, Research Associate, Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University

Zack Brattin, Project Coordinator, Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University

Nandita Chaudhuri, Research Scientist, Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University

Anthony Jackson, Research Specialist, Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University

Linda Netterville, Independent Older American Nutrition Consultant

Date of Report

December 1, 2022 

ACL Disclaimer: This project was supported, in part by grant number 90INNU0013, from the Administration 

for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. 20201. Grantees 

undertaking projects with government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and 

conclusions. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent official ACL policy.
2 

Table of Contents

Background and Purpose....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Partners and Project Staff.......................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Funding and Sustainability.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Recruitment.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Tools ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11

Project Timeline............................................................................................................................................................................................................................12

Frequently Asked Questions ...............................................................................................................................................................................................14

Advice for Replication..............................................................................................................................................................................................................15

Appendix List...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17
3 

Background and Purpose

1) Goal: 

The goal of the project is to improve the well-being of older Texans by modernizing local congregate programs 

through the creation of the Texas Congregate Meal Initiative (TCMI). Desired outcomes include increasing 

business acumen, improved program development skills, increased client participation, increased client 

satisfaction and improved well-being and social integration of Older American Act (OAA) clients at the 

participating sites. 

2) Objectives: 

1) Conducting a comprehensive gap analysis to identify the facilitators and barriers of congregate meal 

programs in Texas

2) Increasing business acumen and program development skills of selected congregate nutrition providers

3) Implementing and evaluating a learning collaborative model of innovative low-cost sustainable 

congregate meal pilots

3) Overview of Project: 

In collaboration with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), the Texas Area Agencies on 

Aging, Mays Business School, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed), the 

Texas Congregate Meal Initiative (TCMI) project (2019-2022) facilitated strategic innovations in congregate 

meal services to improve the social determinants of health for Older Texans. This was done by selecting and 

empowering 16 diverse congregate meal program pilots across rural and urban Texas to implement lowcost, replicable, innovative pilots through a Learning Collaborative (LC) model. As a capacity building tool, 

the LC provided comprehensive technical assistance to help test community-centered innovations that 

targeted increasing congregate meal participation and expanding the benefits and social outcomes for the 

pilot participants. The Learning Collaborative also helped develop business acumen, innovations thinking, 

marketing strategies and community partnership skills for the pilot implementers via subject matter experts 

and peer sites who functioned as part of a larger community of practice. The project evaluated the overall 

successes and challenges of the pilots through a social scientific design and outcome-based assessment to 

enable Texas policymakers and the aging network identify sustainable and replicable best practices, tips, 

and resources in modernizing the congregate meal programs across the state.

4) Project Results: 

Project outcomes were tracked with the help of multiple data sources: a program manager survey, a client 

survey and TCMI Learning Collaborative evaluation surveys that integrated multiple programmatic and client 

outcome indicators to track over the course of the project. Selected outcome findings are listed on the next 

pages. 
4 

• Outcome I. Increased business acumen and program development skills among congregate meal 

providers and the Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs). 

Data Sources: Program Manager Survey and TCMI Learning Collaborative Evaluation Surveys

o Across the three time points measured (December 2021, March 2022, and June 2022), Figure 1 outlines 

the resources provided by the TCMI Learning Collaborative that were deemed helpful by program 

managers. 

• Outcome II. Increased participation of Texans 60 years and older in the congregate meal program. 

Data Source: Program Manager Survey 

o Site closures and resulting varying implementation timelines made measurement of participation 

numbers across TCMI pilot sites challenging. Sites implemented their pilots at varying timelines. TCMI 

pilot managers anecdotally commented that their participation was higher than expected after 

implementing the pilot (and that the value of the program increased for participating older adults). 

However, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, very few TCMI pilot sites were able to 

systematically track their participation numbers compared to their pre-pandemic numbers.

o Instead of “increased participation numbers”, the pilots tracked “community awareness” of the 

congregate meal programs (CMPs) as a programmatic success outcome. Eighty nine percent of 

providers reported their community is more aware of the congregate program because of their TCMI 

pilots. 

o Seventy one percent of TCMI pilot managers’ report increasing access through pilots to vulnerable 

under-served Older Adult clients as a result of the project. 
5 

• Outcome III. Increased satisfaction of congregate meal participants.

