DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · made by the following current or former employees: Frank. Bessera,...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 235,266 ,UD 023 115

TITLE Minority Elderly Services: ,New.Programs, OldProblems. Part II. A_Report of the United StatesCommission on Civil Rights.

INSTITUTION Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D..C.PUB-DATE/ Nov 82NOTE 134p.; For Part I of Report, see ED 226 260.PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

A \

EDRS-PiRICE MF01/PC06 (Plus Postage. -

DESCRIPTORS Affirmative Action; Community Services; Compliance',(Legal); Contracts; *Ethnic Discrimination; FederalPrograms; Government Role; Grants; *Minority Groups;*Older Adults;'Outreach Programs; Racial Composition;*Racial DiscTimination; *Social ServiceS; StateProgr4ms; Statistical Data

,IDENTIFIERS Administration on Aging; *Older Americans A 1965;*Older Americans Act Amendments 1978

ABSTRACTThis report contains the final results of the United

States Commission on Civil Rights' investigation of race and ethnfc-.discrimination in federally assisted programs for older persons. Theinvestigation was the result of allegations that the minority elderlywere not being served by Older Americans Act programs. Theinformatibn reported.was obtained by questionnaires mailed to allState, area, and territory agencies on aging and from personalinterviews with program administrators at the .Federal level.Information on employment,data covers minority representation;bilingual staffing, affirmative action programs; the handling ofdiscrimination complaints, arid Administration'on Aging's enforcementof policies and practices.. Data on participation of minorityorganizations and firms-in Title III and Title,_IV of the OlderAmericans Act are analyzed in a discussion of represe ation,

---

outreach efforts, and monitoring and compliance activ ties.Monito -ring and evaluation of minority participation inOlderAmericans Act service programs, outreach efforts (especiallybilingual ones), and barriers to participation are also discussed.Although the Commission's investigation did not document

I

discrimination against minorities, governmental policies andpractices were found to adversely affect minority partiscipation inthe programs. Recommendations for legislative change and for changesin the Administration on Aging are made. kppended are a glossary ofterms, a summary of findings from phase I of the investigation, and adescription of methodo.logy, including copieS of the questionnaires.(CMG) \

************************************************************************ ReProductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

Minority Elderly ,Services" Nail Programs; Old ProblemsLT\

. r(:(NJ

LU A Report of the United StatesCommission on Civil Rights

Part II

US--DEPAITTNIENt OE EDUCATION_NATIONAL I N_STiLUTE_ Df EDUCATION.EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

...7'CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced_ ast./received Iron, the person or organizationonginatiog ItMirror changes have heim made to improvereproduction quality.

Roints_of view or opinions stated in this docu:'meat do not necessarily represent of ficialME.position or policy.

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The Commission on Civil Rights is a temporary[indepen-dent, bipartisan agency established; by Congress in 1957 anddirected to:

InveStigate complaints alleging that citizens are beingdeprived of their right to vote by _reason of their race, color,religion; sex; age, handicap, or national origin, or by reason of

frabdulerit practices;.110 Study and ,collect information concerning legal develop-.'ments constituting discriminatiim or a denial of equal potec:tion of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color,

sex, age, handicap, or national origin, or in 'theadministration of justice;

Appraise Federal laws and policies with'respect to discrim-ination or the derrialof equal protection of the laws because ofrace, color, religion, sex, age, handicap; or national origin, or inthe administration of justice;6 SerVe as a national clearinghouse for information inrespect to discrimination or denials of equal protection of thelaws because of race;. color, religion, sex, age, handicap, ornational origin;

Submit reports, findings and recommendations to thePi7esident and the Congress.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

Clarence Pendleton. Jr.. ChairManMary Louise Smith, Vice ChairmanMary F. BerryBlandina Cardenas RamirezJill S. RuckelshausMurray_SaltZmari

John_ Hope III; Athng Staff Director .-(

LETTER OF TRANSMITTALNovember 1982

THE PRESIDENTTHE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATETHE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Sirs:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights presents this report toyou pursuant to Public Law 95-478.

This document presents the results of the Commission'sexamination of racial and ethnic discrimination in federallyassisted programs for older persons mandated by Title III of the1978 'amendments to the Older Americans Adt. The\report ispublished in two parts. Part I contains the results of easeanalyses of six communities acros.:,, the Nation sent to y4 in July1982. Part II contains the results of analyses of data obtained bythe Commission from staff interviews at the Administration onAgingiand mail questionnaires to program adininistratorS at theState and local level.

The data collected in both phases of the Commission's investi7nation reveal that the policies and practices generally folloWddby Administration on Aging officials, State units on aging, areaagencies on aging, and service providers in employment, con-tracts; and services a- verse affect minority participation inOlder Americans Act programs. Despite the fact that minoritiescan be found among program_ participants as employees; grant-ees, and service recipients, full participation by minorities is aright yet to be realized.- It is evident that congressional concernregarding the laCk of minority. participation in Older AmericansAct programs is justified,

Based on the Commission's hrestigation of Older AmericansAct programs and its finding of limited participation by minori-ties, the Commission questions the efficacy of removing statutory

.

f

provisions and sections of the act in 1978 that referred explicitlyto the inclusion of minorities in Older _Americans Act programs.The Commission strongly urges that legislation be reinstituted

-clearly evidencing congregsional intent that minorities partici-pate, fully in available Qlder Americans Act programs.: Suchlegislation needs to be sUpported by regulations andpro-6amdirectives by the Administration on Aging specifically prdvidingfor full minority participation-.

We urge your consideration of tne facts presented and theCommission's recommendations for corrective action'.

Respectfully,

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

clarence M. Pendleton, ,Tr., ChairmanMary Louise Smith, Vice ChizirmanMary F. BerryBlandina Cardenas RamirezJill S. RuckelshausMurray Saltzman

John Hope III, Acting Staff Director

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Commission. i8 indebted to Barbara Davis, Carolyn Reid-Smith, and LindaZimbler, who prepared this report. Supervisionof early phases or the project Was provided by former C0/11/11igsion employee Francis G. Knorr, project director; Geraldine Burtserved as team leader for later phases of the report; Furthersupervision and guidance was provided by Ronald D. Henderson,the division chief for the project. Additional contributions weremade by the following current or former employees: FrankBessera, Clinton Black, Rodney Cash; Lynne Heitman, MargaretHodge, Wanda Johnson, Edna Lavel-di, Helen Franzwa Loukas,Curt S i'ea/tOn, Patricia Reynolds, Esther Walters, and Carole A.Will ams. Appreciation also is extended to the following staffme hers who provided support and assistance in ithe productionof t Diane Ferrier, .staff secretary, Teresita D. Blue,Lucille Boston, Jeanette Johnson, Shirley Pearson; Cathy. Som-ers; Virginia Williams and Audrey Wright; and to VivianHauser, Addree Holton, and; Vivian Washington, who ,preparedthe 'report for publication. Finally, the Commission wishes toacknavledge the contributions of its'Consultants: Rudy Arrieta,Rosina Becerra, Ruth C. Braver, Juana P. Lyon, and E. PercilStanford.

The .report was prepared under the overall ....pervision ofCarol* Davis Gleiter. ASsistant Strff Director, Office of Pro-gram and Policy Review.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1

2. Minority Employment in Programs Funded Under theOlder Americans Act 8

Minority Representation 9

Administration on AgingRegional Offices 'State Units on AgingArea Agencies on Aging

Bilingual Employees of Area Agencies on AgingAffirmative Action 16

Administration on AgingState Units on AgingArea Agencies on Aging f,

Discrimination Complaints and Enforcement Policy 22

Summary 22

3. Award of Grants and Contracts to Minority Organiza-tions Under Titles III and IV of the Older Americans Act .... 24Minority Representation -° 24

Title IVTitle III

Outreach and Selection Procedures 30Title IVTitle III

Monitoring and Compliance Activities 31

Title IVTitle III

Summary 32

VI

4. Minority Participation in Older Americans Act ServicePrograms 34

,

Monitoring and Evaluation of Minority' articipationAdministration on AgingState Units on AgingArea Agencies-on Aging

Technical Assistance to Increase Minority Participation 37Administration on AgingState Units on AgirigArea Agencies on Aging

Minority Participation on Advisory Boards 40Barriers to Minority Participation 10

Idqntification of Barriers by State Units on AgingIdentification of Barriers by Area Agencies on Aging

Outreach Efforts to Increase Minority Participation 41Administration on Aging.State Units on AgingArea Agencies on Aging

Summary 44

5. Conclusion, Findings, and RecommendationsConclusionFindings

EmploymentGrants and ContractsServices

Recommendaticasq..EmploymentGrants and ContractsServices

474749

52

O

VII

AppendicesA Glossary 56B. City Summaries 62C. Methodology 70

Tables2.1 Administration on Aging Employees in Washington, D.C.,

by Position and Race oz Ethnicity, January 1981 10

2.2 Salary Distribution by Grade Level of Administration onAging Employees in Washington, D.C., by Race or Ethnicity,

C. 112.3 Administration on Aging Employees in Regional Offices by

Position and Race or Ethnicity, January 1981 132.4 - Employees of State Units on Aging by Position and Race or

Ethnicity, January 1981 14

2.5 EmployeeS of Area Agencies on.Aging by Position and Raceor Ethnicity, January 1981 15

2.6 Affirmative Action Requirenients of State Units on Aging,1981 19

2.7 Affirmative Action Requirements Area Agencies onAging, 1981 20

3.1 Title IV Awards by the Administration on Aging by Race orEthnicity, Fiscal Year 1980 25

3.2 Title IV wards biy Area Agencies on Aging by Programand Race or EthnicitY, Fikal Year 1980 29

3.3 Title III Awards by Area Agencies on Aging by Race orEthnicity, Fiscal Year 1980. 29

4.1 Frequency of State Units on Aging Monitoring and Evalu-ation of Services to Minorities by Area Agencies on Aging,1980 - 36

4.2 Frequency of Area Agency on Aging Monitoring andEvaluation of Services to Minorities, 1980 36

January 1981 ,

vii'

4.3 Types of Technical Assistance Received by State Units on-Aging from the Admihistration on Aging 38

4.4 Types of Technical Assistance Provided by State Units onAging to Area Agencies on Aging 39

4.5 Types of TeChnical Assistance Provided by Area Agencieson Aging to Grantees to Increase Participation of MinorityOber Persons, 1978-80 - 39

4.6 Barriers Identified by State Units on Aging as Directly orIndirectly Inhibiting Full Participation of Older Mihorities inService Programs, 1980 42

4.7, Barriers I ientified by Area Agencies on Aging as Directlyor Indirectly Inhibiting Full Participati n of Older Minoritiesin Service Programs, 1980 43

4.8 Outreach Efforts by State Units n Aging to InformMinority Older Persons of Service Programs, 1980 45

4.9 Outreach Efforts by Area Agencies on Aging to InformMinority Older Persons of Service Prograins, 1980 45

Diagram1.1 Provision of Services to Older Persons Under the Older

Americans Act 3

ix

Chapter 1introduction

. In October 1978 Congress amended theOlder Americans Act of 1965.1 Title IIIof the 1978 amendments mandated thatthe U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

(1) undertake a comprehensive studof discrimination based on raceethnic background in any federallassisted programs and activitieswhich affect older individuals; and(2) identify with particularity any'such federallyassisted program oractivity in which 7idence is found ,of individuals or organizations whoamaherwise qualified being, on the

Responding to the call for a national prdgramof services to improve the condition of life for allolder perSonS, in 1965 Corig-ress passed the OlderAmericans Act. The act was oneof the first major 1attempts by the Federal Governinent to addressthe social service needs of all older persons on anational level. Older American§ Act, Pui).. L. No.89=73; 79 Stat. 218, as amended, 42 U.S.C,§§3001-3057g (1976 and Supp. III 1979). Over theyears; the act has been amended several times,furthering efforts to provide a comprehensiveprogram of social services for older persons.Under the 1978 amendments, grants are made toStates to provide nutrition services (both congre-gate and home-delivered meals), multiPurPosesenior centerS, and a cornPrehenSive array ofsocial services to older persons. Every State musthate a State unit on aging; which is responsiblefor the 'planning, development, and coordination

basis of race or ethnic background,eicluded from participation in, de-nied the benefits of, refused employ-ment or contracts with, or subject todiscrimination under, such programor activity ;2

Theis mandate for the Commission'sstudy/of _racial and ethnic discriminationin federally assisted programs for olderpersons, in part, emanated from a Com-mission finding in its earlier age discrim-ination study that indicated that oldermembers of minority gr,o4s3 were oftenvictims of age as well as racial or ethnicof services for older persons. Most States also areserved by area agtncies on aging; Comprehensive,Older Americans Act Amendments of 1978, Pub.L. No- 95-478, §103fa)12), 92 Stat. 1513, 1516,1558. The revisedTitle III is codified at 42 U.S.C.§§3021-3030 (Supp. III 1979). The Administra-tion on Aging is the managerial focal point forFederal program activity under the Older Ameri-cans Act Pr FA' 80 the Administration on Aginghad 10 regional offices and 57 State units on

caging (including the

Island Trust!: Columbia; Puerto

Rico, Guam,' Samoa, the'Territory, and the Northav Mariana Islands);there / were 654 area-agencies on aging. Forfurther discussion of the act andilbsproVisionssee U.S., CommissiOn on Civil Rights, MinorityElderly ServicesNew Programs, Old Problems,Part I(June 1982), chap. 2._2 42 U.S.C. §1975c Note (S..(pp. III 1979).

.

pet

discrimination. That.age discriminationstudy concluded: "Program adMinistra=Wit are not taking s'Uficient steps tdtake into account the multiple problemsfaced by many [minority] older personsand to increase their opportunities forobtaylineneeded services and benefits."'

The maridate for this study alSosuited from public testimony at the hear;ings on passage of fhe 197;8 amendmentsto the Older Americans Act. Included inthis testimony were complaints about

jilfe- programs' inadequate service to 910-.C- er Pell-sons testifying before

the Congress charged that Older Ameri-cans Act progr4ams followed policies andpractices that effectively denied rwqriori=" The size of the America,n population over 60years of age has risen by 50 percent over'the lasttwo decades. The total population ,60 years aridover in 1960 was 23J02,000; in 198Q, 35,630;000.In the past 20 years the number of older personsin the American /1-opulation who are' minorities(i.e., American Indians/Alaskan Natives, ASianand Pacific Island Americans, blackS, or Hispan-ics) haS more than doubled. In 1960 the minoritypopulation 60 years and older numbered1,847,000, wherea§ by 1980 estimates indicatedthat the minority population 60 years and older.was 3,712,000. Racially, 'these idata are onlyavailable for black, white, and-saher. The re§pec:tive population figurer are 2,957.000; 31,918,000;and 755,000. U.S., Department of Commeroe,Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of theUnited States: 1981, table 29, p. 26.

U.S., Commission on Civil Rightlis, The AkeDiscrimination Study (December 1977), p. 26. TheCommission also conducted the age di§erirnina-tiori....study as a result of a mandate fromCongre§S. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975included a provision which mandated that theCommission investigate instances of age discrinu-nation in the delivery of services supported,,byFederal funds, identify examples of age discrimi-nation in such program§, and prOvide recommen-dations for the development of regulations forthe Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Pub. L. No.94-135, 89 Stat. 713,L731 (codified at 42 U.S.C.§6106 (1976)). The 1975 Age Discrimination Act,

1

ties the full \benefit of the progra.ms.6,Organizational representatives and indi-

` Viduals spoke fUrther of the special needsof some older limited-English-speaking'minorities and of Older .Americans Act"grograms' failure to:meet the4e needs.'Testirriony before the Subcommittee onSela"ct Education of the House of Repre-sentatives noted cases where languageand cultural barriers impeded oldec minorities from obtaining needed serviceinformation:8 After hearing the alleges=tiong that minority older persons werenot being served by Older Americans Actprograms; Congress ordered the U.S.Commission on Civil -Rights to inveSti-.gate their ialidity.9part of the 1975 amendmergs to the OlderAmericans Act, made tinlawkl unreasonablediscrimination on the basis of age in the deliveryof services supported in whole or in part by theFederal Government. Pub. L. No. 94=135, 89 Stat.713, 7281codified)at 42 U.S.C. §§6101-03 (1976)).

Proposed Amendments to the Older AmericansAct: Hearings S._2850 Before the Subcommitteean Aging in -"the Senate Committee on HumanServices, 95th Cong., 2d seas. (1979), pp. 420-679(hereafter cited as Senate Testimony). ,

Ibid., pp. 420-679.Ibid:, pp. 642 -79.

" Proposed Extension of the Older Americans Actof 1965 and Oversight on the Age DiscriminationAct of 1975: IfearingS Before the Subcommittee onSelect Education of thVHouse Committee onEducation and Labor, 95tt Cong., 2d seas. (1978),pp. 244-87.9 Pub. L. No. 95-478, Title III, 92 Stat. 1513,1554-55 (codified at 42 UtS.C. §1975c hote (Supp.III 1979)). Although Congress mandated that theallegation§ of discrimination, against minoritiesin Older Americans Act pro rams be investi-gated by the Commissiod, it' deleted severalstatutory provi§ion§ and sections of the law thatreferred explicitlyyto inclusion of minorities inOlder Americans Acr*ograms. See U.S., Com=mission on Civil Rights, Minority Elderly Ser-viceSNew Programs, Old.PrOblerns, Part I (dune1982), chap. 2. Howevet Title VI of the CivilRights Apt of 1964, which prohibits discriThina-

MAGRAM 14Provision of Services to Older Persons Under the Older Americans Act

HHS

$

AoA.

$

57 State units on aging (SUA)

10 Regional offices

AAA area planS

650+ Area agencies on aging (AAA)

$ t Service proposals

COntractorS and grantees

SUA State plans

Service proposals

Services_

OlderAmericans

In response j to this charge fromCongress, the Commission investigated;in two phases, minority participation inOlder Americans Act prograths.'? In

tion in any PrCigramS or activities receivingFederal funding, gives responsibility to the Fed-eral agency administering the funds to ensurenondiscrimination in its federally assisted _Ord=grams for older persons. 42U.S.C. §2000d.(1970).

The Commission designed a two - phase study;The results_ of the study are being published intwo parts. Part I includes the six case analysesthat provide indepth examination of operationsof Title III _Older_Americans Act programs_ inCleveland, Ohio; Bridgeport, Connecticpt; Tuc-son, Arizona; Tulsa, Oklahoma; San Francisco;California; and Honolulu; Hawaii; (See app.I3 for-a summary of the city_ findinks.) The results ofPart II; which are published herd, include dataanalysis of the State units on aging and areaagencieS on aging questionnaires and the resultsobtained from interviews with Federal Adriiinis=trati'on on Aging officials. The survey results

Subcontractors andsubgrantees

both, phases the Commission's investiga=tions foCUsed on programs funded underTitle III of the Older Americans Act andadministered by the Administration onprovide an aggregate assessment of minorityparticipation in State nits on\aging and areaagencies on aging programs and thus supplementthe case analysis findingS. In the interest ofminimizing repetition in PartS I and II of the thereport; only a brief introduction is offered here;For a more complete review of the Federal 'role inprovision of serinces"to older persons and ahistory of the Commission's mandate; the readershould see chapter' 2. of Part I of the study. Thefinding and recommendations for the entireStudy (Parts I and II) are published at the end ofthis segment of the report so that they mayreflect the results of the case analyses and thenational data analysis.

Aging.", Phase II also covered theAdministration on Aging's award of TitleIV monies.'2 In both phases the-Commis-sion sought to assess: (1) whether ancrinwhat capacities minorities are employedunder the Older Americans Act pro-grams for older persons; (2) whether andto what extent minority firms and orga-nizations are awarded Title III fiindsunder the programs;" and (3) whetherand to what extent minority older per-sons receive services under these pro-grams.' 4

Phase I involved onsite visits to TitleIII-funded programs in six cities; PhaseII, a mail survey to all State units onaging and area agencies on aging;Through indepth examination of theoperations __pf these programs in bothphases, the commission sought to assessminority participation both at the locallevel and nationally. Results, of the Cormmission's six-city investigation indicatedthat in most of the six communities someminorities were included among OlderAmericans Act program participants asarea agency on aging employees. Rarely," 42 U.S.C. §§3030d, 3030f (Supp. III 1979). TitleIII funds are allocated under -Title 111-B and TitleIII-C. Title III-B provides funds for social ser-vices, and Title III-C provides funds for congre-gate and home-delivered meals. Although TitleIII programs were the Commission's focus, anarea agency on aging's budget often includesservice programs funded with other Federalmonies and also State and local monies.'' Title IV monies are awarded by the Adminis-tration on Aging for training, research, anddiscretionary projects and programs. Moniesawarded for training are designed to help meetcritical shortages of adequately trained person-nel for programs in the field of aging. Moniesawarded for research and discretionary projectsand programs are used to design and evaluatemethods to improve the quality of services to theelderly. 42 U.S.C._§_§3031-3037 (Supp. III 1979).Since th6se awardS are made at the Federal level,they were not covered in Part I of the study.

4

however, did minority involvement re-flect their representation in the popula-tion. Almost all of the area agencies onaging had affirmative action plans, al-though they generally were a part of alarger municipal 'affirmative action plan:In almost all of the cities, minority firmsreceived only a small percentage of TitleIII contract funds from the area agencieson aging, in spite of the fact that suchfirms often were in a position to renderunique services and had displayed theability to provide services effectively andachieve Title III objectives.

In almost every city minority olderpersons were being underserved. Blackelderily were among program partici-pants in almost all of the cities, butusually in very small numbers, OlderHispanics also were participating, al-though in inconsequential numbers. Of-ten, despite their representation in acity's population, American Indian andAsian and Pacific Island Anierican elder-ly were virtually; absent from serviceprograms," Although °Mei- minoritiesparticipated to, some extent in all Title13 In this report the term "Title III-fundedorganization" is used in lieu of "contractor orgrantee." See app., A; glossary; for the definitionof the terms "Title III-funded organization,""contractor/graritee," and "subcontrac-tor/subgrantee."

Unfortunately, the data collected in the mailsurveys did not permit this determination on anational level. It was discovered that reliableparticipation' statistics often were not availableby race and ethnicity.15 The design for the study also called forcoverage of Euro-ethnic Americans; Once fieldwork began; the Commission discovered that itwas often impossible to obtain information on theemployment or award of Title III funds to Euro-ethnic Americans. Almost without exception,these data were nonexistent. Also statistics onparticipation by Euro-ethnic older persons were

III programs; there were some services(e.g., in=horne services, legal services) inwhich they were consistently absentacross all six cities. Although findingsregyding minority participation in thearea agencies on aging programs_ werevery similar for all cities visited, theCommission alSo discovered that eachcity has its own special characteristics:"

This report contains the final resultsof the second phase of the Commission'sinvestigation of race and ethnic discrimi=nation in federally assisted programs forolder persons. It, inCludeS the results ofdata analysis from the State unit onaging and. area agency on aging question=naires and Administration on Aging in-terviews," integrating these resultswith those of Part I of the study, the caseanalyses. The data collected irk the Six 'cities suggest that the policies and prac-tices followed by those area agencies onaging and their contractors adverselyaffect minority participation in Title III=funded programs; the, data in this part ofthe report allow the aommiSSibn to eval=uate the situation on a more comprehen-sive basis. It contains conclusions, find=ings; and recommendations for both seg-ments of the report.not separated from those of persons of otherEuropean descent. In most instances neither thearea agency on aging nor its service provider haddata on Euro-ethnic participations and thus,'efforts to include this group in the study had tobe abandoned.16 See app. B for short,summarieS that highlightthe findings in each of the six cities visited. Eachcity summary reports Commission findings re-garding minority employment and receipt ofgrants; contacts, and services.'7 It is Commission policy to allow affectedagencies to review a draft of the final report foraccuracy prior to publication. In accordance withthe affected agency review policy, a copy of thisreport was submitted, to the Administration on

Because there is minimalYinformationon minority participation in federallyassisted: programs for older persons, themethodology for Phase II was designed toobtain these data through questionnairesmailed to State and local agencies thatadminister the aging programs..Informa-tion from these,questionnaires was us0to identify the principal features of fed-erally assisted programs for Older Ameri-cans as they affect rapial and ethnicminorities. In additionjhe Cominissionhoped to obtain data on the types and.levels of services available to older ini-nK-ity persons and thus to assess possibleprogram inequities."

Two different mailed questionnaireswere developed to solicit information onsuch topics as program staff patterns,,affirmative action efforts, the extent ofminority participation irorogram plan-ning, provision of servicekto minorities,and identity of contractors and criteriafor their selection. Questionnaires weresent to all 50 State units on aging plusthose fdr the seven territories and allarea agencieS on aging (more than 600)."

Personal interviews were conductedwith program administrators at the Fed-eral level. These interviews were used toAging (AoA) for its response. The report wasmailed to AoA on July 15 With comments due byAugust 6. Subsequently, AoA requested and wasgranted two extensionsthe first until August13 and the second until AuguSt 30. When theCommisSion had not received AoA's response bySeptember 2, a decision was made to publish thereport.I" Data obtained from the area agencies onelderly participation in service programs did notpermit evaluation of minority receipt of services.See app: C, methodology, for a discussion of theproblems encountered with these data.19 Virginia was the only State that /did notrespond, while over 400 area agencies /returnedtheir questionnaires. See app. C.

provide more indepth iiiformation on theissues raised in the mailed survey and toelicit information on the Administration

Agines monitoring of program opera-tions regarding minority participation.2°Using mailed questionnaires to areaagencies and State units on aging, theCommission was able to stiPplement itsindepth examination of the operations ofprograms in the six cities.?' The resultsof the data analysis, when integratedwith those from the case analyses, ena-bled the Commission to determinewhether minorities are employed in deci-sionmaking positions within these pro-gram whether minority or6nizationsreceive contracts, and some of the factorsthat appear to affect these items.

Following this chapt6r are three chap-ters detailing the results of the dataanalyses of the State and local surveysand Federal. interviews. Chapter twodiscusses employment data obtainedfrom -the questionnaires and interviewsand describes.' the number and types ofpositions held by minorities at the Feder-al, State, and local levels. It also dis-cusses bilingual staffing and affirmativeaction programs on all three governmen-tal levels and their effect on minorityemployment. It concludes with an exami-,nation of the handling of discrimination2° See app. C -for a complete discussion of thePhase H methodology.21 The surveys were developed by Commissionstaff in consultation with specialists-in the fieldof aging_ and were subsequently ievised afterconsultation with Office of Management andBudget and Administration on Aging persorinelregarding availability of needed data FollowingOffice of Management and Budget approval,questionnaires were field tested at selected areaand State agencies across the Nation. Question-naires were then mailed to all State and areaagencies. See app. C.

complaints and Administration on Agingenforcement policies and practices:

Chapter three examines the participa-tion of minority organizations and firmsin tkle Title III and Administration onAging Title IV contract and grant pro-grams. It disCusses the number andamount of awards received by minorityorganizations and outreach efforts madeat the local, State; and Fedeial levels toincrease minority participation. It alsodiscusses monitoring and compliance ac-tivities at all three levels of contractsand grants and the resulting effect onminority participation.

Chapter four describes monitoring andevaluation of minority participation inOlder Americans Act service programsby Federal, State, and local authorities.It examines the provision of teChnicalassistance by Federal, State, and- localprogram administrators in an effort toincrease minority participation, as wellas the extent of minority participationon advisory councils. It looks at programoutreach efforts for minorities, with spe-cial attention focused on the use ofbilingual outreach materials. Barriers tominority elderly participation, as,,yer-ceived by program administrators;arealso described.

Conclusions, findings, and recommendations are presented in chapter five.2222 The 1978 amendments to the Older Ameri-cans Act also authorized a 1981 White HouseConference on Aging to develop a comprehenflivenational policy for older persons. This. conferencewas held in November 1981. The final re/portfrOm this conference (see, Final Report, the11981White House Conference on Aging (3 -yolyimes)June 1982), published by the AdministratOn onAging, makes only minimal Vkference to theConference's examination or coverage f thespecific needs of minority older persons. Nor does

)

Appendix A is a glossary of selected describes the methodology for Part II.terms used, throughout the report. Ap- Copies of the questionnaires are includedpendix B summarizes the findings for the at the end of the methodology.six cities covered in Part I. Appehdix Cthe report offer significant recommendations forspecific methods to increase minority participa-tion in federally assisted peogramS.

.fit

eft

Chapter 2Minority: Employment in Programs FundedUnder the Oldftir Americans. Act

Title III of the 1978 amendments tothe Older Americans Act mandated, inpart, that the U.S. Commission on CivilRights' study of Older Americans Actprograms include an examination of em-Ployment opportunities within the pro -.grams.l AccoKdingly, this study presents f-data on the er4loyment of minorities inprograms.funded under the Older Ameri-.

&.

cans Act:2Investigation of the status of ininoritN

employment in Older Americans Actprograms in six cities provided evidencethat minorities were not being' fullyutilized at all employment levels by areaagencies on aging.3 n the six communi-ties, minorities were almost completelyabsent from decisionmaking positions.Representativeg from each of the minori-

See chap; 1 above;2 Research studies have documented that theinclusion of minority staff in social service pro-gams helps to increase the participation ofminorities within the programs. Bell Duran,Patricia Kasschua, and Gail Zellman,Services to Elderly Members of ity roupsA Critical Review of the Literature (preparedunder a grant from the Office of Human Develop-ment; U.S. Department of Health, Education,

nd._Welfare)_(Santa .Monica, Calif.: Rand, April19 . At a U.S. commiesion on Civil Rightsconsultation, a representative of the Asian com-

ty communities expressed the opii_ ionthai having minorities in key positionsin agencies on iiting is critical to devel-opment of prog=rams for the special needsof minority older persons. The study ofsix communities also provided evidencethat the lack of minority emPloyees inOlder Americans Act programs can havean adverse effect on minority participa-tion in the programs.

1

This chapter examines whether and inwhat capacities minorities are employedin the agencies _established to mariage,finance, and develop programs for olderpersons. The chapter also discusses theeffect of the Administration, on Aging'spolicies on employment State unitsand area agencies on aging. Employmentof bilingual staff is examirned, and ques-munity identified the absence of Asian andPacific Island Americans among program staffwho could provide bilingual services as a majorbarrier to services for older Asian and PacificIsland Americans. Presentation of Sandra Ouye,Kimochi, Inc?, in _U.S., Commission on Civ.Rights, civil Rights Issues of Asian and PacificAmericans: Myths and RealitieS (1971), pp. 682-:83.3 US., Commission on Civil Rights, MinorityElderly Services7-New Progi.ams, Old Problems,Part I (June 1982) (hereafter cited as MinorityElderly Services).

tionnaire and interview findings on mi=nority employment are related to thosefrom the six-city investigationS.4

Minority RepresentationAdMinistration on Aging

In 1981 the Admiriistratioh op Aginghad a full-time staff of 113 employees.'

-A total' of 56, or 49.6 percent, of theemployees were members Of minoritygroups: 45;1 perCent black, 1.8 percentHispanic, 1.8 percent Asian and PacificIs nd American, and 0.9 per+it Arneri=

n Indian and Alaskan Nati e. Whitesaccounted for 59 poSitions or 50.4 per=cent of the Administration on Agingstaff' (see table 2.1).

The Commission also obtained dataonthe occupational distribution of Adminis-tration on Aging employees by race andethnicity. Nearly 75 percent (86) of allpersons employed at the Administrationon Aging are classified as managers andadministrators or profeSsionalS.7 Thetop managerial and administrative Po:lions of the'Administration on Aging are

. in the Office of the Commissioner. Theagency is headed by a Commissioner, ablack; who develops and direCts the pro:grams of the Administration on Aging

=.... and is assisted by a Deputy Commission;

Or, a, white.' In addition 0 the Office ofthe Commissioner, the Administrationon Aging has sixrdivisions," each with adivision manager and one or more assis=

...tant division managers. Five of the sixdivision managers- are white. The oneminority division manager is black andheads the Office of. Educatiofi and Train-ing. Of the 12 assistant division manag-ers, 10 are white. One Asian and Pacific .

Island American and one black are assis-tant division managers for the Divisionof Research and Evaluation and for thePublic Inquiries staff of the NationalClearinghouse on Aging, respectiely."

As shown in table 2:1, 65 employees ofthe Administration on -Aging are classi-fied as professionals. Whites hold 39 ;\ or60.0 percent, and minorities hold 26, ',DT

38.8 percent, of the professional positionsat the Administration on Aging. Of these26 professional positions, blacks hold 22,Hispanics 2, and Asian and PacificIsland Americans and Arnerican Indians

si-,;___Etach hold one.". Almost all of the

I See app. C.Carol Brown, Special Assistant to the Commis=

sioner, Office of the Commissioner, and DonaldSmith, Director, Office of Management and Poli=cy Control, AdminiStration on Aging, interviewin Washington, D.C., Feb. 3, 1982 (hereafter citedas Brown and Smith Interview) and Carol Brown,interview in Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 1982(hereaftei cited as Brown Ititerview).6 The Administration on Aging. is located inWashington, D.C., an area where a substantialpercentage of the minority work force is proles=sional.

See app. A, glossary.Brown and Smith Interview.

persons employed by the Administrationon Aging in paraprofessional" or cleri-cal positions are black" (see table 2.1).

Minority ',personnel are concentratedin lower salaried positions. Table 2.2 sets. 41out the distribution across salary ranges9 The six divisions are: the Office of Manage=ment and Policy Control; Office of ProgramOperationS; Office of Research, Development,and Evaluation, Office of Education and Train-Tiing; National Cleari house on Aging; and Officeof Public Inf?rmation10 BroWn and Smith Interview." Ibid.12 See app. A\1 Persons e ployeds as paraprofessionals andclericals accou ted for 20.6 percent of all personsemployed at t e Administration on Aging. Mi-norities represented 92.9 percent of all perSonsholding these positions and whites accounted for7.1 percent. Brown and Smith Interview.

Table 2.1Administration on Aging Employees in Washington, D.C. by Position and Race orEthnicity, January 1981

ManagersAgency and _ _ Para-

Rade/ethnicity Total director administrators Professionals professionals Clericals

American Indians/Alaskan Natives # 1"

0/6 (0.9)0

(0.0)0

(0.0) (1.5)

Asian and-PacificIsland Americans 2 0 1 1

(1.8) (0.0) (5.3) (1.5)0(0.0)

Blacks 51 1 2 22 . 6 20

(45.1) (100.0) (10:5) (33.8) (100.0) (90.9)

Hispanics 2 0 0 _ 2 ft) 0

(1.8) (0.0) (0.0) (3.1) (0.0) (0.0)

Whites 57 0 16 39 0 _ 2

(50.4) (0.0) (84.2) (60.0) ',0.0) (9.1)

TotalNumber .113 1 19 65 6 22

Percent (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

(0.0) (0:0)

0(0.0)

*.Thit_figifre_can beinterpreted as follows: in January 1981 one (0.9 percent) AMerican Indian/Alaskan Native was employed by theAdministration on Aging. .

Source: Carol Brown and Donald Smith, officials of the AoA, interviews. in Wathington, D.C., Feb. 3, 1982.

10

2u

Table 2.2Salary Distribution by Grade Level of Administration on Aging Employees inWashington, D.C., by Race or Ethnicity, January 1981*

Annual salary range'

Generalschedule(GS) level Total

American Indians/Alaskan Natives

Asian andPacific Island

Americans Blacks Hispanics Whites

$44,547-57,9122 GS-15 9 0 0 _2 0 _7% (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (22.2) (0.0) (77.8)

37,871-49,229 GS-14 14 0 1 4 0 9(100.0) (0.0) (7.1) (28.6) (0.0) (64.3)

32,048-41,660 GS-13 39 1 1 7 1 29(100.0) (2.6) (2.6) (17.9) . (2.6) (74.3)

26,951-35.033 GS-12 11 0_ 0 5 1 5

(100.0) (0.0), (0:0) .-.: (45.5) (9:0) (45.5)

22,486-29.236 GS-11 6 0 0 4 0 2

(100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (66.7). (0.0) (33.3)

20,467-26,605 GS-10 0 0 0 0 0 0(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) . (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

18,585-24,165 GS-9 4 0 0 1 1 2

(100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (25.0) (25.0) (50.0)

16,826-21,975 GS-8 1 0 0 1 0 0

(100:0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0)-

15,193- 19,747 GS-7 6 0 0 6 0 0

(100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0)

13,672-17,776 GS-6 7 0 0 7 0 0(100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0)

12,266-15,947 GS-5 7 0 0 7 0_ 0_t, (100.0) (0.0)_ (0.0) (100.0) . (00) (0.0)

10,963=14,248 GS-4 6 0 0 _5 0 _1

(100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (83.5) (0.0) (16:7)

rull-time employees, excluding three_personS.hOldiog_setliOr.executive level positions_jpositions _excluded from G$ schedule).Ahhtiel salary ranges shown in the table were effective October 1, 1980. No persons were employed by AoA below the GS (general schedule) 4

level.The rate of pay for employees-at-these rates was limited to 550,112.50.

Source: Data ColleCled tram U.S: Commission on Civil Rights' survey of the Administration on Aging, February 1982.

11

2

within each racial and ethnic groupemployed by the Administration on Ag-ing. More than 96 percent (26) of personsemployed in salary ranges GS-4 throughGS=8, the lowest salary range, are minor-ity (see table 2.2). In comparison, onlyone white employee is at this level.

Regional OfficesThe 10 Administration on Aging re-

gional offices" reported a total of 13515employees in 1981. Of nine" regionaldirectors; six were white. The remainingthree included one black, one Hispanic,and one Asian and F'icific Island Ameri-can (see table 2.3).

Most (87) of the regional office posi-tions were classified as professional leveljobs. Of the tota! number of professionalpositions, whites held 65;5 percent (57),blacks 24.1 percent (21), Hispanics 8.1Percent (7), and Asian and Pacific IslandAmericans 2.3 percent (2). No AmericanIndians or Alaskan Natives were em-ployed by the Administratibn on Agingregional offices (see table 2.3).

State Units on AgingTable 2.4 provides information com-

piled from the Commission's mail survey" The Administration on Aging regional officesare aa follows: Region I" (Conn., Maine, Mass.,N.H., R.I., Vt.), office in Boston, Mass.; Region II(N.J., N.Y., Puerto Rico; Virgin Islands), office inNew York, N.Y.; Region HI (Del., D.C., Md.,' Pa.,Va., W.Va.), office in Philadelphia, Pa.; RegionIV (Ala., Fla:; Ga., Ky., Miss., -N.C., S.C., Tenn.),office in Atlanta, Ga.; Region V (Ill., Ind., Mich.,Minn., Ohio, Wis.), office in Chicago, Ill.; RegionVI (Ark.; La., N. Mex.,- Okla., Tex.), office inDallas, Tex.; Region VII (Iowa, Kans., Mo., Nebr.)office in Kansas City, Mo.; Region VIII (Colo.,Mont., N. flak. S. Dak. Utah, Wyo.), office inDenver, Colo.; Region IX (Ariz., Calif., Hawaii,Nev., Samoa, Guam, Trust Territory), office- inSan Francisco, Calif.; Region X (Alaska, Idaho,Oreg., Wash.), office in Seattle, Wash.

12

to all State units on wing and desCribesthe composition of the full-time workforce of State units on aging by race,ethnicity, and job classification as ofJanuary 1981." The data indicate thatthose minorities who were employed byState units generally were not employedas agency directors or professionals.

A total of 83.6 percent (1,547) of allemployees at the State level were white;while minorities represented 16.4 per-cent (304) of this work force.'5 Of the 49agency directors in the survey, 5 wereminority-2 black, 1 American Indizan/Alaskan Native, 1 Asian and PacificIsland American, and 1 Hispanic.

Similarly, whites constituted morethan 85 percent (1,031) of the profession-al employees in the survey of State units.By contrast, the largest proportion, ofminorities were employed in three jobcategories at the State levelparaprofes-sional, clerical, and "other" (see table2.4).

Ar'ea Agencies on AgingThe sCommission's study of six selected

communities reported:18 U.S., Commission on Civil Righ_ts, Adminis-tration on Aging Regional Office Employmentsurvey, Regions IX, January 1981 (hereaftercited as Regional Survey). See app. C for detailson surveys.18 One regional director position was vacant atthe time of the survey." In 1981 the Administration on Aging hadagencies on aging in each of the 50 States andalso in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,Guam, Samoa, the Pacific Island Trust Territory, /and the Northern Mariana Islands.18 U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, State Units fon Aging Survey, January 1981. (hereafter. cited,as State Survey). See app. C for details on'surveys, including the nonresponse rate.

'Table 2.3 -0

Administration on Aging Employees in Regional Offices by Position and Race orEthnicity, January 1981

Race/ethnicity Total Directors Professionals Paraprofessionals Clericals


-

/ (0.0)0

(0.0) (0.0)0

(0.0)0

(pA

ASian and PacificWand Americans 8' 1- 1 2 3 2

(5.9) (11.1) (2.3) (20.0) (8.3)

BlackS 31 1 21 2 7

(23.0) (11.1) (24.1) (13.3) (29.2)

Hispanics 10 1 7 0 2

(7.4) .(11.1) (8.1) (0.0) (8.3)

Whites 86 6 57 10 13

Total

(63.7) (66.7) (65.5) (66.7) (54.2)

Number. 135 9' 87 15 24Percent (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) . (100.0)

This figure can be interpreted as follows: in January 1981,'8 (5.9 percent) Asian and Pacific Island Americans were employed inthe AoA regional offices.' At the time of the survey one agency director position was vacant.

Feb.Sburce: Data collected from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of regional offices, b 11, 1982.

13

Table 2.4Employees of State Units on Aging by Position and Race or Ethnity,January 1981a

TotalAgency

directors ProfessionalsPara -

, professionals lericals -Other


Asian and Pacific

# 14*% (0.8)

1

(2.0)

7

(0.6)

1

(1.9)5

(1.1)

0(0.0)

Island Americana 39 1 28 1 \ 9 0

(2.1) (2.0) (2.3) (1.9) (1.9) (0.0)

Blacks 20d. 2 113 9 61 21

(11.1) (4.1) (9A) (17.0) (13.0) (28.4)

Hispanics 45 1 28 0 14 2

(2.4) (2.0) (2.3) (0.0) (3.0) (2.7)

Whites 1,547 44 1,031 421 379 . 51'

(83.6) (89.9) (85.4) (792) (81.0) (68.9)

TotalNumberPercent

f

1,851(100.0)

49(100.0)

1,207(100.0)

53(100.0)

468_ (100.0)

74(100.0)

' Wherta Specified, the-other" category inclticled_technical level positions and custodial and main1enance positions.This figure Can be interpreted as.foltows:in January 1981, 14 (0.8 percent) persons in the survey employed by the State units on

aging were American Indian/Alaskan Natives.Source: Data collected from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of area agencies on aging, January.1981.

14

Table 2.5-Employees of Area Agencies on Aging by Position and Race or Ethnicity,

. January 1981

Race/ethnicityAgency

Total directors Professionals Paraprofessionals Clericals Other'


Asian and Pacificwarld American8

BlackS

Hispanics

Whites

TotalNumberPerceni

# 16 1 8 1a 4

6 0.(0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.1) (0.7) (0.0)0/0

47 0(1.1). (0.0)

697 13(17.1) (6.4)

99 4(2.4) (2.0)

3,228 186(79.0) (91.2)

28 7 11

(1.4) (0.9) (1.3), (0.5)

269 221 163 31 bt

(13.1) (28.9) (19.4) (14.1)

42 17 34 .2(2.0) . (2.2) (4.1) (0.9)

1,712 520 625 185(83.1) (67.9) , (74.5) (84.5)

4,087 204 2,059 766 839 219(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

' Where specified, the "other" category included technical level positions and custodia and maintenance positions.This figure can be interpreted as follows: in ;January 1981, 16 (0.4 percent) persons in the survey employed by the area agenbies

on aging were American IndiangiAleskan Natives.Source: Data collected from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of area agencies on aging, Jan .1981.

in most communities some minori-ties were included amopg OlderAmericans Act program partici-pants as area agency on aging em-ployees. Blacks, while employed bymost area agencies on aging, weregenerally not represented in policyand supervisory positions on thearea agencies on aging's staff. Inmost cities, where ediployed, His-panics were found largely in clericaland paraprofessionaljobs. . . .American Indians andAsian and Pacific Island Americansgenerally were absent from the areaagency on aging staff.'

Table- 2.5 shows the distribution byrace or ethnicity and by job classification" U.S. Commission _on Civil_ Rights; ProvidingServices to the Minority Elderly-Hew Programs,Old Problems, Executive Summmary (November

of employees for area agencies that re-sponded to the survey. On ;January 1,1981, these area agencies employed 4,087persons. More than half of all minoritiesemployed by area agencies in the surveywere concentrated in two job categories:jaraprofessional and clerical.

White employees occupied 91.2 percentof all the agency director positions forthose area agencies that responded to thesurvey. By contrast, minorities occupied,fewer than 9 percent of the directors'positions. Of the 48 minorities in direc-tors' positions, 43 were black, 4 wereHispanic, and 1 was an American Inds-an/Alaskan Native.

In the professional category, whitesheld 83.1 pAcent or 1,712 of the 2,0591981); p. 7 (hereafter cited as Minority E'derlyServices, Summary).

215

professional level positions while minori-ties held 16.9 percent or 342 of thesepositions. Blacks accounted for 269 of theprofeSAional cosAjions held by minoritiesat the area agency level.

The largest concentration of minorityemployees was in the parapi.pfessionaland clerical job categories. More thanhalf (460) of all minorities employed byarea agencies on aging in the surveywere in these positions. More than half(384) of all black employees at the areaagency level were classified as parapro-fessionals or clericals (see table 2.5), aswere more than half (51) of Hispanics. Ofthe 47 Asian and Pacific Island Ameri-cans employed at-the area agency level,28 were employed as professionals, 11 asclericals, 7 as paraprofessionals, and 1Asian and Pacific Island American wasemployed in the "other" category. Lessthan 1 percent of the persons employedby the area agencies in the survey wereAmerican Indians or Alaskan Natives(see table 2.5).

Bilingual Employees of AreaAgencies on Aging

The CominissiOn survey of employ=ment practices of area agencies alsoexamined whether these agencies em-20 Results of the six -city investigation reportedthat the absence of Older Americans Act pro-gram staff who could provide bilingual serviceswas a major barrier to services for older personswho do not speak English as their principallanguage.21 "In areas where significant number of clientsdo not speak English as their principal language,adopt employment policies that ensure that legalassistance will be provided .in the languagespoken by those clients. . . ." 45 Fed. Reg. 21160(1980). r

22 Brown and Smith Interview.2" James Kolb, Director, Division of PrograManagement; and Robert Stornour, Director,

16

ployed staff who could communicate in alanguage other than English.2° DespiteFederal regurations,2' according to Ad-ministration on Aging representatives,the Administration on Aging has noSpecific policies or criteria regarding theemployment of bilingual staff at the areaagencies on aging. 2 2 Nor has the Adinin-istration on Aging developed criteria todetermine whether there is a specialneed to employ bilingual staff in Stateunits or area agencies on aging.2

Data collected from the survey. of areaagencies on aging -indicated that, ingeneral, area agencies on aging have fewstaff members who speak fluently"languages other than English. The six-city investigationS also indicated that:"Bilingual staff were normally . absentfrom area agencies on aging's employ-ment rosteri. In none of the cities wasthere a requirement for .any bilingualismamong program staff. . .even where pop-

3.1ation data would project a need."25

Affirmative ActionAffirmative action implies a commit-

ment to remedy discrimination that lim-its employment opportunities of mihori2ties." As a remedy for denials of equalopportunity; the Administration on Ag-Division of Prograrn AnalysiS, Office of State andCommunity PrograrnS, interview in Washington,D.C., Feb. 2, 1982 (hereafter cited as Kolb andStovenour Interview).24 See app. A.25 Minority Elderly Services, Summary. AreaagenCieS on aging are responsible for providingcomprehensive and coordinated social and nutri-tion services to older persons." Affirmative Action in the 1980s argues that"affirmative action means active efforts thattake race, sex, and national origin into accountfor the purpose of remedying discrimination."U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Affirmative

ing has authority to require developmentof affirmative action plans by State unitson aging.27

Administration on AgingAccording to Administration on Aging

representatives, no staff persons are as-signed full time to carry out affirmativeaction responsibilities at the Federallevel nor does the Administration onAging have a formai office of minorityaffairs." One Administration on Agingstaff person, assigned to the Commission-er on Aging, has responsibility for affir-mative action activities on a part-timebasis. According to Administration onAging officials, the affirmative actionduties and responsibilities at the Admin-istration on Aging require not only thedevelopment of internal affirmative ac-tion plans and programs; but also theirimplementation. Other affirmative ac-tion duties of the staff person devotingpart time to civil rights concerns includeassisting in the resolution of civil rights-related complaints, participating in thenegotiation of contract agreements, con-ducting educational programs and pro-viding information on Administration onAging civil rights policies, and partici-pating in community activities." Inshort, one staff person is responsible forhelping to ensure that minority interestsare protected in all Administration onAging policy decisions.

Action in the 1980s: Dismantling the Process ofDiscrimination (November 1981), p. 3.27 Brown and Snkith Interview, p. 2. See also 45C.F.R. §1321.17 (1'980).

Brown and Smith Interview.2U

Ibid. ('"" Ibid. Se also 45 C.F.R. §1321.3 (1980).'' The Administration on Aging is part of theOffice of Human Development of the U.S. De-partment of Health and Human Services. As

As the umbrella agency establishedunder the Older. Americans Act, theAdministration on Aging is required toprovide leadership to State units andarea agencies on aging as they develop;implement, and evaluate their affirma-tive action programs.3° According toAdministration on Aging officials, theagency does not provide specific affirma7tive action guidelines to its regionaloffices, State units on aging, or areaagencies on aging." Nor does the Ad-ministration on Aging require that eachof these offices submit individual affir-mative action plans. Administration onAging officials stated that agencies es-tablished by the Older Americans Actare covered by affirmative action policiesand guidelines 'developed by the UaDepartment of Health and Human Ser-vices.32 Although the Administration onAging's affirmative action plan empha-sizes that goal setting is one way toassure that affirmative action is a priori-ty in the agency, an Administration. onAging representative noted that specificemployment goals _in the agency's affir-mative action plan had-not been realized.In particular, hiring goals set by theAdministration on Aging to increase theemployment of Hispanics and Asian andPacific Island Americans in the .Wash-ington, D.C., headquarters office re-mained unmet;33

such; the Administration on Agin::: and otheragencies established by the Older Americans Actare covered under departmentwide affirmativeaction plans. Kolb and Stovenour Interview:" Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,which covers all public and private employerswith 15 or more employees, expressly prohibitsall forms of discrimination in employment." M. Gene Handelsman, Special Assistant tothe Commissioner, Office Of the Commissioner,

17

State Units on AgingAdministration on Aging representa;

tive§ stated that the agency provides nospecific guidelines to State units on ag-ing regarding affirmative action in em-ployment." Instead, according to thesame officials, all agencies authorizedunder the Older Americans Act arecovered by Department of Health andHuinan Services departmentwide affir-mative action plans, which require theagencies to develop and maintain affir-mative action plans for equal employ-ment opportunity.35 These representa-tives statedi however, that the Adminis-tration on Aging conducts a yearly as:sessment entitled "State Agency Capaci-ty To Meet Its Responsibilities In CivilRights."36 The assessment consists of achecklist of possible affirmative actioneffortS that may have taken place duringthe course of the year. One of the pri-mary concerns of this assessment iswhether or hot the State agency is oper-ating under a current affirmative actionplan." In particular, the checklist iden-tifies whether the plan contains "mea=surable goals relative to the employmentand upgrading of minorities, women, andpersons aged 60 or over."38 The assess-ment, however, does not require thatState units report their specific Oafs orWhethei they were successful in meetingthem. The assessment collects data onWhether the State agencies' affirmativeaction plans contain "specific actionsteps and timetables to assure equal

Administration on Aging, interview in Washing-ton, D.C., Feb_ 5; 1981, and Brown Interview.36 Kolb and Stovenour Interview.'36 In addition to the l'ederal laws and regula-tions, most State and local governments havelaws prohibiting discrimination in employment.36 Kolb and Stovenour Interview.

U.S., Department of Health, Education, and

18

employment opportunity. . ." andwhether or not there are "grievance andappeal procedures regarding discrimina-tion in employment. . . .29 The assess;merit contains an additional 20 affirma-tive action employment questions toWhich each State must respond with ayes or no. .