Data Source: Client Survey 

o 96.4% of clients would recommend their congregate program to other older adults in their community.

o 95.9% of clients reported positive courteousness and friendliness of congregate meals site staff. 

o 79.9% of clients reported positive satisfaction with meal quality. Of these, 37.4% of clients said the 

meal quality was “Excellent” and 42.5% of clients said the meal quality was “Good”

• Outcome IV. Improved participant perceptions of wellness, food security and social integration.

Data Source: Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) measures from the Client Survey

o Figure 2 outlines the combined reports across the three time points measured (December 2021, 

March 2022, and June 2022) of the helpfulness of congregate programs on the included SDOH 

outcomes.
6 

Partners and Project Staff 

A. Partners:

• Mays Business School, Texas A&M University: guiding program development and business acumen 

development skills

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Education unit of Texas HHSC; evidence-based 

nutrition education for training the participating sites

• 16 selected senior nutrition providers from across Texas and their respective Area Agencies on Aging 

(AAAs): demonstration pilot sites implementing the innovative low-cost, sustainable models 

o Several Community Based Organizations for each TCMI pilot project

o Selected Subject Matter Experts were recruited for internal and external meetings to provide 

expertise on affiliated topics. 

B. Project Staff Roles: 

a. List number of FTEs

• Public Policy Research Institute (PPRI) staff have varying skills and specialties. As such, the staff 

affiliated with TCMI range in their contribution to the project, with some members applying as little 

as 4% of their time and others over 40%. Based on internal allocations, the following FTEs were 

calculated for each project year: 1.21 FTEs in FY20, 1.28 FTEs in FY21, and 1.99 FTEs in FY22. 

b. List staff title and general responsibilities 

• Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University Staff Role: translational research including 

envisioning and implementing all aspects of the project; selection of sites, innovations training for 

sites, mixed methods evaluation to develop the evidence base, and dissemination of project findings 

through various vehicles. 

(a) A&M Principal Investigator and Research Lead: Oversight of entire project, including: 

development and monitoring of contract, monthly contact with project partners, regular 

communication with NRCNA/ACL as required, leading the research project and its translational 

research components.

(b) Other Research Staff: Implementation of research instruments, management of sites, TA 

material development, dissemination. 

(c) Independent Senior Nutrition Consultant: Older 

American Act nutrition expertise.

• Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC)

Role: manage programmatic components and fiscal 

reporting. 

(a) Project Director: Overall project oversight and 

management.

(b) Program Staff: Project management; programmatic 

and report development.

• Gina Carter, Sonia Vera, Keely Lee, & Dawn Ferriter

(c) Independent Senior Nutrition Consultant: Older 

American Act nutrition expertise.
7 

Funding and Sustainability

A. Initial Project Funding: 

• 2019 Administration for Community Living Nutrition Innovations (INNU) Grant 

• Matching funds from Texas HHSC

• From overall funding, 16 TCMI Pilots each received $10K ($7.5K for pilot implementation) 

B. Continued Funding: 

• Fourteen sites integrated their pilot innovations into their day-to-day operations. 

• Six pilot sites secured additional grants. 

• Eight sites are applying for grants as of October 2022 to continue selected element(s) of their 

innovation.

• Eight sites have scaled their TCMI practices to additional locations. 

Sustainability

As for the overall TCMI project, the key repertoire for the project, the TCMI website - with all tools, 

instruments, tips, information, guidance documents, etc. - will remain to help support the innovations and 

empower additional future innovative programs state and nationwide. Practice models implemented by 

the project sites will be shared through the TCMI website. Building upon project success outcomes, PPRI 

plans to take successful and replicable parts of the TCMI project and seek additional grant funding from 

public and private donors in the future. 

The TCMI pilot sites planned and implemented their innovations with buy-in and organizational support 

to sustain after the grant funding ended. Pilot sites will sustain their innovations through the following 

efforts outlined. 

• Sites have identified additional financial or in-kind resources to continue their innovation. This 

includes equipment, facilities, technology, and staffing (organization and volunteer). External 

grants and donations were sought from Community Development Block Grant funding, private 

businesses, and foundations.

• Local governments have provided support for site locations, monetary support, coordination 

assistance, and marketing.

• Fee for service options have provided the ability to expand services through nominal voluntary 

donations from seniors.

The next page shows the sustainability strategies and/or components reported by each TCMI pilot site.
8 

TCMI Pilot Funding and 

Sustainability Components

Tech Savvy Seniors

Community partnerships, equipment purchased, 

pilot volunteers, additional funding from St. Claire

hospital system

Angelina County Senior Center Association

The Silver Connection

Community partnerships, marketing material, 

equipment purchased, pilot staff

Amigos Del Valle, Inc.

Basic Internet and Computer Skills

Equipment purchased

BakerRipley

Morning Perk Café

Entire pilot through additional grant funding from 

TXU Energy

City of Brownwood Senior Citizens Center

All Day Energy Under One Roof

Community partnerships, equipment purchased, 

changed setting

City of San Antonio

It's All Connected

Community partnerships, marketing material

Dallas County Older Adult Services Program

Blood Pressure Telehealth Kiosk

Community partnerships including American 

Heart Association, marketing material, equipment 

purchased

Hereford Senior Citizens Association

The Senior Connection

Community partnerships, equipment purchased, 

pilot volunteers

Meals on Wheels - Central Texas

Beyond the Walls

Community partnerships, marketing material, 

equipment purchased, pilot volunteers

Meals on Wheels - Collin County

Online Overhaul

Community partnerships, marketing material

Meals on Wheels - Tarrant County

MasterClass

Community partnerships, marketing material, 

MasterClass subscription donation, pilot 

volunteers & staff

Meals on Wheels - Victoria

Connection Café

Community partnerships, marketing material, 

equipment purchased, dining room reset, pilot 

staff, additional funds from Community Block 

Development Grant and United Way

Meals on Wheels – Waco

Seasoned Creatives

Community partnerships, marketing material, 

equipment purchased, volunteers & staff, 

additional funding from Baylor Scott & White, Bank 

of America, City of Waco, Subaru, and a local 

senior dance group

The Kitchen

Steps to Better Living

Community partnerships, marketing material, 

implementation of regular health and wellness 

programs 

Somervell County Committee on Aging

SCCoA Live

Community partnerships & networking, 

equipment purchased
9 

Recruitment 

A. Participants

a. List Requirements

• Providers from all 28 Texas Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) regions were encouraged to apply to 

the Learning Collaborative regardless of organizational size, geographic region, and demographic 

make‐up. To be eligible, applicants must receive Title III‐C1 funding at the time of application and 

have decision‐making authority over a congregate meal program. Applicants must be willing to 

fully engage in all aspects of the Learning Collaborative.

b. What recruitment methods were used?

To select 16 congregate meal provider participants for the TCMI Learning Collaborative (LC), PPRI 

developed an application survey. This application is included in Appendix A. PPRI programed this 

survey on the Qualtrics platform and Texas HHSC fielded the application material through their AAA 

outreach mechanisms. The survey included an overview of the TCMI project, general requirements, 

the application review and award process, as well as technical support process for selected 

applicants. The survey also included questions on applicant contact information and key traits of their 

congregate organizations such as geographical location, size, type and numbers of meal sites, 

unduplicated numbers served, community partnerships, program status, funding, new practices, or 

innovations tried etc. PPRI developed a selection rubric and carefully fleshed out criteria related to 

opportunities for innovation in the congregate meal programs. PPRI then reviewed the applications 

alongside these criteria, resulting in the 16 sites selected for the Learning Collaborative. 

Successful: 

• The applicant pool was sufficiently diverse, illustrating successful distribution by the end of data 

collection but there were no applicants from West Texas AAA regions. 

• The project aimed for 16 LC participants and received 37 complete applications.

Not successful:

• The first two weeks of fielding the survey did not yield adequate LC applicants. Texas HHSC then 

linked the application strategically with their concurrent disseminations and contacts to facilitate 

survey participation. 

• An additional pool of 24 applicants completed the bulk of the application but did not submit the 

appropriate additional documents. 
10

Recruitment Continued

B. Marketing Tips

• Strategic dissemination of the application enabled numerous senior nutrition 

providers to be aware of the project. Because this learning collaborative targeted 

congregate meal providers specifically, there was no need to target older adult clients 

directly. 