Information obtained by ttieSommi§-sion survey indicated that 48 of the 50State units on aging responding to themail survey had an affirmative actionplan currently in effect. The number ofState units on aging plans that requiredspecific affirmative action efforts such ashiring, promotion, and training goalsand tirnetables4° for minorities was farfewer (see table 2.6). Hiring goals andtimetables were included in 30 (62.5percent) of the State plans in the survey.The number of States that required goalsand timetables for the promotion ofminorities dropped to 22 (45.8 percent),and less than 20 (39.6 percent) of thesurveyed State plans specified goals andtimetables for minority training.

ACcottling to the 1-survey; ;of those ).States that reported having affirmativeaction goals for hiring minorities infiscal year 1981, almost half (20) reportedthat they had been unsuccessful in meet-ing their goals. Similarly; -half (14) of. theStates that required goals for prorgtingminorities reported that they had notmet their goals.Welfare, Office of the Secretary, Office of HumanDevelopment; Administration on Aging, StateAssessment Guide and Standard Regional OfficeRepori Format (1976), p. 20.38 Ibid.39 Ibid.40 See app. A.

2

Table 2.6Affirmative Action Requirements of State Units on Aging, 1981

RequirementsState units on aging affirmative

action plans that have requirements

Yes No Don't Know

Goals for hiring minorities* # 41 7**°f (85.4) (14.6)

Goals and timetables for hiring minorities 30 18

(62.5) (37.5)

Goals for promoting minorities '' 28 19 1

(58:3) (39:6) (2.1)

Goals and timetables for promoting minorities 22 25, 1

(45.8) _.": (52.1) (2.1)

Goals for training minorities 30 17 1

(62.5) (35.4) (2.1) 'Goals and timetables for training minorities 19 28 1

(39.6) (58.3) (2.1)

Minorities" refers_to_black,%_Hispanics, Asian and Pacific island _Americans; and American Indians/Alaskan Natives.This figure can be interpreted as_follows: in 1981 of 48 State units_on aging that reported having an affirmative action plan; 7 or14.6 percent reported thatibeir plan did not include goals for hiring minorities;Source: Data collected from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of State units on aging, January 1981.

19

Table 2.7Affirmative Action Requirements of Area Agencies on Aging, 1981

Area agencies on aging affirmative

Requirementsaction plans that have requirements

Yes No Don't Know.---

Goals for hiring minorities' # 149 42** 7

% (75.3) (21.2) (3;5)

Goals and timetables for hiring minorities 82 103' 12

(41.4) (52.0) (6.1)

Goals for promoting minorities 103 83' 11

(52.0) (41.9) (5.6)

Goals and timetables kir promoting minoritie§ 51 131' 142

(25.8) (66.2) (7 :1)

Goals for training minorities 91 95' ' ' 11

(46.0) (48.0) (5.6)

Goals and timetables for training minorities 48 137' 12

(242) (692) (6.1).. x_

"Minorities" refers to blacks, Hispanics, Asian and. Pacific Island Americans,. and American Indians/Alaskan .RatiVeS:

"This iigure can be interpreted as follows:11-i 1981 of 198 -area agencies on aging that reported having an affirmative action plan,

42 or 21.2 percent reported that their plan did not include_goalsior hiring minorities.' One area agency on aging reported that the requirementwasnot applicable.2 One area agency on aging did not respond tqltris requirement.Source: Data collected from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of area agencieS on aging, January 1981/ o'

20

Results of the Commission survey alsoidentified problems that State units onaging encountered in recruiting minoritystaff. Budget restrictions on active re-cruitment was the most serious problemidentified by State units on aging inrecruiting minority staff. State units 'alsoindicated that restrictive personnel regu-lations' and lack of trained minoritypersonnel limited minority recruitmentefforts. Similarly, State units identifiedlow staff turnover as an additional prob-lem in the Fecpitment of minority per -sonnel.

Area Agencies on AgingEach of the State units on aging that

responded to the Commission surveyreported that it required area agencieson aging to have an affirmative actionplan.42 Results of the Commission mailsurvey to area agencies revealed that ofthe 206 area agencies on aging in thesurvey, 7 reported that they did not havean affirmative action plan and 1 areaagency on aging reported that it did notknow if it had an affirmative actionplan.43

The affirmative action plans of areaagencies on aging were also less likely torequire goals and timetableS for hiring,promotion, or training of minorities thanthe State units on aging plans (see table2.7). More than half of the area agencies41 In the survey, restrictive personnel regula-tions included standardized educational criteria,tests, and residence or citizenship requirementsfor employment.42 State Survey.42 U.S., Commission on Civil Rights; Area Agen-cies on Aging Survey, January 1981. See app. Cfor details on surveys.44 Eighteen of the 149 area agencies' thatresponded that they had goals for hiring minori-ties reported "not applicable" and another 7 area

in the survey having affirmative actionplans indicated that their plans did notrequire: goals or timetables for hiringminorities. In addition, most affirmativeaction plans of the area agencies onaging did not include specific language

)requiring goals or timetables for pipmot-:ing minorities. Similarly, the majority ofarea agency. plans surveyed 'had no goalsor .timetables for training minorities (seetable 2.7).

For 149 area agencies on aging_ thatreported having affirmative action goalsfor hiring minorities, 62 percent (93)indicated that they had met their goalsand 20.8 percent (31) reported that theyhad not.44 More than half (52) of the 103area agencies which repoited that theyhad affirniaive action goals for promot-ing minoritiet indicated that they weresuccessful in meeting their goals, while23 area agencies reported that they hadnot met their goals for promoting minori-ties.45 The Commission's six-city investi-gations indicated that: in almost noinstance where goals were unmet by areaagencies on aging_had_substantive._con .

rective. actions been taken by the Stateunits on aging or the Administration onAging" and that "Almost none of thearea agencies on aging had a formalrecruitment procedure for increasing mi-nority representation among staff; de-agencies reported "don't know" to the surveyquestion of whetherthe area agency was success-ful in meeting its affirmative action goals forhiring target groups.45 Nineteen of the 103 area agencies responded"not applicable" and 9 area agencies on aging

-responded "don't know" to the survey question ofwhether the area agency was successful in meet-ing its affirmative action goals for promotingtarget groups.

ji

21

spite certain minority groupg' underre-presentation amonfp-rogram staff.""

In addition, State units on aging do notgenerally require area agencies on agingto include staffing plans by race andethnic background in area plans submit-ted to the State unit. In fact, only 27States reported that they require areaagencies to supply this information.

Although area agencies have affirma-tive action, plans, most of the plans donot incorporate specific and measurableaffirmative action targets for the hiring,promotion, and training of minorities,nor was action taken when deficiencieswere noted either in establishing goals ormeeting-tlrm.

Discrimination Complaintsand Enforcement Policy-

According to Administration on Agingremsentatives, the agency does notmaintain fbrmal jurisdiction or possessregulatory authority over employmentdiscrimination complaints filed at theregional, State, or area agency level."_Each_regional_ office,_State_ unit, and areaagency is authorized to investigate em-ployment discrimination complaints orviolations brought. to its attention and isempowered to develop procedures forresolving the complaints. Administra-tion on Aging officials also stated thatthere have been almost no complaintsalleging employment discrimination atthe Federal, regional, State, or locallevels and that there has never been afinding of employment discrimination at46 Minority Elderly Services, p. 149.". Kolb and Stovenour Interview. The Adminis-tration on Aging is part of the Office of HurnanDevelopment of the U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. As such, the Adminitra=

22

any level of the Administration on Ag;ing.48

SummaryEmployment data obtained from the

mail surveys of Administration on Agingregional offices, State units on aging, andarea agencies on aging and interviewswith Adn-iinistmtion on Aging officialstevealed that minorities were not beingfully utilized at all employment levels bythe agencies established under the OlderAmericans Act, particularly, as contrast;ed with whites, in decisionmaking jobs.This has a potential effect on other areassuch as contract awards; discussed inchapter 3.

Employment data collected froth theAdministration on Aging and its region-al offices also showed that minoritieswere represented disproportionately inlower salaried jobs. This was also foundat the area agency level by the Cominis-sion's case study analyses of six selectedcities.

There is no office of minority affairs atthe Administration on Aging, and one_staff person-isresponsible- forcarrying out civil rights responsibilitiesat the Federal level, suggesting thataffirmatiire action is a low priority. Al-though the Older Americans Act givesthe AdMinistration on Aging authorityto assist agenaies on aging with theiraffirthative action efforts, the Adminis-tration on Aging does not offer specificgiiidance to its regional offices, Stateunits, or area agencies on accomplishingaffirmative action objectives.tion on Aging and it aging agencies are coveredunder departmentwide guidelines for discrimina-tion complaints and enforcement" Brown Interview, and Kolb and StovenourInterview.

3 .7;

At the State level, the Commissionsurvey indicated that almost all Statesreported that they had affirmative ac-tion plans, but fewer reported that theplans generally required specific affirma-tive action efforts such as hiring, promo-tion, and training goals and timetablesfor minorities. Of those State units onaging that reported having affirmativeaction plans that required goals for hir-ing and/or goals for promoting minori-ties, almost half reported that they hadbeen unsuccessful in meeting their goals.

The affirmative action plans of thearea agencies on aging were less likely torequire goals and tithetables for thehiring, promotion, or training of minori-ties than the State units' plans. In addi-

tion, there were. area agencies in thesurvey that reported that they had noaffirmative action plan in . effect al=though the State units on aging indicat-ed that they require all area agencies tohave a plan.

The Administration on Aging providesno specific guidance to agencies on agingfor dealing with complaints alleging em-

. ployment discrimination. Administra-tion on Aging officials reported thatthere have been almost no complaintsalleging employment discriminatiOn atthe Federal, regional, State, or locallevels and that there has never been afinding of employment discrimination atany level of the AdminiStration on Ag-ing.

23

Chapter 3Award of Grants and Contracts to MinorityOrganizations Under Titl& III and IV of theOlder Americans Act

The Older Americans Act's purposewas to finance the development of new orimproved programs to assist older per-sons by: (1) establishing the Administra-tion on Aging; (2) providing forthulagrants to State units on aging and areaagencies on aging for community plan-ning and services (Title III); and (3)providing project grants for public andprivate nonprofit agencies for research,development, and training (Title IV).1Specifically, the Administration on Ag-ing provides Older Americans Act-TitleIII funds to State units on aging and toarea agencies on aging to help themdevelop a comprehensive and coordinat-ed system of services to older persons.2The designated State units on aging andarea agencies, in turn, make furthergrants and contracts to public or privateagencies for community planning, ser-vices, and training.

The Administration on Aging also pro-vides funds directly to public and non=profit private agencies for research thatwill demonstrate and evaluate programs

Pub. L. No. 89-73, 79 Stat. 218, 220-225.2 42 U.S.C. §3021 (Supp. III 1979).

'24

or techniques to improve the quality oflife of older persons. These funds areauthorized under Title IV of the OlderAmericana Act. In particular, Title IVmonies support training, research, anddevelopment, demonstration projectsand programs, and multidisciplinarycenters of gerontology.3 To determinehow funds under Titles III and IV aredisbursed, this chapter provides informa-tion on the numbers, amounts, and typesof grants and contracts awarded by theAdministration on Aging, the State unitson aging, and the area agencies on aging.The analyses focus on the relative.num=ber and dollar amounts awarded to mi-nority organizations. In addition, thischapter discusses outreach efforts to in-crease minority participation in grantsand contracts and, the monitoring ofgrantees and contractors for nondiscri-mination compliance.

Minority RepresentationTitle IV

Under Title IV of the act, funding ismade available by the Administration on

3 42 U.S.C. §§3031, 3035, 30351S, azid 3036 (Supp.III 1979).

Table 3.1Title IV Awards by the Administration on Aging by Race or Ethnicity, Fiscal Year1980

Race or ethnicity Amount Percent

American Indians/Alaskan Natives $ 569,245 1.2%

Asian and Pacific Island Americans 348508 0.7

Blacks 1,913,825 4.0

Hispanics 887,742 1.9

Whites 43,910,283 91.9

Total 47,773,203 100.0

This figure can be interpreted as follows: in 1980, $569,245, representing 1.2 percent of Title IV funds under the Older AmericansAct, were awarded to American Indian/Alaskan Native organizations.' Numbers will not add to 100.0 percent because $143,600 of the funds were designated to minorities whose race or ethnicity wasnot identified.Sources: Howard White, Donald Smith, Sean Sweeney, Marvin Taves, Saadia Greenberg; Harry Posman, If.A. Jaganathan, James

Burr, and Carolyn Del Gudice, officials of the Administration on Aging, interviews in Washington, D.C., Feb. 1-12, 1982.;'

Aging through a grant or contract awardprocess.' In 1980 the Administration onAging awarded $47.7 million in Title IVfunds to organizations. Minority ol-gani-zations received approximately $3,9 mil-lion of the $47.7 million awarded, or 8.1percent of the available funds (see table3.1).

4 42 U.S.C. §3037 (Supp. III 1979).5 42 U.S.C. §3031 (Supp. III 1979). The objectiveof this title is to `:support. activities that attractqualified persons to the field of aging, and trainpersons employed or preparing for employmentin aging and related fields." 1980 Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance, p. 349.e 42 U.S.C. §3035 (Supp. iII 1979). The objectiveof this title is to "develop knowledge of the needsand conditions of older persons and of policies,programs and services for improving their lives."1980 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, p.348.

42 U.S.C. §3035b (Supp. III 1979). The objective

Title IV funds are divided among fourmain areas: Title IV-A is for trainingi8Title IV-B is for research and .develop-ment,8 Title IV-C is for demonstrationprojects and programs;' Title IV-D iS'formortgage insurance and interest grantsfor multipurpose senior centers,8 andTitle- IV-E-is- for- -rn altidisc iplinary-cen-ters of gerontology;8 In all of these Titleof this program is to "demonstrate new ap-proaches, techniques and methods to improve orexpand social services or nutrition services orotherwise promote the well being of older individ-uals." 1980 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assis-tance, p. 346.8 42 U.S.C. §§3035g, 3035h (Supp. III 1979). TitleIVD has never been funded. Howard White andMarvin Taves, representatives of the Administra-tion on Aging, interviews in Washington, D.C.,Feb. 1 and 3, 1982;9 42 U.S,C. §3036 (Supp.. III 1979). The objectiveof Title IVE is to support centers of gerontology.

25

IV areas, minorities received a small ceived 10.5 percent of Title IVA funds,'°

percentage of the funds. Minorities re= 2.8 percent of the IVB," 9.0 percent of

1980 Catalog of Federal,Dornestic Asststance, p.350.1° Eleven programs totaling $17.0 million exist-ed under Title IVA in 1980: =

1. The "Gerontology _Career Preparation Pro-gram" provides monies to colleges and univer§i=ties: A total of $7,780,000 was funded under thisprogram in 1980. Twelve black colleges anduniversities received $1;060,171: UniversitY ofArkansas, Pine Bluff;$78,389; UniverSitY of De.,$138,666; Southern University of New Orleans,$127,770; Fisk University, $131,254; Prairie ViewA&M, $88,868; Norfolk State _UniversitY,$109,205; Lemoyne-Owen College, $73,257; Vir-ginia Union University, $88,833; Tougaloo Col-lege, $74,468; Clark College; $37,706; Paul QuinnCollege, $44,576; and Tennessee State Univer§ity,$67;185. The rest of die fund§ ($6,647,985) wentto white colleges and universities. White collegesand universities with sizable minority enroll-ments received $1,119,597. Three universitieswith a sizable Hispanic' Student enrollment re-ceived funds: University of Texas; Arlington,$141,880; University oLNew Mexico, School ofLaw; $131,533; and St. Thome§ AguinaS College,877,614. One university with a sizable Asian andPacific Island student_ enrollm_ent re-ceived funds: University of Hawaii, $170,000.Three universities and/or colleges with a largeblack enrollment received funds: -M: Evers Col-lege_ of CUNY, $75;829; Southside CommunityCollege; $32,085; and Wayne State University;$168,476. Finally, three predominantly whiteuniversities with sizable minority student enroll=ments received funds under this program: SanDiego State University, $141,814; Rockland Com-munity College, $81;425; and Metropolitan Corn:Triunity College; $98,941.

"2. The ''Quality Improvement Program" allo-cated $3,000 in 1980. All of the funds went towhite organizations: _

3: The "Diss_ertation Research Program" wasfunded at $165,000 in 1980. Minority researchersreceived:none of the funds.4: The -"Geriatric FellowShip Program" re-ceived more than $300,000 in Title IVA funds in1980. None of this money went to minorities.5. The "Minority Research ASSociates Pro-gram" was funded at nears $300,000 in 1980:Minority researchers at five white universities

26

received this funding: blacks at Syracuse Univer-Sity, $74,775; Hispanics at Northern Texas StateUniversity, $5,_738; Asian and Pacific' IslandAmericans at SUNY, Buffalo, $23,816; minoritiesat San Diego State University, $74;984; andMiami University of Ohio received $68,616.6. The "State Education and Training Pro-gram," a formula program to 57 States andterritories, in 1980 was funded at $1,929,000. Theminimum amount any one State received was$30;000., _

The "National Continuing. Educational andTraining Program" rbceikred $2;387,000. No Mi.:

norities received any funding.8. The "Advocacy AssiStance Centers Program"received $989,000 in 1980: This program wasterminated in 1980: N,o minorities received anyfunding.9. The "National Conference Program,' re-ceived $578,000 in 1980. Minorities received$160,000. The National Indian COuncil on Aging,National Center on Black Aged, Asociacion Na-cional Pro Personas Mayores, and Special Ser-vices for Group; /Inc. (National Pacific /WanElderly Resource /Center) each received $40,000in 1980.10. The ''White House Conference Program"was allocated_ $,040,000 in 1980 for preparationof the 1981 \White House Conference on Aging.11. The "Minority Recruitment Program" re-ceived $199,838 in 1980. ThiS funding Was re-ceived by the National Center on Black Aged, aminority organization, Alfred Byrd, aging train=ing program specialist, Division of Education andCareer Preparation; Office of Education andTraining, and Sean Sweeney; program offiCer,Division of Education and Career Preparation,Office of Education and Training, interview inWashington, D.C., Mar. 3, 1982- (hereafter citedas Sweeney Interview)." Two minority organizations received fundingunder Title Asociacion Nacional Pro Perso-nas Mayores _received $191,952 for a projectentitled "Hispanic Support Systems and theChronically Ill Older Hispanic," and the Nation-al Center on Black Aged received $34,320 for aProject entitled "Employment Opportunities forMiddle-Aged _Older White and Non-white Wom-en: A State of the Art." K.A. Jaganathan, ActingDirector, Division of Research and Evaluation,

36

the IVC," and 4.7 percent of the IV=Efunds" (see table 3.2). Table 3.2 illus-trates the percentages of funds receivedby specific minority groups under each ofthe Title IV programs. For example,under Title IV=-13, research and develop=ment programs, American Indian andAsian American organizations ileceivednone of the funds; black organilations,0.4 percent; Hispanic organizations, 2.4percent; and white organizations, 97.2percent of the available funds.

One of the programs under Title IVCis the national impact program, whichhas as one of its main objectives the

Office of Research, Demonstration, and Evalu-ation, interview in Washington, D.C., Feb. 11,1982 (hereafter cited as Jaganathan Interview),ard Howard White, Special Assistant to theAsscciate Commissioner, Office of Research,Demonstration, and Evaluation, interview inWashington; D.C., Feb..1, 1982 (hereafter cited asWhite Interview).12 Four programs received funding uhder TitleIV-C:1. Demonstration projects and programs wereallocated $1,924,205. Three Hispanic and oneAmerican Indian organization received $306,617in funds.The Mexican-American Community Agency re-ceived $107,000 for a project on "The HispanicService Advocate Program"; Amigos Del Vallereceived $85,000 fo "Amigos Del Valle Informa-tion and Referral Model Project to IncreaseHispanic Access to Service"; Little Havana Activ-ity Center received $60,000 for "Hispanic Oppor-tunities Program"; and the Inter-Tribal Councilof Arizona received $54,617 for "AlternativeModels for the Operation of Comprehensive,Coordinated Systems of Service to the Elderly onIndian Reservations." Marvin Taves, Director,Division of Model Projects and Demonstrations,Office of Research; Demonstration; and Evalu-ation, interview inWashington, D.C., Feb. 3, 1982(hereafter cited as Taves Interview).2. Long-term care demonstration projects wereallocated $12,248,516 of which $138,230 went totwo American Indian organizations. The Chero-kee Nation Health Department received $53,924

funding of the national minority ageorganizations, such as the National Cen-ter on Black Aged." Funding under thisprogram is for:

innovation and developmentprojects and activities of nationalsignificance which show promise of ,

having substantial impact on theexpansion or improvement of socialservices; nutrition services, or multi-purpose senior centers' or otherwisepromoting the well-being of olderindividuals; and dissemination of in-formation activities related to suchprograms.' 5

for the "Cherokee Nation Geriatric Health Pro-gram" and the Yakima Indian Nation received$84,300 for the "Implementation of In-HomeHealth Care and- Coordination of Existing Ser-vices for Yakima Elderly." Taves Interview.3. Legal services was allocated $2,921,841 in1980. No minority organizations received fundsunder this program._Carolyn Del Gudice, agingprogram specialist, Office of Program Develop-ment, interview in Washington, D.C., Feb. 12,1982 (hereafter cited as Del Gudice Interview),4. The national impact program was allocated$2,413,641 in 1980. Each of the national minorityage organizations received funds. The NationalIndian Council on Aging received $336,398 forthe project "National AdvOcacy to AssiSt Accessof Older American Indians to Services and Enti-tlementsthe Older Americans Act and OtherPublic Programs." The National center on BlackAged received $349,857 for its "National AgingOrganization Projects Program." Special Servicefor Groups; Inc., received $284;692_ for its "Pacif-ic/Asian Elderly Coalition." Finally, the ASocia: ,don Nacional Prb Personas Mayores received$349,052 for its "Mano A Mano:" Taves Inter-view.13 One minority organization received funding.Meharry Medical College received $154,858 forits 'Long Term_ Care_Gerontotogy Center Plan-ning Project." Harry Posman, Director, Divisionof Long-Term Care, Office of Research, Demon-stration, and Evaluation, interview in Washing-ton, D.C., Feb. 11, 1982.14 Taves Interview.

t.-

27

Minority organizations received morethan $1.3 million under this program orone=third of all monies received by mi-norities under Title IV.

The data collected from AdininiStra=Lion on Aging representatives indicatethat all minority organizationS receiverelatively little of the available Title IVfunds, and what little is available tominority organizations is received byblack organizations. As shown in table3.2, if it were not for the funds receivedby the national minority age organiza-tions under Title IVC, American Indi=an /Alaskan Native, Asian and Pacifi,::Island American, and Hispanic orga4iza=tionS would receive almost none of the$47.7 Million in available funds underTitle IV of the Older Americans Act.

Title IIIThe Commission survey also obtained

infotmation on the relative number anddollar amounts awarded to minority or-ganizations in 1980 under Title III of theOlder Americans Act. Title III providesfor formula grants'6 to State agencies onaging." Grants under Title III are madeto States to provide nutrition services(both congregate (group) and homa=deliv=ered meals), multipurpose senior centers;and a comprehensive array of socialservices_ (e.g., tratTsportation, informa-tion and referral, and day care) to olderpersons through the area. agencies onaging."' Each State agency is responsi-1 5 U.S., Department of _Health and HumanServices, Office of Human Development Services,Administration on Aging, Guidelines for Prepara-tion of Grant Applications: Model Project: andDemonstrations Program Title IV -C` of the OlderAmericans Art Fiscal Year 1981(no date), p. 72._16 The funding formula for the grants is basedupon a State's population age 60 years and older.42 U.S.C. §3024(a) (Supp. III 1979).T See app. A.

28

ble for disbursing. funds to its respectivearea agencies on aging,'° so that theycan actually deliver Title III services toolder persons:2° The area agencieS onaging, in turn, enter into gran t andcontract agreements with service provid-ers Who are responsible for implement-ing the programs for the elderly specifiedby the Older Americans Act.21

In the Commission's survey of OlderArnericans Act programs in six selectedcommunities, minority organizationS re=ceived small numbers and amounts ofTitle III funds from almost all areaagencies on aging surveyed, "in spite ofthe fact that such firms often were in theposition to render unique services andhad displayed the ability to pray e e_ ffec=tivelY services for achieving Tit IIIobjectives. "22

Information collected frorg the Com-mission's mail survey to all area agencieson aging indicateS that this pattern holdstrue nationally (see table 3.3). For exam-ple; bladk organizations in 1980 received6.9_ percent of the fundS awarded underTitle III. By contrast, whites received90.6 .percent of the available Title IIIfunds in 1980. Other racial and ethnicg7t.nips received smaller amounts of theTitle III funds: American Indian organi-zations received 0.3 percent; AsianAfnerican Organitations,-0.5 percent; andHispanic organizations, 1.6 percent ofthe dollars awarded.18 Ibid.1° Ibid.20 42 U.S.C. §3025 (Supp. III 1979).21 42 U.S.C. §3026 (Supp. III 1979).22 U.S., Commission on Civil Rights; ProvidingServiceS to the Minority ElderlyNew_Programs,Old Prbblems, Executive Summary (November,1981) (hereafter cited as Minority Elderly Ser-vices, Summary), p. 8.

Table 3.2Title IV Awards by Area Agencies on Aging by Program and Race or Ethnicity,Fiscal Year 1980

Race or ethnicitlii ATitle 1V programs

E'

American Indians/Alaskan Natives 0.2% 0.0% 2.7%* 0.0%

Asian and Pacific Island Americans 0.4 0.0 1.5 OM

Blacks 8.1 0.4 1.8 4.7

Hispanics 0:6 2:4 3.1 0.0

Whites 89.9 97.2 91.0 95.3

Percent 100:02 100:0 100.0 100.0Dollar Amount $17,000,000 $8,000,000 $19;508;203 $3,265,000

Ttli$ figure can be fat erpreted as follows: in 1980, 2.7 percent of Title IV-C funds went to American Indian/Alaskan Nativeorganizations' Title IV-D, mortgage insurance and interest grants for multipurpose senior centers,bas never been funded.2 Numbers will not add to 100.0 percent because $143,600 of the funds were designated to minorities whose race or ethnicity wasnot identified.Sources: Howard White, Donald Smith, Sean Sweeney, Marvin T_aves, Saadia_Greenberg. HarryP_osman, K.A. Jaganathan, James

Burr, and Carolyn Del Gudice, officials of the Administration on Aging, interviews in Washington, D.C.; Feb. 1-12, 1982.