• As for marketing the opportunity to participate in the Learning Collaborative, attention 

on the Texas AAAs and provider-level distributions worked well along with marketing 

through organizations such as the Texas Association of Regional Councils (TARC).

• When the selected participants implemented their pilots later in the project, each site 

recruited a plethora of community partner organizations from their own jurisdictions. 

They used various types of marketing to create awareness about their TCMI pilots: 

words of mouth, local media, billboards, social media, PSAs, YouTube videos, project 

websites etc. The TCMI subject matter experts on marketing provided training on how 

to reach Older Texans and how to market the pilots in local communities. Some sites 

also used volunteers from partnering agencies and from their own congregate clients 

as parts of their pilots. 
11

Tools

A. Technology 

• Zoom | PPRI conducted virtual events (kickoff, workshop) and provided technical assistance through 

Zoom platform during the project. This enabled a more personal connection than phone calls and 

facilitated consistent communication and coordination with the pilot sites. The platform was also used 

to conduct virtual focus groups with Older Americans, nutrition providers, AAAs and other aging 

stakeholders. 

• Qualtrics | PPRI utilized the Qualtrics platform to conduct evaluation surveys for each major project 

milestone and all-site events. These evaluation surveys enabled PPRI to tailor technical assistance 

and site meetings to participant needs and to consistently improve project processes. Surveys were 

also used as a part of overall mixed methods.

• All PPRI personnel have access to a desktop computer with access to internet and the bandwidth to 

support video and screen sharing through Zoom.

B. Resources 

• Project Website | At the beginning of the project, PPRI developed the project website as a repertoire 

for project information, resources, and slides from all training material, workshops and presentations. 

This central location enabled the TCMI pilot sites, affiliated AAAs, aging stakeholders, and others 

interested in the project to access the project documents and resources digitally. The website will not 

be dismantled beyond the grant life and all Texas nutrition providers and AAAs will be able to access 

it while reimagining their congregate meal programs as their sites reopen and start serving clients. 

• Logic Model | PPRI provided the learning collaborative participants with an example logic model to 

help refine their innovative ideas and structure their pilot with concrete inputs, partnerships, and 

measurable outcomes (included in Appendix B). 

• RFP for TCMI Innovative Pilots | PPRI generated an example Request for Proposal (RFP) that each pilot 

site completed. This was a non-competitive process and did not impact the amount of funding the 

participants would receive, but it provided the sites with the practical experience of completing an RFP 

and envision their projects and related spending from start to finish. The RFP template is attached in 

Appendix C. 

• Google Data Studio | PPRI implemented two data collection surveys to measure project impact: one 

survey for program managers from each participating congregate site and a second survey targeted 

towards older adults participating in the pilot innovations. Most of the program manager surveys were 

completed in Qualtrics while most of the client surveys were completed on paper. The data was then 

collated by program managers and transmitted electronically to PPRI. Once the data from both 

surveys was received, the information was imported into Google Data Studio to enable an interactive 

dashboard that could be hosted on the PPRI website. A screenshot of this dashboard is included in 

Appendix D. 
12

Project Timeline 

2019

Summer 2019

• Developed and submitted ACL Innovations in Nutrition grant proposal.

Fall 2019

• September 2019: Received ACL Innovations in Nutrition grant. 

• IRB application for project methodology approval and status determination. 

• Conducted asset mapping and developed survey instruments to identify barriers and needs 

for congregate meal programs in Texas.

Winter 2019

• Applied to IRB for survey instruments and comprehensive needs assessment methodology 

and protocols. 

• Conducted literature Survey, developed three surveys (Older American Panel Survey, Survey 

or organizations serving Older Americans in Texas, Community Health Provider Survey), 

worked on sample and data collection; collected data on congregate meal program barriers 

and facilitators, and analyzed data. Worked with a sample provider company and HHSC to 

field the surveys. 

• With SME partners, collaboratively began to develop innovative training material. 

2020

Spring & Summer 2020

• Developed a focus group guide to revalidate and reconfirm survey data with larger aging 

stakeholders. 

• Conducted 29 focus groups in 28 AAAs, process and analyze data. Because pandemic 

continued, assessed pandemic restrictions and challenges on programs. 

Fall & Winter 2020

• Developed application and protocols for nutrition providers to apply to participate in the TCMI 

Learning Collaborative. 

• Promoted workshop application to possible LC applicants. 

• Developed a project website. 

• Selected 16 TCMI pilots through an application process. 

• Developed and finalized curriculum and evaluation material for and targeted Technical 

Assistance.

• Conducted Learning Collaborative virtual workshop with TCMI pilots and their AAAs. 

• Provided assistance for pilot logic models development. 
13

Project Timeline Continued

2021

Spring, Summer & Fall 2021

• Provided targeted help with community partnership building and marketing of the pilots. 

• Assessed implementation readiness with targeted surveys. 

• Tracked data and provided workshop participants with collaboration opportunities. 

• Held grouped pre-implementation meetings. 

• Developed all evaluation protocols: program manager survey, client survey, baseline survey. 

Integrated evidence-based scales for all outcome tracking. 

2022

Winter 2021 – Summer 2022 

• Pilot sites implemented innovative business proposals based on their pandemic reopening 

schedules. 

• PPRI tracked implementation data and provide workshop participants data story boarding 

opportunity to discuss challenges, successes, promises, related tips. 

• Conducted Cross-Site Evaluation following a mixed methods process and outcome-based

approach. 

Spring & Summer 2022 

• Published research findings in two academic journals. Presented in targeted conferences. 

• Developed cross-site comprehensive evaluation report. Help pilot sites share data stories 

and facilitate LC based learning on successes and challenges. 

• Assisted sites to package success data for marketing and sustainability. 

• Conducted an end-of-project summit in September 2022 to disseminate pilot success 

outcomes data and tools. 
14

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What are some things that have worked really well in this project? 

A. First, the mixed methods approach for the comprehensive needs assessment during the first year of 

the project worked very well in collecting rich qualitative and quantitative data on Texas specific 

facilitators and barriers for the congregate meal programs. The project used this data to inform training 

material for the innovation pilots in later stages. Secondly, during years 3 and 4, using the Learning 

Collaborative (LC) approach to empower the pilot sites really worked well for building capacities and 

innovation skillsets for the 16 pilot sites through. The LC’s marketing strategies training helped the pilots 

increase program awareness and visibility in the pilot communities. The pilots developed superb local 

community partnerships too that helped enrich their project goals and enhanced their overall 

sustainability prospects. Thirdly, the project helped to significantly increase resources and funding to 

support sustaining the pilots and/or selected pilot components. A site described, “We took $10,000 and 

turned it into $70,000.” Finally, the project improved the SDOH outcomes of senior nutrition clients across 

the diverse pilot sites. 

Q: What has been this project’s biggest challenge?

A. The COVID-19 pandemic affected not only the implementation timeline of the TCMI Learning 

Collaborative (such as converting in-person components to virtual components) but it directly affected 

the pilot sites themselves. Sites had to address COVID challenges, varying public health department 

mandates, and stop onsite activities for extended periods of time. In addition, they re-opened at different 

times, causing logistical issues for pilot survey data collection, and posing challenges for the overall 

project design because they kept on pivoting. The sites whose innovations centered on dining model 

enhancements suffered the most because they could not implement their overall envisioned plans. 

Q: How did you go about finding appropriate partners/partner organizations?

While developing the project design, we had to carefully think about meaningful partnerships that could 

contribute to the success of project’s vision. Texas HHSC came to PPRI at Texas A&M University to design 

and implement the project and we included Texas A&M Mays Business School for their marketing acumen

expertise. SNAP-Ed was also included for their involvement with evidence-based nutrition and physical 

activity curriculum and linkage with the Texas food banks. The most important partnership was with the 

sixteen (16) selected congregate nutrition providers from an applicant pool of 37 and their respective Area 

Agencies on Aging. For the 16 pilot innovations, building community partnerships was key to project

success and will contribute to local sustainability. They have developed effective local partnerships with 

food banks, local chefs, local donors, nursing schools, youth organizations, healthcare organizations, 

hospitals, higher-educational institutions for technology based and other activity-based curriculums. The 

project has been a partnership galore from all possible perspectives. 
15

Frequently Asked Questions Continued

Q: How do I get started/what are the first steps to do a similar project?