Table 3.3Title III Awards by Area Agencies on Aging by Race or Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 1980

Race or ethnicity No.Awards Amounts

cyc,

American Indians/Alaskan Natives 33 0.7 880,175 0.3%,

Asian and PacificIsland Americans 31 0.6 1,422,169 0.5

Blacks 420 8.6 20,448,603 6.9

Hispanics 73 1.5 1,848,523 1.6

Whites 4,354 88.7 266,725,970 90.6

Total 4,911 100.0 $294,325,440 100.0

This figure can be interpreted as follows: in 1980, Amentan Indians/Alaskan Natives received $880;175 or 0:3 percent of the Title III funds Med°available-by the area agencies on aging that responded to the survey.Sourde: Data dollected by the U.S. Commission.on Civil Rights' survey of area agencies on aging, January 1981.

29

.

Outreach and SelectionPrcieeduregTitle IV

The Commission also obtained infor-mation from the Administration on Aing regarding its outreach and sele ionpropedures. ACcording to" Administrationon Aging representatives; the . agencyprovides public0 in English on theavailability of funds, under Title IV of theOlder Americans Act.23 Organizationsthat submit proposals for Title IV fundsmust comply with ,the\general Adminis-tration on Aging "Guidelines for Prepa=ration of Grant Applications."24 Theseguidelines explain the topics to be cov-ered and procedures to be followed whenapplying for Title IV funds.. EaCh appli-cation is reviewed with respect to itsprogram and policy relevariCe, technicalapproach, project implementation plan;staffing and management, and budgetappropriateness and reasonableness:"

The CommisSiorier has the final deci-sion on awarding Title IV grants;, hoW-

ever, the Comrriissionees decision takesinto consideration recommendationsfrom a panel of reviewers who are notemployees of the Administration on Ag-ing, comments from State units on aging,and those of the Administration on Ag-ing staff: Specialists and consultants23 Sweeney IntervieW, Taves Interview; Jagana-than Interview, Posman Interview, and SaadiaGreenberg, Director, Division of Continuing Edu-cation, Office of Education and Training; inter-view in Washington, D.C., Feb: 10, 1982 (hereaf:ter cited as Greenberg Interview).24 Ibid., and Carol Brown, Special Assistant tothe Commissidner, Office of the Commissioner,'interview in Washington, D.C.; Feb. 3, 1982(hereafter cited as Brown Interview).25 U.S., Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, Office of Human DeVelOpment Services,Administration on Aging, Guidelines for 'Prepara-tion of Grant Applications Research and Develok

30

inside and outside government may alsobe asked to comment." Prior to 1980 theguidelines included language that en-courage it organizations to applyfor available funds.27 For example, in1979 the grantNapplication guidelines fora program funded under Title IVB.contained language that gave priority topotential minority grantees and contrac-tors, since it was established:

[t]o provide an opportunity to gainresearch experience for profession-als who are not well-established,including those who: (1) recentlyhave been awarded the doctorat4, (2)are Members of minority group , or(3) are affiliated with organiza ionsand agencies which donot , providesupport for large-scale research ac-tivities. . . .28

Because of legislative changes in theOlder Americans Act, language that spe-cifically made reference to minority ap-plicants was _removed from the guide-lines in 580.29 It -ii-tob§ocin r6 analyze-what effect he changes; in the guidelineswill have future funding for minoritygrantee and contractors; but participa-.tion currently is at a low level.ment Projects in Aging na-e IV-B of the OlderAmericans Act Fiscal Year 1979(no date); pp.1013 (hereafer cited as nyidelinee. In 1980_theU.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wet=fare was divided into two separattk departmentS:U.S. Department of Health and Human Servicesand U.S. Department of Education. The Adminis-tration on Aging is wider the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services. .

28 Ibid., P. 112.27 Brown Interview.28 Guidelines, p. 97.29 Brown Interview.

u

Title HIDespite the low representation of mi-

nority organizations as Title III recipi=.

ents, agency officials stated that theAdministration on Aging has not formal-ly or informally encouraged its agenciesto contract with minority organizationsto increase their participation in OlderAmericans Act programs. According tothese officials, State units on_aging andarea agencies on aging are the agenciesthat provide outreach and technical as-sistance to potential Title III-funded or-ganizations." However, one of the find-ings reported in\ the Commission's studyof six selected 'communities was thatarea agencies on aging had few formalmechanisms in place to provide technicalassistance to potential minority granteesand contractors:

In most cities visited, representa-tives of minority organizations stat-ed that the failure to provide stand-ardized technical assistance by thearea agencies on aging was onereason for the lack Of minority con-tractors. They also voiced concernthat the lack of technical assistanceactually was a reflection of the areaagencies on aging's unwillingneSs totry actively to serve or increaseminority participation in serviceprograms.' '

3° James Kolb, Director, Division of ProgramManagement; and Robert Stovenour; Director;Division of Operations Analysis, Office of Stateand, Community Programs, interview in Wasb-ington, D.C., Feb. 4, 1982 (hereafter cited as Kolband Stovenour Interview).

Monitoring and ComplianceActivities

The extent to which those agenciesthat award funds monitor and evaluaterecipients regarding civil rights issuesmay indicate whether minorities will beassured of receiving full benefits underthe Older Americans Act.

Title IVAccording to Administration on Aging .

officials, the agency does not have aspecific mechanism for civil rights moni-toring of Title IV projects because com-pliance with civil rights statutes is dealtwith at the point of the award," Allpotential grantees and contractors of anyHealth and Human Services fundingmust sign assurances before their appli-cations can be processed. In thk assur-ances, applicants must agree to complywith Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964."

Once the assurances have been signedand submitted with an application, theAdministration on Aging assumes thatthe grant-or contract recipient will corn- .

ply with the provisions of Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964: Therefore; ac-cording to Administration on Aging offi-cials, the agency does not monitor itsTitle IV-funded organizations for compli-ance with Title VI; However, accordingto these officials, once a grant or contractis awarded, a project monitor is assignedto assess periodically the progress of theproject. The monitoring consists primari-ly of semiannual and annual progress3' Minority Elderly Services; Summary, pp. 8-9.32 Brown Interview, S;veeney Interview; Green:'berg Interview, Taves Interview; White Inter-view, Posman Interview, and Jaganathan Inter-vieW.33 Ibid.

31

reports; as well as fiscal audits unrelatedto Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964."

AdminiStration on Aging officials stat-ed that no service provider has hadfinancial assistance terminated for fail-ure to comply with Title VI. Since theAdministration on Aging does not moni-tor for civil rights compliance, termina-tion of funds for noncompliance withTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isnot really a possibility.

Title IIIAdministration on Aging officials stat-

ed that neither Federal nor regionaloffices conduct compliance reviews ofTitle III awards; in fact, the Administra-tion on Aging keeps no records on theawards made under Title III of the OlderAmericans Act.35 Administrapion onAging officials 'stated that once the fundsfrom the Older Americans Act are re:leased to the States, the Administrationon Aging's involvement ceases and TitleIII monitoring becomes the responsibili-ty of the State units on Aging." Informa-tion .obtarined from the Commission'searlier investigation of six communitiesindicated, however, that "area agencieson aging were not being monitored close-ly by the State units on aging or theAdministration on Aging regarding civilrights compliance."37

Results from the Commission's, mailsurvey of Stee units on aging indicatethat while 47 of 50 State units on agingreport that they keep records or have

34 Ibid.35 Kolb and Stovenour Interviews in Washing-ton, D.C., Feb. 2.4, and 10, 1982.38 Ibid."7 Minority Elderly Services, Summary, p. 12.38 Data collected by the U.S. Commission on

32

information available on the numberand amount of Title III grants andcontracts awarded by area agencies onaging, less than half (21 of 50) reportedthat they require their area agencies onaging to submit information on awards'given to minority organizations and only5 of 50 State units on aging requiredtheir area agencies to submit reasons forrejection'. of minority applicati ns forTitle III awards."

. Results from the six-city invesegationalso deinOnStrated that, once Ti le IIIawards were made, area agenci s onaging did i'ot monitor service prol,vidersfor compliance with civil rights statutes.Monitoring of service providers by areaagencies on' was mainly concernedwith budget constraints and fiscal auditsand not relted to compliance with TitleVI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.39 The

Inresultsfro both sections of the Commis-sion study clearly demonstrate that theagencies funded under the Older Ameri-cans Act are' not in a position to deter-mine how these programs affect minbri-ties, since there are no formai monitor-ing mechanisms in place to evaluateprogram administrators' and service pro-viders' compliance with Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964.

SummaryData obtained from Adininistration on

Aging officials, State units on, aging, andarea agencies on aging reveal that mi-nority organizations receive a small per-centage of available awards under theCivil Rights' Survey of State Units on Aging,January 1981.39 U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, MinorityElderly ServicesNew Programs, Old Problems,Part I (June 1982), p. xx.

Older Americans Act, and program ad-ministrators have not established mecha-nisms to facilitate increased minorityparticipation in the future.

Specifically, minority organizations re-ceive relatively few of the Title III andTitle IV funds. Although the Administra-tion on Aging has direct control overwhich organizations are funded underTitle IV of the Older Americans Act,minority organizations received only 8.1percent of the available funds in 1980.Minority organizations do not fare muchbetter as recipients of Title III ?wards.Minority organizations received 9.3 per-cent of those awards. The Commission'sstudy of six selected communities alsofound low representation of minorityorganizations receiving Title III funds.

According to Administration on Agingrepresentatives, the agency providespublicity in English on the availability offunds under Title IV of the Older Ameri-cans Act. Administration on Aging rep-resentatives state that outreach effortsfor Title III-funded organizations areprovided at the local level. However, asreported in the Commission's earlierinvestigation of six communities, area

4

agencies on aging have few formal mech-anisms in place to provide assistance topotential minority grantees and contrac=tors.

Results from the Commission's surveysof State units on aging reveal that most(94 percent) report they are aware of thenumber and amount of contracts let.However, less than one-half of the Stateunits on aging report that area agencieson aging are required to submit informa-tion on the number of away ils. made tominority organizations, and only fiveState units on aging report that theyrequire their area agencies on aging tosubmit reasons for the rejection of mi-nority applications for Title III awards:

Results from the Commission's mailsurveys and interviews with Administra-tion on Aging officials indicate thatagencies funded under the Older Ameri-cans Act are not in a position to deter-mine how Titles III and IV affect minori-ties, since no formal monitoring mecha-nisms are in place to evaluate contrac-tors' and grantees' compliance with TitleVI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thisfinding also is supported in the Commis-sion's study of six selected communities.

r.33

Chapter 4Minority Participation inService Programs

icier AmeriCans Act

Monitoring and Evaluation ofMinority Participation

An effective social services ppograrninCludes a monitoring and evaluation'component that allows adrainis6ators toassess their programs and to determinemethods to improve service delivery.Social service program_ funded underthe Older Americans Act are administered by Federal; State, and focal author;ities, each responsible for appraising theeffectiveness of their own' programs' ser-vice to minorities and also the programsof subordinate agencies. The CommiS=sion's investigation of six cities2 indicat-ed that evaluation of afectiveness Ofservice to minorities was not a higpriority for most area agencies on agingvisited. Although the six area agencieson aging indicated that they did monitortheir programs, they did not assess theparticipation of minority elderly. Pro-

, gram. administrators asserted that this&.e app. A for definitions of minitoring and

evaluation.2 See U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Minority-Elderly Services2=-New Programs, Old Problems,Part I (June 1982) (hereafter cited as MinorityElderly Services).' Ibid.

34

was due partly to an absence of reliabledata on minority participation in theOlder Americans Act service programsi3

Administration on Aging .1The Administration on Aging servesias

the focal point for Federal program ac-tivity related to older persons. Under theOlder Americans Act, the Administra-tion on_ Aging is responsible for inon4or-ing and evaluating Federal programs atState and local levels.4 Monitoring ofcompliance with Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964 is inclUded among itsevaluation activities. The assessment ofState units on aging by the Adminitra-tion on Aging, according to its officials, isdone on an infotthal. basis. Administra-tion on Aging officials stated that theagency's monitoring and evaluation ofFederal programs at the State and locallevels to determine Whether effeetiveand effident services are being providedto minorities . consists of completing a

42 U.S.C. §3012(a)(6) (Supp. III 1976)..5 James Kolb; Director, Division 'of ProgramManagement; and Robert Stovenour, Director,Division of Program Antilysisi"Office of State andCommunity Programs, Adminiatration on Aging,interview in Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1982

44

checklist that is part of a general Stateand area agency assessment guide. Italso includes reviewing program perfor-mance reports. According to Administra-tion on Aging officials, in addition, publichearings are held and contacts madewith national minority organizations toobtain minority views for development ofeffective programs for -minority olderpersons. The officials said that Adminis-tration on Aging regional staff visitindividual State units on aging annuallyand spotcheck area agencies on aging tomonitor and evaluate actual service de-livery to minority older , persons.6

State Units on AgingA State unit on aging is designated by

the Administration on Aging to developand administer a State's program forolder persons.. It serves as the focal poiriton aging in the State.' TO helii areaagencies carry out their functions and toimprove services to alder persons, Stateunits on aging are required by the Ad-ministration on Aging to make quarterlyonsite assessment visits to area agen leson aging in the State.8 These on itevisits include assessment of area agcies on aging for compliance with Title \-VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thisrequirethent attempts to ensure that the,State agency reviews progress made bythe area agency in the implementationof nondiscrimination guidelines as statedin the area plari.6

The Commission's survey of 50 Stateunits on aging sought to determine theextent towhich they were assessing the(hereafter cited as Kolb and Stovenour Inter-

' view).Ibid.

7 See app. A.-" Kolb and Stovenour Interview.

area agencies' service programs regard-ing minority participation. When askedwhat agency had primary responsiblityfor regular evaluation of services tominority older persons, 41 (82.0 percent)State units on aging replied that theevaluation is done by State units onaging. The remaining State units onaging that responded to. the Commis-sion's mail survey 'reported-ffiat evalu-ation of services to minorities rests witharea agencies on aging. Data from theState units' questionnaires indicate thatnearly 50 percent (26) of the State unitson aging evaluate' provision of services tominorities by area agencies at least quar-terly (see table 4.1). Thirty-six (72.0 per-bent) of the State units on aging reportedthat none of their area agencies on aginghad ever been found to be out of compli-ance with nondiscrimination guidelines.Five State units on aging had found thatarea agencies on aging had not beenserving minorities in accordance withthe State units' nondiscrimination guide-lines.

Area Agencies on AgingArea agencies on aging are designated

by the State unit on aging to develop andadminister a cOmprehensive and coordi-nated system of services for older per-sons in a designated area of the State.")Of the 206 area agenciss on aging in thesurvey, 129 (62.6 percent) reported thattheir staff evaluated service deliveryprograms to minority, older -lersons atleast quarterly" (see table 4:2).9 See app. A.10 See app. A." See app. G, methodology. Questions on minor-ity participation in specific services often wereleft unanswered. In most cases, the actual provi-

35

Table 4.1Frequency of State Units on Aging Monitoring and Evaluation of Services toMinorities by Area Agencies on Aging, 1980

Frequency

Once a yearEvery 6 monthsEvery 3 monthtMonthlyOtherNever

Total

Number Percent

18 36.0*4 8.0

24 48.02 4.01 2.0

-1 2.0

50 100.0

'Thiafigura cart be interpreted as follows: in 1980, 36.0 percent of State units on aging responding to the Commission's mail surveyreported that-they monitored and/or evaluated their area agencies on aging once a year.Source: Data collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of State units on aging, January 1981.

Table 4.2Frequency of Ai ea Agency on Aging Monitoring and Evaluation of Services toMinorities, 1980

Frequency

Once a yearEvery 6 monthsEvery 3 monthsMonthlyOtherNeverDon't Know

Total

Number Percent

42 20.4*15 7.377 37.452 25.214 _ .6;842 1.0

206 100.0

This figure can be interpreted as follows: in 1980 20A percent ottha area agencies en aging responding to the Commission's mailsurvey reported that they monitored and evaluated their progress once a year regarding whether minorities were being served.Source: 10ata collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of area agencies on aging, January 1981.

36

46

Technical Assistance toInCrea§e MinorityParticipation

Technical assistance is one mechanismthat can be used to help increase minori-ty participation in services. Results fromthe case analyses indicated that .fewformal mechanisms were in place at theState or local level that would help toincrease minority participation.12 Inmost cities visited, representatives ofminority organizations voiced concerntha the lack of technical assistanceactu)23.lly reflected unwillingness of theare agencies on aging to try actively to

crease minority participation."

AdMinistration on AgingUnder the Older Americans Act, one of

the functions of the Administration onAging is to provide technical assistanceto the States to increase the participa-tion of older minorities in Federal pro-grams." The Administration on Agingattempts to achieve greater minorityparticipation by holding public hearings,training State units on aging staff, train=ing minority community members assenior volunteers, and by publishing ma-terials that inform the public of Federalprograms. l5

Although officials stated that the Ad-ministration on Aging has provided tech-nical assistance to State units oxi aging tohelp develop training manuals and pro-gram evaluation instruments that couldbe used to help tc, ..icrease the participa-tion of minority older persons," Stateunits on aging reported that they re--sion of services is contracted out by the areaagency on aging to private nonprofit entities thatoften may not provide adequate participationfigures to the area agency.12 Minority Elderly Services.

ceived little such technical . assistancefrom the Administration on Aging (seetable 4.3). When asked about specifictypes of training provided by the Admin-istration on Aging, the majority of Stateunits on aging reported that they hadnot received any technical assistancedirected at increasing minority partici-pation. For example, only two (4.0 per:-cent) State units on aging reported thatthey received technical assistance fromthe Administration on Aging, such ashelp in training staff on techniques thatwould minimize cultural and ethnic bar-riers to participation by minorities. Re-sults from the questionnaire also indi-sate that 43 State units on aging (86.0percent) reported that they did not re-ceive help from theiAcIministration onAging in designing of using needs assess=ment instruments directed at obtaining

L information on, minority needs.

State Units on AgingTechnical assistance to help increase

the participation of older minorities,provided by State units on aging to areaagencies on aging, may include traininglocal agency personnel and minority-community people as senior._ volunteers,holding public meetings, .and publishingMaterials_ directed toward minority olderpersons." Almost all State units onaging reported providing some type oftechnical assistance to area agencies onaging (see table 4.4). When State units onaging were questioned about the types oftechnical assistance they provided; 19(38.0 percent) reported that they had13 Ibid. r14 42 U.S.C. §3026(a)(6)(B)_(Supp_III 1976).15 42 U.S.C §3012 (Sup0. III 1976).26 Kolb and Stovenour Interview.17 42 U.S.C. §3026 (Supp. III 1976).

4".

37

Table 4.3Types of Technical Assistancc Received by State Units on Aging from theAdministration on Aging

Type of technical assistance Number Percent

Training on problems and approaches to= service delivery using minority

community resources (e.g., existing family and group support systems)

Training in interpersonal skill building and interviewing techniques to

minimize' cultural and ethnic barriers .

Holding community forumsnalks on the needs of older minorities

Designing /using minority needsassessment/program evaluation

instruments

Training Of minority community people as senior advocates/volunteers

Federal help in other waysn=50 ,

8

4

1

16.0*

4.0

12.0

6.0

8.0

2.0

This figure can be interpreted as followt of the_ 60_ State_units_on aging responding to the Commissiont mail survey, 16 percentreported that they received training from Administration on Aging on approaches to service delivery using minority communityresources.Source: Data collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of State units on aging, January 1981.

provided help in training staff on tech=niques to minimize Cultural and ethnicbarriers to participation; 17 (340 per-cent) stated that they provided aid indesigning and using minority needs as-sessments` and progranA\ evaluations. Amajority of State units on aging, 31 (62percent), provided area agencies withtraining for minority older persons assenior volunteers.

Area Agencies 0/IAgingJust as State, plans provide for State

units to give technical assistance to areaagencies on _aging, area agency planscontain guidelines for providing techni-calassistance to grantees and contrac-tors and to other organizations con-cerned with the needs of older persons."

18 U.S., Department of Health, EdubatiOri, andWelfare, Office of the Secretary, Office of Human

38

Area agencies on aging reported thatthey received little technical assistancefrom the State units on aging regardingincreasing the participation of minorityolder persons (see table 4.5). Althoughmore than 39 percent of the State unitson aging said they had provided techni-cal assistance on interpersonal skillbuilding and interviewing techniques tominimize cultural and ethnic barriers,75.7 percent of the area agencies onaging reported they did not receive suchtechnical_ assistance from the State uniton aging. The Majority of area agencies,166 (80 percent),_reported that they didnot receive help from the State units ondeSigning and using minority needs as-sessments instruments; 47 (22.8 peicent)reported that they received training of

Development; Administration on Aging, AreaAgency Assessment Guide (February 1976), p. 34.

Table 4.4 \Types of Technical Assistance Provided by State Units on Aging to AreaAgencies on Agini

Types of teChnical assistance Number Percent

Training on problems and approaches to service delivery using minoritycommunity resources (e.g., existing family and group support systems) 1 29 58.0*

Training in interpersonal skill building and interviewing techniques tominimize cultural and ethnic barriers 19 38.0

Holding community forums/talks on the needs of older minorities 26 52.0

Designing/using minority needs assessment/program evaluationinstruments 17 34:0

Training of minority community people as senior advocates/volunteert 31 . 62.0

n=5:

'This figure cattbe interpreted as follows: of the 50 State units on aging reeponding to the Commission's mail survey, 58 percentreported that they provide training on approaches to service delivery using minority community resources.-Source: Data collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of State units on aging, January 1981.

Table 4.5Types of Technical Assistance Provided bLArea Agencies on Aging to Granteesto Increase Participation of Minority Older Persons, 1978-80

Types of techriical assistance Number Percent

Training on problems and approaches to service delivery using minoritycommunity resources (e.g., existing family and group support systems) 76 36.9*

Training in interpersonal skill building and interviewing techniques tominimize cultural and ethnic barriers 85 41.3

Holding community forums/talks on the needs of older minorities 100 48.5

Designing/using minority needS assessment/program evaluationi.

instruments , 53 25.7

Talks with representatives of minority organizations in PSA (e.g., tribalgovernments, LULAC, Urban League) 131 63.6

Training of Minority community people assenior. advocates/volunteers 99 48.1

n = 206

!This figure can be interpreted as follows: in 1980, 36.9 percent of the area agencies onaging responding.to the Commission's mailsurvey reported that they provided training to their grantees on approaches to service delivery using minonty community resources.Source: Data collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of area agencies on aging, January 1981.

4339

minority community people as seniorvolunteers.

The Colizimission's survey sought todetermine the types of technical assis-tance that area agencies provided tograntees. and contractors to help increaseminority participation. Eighty-five (41.4percent) of the area agencies on aging

_reported providing training to serviceprovider staff on interpersonal skillbuilding and interviewing techniques tominimize cultural and ethnic barriers toparticipation (see table 4.5). The majorityof area agencies on aging, 131 (63.6percent), reported providing technicalassistance through talks with represen-tatives of minority organizations. Fifty-three (25.7 percent) of the area agencieson aging said they provide technicalassistance to grantees on designing andusing minority needs assessment andprogram evaluation instruments.

Miriori4, Participation onAdvisory Boards

Aavisory councils; in keeping withAdrhinistration on Aging regulations,have been established to advise Stateunits on aging and area agencies onaging on issues affecting older personsand to help in development and imple-mentation of State and area plans." Thecouncils hold public hearings; representthe interests of older persons, and reviewand comment an other State plans, bud-gets, and policies that affect older per-sons.?°

By Administration on Aging guide-lines, at least half the members of advigoz

19 Minority Elderly Services, p. 8,.and Admitha=tration on Aging, State Plan on Aging Undernue III of the Older Americans Act, Fiscal Years1981-1983. See app. A.

40

council to State units on aging anda ea agencies on aging must be olderpe -ono who are consumers of servicesand = the area plan." The Commis-sion's study of six cities found thatcertain minority groups were not repre-sented o the advisory councils. Failureto include inority cicreler persons on theadvisory co ncils that plan and -imple-ment service may help to determine theextent to whi. all minority older per-sons are restric d or excluded from fullparticipation in Older Americans Actserviw programs.

_Findings from th Commission's sur-vey of State units n aging and areaagencies on aging indicate that generallymost minority groups are represented onthe advisory couficils at the State andlocal levels. However, Hispanics as agroup are underrepresented. Data fromthe State and area questionnaires indi-cate that Hispanics represent 3.0 percentof the State unit on aging advisoryCouncil members and 2.6 Percent of areaagency on aging advisory council mem=be rs.

Barriers to MinorityParticipationIdentification of Barriers by StateUnits on Aging

The Commission's survey of 50_ Stateunits on aging examine -1 barriers identi-fied by the State units as directly orindirectly inhibiting full participation ofolder minorities in Older Americans Actprograms. According to the data collect=ed from the State units on aging ques-tionnaires, 47 (94.0 percent) of the State2° See app. A.21 45 C.F.R. §§1821.15=29, 1321.77=-81 (1980).22 Minority Elderly Services.

u

units reported that there are some barri=ors to the full participation of olderminorities in social service and nutritionprograms (see table 4.6). The two barri-ers most often identified by the Stateunits on aging were: (1) that minorityolder persons have a general feeling ofnot being welcome in certain programSand (2) that transportation to the servicelocation is inadequate. Location of pro:grams outside of minority communitiesand staffs' inadequate knoWledge of mi=nority language and cultural differencesalso were identified by State units onaging as barriers to full participation ofolder minorities in many States.

Identification' of Barriers by AreaAgencies on Aging

The Commission also asked area agen-cies on aging about barriers that directlyor indirectly inhibit the full participa-tion of older minorities in social serviceand nutrition programs. Of 206 agenciesin the survey, 178 (86.4 percent) said thatthere are some barriers to full participa-tion of older minorities (see table 4.7).Inadequate transportation to service, lo-cations was identified by 120 (58.8 per-cent) area agencies on aging as a barrier.Many area agencies, 112 (54.9 percent),reported., that minority older personshave general feelings of not being wel-come in certain programs; this, combinedwith transportation problems; can -inhib-it full participation of older minorities insocial service and nutrition programs.

Outreach Efforts to IncreaseMinority Participation .°

The Commission's six-cities study indi-cated that older minorities often felt that

23 Kolb and Stovenour Interview.24 Ibid.

Older Americans Act programs wereunresponsive to their needs and priori-ties. In most cities; little written materi-al about programs was available in En-glish, and even less in other languages.very little other publicity (e.g., mediaspots, displays) was available about theprograms, and again, especially in lan-guages other than English. In most of thesix cities, information and referral ser-vices generally did not have any bilin=gual employees.. Commission staff foundthat, despite low participation by'ininori-ty elderly in most service programs; areaagencies on aging were not actively in-volved in specific outreach activities toinclude more minority. elderly.

Administration on AgingRepresentatives of the Administration

on Aging stated that the agency, in itsefforts to inform the general: public ofservices available under the Older Amer-icariS Act, has done nothing Specificallydirected at reaching minority older per-sons." Instead, the Administration onAging has established a mechanism forreaching minority elderly through itsfunding of national minority aged organ-izations.24 .The Administration on Agingreported that these national organiza-tions have developed posters and pam-phlets that are directed to older minori-.ties." However, the Administration _onAging does' not monitor these organiza-tions to determine that minorities, infact, are being made aware of the OlderAmericans Act programs.

State Units on AgingState units on aging were' questioned

about their outreach efforts to inform25 Ibid.

41

Table 4.6Barriers Identified by State Units on Aging as Directly or Indirectly Inhibiting FullParticipation of Older Minorities in Service Programs, 1980

Total Very serious Moderate Minor NoTykes of barriers number barrier .._barrlerj barrier barrier

Existence of English-speaking staff only # 48 0 13 12 23% (100.0) (0.0) (27.1) (25.0) (47.9)*

tLocation of programs outside of minority areas 49 2 12 19 16

(100.0) (4.0) (24.5) (38.8) (32.7)

Contributions for meals needed from participants

Adequate transportation not provided to service locations

Existing support systems in minority community not utilized

47(100.0)

48(100.0)

42(100.0)

0(0.0)

7(14.6)

1

(2.4).:.

6(12.8)

15(31.3)

14(33.3)

9(19.1)

14(29.1)

11

(26.2)

32(68.11)

12. (25.0)

16(38.1)

Minority older persons have general feeling of not being welcome in 45 4 18 14 9

certain programs (100.0) (8.9) (40.0) (31.1) (20.0)

Progr ms have stigma of welfare image 46 2 8 16 20

.(100.0) (4.3) (17.4) (34.8) (43.5)

Staff I cks adequate knowledge of minority language/cultural 47 3 9 19 16

differe Ces (100.0) (6.4) (19.1) (40.4) (34.1)

Suspicion of older minorities of government programs 42 1 13 9 19(100.0) (2.4) (31.0) (21.4) (45.2)

This Figure can'be interpreted as follows: in 1980, 47.9 percentof State units on aging responding to the Commission's mail survey reported that theexistence of English-speaking staff only was not a barrier-inhibiting the full participation of older minorities in their service programs.Source: Data collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights survey of State units on aging, January 1981. .

42

Table 4.7Barriers Identified by Area Agencies on Aging as Directly or Indirectly InhibitingFull Participation of Older Minorities in Service Programs,1980

Types of barriersTotal

numberVery serious

barrierModerate

barrierMinorbarrier

Nobarrier

.

Existence of English-speaking staff only # 198 7 18 _ 39 134

% (100.0) (3.5) (9.1) (19.7) (67.7)'

Location of programs outside of minority areas 204 6 23- 42 133(1 oo,o) (3.0) (11.3) (20:5) (65:2)

Contributions for meals needed from participants 204 __ 4 3 34 163(100.0) (1.9) (1:5) (16:6) (80;0).

Adequate tranSpertatibil not provided to service locations _204 _i 19 52 49 84(100.0) (9.3) (25:5) (24:0) (41:2)

Existing support systems in minority community not utilized 185 ___. 10 35 56 84(100:0) (5:4) (19:0),,1 (30.2) (45.4)

Mihotity older persons have general feeling of not being welcome in _180 12 46 54 78

certain programs (100:0) (6:3) (24.2) (28.4) (41.1)

Programs have stigma of welfare image 198 7 27 66 98(100:0) (3.5) (13.6) (33.3) (49.5)

Staff lacks adequate knowledge of minority language/cultural 194 5 29 47 113

differences (100.0) (2.6) (15.0) (24.2) (58.2)

177 9 32 49 87

Suspicion of minority Older persons of government programs (100.0) (5.1) (18.1) (27.7) (49.1)

This figure can beInterpreLd as follows: in 1980, 67.7 percent of area agencies on aging responditig_to_the_ COmmission's mail:survey reported thatthe existence of English-speaking-staff only was not a barrier inhibiting the full participation of older minorities in their service programs.Source: Data iollected.by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of area agencies on aging. January 1981.

J3 43

minority older persons of service pro-grams (see table 4.8). Forty-seven (94.0percent) of the State units on agingreported using some form of publicity toinform older persons of the Title III,service programs and to educate thegeneral public about the needs of minori-ty elderly. Twenty-three (46 percent) ofthe State units used a language otherthan English to inform the general publ-ic about their service programs. Findings .from the surey show that it is not thepolicy of 40 (80.0 percent) of the Stateunits on aging to provide a translator orbilingual interpreter at all their publichearings on service programs. Forty-nine(98.0 percent) of the State units on agingdid not translate their State plans orpublish them in languages other thanEnglish.

Area Agencies on AgingArea agencies on aging were also ques-

tioned about their outreach effortS 'to'nform older minorities about servicep ograms: According to the data collect-ed, 198 area agencies on 'aging (96.1percent) used English in publicity, and911 (44.2 percent) used languages otherthan English (see table 4.9). The surveyshOwed that it is not the policy of 170(82.5 percent) of the area agencies onaging to provide a translator or bilingualinterpreter at all area agency piblichearings. Of the 206 area agencies onaging surveyed, 200 (97.1 percent) indi=cated they did not translate or publishtheir area planS in a language other thanEnglish.

SummaryAlthough the Administration on Aging

funds service programs at the State uniton aging and area agency on aging levels,

44

it does not do any indeptherionitoring todetermine whether older minorities arebeing provided the services for which theState units and area agencies are beingfunded or to what extent older minoritiesare aware that these programs exist.

Monitoring and evaluation by Admin-istration' on Aging officials of Federalprograms for-the aging at the State levelentails completing checklists that are_part of a general assessment guide, re-viewing program performance reports,holding public hearings, and contactingnational minority organizations for olderpersons. Administration on Aging re-gional staffs also visit individual Stateunits on aging annually and spotcheckarea agencies on aging to determinewhether older minorities. are receivingservices.

One of the functions of the Adminis-tration on Aging is to provide technicalassistance to the State units on aging inan effort to increase the participation ofolder minorities in Federal programs;The absence of a formal mechanism forproviding technical assistance is evidentat the Federal, State, and local levels.Results from the mail survey indicatedthat only a few State units on agingreported receiving such technical assis-tance from the Administration on Aging.For example, the restilts from the Com-mission's survey of State. units on agingindicate that only two State units onaging received technical assistance fromthe Administration on Aging in the areaof helping to train staff on techniques tominimize cultural and ethnic barriers toparticipation. Although the majority ofState units on aging reported that theyprovided technical assistance to the areaagencies on aging, the majority of area

vi

Table 4.8Outreach Efforts by State Units on Aging to Inform Minority Older Persons ofService Programs, 1980

Type of publicity EnglishLanguge otherthan English

Recorded telephone messages # 7 2,(13.0) (3.7)*

Posters.rdisplays/leallets in public places (include minority 39 21

organizations/offices) (72.2) (38.9)

Advertisement or articles in local minority newspapers 31 15

1

(57.4) (27.8)

AdVertisement or article in newsletters distributed to local 39 ' 12

teSidentS:iartiCipantS (72.2) (22.2)

People speaking at meetings of clubs and other 47 16 .

organizations (87.0) (29.6)

Local radio television announcements 42 8

(77:8) (14.8)

*This_figure_ cartbe interpreted as follows: in 1980, 3.7 percent of State units on aging responding to the Commissions mail surveyreported_that they used recorded telephone messages in a language other than English to inform minority older persons of serviceprograms. _ _Source: Data collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil.Rights' survey of State units on aging, January 1981,

Table 4.9Outreach Efforts by Area Agencies on Aging to Inform Minority Older Persons ofService Programs, 1980

Type of publicity EnglishLanguage other

than English

Recorded telephone messages 34 40/0 (16.5) (1.9)*

POsters displays leaflets in public places (include minority 195 82

Organizations offices) (94.7) (39.8)

Advertisement or articles in local minority newspapers 12 36(59.5) (17.6)

Advertisement or articles in neWsletterS distributed to local 190 44

residents: participants (92;2) (21.4)

People speaking at meetinos of clUbS and c,!her 192 49

organizations (93:2) (23;8)

Local radio television announcements 185 39(89.8) (18.9)

T-hig figure can be interpreted as follows: in 1980, 1.9 percent of area agencies on aging responding to me Commission's mailsurvey reported that they used recorded telephone messages in a language other than English to inform minority older persons ofservice programs.Source: Data collected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' survey of area agencies on aging, January 1981.

,z1z2,14b. JJ

45

agencies reported that they received lit-tle technical assistance from the Stateunits. For example, in the Commissionsurvey of area agencies on aging; 156(75.7 percent) indicated that they had notreceived technical assistance from Stateunits on aging in training on interper-sonal skill building and interview tech-niques to minimize cultural and ethnicbarriers to participation;

In the survey, area agencies on agingand State units on aging questionnairesidentified the major barriers prohibitingolder minorities from full participationin Federal programs as: (1) inadequate .transportation to service locations, (2) ageneral feeling of not being welcome in

46

certain programs, (3) location of pro-grams outside of minority communities,and (4) staffs' inadequate knowledge ofminority language and cultural differ-ences.

Finally, most program administratorsin areas with sizable populations of limit-ed-English-speaking elderly only use En-glish in their publicity efforts to informolder persons of available programs.None of the State units or the areaagencies on aging has a policy requiringa bilingual interpreter at their publichearings, nor are State or area planstranslated and published in languagesother than English.

Chapter 5Conclusion Findings, and Reconimendations

ConclusionCongress mandated that the Commis-

sion investigate minority participationin Older Americans Act prOgrams. Al-though the Commission's investigation offederally assisted programs did not docu-ment the existence of discriminationagainst minorities, it is evident thatcongressional concern about the lack ofminority participation in Older Ameri-cans Act programs is justified. Participa-tion of minorities in Older AmericansAct programs is a right yet to be fullyrealized.'

The data collected in both phases ofthe Commission's investigation stronglysuggest that the policies and- practicesgenerally followed by Administration onAging officials, State units on aging, areaagencies on aging, and service providersin employment, contracts, and servicesadversely affect minority participationin Older Americans Act programs. Al-though some minorities are includedamong Older Americans Act employees,1 Leaders actively involved with older Ameri-cans' concerns, as evidenced by those participat-ing in the White House Conference on Aging,failed to include minority issues more thanperipherally_ in the four- volume report of theconference. Such unresponsiveness among lead-

rarely are American- Indians/AlaskanNatives; Asian and Pacific Island Ameri-cans, and Hispanics involved in keydecisionmaking positions. Although al-most all agencies funded under the OlderAmericans Act had affirmative actionplans, many of the plans did not includespecific goals and timetables for hiring,promoting, and training minorities. Ininstances where goals and timetableshad been established, 'less than half ofthe agencies and service providers hadmet them. Older Americans Act pro-grams generally did not haVe bilingualemployees,)although a need for them wasoften evident. Despite the need, nowherewas there a requirement for any bilingu-alism among program staff.

The Commission found that despitethe \fact that minority organizationswereoften in a position to render uniqueservices (e.g., information and referraland ethnic meals); minority firms re-ceived feW Title III and Title IV awardsunder the 'Older Americans Act. Eveners in the field of aging may provide someindication of why minorities are not participat-ing in programs at the local and State levels: See;Final Report of the 1981 White House Conferenceon Aging (June 1982).

47

though minority organization§ had lowrepresentation among Title III- and TitleIV-funded groups, few fornial mecha-nisms existed to increase their participa-tion.

The Commission also found that inalmost every city visited; older minori-ties generally were not participatingfully in the available programs. Al-though few minorities participated inOlder Americans Act programs; littleoutreach to minority elderly existed.

Based on the Commission's investiga-tion of Older AmericanS Act programsand its finding of limited participation ofminorities, the Commission questionsthe efficacy of the removal in 1978 ofseveral statutory provisions and sectionsof the act that referred explicitly to theinclusion of minorities in Older Ameri=cans Act programs.? Since the Commis-sion found a seeming disregard for re=sponsibilities by program administratorsto enforce compliance with Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Commis-sion also questions the commitment ofprogram administrators to minority par-ticipation in Older Arnericans Act pro-grams without such legislation.

The Commission strongly urges thatlegislation be reinstituted clearly evi-2 For example, the 1975 amendments to themodel project provisions of the Older AmericansAct provided that the Commissioner on Agingmust give special consideration to prbiect§ thatprovided needed services to minorities, AmericanIndians, -and limited - English - speaking elderly.Pub. L. No 94-135, Title I, §108, 89 Stat. 713, 717(repealed in 1978). The _1978 amendment§ re:moved these provisions. The Administration onAging, follolking Congress' lead, revised the Old-er Americans Act regulations to eliminate re-quirements for establishing preferences or priori-ties for min 'ties. For example, compare =45C.F.R. §132 1980) to 42 Fed. Reg. 59, 212, 59,

48

dencing congressional intent that minor-ities fully participate in available OlderAmericans Act programs. Such legisla-tion needs to be supported by regulationsand program directives by the Adminis-tration on Aging specifically providingfor full minority participation. Regula-tions also must indlude provisions foreffectiVe monitoring and implementationof Older Americans Act programs as-they affect minorities. Congress' immedi-ate attention to these concerns is espe-cially important given the" drarriatic risein the number and proportion of minori-ty elderly in the population, their realneeds, and the limited role t y arecurrently accorded in relvarit p ograms.In the context of current eat mic reali-

. ties, where social programs generally aresustaining cuts, persons no longer eligi-ble for other programs will be vying forscarce resources .that remain availableunder Older Americans Act programs:Congress must act aggressively to makeunequivocal its intent that greater par-ticipation of minorities in Older Ameri-cans Act programs in the future is anImperative. Even in the absence of legis-lation; the Administration on Agingshould meet its responsibilities' underTitles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act225 [45 C.F.R. §1321.79(c)] (1977) (since repealed)and compare 45 C.F.R. §1321.25 (1980),to 42 Fed.Reg. 59, 212, 59, 219, [45 C.F.R. §1321.12(b)(1)](1977) (since repealed). For instance, the regula-tions issued under the 1978 amendments had noexplicit requirement for minority participationin_grants and contracts. 45 C.F.R. §1321.101-103(1980). The prior regulations at 45 C.F.R.§1321.80(c) required area plans to "provide forcontracts or grants under the area plan to beoperated by minority individuals, at least inproportion to their relative number in the plan-ning and service area." 42 Fed. Reg. 59, 212, 59,226 (1977) (since repealed).

of 1964 by adopting and distributingguidelines and monitoring their imple-mentation:

The next section presents findingsfrom both phases of the. Commission'sinvestigation. It is followed by specificCommission recommendations for ac-tion:

FindingsEmploymentMinority Representation inEmployment

1. Minorities, other than blacks, areseldom employed at the Administrationon Aging, State units on aging, and areaagencies on aging. Blacks, while em-ployed, are not being fully utilized at alllevels at the Administration on Aging,State units on aging, and area agencieson aging.

Minorities constituted z19.6 percent ofthe work force employed by the Adminis-tration on Aging. Blacks accounted for91 percent of minorities employed by theAdministration on Aging. They held 90.0percent of all clerical positions and 100percent of all paraprofessional positions.Hispanics and Asian and Pacific IslandAmericans each accounted for 1.8 per-cent of the work force employed by theAdministration on Aging, and AmericanIndians and Alaskan Natives accountedfor 0.9 percent.

At the time of the survey more than96 percent (26) of persons employed inthe lowest salary ranges at the Adminis-tration on Aging were minority. In coin-parison, only one whP7e employee was atthis level.

Minorities constituted 16.4 percent ofthe persons employed by State units onaging. Of the minorities employed,blacks accounted for 11.1 percent, His:.

panics 2.4 percent, and Asian and PacificIsland Americans 2.1 percent. AmericanIndians/Alaskan Natives made up lessthan 1 percent of the work force.

Minorities were 21.0 percent of thepersons employed by area agencies onaging. Blacks accounted for 17.1 percent,Hispanics 2.4 percent, Asian and PacificIsland Americans 1.1 percent, and Amer-ican Indians/Alaskan Natives accountedfor less than 1 percent. More than half ofall minorities employed.by area agenciesin the survey were employed in parapro-fessional and clerical positions.

Bilingual Staff2. Despite Federal regulations that

require bilingual services for older per-sons who do not speak English as theirprincipal language, the Adminiserationon Aging has no specific policies orpractices regarding the employment ofbilingual staff, nor does the Administra-tion on Aging issue guidelines to OlderAmericans Act program administratorson the need to hire bilingual staff.

The Commission's six-city' investiga-tion found that area agencies on aging,usually do not have bilingual staff, andin none of the cities was there a require-ment fctr bilingual skills among programstaff, even though provisions of the OlderAmericans Act require bilingual servicesfor older persons who do not speakEnglish. as their principal language.

Affirmative Action3. The Administration on Aging is

covered by the departmentwide regula-tions of the U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services that require allagencies authorized under the OlderAmericans Act to develop and maintainaffirmative action plans for equal em-

0 LI

49

ployn-ient opportunity. In addition, theOlder Americans Act gives the Adminis=tration on Aging the authority to provideleadership and guidance to agencies onaging in designing, iniplementing, andevaluating their affirmative action obli-gations. The Administration onhowever, provides little assistance oractive support to State units or areaagencies on aging in implementing theiraffirmative action objectives.

4. Although all State units and al-most all area agencies on aging in thesurvey reported having affirmative ac-tion plans, their plans did not generallyrequire specific affirmative action ef-forts, such as hiring, promotion, andtraining goals and timetables for minori-ties.

5. The Commission's case analysesreveal that although most area agencieson aging reported having affirmativeaction plans, alMost none had been Suc=cessful in achieving their affirmativeaction goals:

6. Although the Older Americans Actgives the Administration on Aging au-thority to take corrective action whenagencies on aging fail to comply withemployment provisions of Title III of theOlder Americans Act, the six-city inveSti-gation found that in no instance whereaffirmative action goals established byarea agencies on aging were\ unmet hadsubstantive corrective action been re-quired by the Administration on Aging.

Grants and ContractsMinority Representation AmongGrantees and Contractors

1. Minority organizations receivelimited funds under the Older Ameri-cans Act.

50

In each of the six communities visit-ed, minority organizations received .asmall percentage of the available TitleIII funds, dc..qpite the fact that minorityorganizations often were in a position torender unique services (e.g., escort, infor-mation and referral, and ethnic th.,,e,,als)and had displayed the ability to:prov ideservices effectively for achie-t(ing Title IIIobjectives.

In 1980, of the funds made availableby area agencies on aging under Title IIIof the Older Americans- Act, AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native organizations re-ceived 0.3 percent; Asian and PacificIsland American, 0.5 percent; black, 6;9percent; and Hispanic, 1.6 percent.

In 1980, of funds made availableunder Title IV of the Older AmericansAct, American Iridiati/Alaskan Nativeorganizations received 1.2 percent; Asianand Pacific Is14.nd Ameridan, 0.7 percent;black, 4.0 percent; and Hispanic, 1.9percent.

Outreach to MinorityOrganizations

2. Program administrators are notproviding adeqUately for increased par-ticipation of minority organizations.

Despite low participation of minorityorganizations as recipients of OlderAmericans Act funds, program adminis-trators yarely attempt active outreachefforts.

Program administrators have insti-tuted few formal mechanisms to providetechnical assistance to potential minori-ty grantees and contractors. In the six -city investigation, the failure to providesuch technical assistance was cited byrepresentatives of minority organiza-tions as one reason they did not receiveTitle III funds.

The Administration on Aging has notassumed responsibility for outreach tominority Organizations, nor has it en-couraged State and area agencies onaging to provide technical assistance toincrease minority participation.

Monitoring of Grantees andContractors

3. Program administrators generallydo not monitor Older Americans Act-funded organizations to determinewhether they comply with Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964.

The Administration on Aging, Stateunits on aging, and area agencies onaging reported that their monitoring ofservice providers was mainly concernedwith budget constraints and fiscal auditsand, was generally not related to compli-.ance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Actc.),f -1964.

=. Once a Title IV award is made, theAdministration on Aging does not usual-ly monitor Title IV recipients to deter-mine their compliance with Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Administration on Aging keepsno records of awards made to minorityorganizations under Title III. .

Most State units on aging reportedthat they did not keep records on thenumber of Title III awards. made tominority organizations and did not re-quire their area agencies on aging tosubmit this information to them.

ServicesMonitoring and Evaluation

1. Results from the Commission's in-vestigation in six Mies indicated thatprogram evaluation as it relates to effec-tiveness of services.to minorities was nota high priority for most area agencies on

aging visited. Although the six areaagencies on aging indicated that they didmonitor their programs, their evalu-ations did not'. include assessment of theparticipation of minority. elderly.

Technical Assistance2. Since the 1978 amendments; no

official guidelines have been issued atany level for the °provision of technicalassistance to encourage minority elderlyparticipation in Older Americans Actprograms.

The Administration' on Aging did nothave written policies on provision oftechnical assistance to State units onaging. The State units on aging did nothave any written policies on provision oftechnical assistance to area agencies onaging. The area ageiThies on aging did nothave written procedures for provision oftechnical assistance to service providers.

3. Respondents at different levelsgave inconsistent responses to inquiriesabout the provision of technical assis-tance by tbe Administration on Aging toState units on aging.

Although Administration on Agingpfficials reported that they providedtechnical assistance to all State units onaging, aimed at increasing minority par-ticipation in service programs, only asmall number of State units on agingreported in the mail survey that theyhad received technical assistance fromthe Administration on Aging.

Barriers to Minority Participation4. Inadequate transportation is a ma-

jor barrier to participation of older- mi,_____norities in nutrition . and social serviceprograms. Both State units on aging andarea agencies on aging identified trans-portation as limiting participation of

'51

minorities in social service and nutritionprograms.

Other barriers most often identifiedby State units and area agencies onaging were (1) that minority older per-sons have a general feeling of not beingwelcomf?. in certain programs, (2) locationof programs outside of minority areas,and (3) existing support systems in mi-nority communities were not utilize&and staffs had inadequate knowledge ofminority language and cultural differ-,ences.

Outreach Efforts5. Representatives of the Administra-

tion on Aging stated that the Adminis;tration on Agin Cin its efforts to informthe general publiC of services availableunder 'the Older Americans Act; hasdone nothing specifically directedtowards reaching minority older persons.

6. The Administration on Aging hasestablished a mechanism for reachingthe minoi=ity elderly through its fundingof national minority aged organizations.However, the Administration on Agingdoes not monitor these organizations todetermine that minorities, in fact, arebeing made aware of the 01c er .Ameri-cans Act programs.

7. Program administrators at Stateand local levels provide little informa=tion about Older Americans Act pro-grams in languages other than English,even where necessary.

The Commission's six=city investiga-tion found that little written materialabout area agencies on aging programswas available in English; and even less inother languages. Very little other public-ity (e.g., media spots, displays) was avail=able about the programs, and again,

52

especially in languages other than En:glish. si

In respotidirig to the mail survey, themajority of program administrators inareas with a sizable population of limit-ed-English-speaking elderly use only Eh-.

gliSh in their efforts to inform olderpersons of available programs. None ofthe State units on aging, and the areaagencies on aging have a policy requiring-a bilingual interpreter at public hear-ings; nor are State or area plans trans=lated and published in langruages otherthan English.

RecommerfdatieliigEmploymentMinority Representation inEmployment

1. The Administration on Aging; theState units on aging; and the area agen-cies on aging should examine the compo-sition of their work forces to ascertainthe extent to which minorities are repre=sented at all levels of employment. TheAdministratiOn on Aging should. adoptpositive recruitment, training; job place-Ment, and other measures needed toincrease the employment of those minor-ities that are underutilized.

Bilingual Staff2. The Adriiii4stration on Aging

should adopt criteria to determine theneed for bilingual personnel in OlderAmericans Act programs. As stipulatedin provisions of Title III of the OlderAmericans ACt, the Administration onAging should adopt employment policiesthat ensure that bilingual legal assiS=tance and inforination and referral ser-vices will lie provided. The Commission'ssix-city investigation reported evidenceof the special problems of language -mi-

nority older persons. Despite the partici-pation of older minorities who do notspeak English'_ as their principal lan-guage in federally assisted programs, theAdministration on Aging has failed toprovide these older persons with bilin-gual services. The study documentedthat the lack of availability of bilinguallegal and information and referral ser-vices has limited the participation oflanguage-minority citizens in those Old-er Americans Act programs, thus negat-ing for them the opportunity for receiv-ing full benefits under these programs inthe six cities.

Affirmative Action3. The Administration on Aging

should express a commitment to equalemployment opportunity by establishingrigorous organizational policies andpractices in support of affirmative actionefforts. The Administration on Agingshould reinforce this commitment byissuing policy directives to agencies onaging about their affirmative action obli-gations and accountability; The Adminis-tration on Aging, should develop for useby agencies on aging effective strategiesfor successful implementation of affirma-tive action goals; Although the Adminis-tration on Aging is governed by depart-.mentwide affirmative action guidelinAsthat cover all divisions of the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services,provisions of the Older Americans Actgive the Administration on Aging theauthority to provide tangible direction,technical assistance, and encouragementto agencies on aging in their efforts toimplement affirmative action policies;The Administration on Aging, however,has not designed or implemented aninternal monitoring or compliance sys-

tem to uncover discriminatory employ-ment practices. Under provisions of theOlder Americans Act, the Administra-tion on Aging has the responsibility totake corrective action to resolve situa-tions in which there is failure to complywith affirmative action requirements.

ti

Grants and ContractsMinority Representation AmongGrantees and Contractors

1. Congress should amend the OlderAmericans Act to include statutory pro-visions for minority participation ingrants and contracts.

Data received from the Administrationon Aging, State units on aging, and areaagencies on aging indicate that despitethe availability of minority resources,minority organizations generally areconspicuously absent as Title III andTitle IV awardees under the OlderAmericans Act. Amendments to the Old-er Americans Act in 1978 deleted severalstatutory provisions an sections of thelaw that referred explicitly to inclusionof minorities in Older Americans Actprograms. Since the passage of theamendnients, the Administration on Ag-ing has revised the Older Americans Actregulations . to eliminate requirement'sfor establishing priorities for minorities,with the result that the Administrationon Aging, State units, and area agencieson aging have abdicated responsibilityexisting under Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964 and provisions of theOlder Americans Act to help assureequal opportunity in the programs underthe act.