A. The first steps involve identifying the gaps in your local congregate programs and building a network 

to assist in filling those gaps. Once the gaps are identified, leverage your network of providers, researchers, 

and subject matter experts to work on the innovations thinking component. A congregate site must 

identify the resources, both current and potential, needed for the successful planning and implementation

of the innovation desired. While project staff trained and empowered the TCMI pilot sites, it was the sites 

themselves that developed and implemented their pilot innovations. Each of the selected sites has years 

(if not decades) of experience serving older adults and leveraging this wealth of experience is incredibly 

important.

Q: What stakeholders did you need buy-in from?

A. Texas aging stakeholders were the primary target audience for the project. Each of the pilot sites 

focused on specific local aging stakeholders in their own region, including their existing and possible Older 

American clients. Some sites utilized funds from local governments, businesses, or health-focused 

organizations. Their community partnerships included restaurants, local businesses, and schools or 

colleges that provide in-kind support through curriculum, volunteers, teachers, chefs, etc. To create buyin at all these levels, storytelling with help of program outcome data were valuable. There was also crucial 

buy-in needed from the respective Area Agencies on Aging. 

Q: What do you wish you would have known prior to beginning the project?

A. We wish we were aware of the nutrition program priorities and staffing limitations at all senior nutrition 

sites. Planning and implementing innovations take additional staffing and resources above the daily 

normal staffing and can stretch operational needs. Some of the pilot programs had only the director to 

implement the project. Secondly, we wish we had the comprehensive knowledge of existing community 

partnerships in the various regions that have been used to historically support congregate initiatives. 

Some of the staff at the pilot sites were new, did not know much about their institutional partnership history 

and had more hoops to cross in creating partnerships that were key in contributing to pilot successes. 

Q: Did your project measure any social determinants of health? 

A. Yes. We administered a survey to congregate meal participants at each participating site three times 

throughout the life of the project. This 30-question survey gauged participant perceptions of their 

congregate program and captured how the congregate program affected their general well-being, 

psychological well-being, food security, and social connection opportunities. Eighty two percent of clients 

across the pilots said that the pilots increased their social connection opportunities, 75% of the clients 

reported that the TCMI pilot helped them access healthy meals, 74% of clients said the TCMI pilot often 

makes them feel better generally, and 53% said the TCMI pilot often makes them feel less sad and anxious. 
16

Advice for Replication

To replicate the successes of TCMI, we suggest conducting some form of gap analysis or needs assessment 

to identify the specific implementation elements to be targeted by the project. The comprehensive multimethod needs assessment we conducted allowed us to fully understand and identify the barriers and 

facilitators of the Texas congregate meal programs.

To replicate the successful TCMI program models, it would be very important to pay attention to the positive 

evaluation outcomes and duplicate the core components and implementation practices by fully 

understanding what works best under which conditions and for which target population. And this 

understanding is made possible through a rigorous evaluation design. 

Any project developer needs to collaborate with project adopters and/or expert consultants to ensure that 

the developer’s selected project is implemented with integrity and fidelity to the project model and its proven 

outcomes and sustainability possibilities. 

Garnering buy-in from local stakeholders and developing meaningful local community partnerships are 

very important for any project that wants to use community specific pilots to cater to local clientele. 

Partnering with subject matter experts to provide information and support for specific technical assistance is 

also valuable. 

In a statewide project such as TCMI, it is very important to be flexible to address mid-course challenges and 

allow the organic development of innovations from within the communities themselves rather than imposing 

an innovation model from above. There is no single innovation that would work in every congregate setting, 

but by collaborating with a wide range of 16 sites, we could identify and compare successes and challenges 

for diverse settings and populations.
17

Appendix List

A. TCMI Learning Collaborative Application. This is the application completed by potential learning 

collaborative participants. 

B. TCMI Logic Model Template. This template was used to provide an example for sites to identify project 

inputs, outputs, and outcomes. 

C. TCMI Innovative Pilot RFP. This request for proposal was used to allow sites to document the aspects of 

their innovative pilot in a mock RFP scenario. 

D. TCMI Dashboard Examples. These images are screenshots from the interactive dashboard available on 

the TCMI website (https://ppri.tamu.edu/tcmi). 

E. TCMI Program Manager Survey. This was the survey used to gauge innovations and impact from the 

nutrition providers. 

F. TCMI Client Survey. This survey was provided to older adults participating in the learning collaborative 

pilots.