53

Outreach and _7.hnical Assistanceto _Minority Organizations

2.. The AdminiStration on Aging andits agencies should de-zelop more activeoutreach and technical assistance to mi-nority organizations that would bringmore of them into the contracting pro-cess.

Outreach efforts should be expandedto include, for example, increased place-ment of advertisements in relevant me-dia soliciting applications from minorityorganizations for Title III and IV funds,'and notification to minority firms, whichproduce specific services, of contracts forbid in areas of their speciality to helpensure that they are made aware of fundavailability. Technical assistance shouldbe expanded to increase the number ofseminars for inforining minorities onpreparation of bids and proposals in aneffort to increase the existing pool ofeligible minority applicants and thus thepossibility of their selection as granteesand contractors.

Monitoring of Grantees andContractors

3. The Administration on Agingshould require regular reviews of compli-ance activities by its agencies and shouldassume an active role in coordinatingand Monitoring the reviews to demon-strate to program administrators itscommitment to increasing Minority par-ticipation.

Program administrators should be re-quired to keep records on the numberand amount of awards given to minorityorganizations, to keep reasons for rejec-tion of minority firms as -Older Ameri=cans Act recipients, and to keep informa-tion on outreach efforts made to encour=age minority organizations' participation

54

in Older Americans Act programs. Thisinformation should be reported regularlyto program administrators and be evalu-ated in assessing the aiequacy of perfor-mance by them under affirmative actionguidelinps. If there are findings of non-compliance with Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964; the Administrationon Aging should inform the Office forCivil Rights, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, and refer the mat-ter for appropriate enforcement action

ServicesTechnical Assistance

1. The Administration on Agingshould establish a formal mechanism forproviding technical assistance to Stateunits on aging and area agencies onaging designed to increase minority par-ticipation in service programs. Guide-lines should be issued by the Administra-tion on Aging to all State units on agingrequiring that they provide technicalassistance to area agencies on aging toincrease minority participation in ser-vice programs. Both the Administrationon Aging and State units on aging shouldhold public ".,:earings designed specifical-ly to solicit 1, nority views for planningservice prop Tis to increase minorityelderly part.,:4%:4tibri. The Administra-tion on Aging onct State units on agingalso should hale tra:iling workshops forarea agencies o: tg-i=)g dii:_cted at help-ing them to inc _:e: se ,ninoi kty participa-tion in service pr. -;'

Barriere to idic:nt,riky ,M-zrtit'ipation2. The Adminh;t1 on Aging

Should establish writ" -n procc res tohelp ensure that State units on agingand area agencies on aging encourageuse of Federal furids for development of

\:\

public transportation systems that willenable older minorities to participatemore easily in Older Americans Actprograms.

Outreach Efforts3. The Administration on Aging

should monitor regularly the State unitson aging and the area agencies on agingto make sure these agencies use not only

Englih but also other appropriate lan-guages in materials they disseminate. Inaddition, various types of publicityshould be offered in English and otherlanguages appropriate for the locations.State units on aging and area agencieson aging should be *required to haveinterpreters at all public hearings andtranslations of all State and area plans.

55

Appendix AGlossary

The following glossary contains defini=tions of selected terms as they were usedthroughout this report.Affirmative Action

Plans: Goals . and/or timetables forminority participation.

Goals: Objectives targeting specificracial and ethnic minorities for hiring,promotion, and training opportunitieswho have 13,3en underutilized because ofpast discrinination. Goals differ fromquotas since they do not require a specif=is percentag e to be reached.

Timetables: Specific time periods dur-ing which g pals are to be reached to hire,train, and promote racial and ethnicminorities targeted for affirmative ac-tion.

Administration on Aging (ACA):The agency established in the Office ofthe Secretary, Department of Health andHuman Services (HHS), as part of theOffice of Human Development Services,which is responsible for administeringthe provisions of the Older AmericansAct.

Area-Agency on Aging (AAA): Agen-cy. designated by the State agency in aplanning and service area to develop andadminister the area plan for a compre-hensive and coordinated system of ser-vices for older persons.

Area Agency Advisory Coune.--il:Council whose membership is composed

56

of persons interested in the aging net-work of which at least 50 percent of themembership must be older personswhose purpose and function is to adv4,,ethe area agency to help the AAA:(1) develop and implement the areaplan, (2) condubt public hearings, (3)represent the interests of older persons,(4) review and comment on other Stateplans, budgets, and policies that affectolder persons.

Chore Maintenance Services: Per-formance of household tasks, essenti?shopping, household and Fioine repairs,and othiflight work necessary to enableolder individuals to remain in their ownhomes, when, because of frailty or otherconditions, they are unable to performsuch tqsks or obtain the service other-wise.

ClericalS: Persons who perform gener-al office work, includes, for example, fileclerks, office machine operators, stenog-raphers, and typists.

ComxniSSioner: The Commissioner onAging of the Administration on Aging, .

Department of Health and Human Ser-vices (HHS).

Community Focal Point for ServiceDelivery: A place or mobile unit in acommunity or neighborhood designatedby the area agency to collocate andcoordinate service delivery to older per-sons to facilitate ready access to services.

Comprehensive and CoordinatedSystem: A program of interrelated socialand nutrition services for older personsin a planning and service area.

Compliance Review: Method for de-termining whether required Older Amer-icans Act standards are met. These re-views are conducted by Federal, State,and area agencies.

Congregate Meals: Meals provided ina group setting.

Contractor/Grantee: Any organiza-tion or. agency operating under contractor grant from either a State unit onaging or area agency on aging.

Subcontractor/Subgrantee: An or-ganization or agency having a grant orcontract with a prime grantee or contrac-tor or another subcontractor for provi-sion of supplies or services required forthe performance of a State unit on agingor area agency on aging contract orgrant.

Counse ng Services: Activities torect guidance and assistance to

older persons in the utilization of needehealth and social services and to helpolder persons cope with personal prob-lems that threaten their health andability to function in society.

Day Care Services: A comprehensiveset of activities provided for frail individ-uals for a defined portion of a 24-hourday as a supplement for family care in aprotective setting for purposes of person-al attention, care, and supervision.

Employment Services: Services toassist older persons in retaining, regain-ing, or securing full or partial employ-ment, or training or education leading toemployment. Activities may include as-sessment, counseling, referral to commu-nity resources, provision of needed sup-

portive services, job development, jobplacement, and followup.

Evaluation: The formal appraisal andstudy of the operation and value (effec-tiveness) of a program.

Federal Fiscal Year: The Federalfiscal year is October 1 to September 30.

Greatest Economic Need: The needresulting from a level of income at or

- below the poverty threshold that is es-tablished by the U.S. Bureau of theCensus.

Greatest Social Need: The needcaused by noneconomic factors, whichinclude physical and mental disabilities,language differences; and cultural orsocial isolation, including that caused byracial or ethnic status, that. restrict anindividual's ability to perform normaldaily tasks or that threaten his or hercapacity to live independently.

Health Maintenance Care: Servicesto detect or prevent illnesses that occurmost frequently in older individuals.

Health Services: Services to assistolder individuals in avoiding institution-alization because of health-related prob-lems, including preinstitutional evalu-ation and screening and home healthservices.

Home-Delivered Meals: Meals deliv-ered to a person's home.

Home Health Aide Services: Activi-:ties that provide basic health services toolder persons who can be cared for athome. The home health aide should havespecialized training in dealing with thehealth and health-related problems ofolder persons;

Homemaker Services: Services pro-vided in older persons' homes; includingthe performance of or instruction inactivities such as personal care; home

57

management, household maintenance,and hygiene by trained and supervisedhomemakers to help maintain, strength-en, and safeguard the older persons'personal functioning in their own homes.

Housing and Home Maintenanceand Repair Programs: Servic'es to as=sist older individuals to obtain adequatehousing, including residential repair andrenovation projects designed to enableolder individuals to maintain theirhouses in conformity with minimumhousing standards or to adapt homes tomeet the needs of older individuals suf-fering from physical disabilities.

Indian Tribes: Any tribe, band, Na=tion, or other organized group or commu-nity of Indians that is eligible for theSpecial programs and, services pTvidedby the United States to Indians becauseof their status as Indians.

Information and Referral Services:A system of services to link people inneed of services to appropriate resources.They are designed to ensure that allolder persons within the planning: andservice area have knowledge of and rea-sonably convenient access to all services.In areas where a significant number ofolder persons do not speak English astheir principal language, the service pro-vider must provide information and :e-ferral services in the language spoken bythe older persons.

Legal Services: Assistance in secur-ing the rights, benefits, and entitlementsof economically or socially needy olderpersons through legal advice and repre-sentation by an attorney (or legal coun-seling and representation by a nonattorzney where permitted by law).

58

Meals on Wheels: Home-delivered nu-trition services for seniors who cannotattend the congregate meals programs.

Minorities: American Indians andAlaskan Natives, Asian and PacificIsland Americans, blacks, Euro-ethnics,and Hispanics.

American Indian or Alaskan Na-tive: A. person hay rig origins in any ofthe original peoples of North Americaand who maintains cultural identifica-tion through tribal affiliation or com-munity recOgnition.Asian or Pacific Island American: Aperson having origins in any of theoriginal peoples of the Far East, South-east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, orthe Pacific Islands. This area includes,for example, China, India, Japan, Ko-rea, the Philippine Islands, and Sa-moa.Black: A person having origins in anyof the black racial groups of Africa.Euro-Ethnic: A\ person having originsin any of the cotmtries of southern oreastern Europe.Hispanic: A Person of Mexican, Puer-to Rican,_ Cuban, Central or SouthAmerican, or other, Spanish culture ororigin, regardless of race.Minority Organization: An organiza-

tion whose board of directors orothersimilar policyinaking body is at least 50percent minority and whose total staff iscomposed of at least 50 percent minori-ties (as defined above).

Minority-Owned Firm: A sole pro-prietorship owned by a minority; a part-nership where more than 50 percent ofthe interest is owned by minorities or acorporation where more than 50 percentof the outstanding stock is owned byminorities.

Monitor: To watch, observe, or checkt he operations of a program in an infor-

or formal way.Multipurpose Senior Center: A com-

munity or neighborhood facility for theorganization and provision of a broadspectrum of services, including health;social, nutritional, and educational ser-vices, and a recreational facility for olderpersons.

Needs Assessment: Reasonable andobjective method for determining theneeds of all eligible residents of a geo-graphic area, e.g., survey, telephone in-terviews, etc.

Nursing Home Ombudsman Ser-vice: Services of an ombudsman at theState level to receive; investigate, andact on complaints on behalf of olderindividuals who are residents of long-term care facilities and to advocate thewell-being of such individuals;

Nutrition Services: The area agencymay award funds for the provision ofmeals and other related services (includ-ing outreach and nutrition education) toolder persons. The area agency mustassure that both congregate and home-delivered meals are provided.

Gisler Americans Act (OAA): Enact-ed by Congress in 1965, it has been.:nliencied nine tir. On October 18,197,-,. the PresidLi signed the latestamezcirrents. Th act is designed toprovide assistance through grants toStaus for progr;::-,s to help older per

Persons: Those individuals whoare (' yea's of age or older.

Out. The active effort to identifythe unser-',..: cider population; to informthese individuals of the commu' ay re-sources and services available to thein, to

assess their needs, and to assist tgaining access to needed serviceludes activities involved in puband circulating a newsletter th

em ins. Infishingt in-

forms older persons of the communityresources and services available to them;

Paraprofessionals: A paraprofession-al is a trained aide who assists .a profes-sional.

Planning and Service Area (PSA): Ageographic area of a State that is desig-nated for planning, development, Aeliv=ery, and overall administration of ser-vices for older persons under an areaplan.

Professional: Occupations requiringeither 'college graduation or experiencethat provides a comparable background.Includes persons who set broad policies,exercise overall responsibility for execu-tion of these policies, and direct individu-al departments or special phases of aState unit on aging's operations. In-cludes, for examr e, program directorS,planners, nutritionists, nurses, and so-cial workers.

Protective Services: Protective ser-vices are services designed to help thoseolder persons who, because of physical ormental infirmity; may be unable to con-duct the normal and necessary activitiesof their daily lives without such assis-tance;

Reservation: ny federally or State-recognized Indian tribe's reservation,pueblo, or colon::,,, including iorrner reser-vations i.r Oklahom Alasican Nativeregions established t to the Alas-ka Native Claims Setilement Act; andIndian allotments.

Seniors Advocates: Persons who, onbehalf of old(7'.. Americans, advocate for

59j

the initiation or alteration of programsand policies that affect older persons.

Senior Citizen Recreation Pro-grams: Services that enable older indi-viduals to attain and maintain physicalrecreation and mental well-beingthrough programs of regular physicalactivity and exercise.

Service Provider: An entity that isawarded a grant br contract from anarea agency to provide services underthe area plan.

State Unit on Aging: The single Stateagency designated to develop and admin-ister the State plan of the OAA and to bethe focal point on aging in the State.

State Advisoik Council on Aging:Council t 1,at advises and helps the Stateagency to. develop and implement theState plan, (2) conduct public hearings,(3) represent the interests of older per=sons; and (4) review and comment onother State plaris, budgets, and policiesthat affect older persons.

State Plan: The document submittedby a State to AoA to receive grants fromits allotments under the Older Arneri=cans Act. It contains provisions requiredby the act and the implementing regulartions, including assurances that theState agency will administer Or Super=vise the administration of activities fund-ed under this act in accordance with allFederal requirements.

Telephone Reassurance: Servicesthat provide calls at specified times, asoften as necessary, tolor from individualswho live alone to determine if they aresafe and Well.

Title III-Funded Organization: Anyorganization or agency op6rating undercontract ur grant from either a Stateunit on aging or area agency on aging.

60

Title III of the "Older Americans ActAmendments of 1978," Pub. No. 95-478; 92 Stat. 1517 (1978): Provides forformula grants to State agencies onaging under approved State plans for thedevelopment of comprehensive and coor-dinated systems of social services, includ-ing multipurpose senior centers and nu-trition services; Each State agency desig-nates planning and service areas in theState and makes a subgrant or contractunder an approved area plan to one area;area agencies in turn make\ Subgrants orcontracts to service providers.

Title of the "Older AmericansAct AmendmeritS of 1978,", Pub. L. No.95=478, 92 Stat. 1517 (1978): Monies toprov,ide assistance to State and areaagericies to support older/ persons viaarea planning and provision of socialservices, including multilurpose seniorcenters.

Title III-C of the "Older AmericansAct ArnendmentS of 19,78," Pub. L. No95-478, 92 Stat. 1517 0978): Monies toprovide older Americans with low7costnutritious meals, apIropriate nutritioneducation, and othe i nutrition services.Meals may be served in a congregatesetting or delivered/to the home.

Title IV of the "Older Americans ActArnendmentS of 978," Pub. L. No 95-478, 92 Stat. 1 17 (1978): Monies toimprove the quality of services and tohelp meet critical shortages of adequate-ly trained personnel for programs in thefield of aging;

Title V of the "Older Americans ActAmendments of 1978," Pub. L. No. 95=478, 92 Stat. 1517 (1978): Older Ameri-cans community service employmentprogram to foster and promote usefulpart-time oppoi-tunitieS in community

(.1

service activities for unemployedcome persons 55 years or older who havepoor employment prospects. The Depart-ment of Labor administerS this title ofthe act.

Title VI of the "Older Americans ActAmendments of 1978," Pub L. No. 95478, 92 Stat. 1517 (1978): Promotes thedelivery of social services, including nu-tritional services,-, for IndianS that arecomparable to services provided underTitle III.

Transportation Services: Transpor-tation services to facilitate access toSocial services or nutrition services, orboth, or to provide needed assistance toelderly persons who have difficulty goingplaces alone.

Vocational Guidance and Counsel.ing Services: Services that provide prer-etirernent and second career counselingfor older individualS.

Volunteers:- This category may in-clude persons doing cleriCal dtities orusing special skills in teaching arts andcrafts, e.g., pottery making, knitting, anddancing. It does not include personsfunctioning solely in the capacity ofadvisory council members.

Volunteer Services: Activities thatprovide opportunities for older personsto coiuntePr in the community. Activi-f,:es may include recruitment, placement;:;-apei vif.ion, training; and recognition of

tee rs.

61

Appendix BCity Summaries*

Cleveland, OhioMinorities in Cleveland were generally

underrepresented in all phases of TitleIII programs for older Americans admin-istered by the Western Reserve AreaAgency On Aging. An examination of themembership of the Western ReserveArea Agency on Aging's advisory councilrevealed that of the 43 members, 9 wereblack. No American Indians, AsianAmericans, or Hispanics had been select-ed to serve on the area agency's advisorycouncil.

Blacks were the only minority personsemployed by the Western Reserve AreaAgency on Aging. American Indians,Asian Americans, and Hispanics did nothold any Western Reserve Area Agencyon Aging jobs. Black representation onWetern Reserve Area Agency on Agingstaff was a direct result of a deliberateeffort by the Western Reserve AreaAgency on Aging to increase minorityrepresentation. Despite inclusion of His-panics as a target group in its -affirma-tive action plan, the Western ReserveArea Agency on Aging had thus farfailed to hire any Hispanic employees.

Black organizations were the only mi-nority agencies receiving funds from theWestern Reserve Area Agency on Aging.

The city summaries_ are taken from- -US.;Commission on Civil Rights, Minority ElderlyServicesNew Programs, Old Problems, Part I

62

//

Three black organizations received 10percent of the Title 41-13 (social services)funds awarded in ;Cleveland and fourblack organizationi received 11 percentof the Title III=C (nutrition) funds award-ed; Minority ague 'cies cited lack of out-reach and technical_ assistance as major __-reasons for minimal minoritysii:-tation among lTitle-litifiiiided _organiza-tions. According to many minority repre-sentatives, without more intensive ef;forta by the Western Reserve Area Agen-cy on Aging in outreach and technicalassistance; minority. organizations werelikely to continue to lag far behind otherorganizations in obtaining contracts.Other factors that appeared to limit thenumber of \minority organizations wereFederal regulations requiring matchingfunds and an Oki() regulation that publicfunds can be disbursed only on a reim-bursement basis.

Although most Title III-funded organi-zations employed relatively few minori-ties on their staffs, the Western ReserveArea Agency on Aging had not requiredTitle III-funded organizations to increaseminority employmelit. Generally, organi-zations 'without minority employees hadnot been censured. For example, theWestern Reserve Area Agency on Aging(June 1982). For more detail, the reader shouldsee the above report.

WAS increasing the funding of the Visit-ing Nurses Association although thisTitle III-funded organization had no mi;nay nurses in its Title III-funded pro-gram.

In almost every Title III service; Cleve-land's minority elderl:, were being tin=derserved in relation to their representa-tion in the eligible population in Cleve:land and even more so in relation totheir relative social and economic needs.Black senior rit Lens participated in allWestern :Fie;;ei-k. a Area Agency on Aging=funded se4iai services,_ but they wereunderrc. ?,rated in 10 of the 17 Ser-vices. Asian American elderly participat-ed in 8 of the 17 services, but constitutedless than 1 percent in 7 of the 8. Ameri-can Indian elderly participated in 4services at less than 1 pet I-7 :panicsparticipated in 13 services, a-viva:us invery low percentages.

Minority older persons also . were notbeing fully served by the Western Re-serve Area Agency on Aging's nutritionprogram. A American and AmericanIndian older persons were participatingin nutrition programs at a rate of lessthan I percent.

Minorities were not participating fullyin Multipurpose and focal 'point centersin Cleveland. The Western Reserve AreaAgency on Aging began designating focalpoints in 1979. Three were located out-side Cleveland and three fooal pointswere located in Cleveland. Only one ofthe three centers in Cleveland served apredominantly minority clientele. Theone center that served the Hispanic agedlacked the full resources of a focal cen-ter. Another focal point center, Deacon-ess Krafft Complex (Brighton), was locat-ed near a Hispanic community. Hispanic

elderly were less likely to use its servicesbecause established transportationboundary lines did not include theirarea. The factors that appeared to affectminority participation in Cleveland in-cluded whether the service provider wasa minority organization, the extent ofminority employment by service provid-ers, and the service location.

Bridgeport, ConnecticutBridgeport is the largest city in Con-

necticut and contains a sizable popula-tion of minorities (21.0.percent black and18.7 percent Hispanic). The city also hasthe highest proportion of older minori-ties (47 percent of . black and .. 42percent of all Hispanic elderly) in thesouthwestern Connecticut planning, andservice area administered by the South;western Connecticut Agency on Aging.The agency, in addition to Bridgeport,serves 13 other municipalities located inthe planning and service area.

A recent increase in hiring and promo-tion of minorities 'ziad resulted in close to50 percent minority representation onthe Southwestern Connecticut Agencyon Aging staff. However, no minoritiesheld decisionmaking positions.

Two of the nine Title III-B fundedorganizations serving Bridgeport wereminority organizations. The Federationof Neighborhood Councils and the Span-ish American Development Agency re-ceived 37.5 percent of Title III-B fundsawarded in Bridgeport during 1980. InBridgeport, minorities held manage-ment-level positionS only in Title IIIprograms operated by the Federation ofNeighborhood Councils and SpanishAmerican Development Agency.

In 1980 minority organizations and theSouthwestern Connecticut Agency on

63

Aging jointly sponsored a workshop toinform pbtential minority organizationsabout the Southwestern ConnecticutAgency on Aging and its resources. Itwas the first such effort to attract moreminority organizations that may havebeen interested in providing serviceswith Title III funding. One minority firmwast;awarded a transportation contract.

Minorities were served by all 13 TitleIII-funded organizations operating inBridgeport. Programs set up or operatedby minorities tended to have higherminority participation rates. SerVicerates to minorities were much loweramong the nonminority organizationsreceiving -Tit le -III4unds:-The single ex-ception was the Interfaith Friendly Vi=siting program. Service delivery to mi-norities was increased from approxi=mately 16.0 percent to 21.2 percent in1980.

Compliance with Federal nondiscrinii-nation r equirements in service deliverywas accomplished mainly through OnSitereviews conducted twice yearly. Ongoingmonitoring fcr compliance took placewith the review of monthly and quartci.-ly reports submitted by Title III=fundedorganizations.

Tucson; ArizonaThe city of Tucson, Arizona, is diverse

a its racial and ethnic composition. Thelargest minority group in Tucson is His-panic, representing 24.9 percent of thecity's total population. Tucson also had asizable minority elderly population who,relative to white Anglo elderlY, dispro-portionately were in poverty. The areaagency with jurisdiction over Tucson isthe Pima Council on Aging (PCOA).There were black, Hispanic, :,.:100Arrieri=can Indian representatives on the Pima

64

Council on Aging's advisory council.There were no Asian American represen-tatives on the council.

Mi orities were not represented on itsTitle II funde staff. The Pima Councilon Agin- quired to haVe an affirMa,tiVe action plan and Submit the plan tothe State unit on aging. According toPima Council on Aging representatives,the council had not been able to imple-ment the plan, since there was so littleStaff turnover at the agency.

In 1980, PCOA funded four organiza-tion§ under Title III to provide legal aid,home health aide and chore mainte-nance, housing renovation, and nutritionserviC s'.`- one of the organizations wasminority. The Pima Council on Aginganticipated no new Title II1-funded orga-nizations, since all additional funds thePima Council on Aging received wouldgo into maintaining or expanding theexisiting organizations' funding.

For the most part, minorities were notemployed in decisionmaking positionsWithin Title III-funded programs. Oneexception to this was the city of TucSon'shousing renovation program whose di-rector was Hispanic. Although all TitleIII4unded organizations were required tohave affirmative action plans, PimaCouncil on Aging staff said that theagenCy did. not have enough staff tomonitor Title III-funded organizations'efforts;

Three Title III7B programs served Tuc-son's elderly: in-home servi?es, legal aidservices, and housing renovation ser-vices. Only three American Indians add,no Asian Americans were participatingin in-home health aide and cl )remaintenanceiservices. The legal a4:1 pro-gram did not serve American Indians or

Asian Americans. Minority elderly re=ceived a greater share of services underthe housing renovation program, butAmerican Indians and Asian Americanswere not served by it. Senior. Now Gener-ation provided all of the Title IIICnutrition services in Tucson. With theexception of kosher food, no culturallyappropriate meals were provided.

Tulsai OklahomaTulsa-, with a population of 360,919, is

the second largest city in Oklahoma.Minorities accounted for 16 percent ofthis population, nearly 4 percent ofwhom were American Indians. Censusdata-for 1970 showed that approximately43,230 persons in Tulsa were 60 yearsand older. White elderly were 88 percentof this total, and minorities accountedfor the remaining 12 percent..

The Tulsa Area Agency on Aging isresponsible -for /planning and administer-ing Title III p rograms for the elderly inTulsa. Theadvisory body to the TulsaArea Agency on Aging is the Tulsa AreaCouncil on Aging; which includes themayor and 46 other members who areappointed by the mayor for 1-year terms.Thirty-six members were white and 11were minority-- 7 of whom were blackand 4 of whom, were American Indian.

In 1980 the Tulsa Area Agency onAging's staff was 50 percent minority.Two of three professional staff positionswere held by minoritiesone AmericanIndian and one Asian American. Asearly as "1974 -When the agency wasestablished, one of two professional plan-ner positions was held by an AmericanIndian. The agency did not have anyHispanic or American Indian employeesor any workers who were bilingual.

In 1979 (the last full funding yearbefore the Tulsa Area Agency on Agingchanged fre n a calendar fiscal year tothe Fe&rn i fiscal year); 34.5 percent or$61,723 of the funds disbursed in Tulsawere received by two minority organila-tions: Native American Coalition andTulsa Human Service Agency.

Title III-funded organizations in Tulsaemployed from one to five program work:ers; few of whom were minorities. LegalAid for Senior Citizens; Tulsa City Coun-ty Health Department, Tulsa City County Library (information and referral);and Jobs for Older Tulsans had no mi=norities in their Title III-funded pro-grams. The Native American Coalitiontransportation program reported thelargest number of minority staff. Hispan=,ics were not employees of and did notreceive funds to operate any of Tulsa'sIIIB prOgrams.

The Tulsa Area Agency on Agingrequired affirmative action plans foremployment and set rates for minorityparticipation under the terms of itsawards. The Tulsa Area Agency on Ag7ing also required that Title III-fundedorganizations sir-. a list of assurancesthat included nondiscrimination in ser-vice delivery and employment. Onsitecompliance reviews were conductedquarterly to assess performances in theseareas. Technical_ assistance was providedto organizations experiencing difficultymeeting their goals for minority employ-ment and participation.

The Tulsa Area Agency on Agingprovided access, in-home, legal, healthsupport, and employment services toelderly Tulsans. Participation statisticsfor these programs indieated that largenumbers of elderly minority senior citi-

7 5

65

in Tulsa remained untouche byTulsa Area Agency on Aging services. Infact, participation data showed that mi-norities were generally underrepresent-ed in the Title III-funded programs.American Indian elderly, in particular;received few Title III services. In general,Tulsa's minority elderly population wasat least twice as likely to be in poverty asthe nonminority elderly population. Al-though the nutrition program had onlyrecently come under the Tulsa AreaAgency on Aging, participation statisticsshowed that minority elderly were notbenefiting significantly from this pro-gram. The fact that during Octoberthrough December 1980 less than 10;0percent of the participants in the nutri7tion program were minorities indicatedminority underrepresentation in the pro-gram;

San Francisco, CaliforniaIn 1980 San Francisco's population

was estimated at 678,9.74. Minoritiesrepresented more than 42 percent of thepopulation. There also was a minorityelderly population of 31;596 people (22:3percent of elderly) in San Francisco in1970; Minority elderly in San Franciscowere more likely to be in poverty thannonminority elderly. Available statisticsfrom the Bureau of the Census indicatedthat elderly Asian Americans and blackswere nearly twice as likely as elderlywhites to be in poverty.

The San Francisco Commission onAging is the area agency on aging re-sponsible for adrhinistering programsthat take into consideration the needs ofSan Francisco's elderly population, espe-cially those most socially and economi-cally in need. New commissioners, advi-sory council members, an, an executive

66

director of the agency were appointed inearly 1981. Minorities constituted over50 percent of the commissioners andadvisory council members. The new exec-utive director of the commission is black.The rest of the San Francisco Commis-sion on Aging work 1.--)rce was made uppredominantly of white professionalsand minority support staff or minoritypart-time community workers. The SanFrancisco Commission on Aging adoptedan affirmative action plan in early 1981.The San Francisco Commission on Ag-ing's affirmative action goals includehiring Hispanics; since they were under-represented at the agency. HoWever,none of the three persons hired at theagency in the past 6 months was Hispan--

n fiscal year 198G-81 the San Francis-co Commission on Aging distributed$2,115,612 in Title III funds. Two minori-ty organizations received 16.5 percent ofthe Title III-B (social services) funds:.Self-Help for the Elderly, a ChineseAmerican organization, and MissionNeighborhood Centers, an Hispanic orga-nization. Five nonminority organizationsreceived 83.5 percent of the Title HI-Bfunds. American Indian, black, JapaneseAmerican, and Filipino American orga-nizations did not receive any funds underTitle III-B for fiscal year 1980-81. Inaddition to the seven awards for TitleIII-B, the San Francisco Commission onAging funded eight nutrition awardsunder Title totaling $1,524,161.One black organization, one ChineseAmerican, one Japanese American, oneAmerican Indian, and four nonminorityorganizations received Title III C fundsin fiscal year 1980-81. The four nonmi-nority organizations received $1,035,752

j

7

or 68.0 percent of the Title III-C fundsawarded. Hispanic and Filipino Ameri-can organizations did not receive anyTitle III-C funds in fiscal year 1980-81.

In fiscal year 1981-82; all organiza=tions -were to be funded at 91 percent ofth ir previous year's funding; with the

maining money to be used to bring neworganizatic7s into the funding streamand to improve existing services in someareas. Organizations noted; however,that the money made avajlable for newawards would not be enough to fund neworganizations adequately. The additionalfunds for fiscal year 1981-82 wereawarded to seven minority and four

Minority organizations. Most of theawards were for less than $15,000.

Minority employees of the Title III-funded organizations generally did nothold decisionmaking positions exceptwhen they were -Yriployed' by minorityorganizations. No affirmative actionplans were reqUiredi of Title III-B organi-iations until 1981. Some nonminorityorganizations did not have bilingual staffor liter_ atur, in languages other thanE

The. participation of minority elderlyin Title III programs varied greatly.Looking at each of the services individu-ally, the data showed that minoritiesWere much more likely to benefit fromcertain services from others, and therealetared to be a direct telationshipb ween minority particiitation andwhether the firm providing the servicewts minority. Title III organizations in-dicated that they were serving up tocapacity now and did nit encouragefurther participation because of budgetc-mstraints. The San Francisco Commis-Sion on Aging has not monitored and

evaluated programs regarding minorityparticipation. It did not encourage orga-'nizations to do more outreach so thatminorities courld participate in the avail-able program:,

Honolulu, Hawaii ,

Asian and Pacific Island Americansrepresent nearly 73 percent of the resi-dents of Honolulu. Japanese and Hawai-ians are the two largest Asian groups.More than 72,000 persons in Honoluluwere 60 years of age or older, and almost73 percent of them were Asian andPacific Island Americans. Statistics alsoShowed that the elde-ly population ofHonolulu was less welf-off economicallythan the general population and thatFilipino elderly, in particular, were morelikely to be in poverty. Although Asianand Pacific Island elderly experience thesame age-related problems as other olderpersons, their problems were complicated by cultural and linguistic factors. Thespecial interests and needs of Honolulu'selderly, especially those most. sociallyand economically disadvantaged, were tobe addressed by the federally fundedHonolulu Afea Agency on Aging.

The Honolulu Area Agency on Agingoperates with an advisory counciltheHonolulu Committee on Agingwhichhad 18 members. Japanese accounted for39 percent of the committee's member-ship. Chinese held 22 percent of thecommittee positions while Hawaiiansrepresented 11 percent of the commit-tee's membership. The racial and ethniccomposition of the Honolulu Area Agen-cy on Aging staff was similar to that ofthe committee on aging. Four of the sixprofessional staff positions were filled byJapanese, while-two positions were heldby Chinese: Hawaiians were represented

67

clerical and paraprofessional posi-tions; Filipino representation was limit-ed to aide positions.

\ The Honolulu Area Agency on Agingplaced little emphasis on language quail-Nations for staff although a significantprOportion of the elderly populationserved by the Honolulu Area Agency on-Aging did not speak English. As a result,many community representatives voicedconcern that the Honolulu Area Agencyon Aging did not effectively serve certainelderly ethnic groups because of Ian=guage ',communication difficulties. Ac-cording to representatives of the Susan:nah Wesley Community Center, the

,

agency ,was especially unable to servenew immigrant groups such as Koreans,SamoanS';: and Indochinese.

Since there was a very low turnoverrate at the Honclulu Area Agency onAging, there were few new hires and fewpromotions. In addition, although tht-!Honolulu Area Agency on Aging is partof the Honolulu Office of Human Re=sources, °which _does have an affirmativeaction plan, there was no separate affir-mative action plan in effect for theHonolulu Area Agency on Aging.

In fiscal year 1980-81, six Title IIIawards were made by the Honolulu AreaAgency on Aging. None of the six TitleIII-furided organizations was minority.r..hree of the agencies were nonprofitpublic .,ervice agencies administered byboards of directors, each with a majority-white membership. Only the Title(nutrition) funded organizations awardedfunds to other organizations for directservice provision. Two of the five mealproviders with nutrition subawards wereminority organizations. Staff employedby the Title III-funded organizations was

68

composed predominantly of Asian andPacific Island Americans. Persons ofJapanese and Chinese backgrounds, how-ever; were more likely to be employed bythe Title III=funded organizations in ad-ministrative level positionb than Havel=ians or Filipinos. In contrast, Filipinosand Hawaiians were more likely to berepresented in service worker positionsthan any of the other groups.

Although the Ho 4u Area Agencyon Aging did not &tress_ the need to hirebilingual staff and believed that therewere few communication difficultieswith minority older persons since every-one spoke "pidgin," all _except one of theTitle III-funded organizations did takebilingual capabilities into considerationwhen hiring: One Title HI-funded organi-zation included bilingualism as an over-all job requirement. Title III- funded or-ganizations also stated that -the HonoluluArea Agency on Aging _did not impressupon them the need to take into consid-eration the diverse cultural backgroundsof the elderly people that they served._

The Honolulu Area Agency on Agingrequired Title III-funded organizations tosubmit monthly repartS as well as affir-mative action plans._ Most Title III=fund=ed organizations indicated, however, thatthe Honolulu Area Agency on Aging didnot, enforce th' requirement that Ti-tle III-funded organizations submit therace or ethnicity of program partici-pants. The recently appointed countyexecutive on aging stated, however, _thatthe AAA will be monitoring this require-ment more closely in the future.

available statistics on programparticipants _showed that, in geheraliHawaiian elderly were underseryedwhen compared with their representa-

tion within the elderly population: Inparticular, the chairperson for ,the officeof Hawaiian affairs voiced concern aboutthe low number of Hawaiians takingpart.in the nutrition prograrn. RePresen-tatives from Alu Like and other Hawai-ian interest groups also pointed to thelimited number of Hawaiian elderly par-ticipating not only in the nutrition pro-gram, but also in all Title III services.

Title III-funded organizations. as wellas representatives of other organ consthat serve elderly persons, emphasizedthe absence of culturally responsive ser-vices, particularly in the nutrition pro-gram. Nearly 90 percent of the partici-pants in the program were Asian andPaCifiC Island Athericans whose mealpreferences and problems with the cur-rent meal service delivery had been

d.lcurr :Add. Although the fivems al . rvice provid, r,. consid-eration the ,=!:-,hni" ,5 1 <he partic-ipants in the nutrition r am whenpreparing menus, one provider did not.That one provider, however, prepared'more than 87 percent of all . servedin the prograr Although the HonoluluArea Agency or. Aging was aware of this,the agencY, had made no plans to recom-mend that the Title III-funded organiza-tion change menu selections.

Title III service programs generallydid not use outreach efforts that couldincrease participation of the elderly. Thelack of information about program ser-vices, particularly in languages otherthan English, hindered the recruitmentof non-English-speaking seniors for pro-grams.

69

Appendix CMethodology

The methodology used in Phase III ofthe study of equal opportilnity for racialand ethnic minorities v* programs fund-ed by the Older Americans Act is de-_signed to address three major issues: (1)the scope of minority employment intheSe programs, (2) the degree to whichFederal grants and contracts are award-ed to minority firms and organizationsunder these programs, and (3) the extentof partidipation \by minorities in theplanning and use of services provided bythese federally, assisted programs forolder persons. SinCe there are few na-tional data on minority participation infederally assisted programs for olderpersons, information for this phase of thestudy was obtained fioni Mailout ques-tionnaires to State units on aging andarea agencies on aking. and Onsite inter-views at Administration on Aging (AOA)headquarters, the agency that adminis-

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights designeda two:phase study: Phase I involved case studyanalyses of Selected cities across the Nation.Face4C=face interviews were conducted with localarea agency on aging administrators, social ser-vice providers, representatives of communityorganizations, and area agency on aging advisorycouncil members in each community. The resultsof the case study analyses (Phase I) were pub,lished separately: See U.S., Commission on CivilRights, Minority Elderly ServicesNew Pro-grants, Old Problems, Part /(Juna 1982).2 In both phases, the Commission's investiga-tions focused on programs funded by Title III of

70

tars the Older Americans Act programs.Separate questionnaires were developedfor the Federal, State, and local pro-grams. All questionnaires solicited infor-mation on program staffing patterns andaffirmative action activities. Administra-tors also were, questioned on proceduresfor identification of contractors and cri-teria for their selection. All question-naires also included questions on theextent of minority participation in pro-gram planning, management, adminis-tration and evaluation, types of recordsand data kept on minority participation,and methods of targeting and ensuringprovision of services to minorities.2

State and Area AgencyQuestionnaires

Questionnaires were developed to besent to all State units on .aging and areaagencies on aging.3 Local consultantsthe Older Americans Act. Phase II also coversthe Administration on Aging's award of Title Nmonies. See chapter 1 for further explanation ofthese programs.3 Each State and the District of Columbia has aState unit on aging. There also are State units onaging in Guam; Mariana Islands; Northern Mari-ana Islands; Puerto Rico, American Samoa, andVirgin Islands. State questionnaires also weresent to these U.S. ternitories. States are autho-rited to establish planning and service areas(PSAs) within their respective boundaries and todesignate an area agency on aging for each PSA.In March 1981 there were more than 600 area

from aging organizations review d ini-tial drafts of the questionnai s and`their comments were used in developingsucceeding drafts. These drafts were lat-er sent to several specialists in the fieldof aging to obtain a more comprehensiveassessment of the instruments from peo-ple who actually work with the pro-grams. Revised drafts were then pretest-ed in State and selected area offices onaging in Maryland, Virginia, and NewMexico. Following pretetting and subse-quent revisions, copied of drafts of Stateand area agency questionnaires and sup-porting materials were sent to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) forclearance. Study staff members met withofficials of AoA and OMB and decided onacceptaNe modifications of both ques-tionnaires in an effort to reduce respon-dent burden. Following completion ofsuggeste modifications, both State andarea a ency questionnaires receivedOMB ap oval.4

Cognizant of the importance of a highrate of rep 7 7 7ce for the validity of thestudy's fir, in,.. a letter was sent fromthe U.S. t .,,Innission on Civil Rights'Chairman, Arthur S. Flemming, to theAoA Commissioner on Aging, Robertagencies on aging.4 Copies of the final versions of the State antarea agency questionnaires are included at theend of this appendix.5 Mailed surveys have traditionally experiencedvery low response rates. Because of this, responserates well below 50 percent are often consideredto be acceptable by professional researchers. DonA. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys (NewYork: John_Wiley and Sons, 1978).6 Arthur S. Flemming has since resigned from

' the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Robert3enedict has since been replaced by Lennie-Mar-ie Tolliver as Commissioner on Aging. .

Each respondent was guaranteed anonymityand confidentiality. In the interest of obtaining a

Benedict,' reegiesting official AoA sup--port for the survey; Letters signed byCommissioner Benedict were sent toState and area agencies in advance of thequestionnaires. These letter§ alerted pro=gram managers to the study and encour-aged their cooperation.' State and areaquestionnaires were printed in bookletform and subsequently mailed to allpotential respondents-8 Each mailedquestionnaire contained a self-addressedstamped return envelope.

Extensive followup aCtiiities were un-dertaken in an effort to increase re-sponse rates. A week after, the initialmailing, telephone /calls were made to allpotential respondents to check their re-ceipt of the questionnaires. If a potentialrespondent had' not received a question-naire, anothey/was immediately put intothe mail. An initial followup postcardwas mailed/to all agencies 2 weeks afterthe intial mailing, thanking those thathad responded and requesting those thathad not done so to return their com-pleted questionnaire. After 4 weeks, po-tential respondents who still had notresponded were sent a followup letterrequesting their cooperation and woremailed new questionnaires. Staff ob-truly representative sample of responses, ques-tionnaires were sent to all potential respondents.No selection criteria were developed and allmembers of the population had an equal chanceof being included in the final results. Since inessence a census, as opposed to a sample wasused, the response rate is a good. indicator ofrepresentativeness of the results; It should benoted, however, th*no effort was made toevaluate unknown bias that may reflect differ-ences in respondents and nonrespondents;

A set of mailing labels for all State and 1766agencies was obtained from AoA and crossschecked with both a White House conferencelisting and a congressional listing of_ Older Amer-icans Act program managers and officeS.

71

8

tained a 95 percent response rate to theState questionnaire and a 69 percentresponse rate to the area questionnaire.9

When questionnaires were returned,they were checked for accuAcy andcompleteness. Checks for internatc-onsistency in responses also were done, andfurther checks were made for appropria-teness of responses. Failure of both Stateand area agency respondents to completeall required information on the question-naires necessitated that time bei devotedto calling back for Missing information."Incomplete and missing responses were

a much greater problem on the areaagency questionnaires where it also wasoften necessary to call baok to reconcilemajor inconsistencies."

Following initial hand checking anderror resolution by the U.S. Commissionon Civil Rights, questionnaires were sentto a contractor for preliminary dataprocessing. The contractor was responsi-ble for ensuring that questionnaire re-sponses were correctly keypunched andthat responses were placed on datatape. 12 An edit program was created andedit runs were performed. Discrepancies° States that participated in the field test(Virginia, Maryland, and New Mexico) were toldthat they didnot have to return a questionnaire.Virginia, however, was the only State that 'didnot respond. Of the questionnaires mailed to 619area agencies; 426 were returned. _

This was in addition to time for the routinechecks for accuracy and completenesS." For example; often the number of minoritycontracts awarded exceeded the total number ofcontracts awarded.12 The mailout questionnaires contained mostlyprecode, closed-ended responses with only a fewopen-ended responses. (See copieS of question-naires at end of this appendix.) Although thistype of questionnaire format lends itself topreparation so that only minimal coding forcomputer use is necessary, it limits the research-ers' ability to probe and clarify responses.

72

discovered by the edit __program weregiven to Commission staff for resolution.The edit checks uncovered some prob-lems with the data, which staff analyzedand ( orrected." Although in most in-stances staff were able to identify andcorrect the problems without calling'back a State agency, several area agen-cies had to be called back to 'clarifyresponses to questions." Corrections ofdata discrepancies discovered throughthe computer edit were returned to thecontractor. The contractor corrected thedata in question and ran these throughthe edit procedure again. This reducedthe number of discrepancies substantial-ly.

SPSS data -files for the State andar--,,jsrequestionnaires were then created.. Cor-rections of State SPSS files -were done,and population data_were added to theState unit on aging computer file, andagain the overall data were checked for\_internal consistency." Because informa-tion on the racial and ethnic composition

viof the surveyed population often asincomplete on the area questionnaires "it was necessary t' obtain this inforrna-13 Of the 426 question. _.3res returned;( 42 Jerediscarded at this stage because of numerousproblems with the information in them.14 For example, call backs were done whenresponses -_-,iggestea an agency had no employeesor no nonminority employees or no contractawards.15 State population figures for 1970 and 1980were assembled from census sources and mathe-matically adjusted_ so that Hispanics were notdouble counted. The population figures wereentered into coding sheets and keypunchedthrough the Commission's computer, facilities.Information necessary for merging the popula-tion figures with the'. existing State SPSS fileswas provided to the contractor. Population fig-ures were ,merged with the existing State SPSSfile.

4 :It to the area agency file.burden respondents further;

howev,.:-: population figures were assem-bled by Commission staff from censussources for as many questionnaires aswas feasible. Population figures wereobtained and added to area question-naires with incomplete responses: Giventhe number of questionnaires returnedwithout complete population data andthe differences in ize of "populationserved _by area agencies on aging; it wasdecided to control for population size. Bycontrolling for population size; Commis-sion staff were able to generate a file forall area agencies on aging with morethan 200P 0f) population that respondedto the survey. Thus, the number of areaagencies on aging in the Commission'ssurvey was limited to 206."

Decoded variables were defined andsaved on master SPSS files with theoriginal variables. Analyses consisted offrequency distributions and tabula-t comparison of expected patterns

For example. respondents provided informa-tion on the white population; but provided onlysoni: or no data for the other racial and ethnicpopulations.

This number represents 33 percent of all areaagencies on aging that were sent queStionnaires.The emphasis placed on area agencies with a

-population avtn- 200;000; although reflective_ oftirhan areas where minority older persons tend todwell, ma,: result. in findings that are lessrepresentat ive of area with smaller populationsand where minorities are only a very smallpercentage of the population.'" Frequencies_ and condescriptives were run_ onall original and recoiled variables and checkedfbr reasonableness and missing values: _Uponexaminingthe employment results, staff believedt hat t he information did riot appear to provide anaccurate acounting of minority employmentande tiv:_ Older Americans Act. In oraer toverify t litc.rnployment data, staff again calledhack respondents to recheck the employmentquestions.

of minority representation and actualrepresentation, and multivariate analy-ses such as contingency table and corre-lation analyses of minority participationrepresentation and program characteris-tics." These comparisons were used tohelp determine whether minorities are asmaller; larger, or the same percentageof program participants, employees, andgrant recipients as the percentage ofminorities in the relevant population.2°

Questions on minority participation inspecific services often were left unan-swered. In most cases, the actual provi-sion of services is contracted out by thearea agency on aging to private nonprof-it entities that often may not provideadequate participation figures to thearea agency.2' Thus, information onparticipation for these contractors andtheir service provision patterns may notbe obtainable by the area agencies onaging. Because of the widespread failureto respond to these questions,22 statiSti.=cal analysis was not attempted. Berause" Cross tabulations and correlation analyseswere used to determine the extent to whichprogram design amid implementation strategiesfacilitate or erect harriers to the participation ofminority elderly. For example, these methods ofanalyses were used to explore the relationshipbetween minority staffing patterns, participationof minorities on advisory boards, and the awardof contracts to minorities." Since only 1970 data were available for allgroups in the study;._ these were used. Thesefigures, however, tend to understate the actualnumber of minority persons in the population. Itshould be noted also that due to the social andeconomic need of minority older persons,; acomparison of population statistics alone dogsnot provide a clear picture of the extent to whidhminority needs are being met by service pro-grams.21 See findings from Phase I of the study on thegeneral unavailability of statistics on minorityparticipation.

73

of problems wit h data received on partic-ipation, comparisons_of expected minori-ty participation _could not be used to helpdocument the extent of underutilizationof services by rtiribri.ty older persons.

AoA InterviewsAn interview schedule was developed

and reviewed similarly to the mailedquestionnaires. AoA staff were_ contactedto request interview dates and a formalrequest for staff interviews was sent tothe Commissioner on Aging. InterviewsWere scheduk,' with _AoA staff. The U.S.Commission ,)n Civil Rights found thatmuch of t he required regional level infor-Mation was not available at headquar7ters. Document packets were preparedfor mailing ,to the 10 AoA regio- )fficesto obtain the necessary information:

Personal interviews were conducted atthe Administration on Aging during a 2-week period, February 1-12, 1982. Th \cseinterviews were conducted with Adniin-istration on Aging _staff who rrovidedinformation on employment, grants andcontracts, and the monitoring and evalu-ation of service delivery under Title III(grants for State and community pro-grams on aging) and Title IV (grants fortraining; research; and discretionaryprojects and programs) of the OlderAmericans Act. Interviews were heldwith AoA _program administrators fromthe following offices: Office of the Com-missioner; Office of Management andPolicy Control; Office of Research_ Dem-_onstration; and Evaluation; Office ofProgram Operations; and Office of Edu-cation and Training:

See questions 23: 2!-.) and 27 On the areaquestionnaires. Because of the large number ofnonresponses on returned questionnaires; it was

7;1

In particular, the Commission staffinterviews. at AoA covered program staff=ing and levels, affirmative action activi-ties; fundiri, soul ces and budgets, pro=gram evaluation efforts, and monitoringof compliance with civil rights laws. Theinterviews sought additional informationon the following issues: program priori-ties,and the extent to which the concernsof minority older persons enter into thedetermination of these priorities; at-tempts by administrators to identify dif=forential needs of the minority aged;sensitivity of program admitrustrators tothe need for minority representation andparticipation in aging programS, at=tempts to increase participation of mi-norities in all phases of the aging pro-gram, knowledge and evaluation of thefactors determining minority participa-tion, effectiveness of alternative deliverystrategies for minority participation, roleand selection of advisory committees;and efforts to coordinate programs withother agencies to maximize service deliv-ery to the minority aged. A separatemailout survey solicited information onthe employment and staffing patterns ofthe 10 AoA regional offices Staff tran-scribed interview notes for use in thereport. The interview notes were incor-porated with other data to complete thereport.

Although we have recommended that,previous language in the OAA that re-quired the inclusion of minorities inOAA programs be restored, we have nofirm data that documents a significantdrop in minority participation as a resultof the 1978 amendments. We are unable

not possible to provide a direct or complete linkbetween minority service participation and othervariables.

to provide documentation for this recom-mendation because OMB removed ques-tions 'that asked for historical inf.(' e ora-tion. We based our recommendation onoral statements by program administra-tors and service providers in the six

cities visited which suggested that theyno longer pay as much attention tominority participation because of theremoval of emphasis in the regulationsand th new emphasis on those in socialand ec laic need.

75

OMB NO. 3035=0008Apprc Expires March 31, 1981

Minority Participation in Federally Assisted ProgramsFor Older Persons

`3TA E -UNITS-ONAG-11NC- SURVEY

Prepared byU.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS1121 VERMONT AVENUE, N.W.WASHINGTON; D.C. 20425

QUESTIONNAIRE #

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is conducting this survey as a part of astudy intended to examine the participation of minorities in federallyassisted programs for older persons; The study and questionnaire concernthe employment, the award of.grants/contracts and the participation ofminorities as recipients of services in Older Americans Adt programsadministered by the Administration 05 Aging (AoA).__The questionnaireshould,be completed by a person or those persons most familiar with each-of thesethree subject areas; Your answers along with those of the other Stateagencies will form pert of our report_to_the Congress and the Presidentscheduled for release in the fall of 1981.

ALL RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY ARE CONFIDENTIAL.OF AN INDIVIDUAL STATE Ar7.NCY BE IDENTIFIED.

AT NO TIME WILL THE RESPONSES

appreciate your cooperation in this study since your help i5 esential isupplying Congress and -the President with the information they ne2d to helpensure that all older Americans share in the benefits of Older Americans Actprograms.

If you have any questions regarding this survey; please telephone Mr. FrankKnorr, Project Director at (202) 254-6648. Fop your convenience; a glossaryof selected terms used in this survey can be Mound at the heginning of thequestionnaire.

S 6 77

TO ENSURE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF YOUR RESPCNSES, THE U1S. COMMISSION ONCIVIL RIGHTS WILL REMOVE THIS PAGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

1. Name of State Unit on Aging

2; Address

3. City

\:Telephone (Include area code)

State Zip Code

5. Name() of PertOnS(S) with overall responsibility for completinr;

questionnaire.

POSITION

POSITION

78

STATE UNIT ON AGING SURVEYGLOSSARY

AAA: Abbreviation for Area Agency on Aging

AFFIRMATIVE_ ACTION Goals and/or timetables for minorityPLANS: participation;

Goals: Action objectives targeting specific racial andethnic minorities for hiring i promotion andtraining opportunities who have beenunderutilized because of past discrimination.Goals are different from quotas;

Timetables: Specific time periods during which activitiesare initiated to hire, train and promote racialand ethnic minorities targeted for affirmativeaction.

AOA: Abbreviation for Administration on Aging

CLERICALS: Persons who perform general office work.Includes, for example, file clerks, officemachine operators, nographers, and typists.

COMPLIANCE-REVIEW: Method for determining whether requiredstandards are met.

D.K: Abbreviation for don't (:r1,,w.

EVALUATION:

FULL-TIME:

GRANTEE/CONTRACTOR:

The formal appraisal c ..1ly of the operatiOnof a program.

More than 35 hours of work per week in anagency.

Any organization or agency having a4State Uniton Aging or Area Agency on Aging c9 tract orgrant.

Subgrantee/subcontractor: Any, organization or agency hav'iisg agrant/contract with aprime grantee/contractoror another subcontractor calling for provisionof supplies or services required for theperformance of a State Unit on Aging or AreaAgency on Aging contract/grant.

MINORITIES: American Indians/Alaskan Nativesi Asian and_Pacific Island Americans, Blacks and HitOanibs.

79

American Indian orAlaskan Native:

A person having, origins in any of the original

peoples_Of North America; and who maintains.

cultural_ identification throuch.tribalaffiliation or community recognition.

Asian or Pacific_island A person having origins in any of tne_original

American: peoples-of the Far East, Southeast ASia, the

Indian Subcontinent; or the Pacific_ Islands.

This area includes; for example, Chiba, japan,

Kbrea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

Black: A person having origins in any of the black

racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican; Cuban,

Central or South American_br Other Spanish

cLature or origin; regardlet of race.

MINORLIY ORGANIZATION: An oijanization whose board of directors or

other like policy-making bodies is at least 50

percent minority or whose total staff is

composeo of at least 50 percent minorities.

(as defined above).

MINORITY-OWNED FIRM: A firm whose sole owrerShip or at least 50;1

percent of whose stock is owned by minorities

(as defined aboVe). In a partnership; at least

50% of the interest in the partnership must ors

controlled by a minority individual.

MONITOR: To watch, obserVe Or Check theoperaticns of a

program in an informal or formal way.

MULTIPURPOSE SENIOP A community or neighborhood facility fOr the

CENTER:organization_ and provision of a broad spectrum

of services including health, social,

nutritional- and educational services and a

facility to recreational group adt&Vity fOr

Older person

NEEDS ASSESSMENT:Reasonable/and objective method for determining

the needs of all elicible residents of a

geOgr4;lic area.

OAA:Abbreviation for Older AmericanS ACt as amended

in 1978.

Title III' Grants for State and Community PrOgrams on

Aging

805 ;)

Training Grants.

Grants for Indian Tribes.

Those individuals who are 60 years of age orolder.

Occupations requiring either junior collegetraining or on-the-job training. Term mostoften applies to job categories in the humanservices fields, e.g., social services andmental health services. Includes; for example,outreach workers, homemaker aides, andnutrition aides.

Less than 35 .lours of work per week in an.

agency;

Occupations requiring either college graduationor experience of such a kind and amount as toprovide a comparable background. Includespersons who se broad policies, exerciseoverall resposAbiIity for execution of thesepolicies, and'Oirect individual departments orSpecial phases of a State Unit on Aging'soperations. Includes for example, programdirectors, planners, nutritionists, nurses, andsocial workers

Abbreviation for Pla- ervice Area.

Persons trained tc pe- activities toinitiate, modify or elii;,-.late public andprivate policie8 that have significant impacton the lives of oloer persons.

Abbreviation for State Unit on Aging.

Person who works two or more hours'per week forthe agency without pay. This category mayLinclude clerical duties or use or spacialskills in teaching arts and crafts, e.g:,pottery making, knitting, and dancing. It doesnot include persons functioning solely in thecapacity of Advisory Council members.

81

1. Which one of the following cf-srli,!.Jt the organizational structure

of the State Unit on AgSop? rf.:TrY.LE APPROPRIATE NUMBER AND ATTACH

ORGANIZATION CHART.)

AN AGENCY WHOSE SINGLE ;''Ut-7'S,: .S 'Te ADMIT STFP PROGRAMS

FOR OLDER PERSONS

2 = A MULTIPURPOSE AGENCY THAT liOrqNISTERS HUMAN SERVICES

PROGRAMS IN THE STATE

3 = A COMPONENT UNIT OF A STATE MULTIPURPOSE AGENCY

4 (&FHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

9 = OON'T KNOW

How many Planning and Service Areas (PSAs) are there in your State?

(ENTER NUMBER.)

Are there Planning and Service Areas in your State that cover American

Indian jurisdictional areas? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

= YES

2= NO

9 = DON'T KNOW

4. Ate there any Area Agencies on Aging in your State administered by an

American Indian Tribal Organization? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 -a yErS

2 =-

91= BO KNOW

82

THE FOLLOWING ARE QUE4IONS CONCERNING THE EMPLOYMENT AND STAFFING PATTERNS OF _THE STATEUNIT ON AGIN6 17W)-;

5. Complete the f011.)wing table_for permanent_ salaried employees who work for the StateUnit on Aging Tull,-time as ofJeridery 1, 1981, (i.e., 35 or more hours per week)!ENTER THE tiUMBER_OF PERSONS HOLDING POSITIONS LISTEO BELOW FOR EACH GROUP. IF YOU

DO NOT KNOW,;'',EASE ENTER_D,K,) NOTE -THAT HORIZONTAL FIGUP-iiS FOR EACH JOB CATEGORYSHOULD SUM TO THE TOTAL COLUMN. PLEASE ATTACH COP-'' OF STAFFING PATTERNS REPORT.

BLACKS(NOTOR HISPANICORIGIN) HISPANICS

ASIAN ANDPACIFICISLANDAMERICANS

AMERICANINDIAN/ALASKANNATIVES

WHITES(NOT OFHISPANICORIGIN) TOTAL

AGENCv 9 RE TOR --

PROFESSIONALS -- -- __ __ __ __PARA=

PROFESSIONALS --

CLERICALS -- -- -- __ __ -- --OTHER (PLEASE

SPECIFY) -- -- __ __ __

Total --

6. Complete the f011owing_table for permanent salaried employees who work for the StateUnit on Aging part-time as of January 1, 1981, lett than 35 hours per week).ENTER THE NUMBER_OF PERSONS HOLDING POSITIONS LISTED BELOW FOR EACH GROUP. IF YOUDO NOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER D.K.) NOTE THAT HORIZONTAL FIGURES FOR EACH JOB CATEGORYSHOULD SUM TO THE TOTAL COLUMN. PLEASEAT;ACH COPY OF STAFFING PATTERNS REPORT.

:!_ACKS(NOTOF HISPANICORIGIN) HIJPANICS

ASIAN -ANDPACIFICTSLANDA7RICANS

P.'ERICANINDIrwALASKANNATIVES

WHITES(NOT OFHISPANICORIGIN) TOTAL

ACENCY-DIRECTOR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

PROFESSIONALS __ __ -- _ __PARA= .

PROFESSIONALS _ -

CLERICALS -- -- -- -- --OTHER (PLEASESPECIFY) -- -- -- -- -- __ __

Total __

*YOU MAY WISH TO REVIEW POSITION DEFINITIONS IN THE GLOSSARY. THOUGH MANY OF SUA STAFFMAY PERFORM VARIOUS DUTIES, EACH EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE ENTERED IN THE POSITION CATEGORY FORWHI-H HIS OR HER MAJOR RESPOr,SIB1LITIES ARE INCLUDED.

83C

7. Does the State Unit on Aging have an affitmative action=plan that is

currently in effect? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = YES

2 = NO..F1CT9

9 = DON'T KNOW

8. Does the State Unit on Aging'S (SUAis) affirmative .'7 rian haVe any

of the following requirements? (CIRCLE "1" IF THE S;!4' AFFIRMATIVE

ACTIONPLAN CONTAINS THE ITEM. 1:ICLE "2" IF IT DGE:.; NOT CIRCLE "9"

ONLY FOR THOSE ITEMS ABOUT WHICH YOU DO NOT KNOW.)

YES NO DON'T KNOW

GOALS FOR HIRING MINiLic 2 9

GOALS AND TIMETABLES FOR HIRINGMINDITIES 1 2 9

GOALS FOR PROMOTING MINORITIES 1 2 9

GOALS AND TIMETABLES FOR PRO-MOTING MINORITIES 1 2 9

GOALS FOR TRAINING MINORITIES 1 2 9

GOALS AND TIME FOR TRAIN-

ING MINORITIES9

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 2 9

*FOR T; l:1RPOES OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE; THE WORDS MINORITY AND MINORITIES

REFER TO BLACKS; HISPANICS, ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLAND AMERICANS AND AMERICAN

INDIANS/ALASKAN NATIV:S.=

9. Was the State Unit on Aging successful i 1 its affirmative actiongoals fOr the hiring and promotion of_min persons in fiscal years79 and 80? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NPMEERS.)

HIRING PROMOTION

FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FIS.CALYEAR 79 yEAR_aa NEAR 79 YEAR 80

1 = YES 1 = YES 1 = YES 1 = YES

2 = NO 2 = NO 2 = NO 2 = NO

8 = NOT 8 = NOT 8 = NOT C = NOTAPPLICABLE, APPLICABLE; APPLICABLE; APPLICABLE,NO GOALS NO GC \LS NO GOALS NO GOALSSET SET SET SET

9 = OON'T 9 = OON'T ' 9 = OON'T 9 = DON'fKNOW KNOW KNOW KNOW

10, Below is a list of OtOblems a State Unit on Aging_(SUA). may encounter inrecruiting minority str. F. How serious do you think each of the _

follbWing_problems_are for your SUA? (USING THE COOES IN THE BOX TO THEFIGHT, PLACE THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER BESIDE_EACH PrA)BLEM. PLACE A "9"BESIDE AN ITEM IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT IS A PROBLEM FOR YOUR SUA;)

LOW AGENCY PRIORITY

LITTLE OR NO STAFF TURNOVER

BUOGET RESTRICTIONS ON ACTIVERECRUITMENT

RESTRICTIVE PERSONNELREGULATIONS

(e.c,., standardizededucational criteria; tests;residence or citizenshiprequirement for employment)

LACK OF TRAINED MINORITYPERSONNEL

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

CODES

1 = VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM

2 = MOOERATE PROBLEM

3 = MINOR PROBLEM

A = NO PROBLEM

9 = OON'T KNOW

11. De :es State Unit on Aging rf;quire that Area Agencies on Aging have anaffirMatiVe action plan? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = YES

2 = NO..1SKIP TO T.31

9 = DON'T KNOW

9,;85

12. Does the Area Agency on Aging's (AAA's) affirmative_action plan rewired_

by the State Uhit bh Aging (SUA) have any of the following requiremen s?

(CIRCLE "1" IF THE SUA REQUIRES THAT AAAS' AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS

CONTAIN THE ITEM. CIRCLE "2" IF IT IS NOT REQUIRED. CIRCLE "9" ONLY

FOR THOSE ITEMS ABOUT WHICH YOU DO NOT KNOW.)

GOALS FOR HIRING MINORITIES

GOALS AND TIMETABLES FOR HIPING

MINORITIES

GOALS FOR PROMOTING MINORITIES

GOALS AND TIMETABLES FOR PROMOTING

MINORITIES

GOALS FOR TRAINING MINORITIES

GOALS AND TIMETABLES FOR TRAINING

MINORITIES 1 2

YES NO DON! T---KNOW

1 2 9


13. Does the State Uit oninclude staffihg blahSsubmitted to the SUA?

1 = YES

2 , NO

. DON'T KNOW

86

2

9

9

9

9

Aging (SUA) r tuire Area Agehcies on Aaing_ o

by _race and ethnic background in area plans

(CIRCLE APPR(TRIATE NUMBER.)

THE FOLLOWING ARE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING SYSTEM IN_YnuR STATE

14. Does the State Lilt on Arling_(SUA) keep records'or have informationavailable on the nuMber_anddollar amount Of grants/contracts awarded bythe Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) and also subgrantsLsubcontraets fundedby the AA-AS through their grantees or contractors? (CIRCLE "l" IF THESUA KEEPS RECORDS OR HAS THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE. CIRCLE "2" IF IT _

DOES NOT. CIRCLE "9" IF YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THE SUA KEEPS THESE RECORDS.)

NUMBER OF GRANTS/CONTRACTSAWARDED BY AAAs

AMOUNT OF GRANTS/CONTRACTSAWARDED BY AAAs

NUMBER OF SUBGRANTS/SUBC'' CTSAWARDED BY AAA GRANTEES- RACTORS

YES NO r DON'T:-KNOW

9

AMOUNT OF SOBGRANTS/SUBCONTRACTSAWARDED BY AAA GRANTEES/CONTRACTORS

NUMBER OF GRANTS/CONTRACTS AWARDED BYAAAs TO MINORITY FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS 1 2

AMOUNT OF GRANTS/CONTRACTS AWARDED BYAAAS TO MINORITY FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS 1 2 9

NUMBER OF SUBGRANTS/SUBCDNTRACTSAWARDED BY AAA GRANTEES/CONTRACTORSTO MINORITY FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS 1 2 9

AMOUNT OF SUBGRANTS/SUBCONTRACTSAWARDED BY AAA GRANTEES/CONTPACTORSTO MINORITY FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS 2 9

*FOR. THE PURPOSE OF Nis QUESTIONNAYRE; THE TERMS L REFER TOFUNDS AWARDED BY AN AREA AGENCY ON M tNG (AAA); ITSELF; THE TERMS SUBCRANT/SUBCONTRACT REFER TO FUNDS AWARDED BY AN AAA'SGRANTEE OR CONTRACTOR;

87

96

,88

15. How did'the percentage, of total funds awarded to minorityowned firmsand minority organizations compare to the percentage of minorities inybUr state population in fiscal year 1980? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = MINORITY FIRMSORGANIZATIONS_RECEIVED_A LARGER_PERCENTAGE OF FUNDSAWARDED THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF MINORITIES IN THE STATE.

2 = MINORITY F ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVED TUE SAME PERCENTAGE OF FUNDSAWARDED AS T PERCENTAGE OF MINORITIES IN THE STATE.

3 = MINORITY FIRMS/ORGA1ATIONS RECEIVED A:SMALLER-PERCENTAGE OF FUNDSAWARDED THAN THE PERC NTAGE OF MINORITIES IN PIE STATE.. .

e= NOT_APPLICABLE,'NEITHER AAA NOR STATE AWARDS GRANTS OR CONTRACTMONIES

9 = DON1T KNOW °

116. Does the State Unit on Aging distribute to ea Agencies on Aging_throughout the,State specific nondiscriminati guidelines for use withgrantees/contractors? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBE

1-= YES.. LEASE ATTACH GUIDELINES.

2 = NO

9 = DON'T KNOW

17. How often are the following done by the State Unit_on Aging, (SUA).tOdetermine.compliance_with its nondiscrimination guidelines and.regulations by firms/drganizations 'receiving funding through the SUA?(USING THE CODES IN THE BOX TO THE RIGHT; PLACE APPROPRIATE. NUMBER -

BESIDE EACH OF THE LISTED PROCESSES- PLACE A "9" BESIDE A PROCESS IFYOU DO NOT KNOW HOW OFTEN IT IS DONE.) , A

SUA CONDUCTS ON4ITE REVIEWS OF SELECTEDSELECTED SERVICE FACILITIES

SUA REVIEWS REPORTS SUBMITTED BYAAAsAND /OR :THEIR GRANTEES/CONTRACTORS

I

1 9

SUA REVIEWS REPORTS OF EVAL TIONS ,

' CONDUCTED BY OTHER AGE IES(E.G., /STATE HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCY)

SUA REVIEWS AND ANALYZES AAAGRANTS/CONTRACT AWARDS:

-SUA ROUTINEL\VONITORS'ANU_ASSESSES

AAA WHICH NCLUDES A REVIEW OFCOMPLIANCE WITH NONDISCRIMINA-

, TION GUIDELINES


CODES

rl = MONTHLY

2 = QUARTERLY

3 = YEARLY

4 = OTHER (PLEASE_SPECIFY).

5 7-i NEV/EIL.

lap =DON'T KNOW

3

18. What\type of information are Area Agencies oritAging (PAA§) required tosubmit to the State- &lit on Aging regarding minority participation inthe AAAs' grants/contracts process? (CIRCLE "1" IF AAAsARE -REQUIRED TOSUBMIT THIS_INFORMATION. CIRCLE "2"-IF THEY ARE NOT. CIRCLE "9" ONLYFOR THOSE ITEMS ABOUT WHICH YOU DO NOT I<NOW.)--

JNUMBER OF MINORITY=OWNEDFIRMS/MINORITY ORGANIZATIONSAWARDED GRANTS/CONTRACTS

. YES NO DON'T KNOW

. -NUMBER OF

.

MINORITYlOWNEDFIRMS /MINORITY ORGANIZATIONSAWARDED SUBGRANTS /SUBCONTRACTS

....4UNT OF GRANTiCONTRACT.MONIESAWARDED TO MINORITY ORGANIZATIONS 9

AMOUNT OF MINORITY SUBGRAWS/SUB=CONTRACTS FUNDED THROUGH AAA 1 2

REASONS FOR REJECTION OF.MINORITY- /OWNED FIRM APPLICATIONS 1 . 2 9

OUTREACH EFFORTS TOWARD MIbRITY-UWNED FIRMS 2 9

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 441 2 9

NONE . 1 2 .9

19. Are there written procedures for organizations or firms to filecomplaints with the'State Unit,on Aging against the Area Agencies onAging regarding the grants award/contracting process? CIRCLE, NLAPPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = YES

2 = NO

9 = DON'T KNOW

89

THE FOLLOWING ARE QUESTIONS COWERNING--THE_SERimE_DELBERy_ SYSTEM IN YOUR

STATE

STATE UNIT ON AGAG MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF AREA AGENCIES ON AGINGSERVICE SYSTEMS

. 20. What stand--4used by the State Unit on Aging to determine how older

minorities are being served. throughout the stte? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE

NUMBER.)

1 =.WE COMPAREWITH THEOVER 60 Y

THE PERCENT_ OFPERCENT OF THEEARS.

THE'PERCENT_OFPERCENT OF THE

2 = WE COMPAREWITH THE

A

OLDER PERSONS SERVED WHO ARE MINORITIESSTATE'S MINORITY POPULATION THAT

OLDER PERSONS SERVED WHO ARE MINORITYSTATE'S POPULATION. THAT IS MINORITY;

3 = WE-COMPARE.THE PERCENT'OF OL ER PERSONS SERVED WHO ARE MINORITIES

WITH THE PERCENT OF THE STATE'S°OLDER POPULATION THAT ISMINORITY.

4 = OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

5 = STATE UNIT ON AGING DOES'NOT HAVE A STANDARD TO.DETERMINE HOW

OLDER MINORITIES ARE BEING SERVED. ;

9 = DON'T KNOW '

21. HOW often are the Area Agencies. on Aging's servicewith regard to whether minorities are being served(CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

=..

.1 = ONCE A YEA,

2 = Emly six MONTHS

3 = EVERY THREE MONTHS

4 = MONTHLY


6 .= NEVER...

9 = DON'T KNOW

SKIP. TO 23

90

a

programs evaluatedby these programs?

.

22: Whp conducts the evaluatiOn.of the servicerdelivery to olderminorities? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = STATE UNIT ON AGING STAFF

2 = REGIONAL/FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION ON AGING STAFF

...3 = AREA AGENCY ON AGING STAFF ..

4 = SERVICE PROVIDERS

5= OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

9 = DON'T KNOW =

23. as any -Area Agency on-Aging ever been found not to be serving-Minorities according to the State Unit on Aging's non-ditctimination standards? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = YES

2 = NO

9 = DON'T KNOW

P

Using.tfie "following list of barr:.er that have4,4been identified as direatly or

indirectly inhibitinethe full participation of older minorities in social=sefaceand nutrition,programsi describe-the importance of each of these barriers in your-

State. (USING THE CODES IN THE BOX TGTHE RIGHT4 PLACE THE NUMBER WHICH BESTDESCRIBES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDENTIFIED BARRIER AS IT APPLIES TO MINORITYPARTICIPAUON-IN YOUR STATE.' PLACE A "9" BESIDE A BARRIER IF YOU DO NOT'KNOW WHETHER THIS'IS A BARRIER TO MINORITY-PARTICIPATIONIIN YOUR STATE.)

EXISTE 1DF ENGLISH-SP AKING STAFFONLY

LOCATION OF PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF INORITYAREAS

CONTRIBUTIONS FOR MEALS NEEDED FROMPARTICIPANTS

ADEQUATE TRANil-P-ORTATI N6f PROVIDED TO SERVrCE

LOCATIONS - /_ c

.

EXISTIND.SUPPOP9" SYSTEMS IN MINORITY '

COMMUNITY NOT UTILIZED

__MINORifY"OLDER PERSONS HAVE GENERAL.JFEELINGOF NOT BEING WELCOME.. IN CERTAIN PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS HAVE STIGMA OF WELFAREiMAGE

STATE LACKS ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF MINORITYLANGUAGE /CULTURAL DIFFERENCES,

SUSPICION OF OLDER MINORITIES OF GOVERNMENTPROGRAMS

.

'OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

92

A ,

t.

NODES'

1 =VERY. LARGE BARRIER TOMINORITY PARTICIPATION

2 = MODERATE BARRIER TO.7'_MINORITY PARTICIPATION

3 = MINOR BARRIER TO .

MINORITY PARTICIPATION

4 = NOT A-BARRIER IN THIS :THIS STATE

= DON'T KNOW

4

-sr

255. Which of the following_types of technical assistance hasthe State Unit

on Aging provided to Area Agencies on Aging/other aging service

provides regarding increasing the participation of minority_older

,,persons within th last two years (CIRCLE '11" IF THE.,SUA PROVIDED THIS

TYPE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. CIRCLE "2" IF IT/DID NOT. CIRCLE "9",IF

YOU DO NOT KNOW.)A

TRAINING ON PROBLEMS 'AND APPROACH

TO SERVICE DELIVERY USING MINORITY

COMMUNITY RESOURCES (E.G., EXISTING

FAMILY AND GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEMS)

TRAINING ON INTERPERSONAL SKII4BUILDING AND_ NTERVIEW_I_NG TECHNIQUES

TO'MINIMIZE CULTURAL,AND ETHNICBARRIERS

HOLDING COMMUNITY FORUMS/TALKS ON THE

NEEDS OF OLDER MINORITIES

DESIGNING/USING MINORITY NEEDS

ASSESSMENT/PROGRAM EVALUATION-INSTRUMENTS

TRAINING OF MINORITY COMMUNITY_ PEOPLE

AS SENIOR ADVOCATES/VOLUNTEERS


S NO DON'T KNOW,

9

2

1 o.2

2

2 9

93

I

A.

26. Which of the foklowihg types of technical assistance has the State Unit.. on Agingpeceived from the regional/Federal Administration on Aging.

offices fegarding increasing the participation of older minoritieswithin_tqe last-two years. (CIRCLE "1" IF. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCERECEIVED INCLUDED THE'ITEM. CIRCLE "2" IF .IT D]9 NOT CIRCLE "9" FOR-,THOSE ITEMS ABOUT WHICH YOUADO NOT. KNOW.) 4

TRAINING'ON_PROBLEMS AND APPROACHESTO SERVICE DELIVERY USING MINORITYCOMMUNITY RESOURCES (E.G.,. EXISTINGFAMI(AND moue SUPPORT SYSTEMS)

Y.TRAINING OF STAF-F.ON INTERPERSONAL

. SKILL BUILDING. AND INTERVIEWINGTECHNIQUES TO MINIMIZE CULTURALAND ETHNIC BARRIERS

.

HOLbING COMMLNITYFORUMS/TALKS,ONTHE NEEDS OF OLDER MINORITIES,

DESIGNING/USIN6 MINORIfY NEEDSASSESSMENT/PROGRAM EVALUATIONINSTRUMENTS

TRAINING OF MINORITY COMMUNITY-PEOPLE AS SENIOR' ADVOCATES!

. VOLUNTEERS

-OTHER-(PLEASE SPECIFY)

YES NO . DON'T-KNOW

\.

2,

9

9.

9

27. Have any Ameidan Indian tribes or communitiaa_in yo6r_State,applied fdr-grants under Title III of the Older Americhn$ ACt? (ORGLE APPROPRIATENUMBER.)

1 = YES :

-

2-= NO..IpKIP.tb 29

8.= NOT'APPLICABLE._ NO AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES OR COMMUNITIESIN STATE.SKIP TO 29!

.

94

9 = DON'T KNOW

28: Have ari American iodian tribes or communities in your Siate beenawarded grants for the current .fiscal. year under Title IIIofthe OlderAmericans. ct? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

iS=1 Y_

2 = NO

8 = NOT APPLICABLE, NO AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES OR COMMUNITIES

IN STATE

. 9 =,. DON'T KNOW

29; CIRCLE "I" FOR EACH TYPE OF PUBLICITY_THE STATE UNIT ON AGING (SUA) HAS

USED TO MAKENNORITY OLDER_PERSONS_AWARE OF THE STATE'S SERVICE PROGRAM

AND / TO EDUCATE THE GENERAt PUBLICLREGARDINO THE NEEDS OF MINORITY

ELDERLY. CIRCLE "2" FOR EACH TYPE OF PUBLICITY,THE SUA HAS NOT USEDCIRCLE "9" IF YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE USE OF THE ITEM.

TW_S_OF_PUBLICITY ENGLISH LANGUAGE OTHEF.ENIGLISH

. .6

` YES NO DON'T 10.10W YES NO DOWT_KNOW

RECORDED TELEPHONE MESSAGES ..1 2 9, 1. 2 9 '..,

POSTERS/DISPLAYS/LEAFLETS.i.IN- PUBLIC PLACES (INCLUDEMINORITY ORGANIZATIONS' -. .

17OFFICES)- ,

ADVERTISEMENT OR ARTICLE'S'IN LOCAL MINORITY NEWS=PAPERS

ADVERTISEMENKJIRARTICLESIN NEWSLETTERS DISTRIBUTEDTO LOCAL RESIDENTS/PARTICIPANTS

PEOPLE SPEAKING AT THEMEETINGS OF CLUBS ANDOTHER"ORGANIZATIONS

LOCAL RADIO/TELEVISION -ANNOUNCEMENTS

ANY OTHER METHOD orPUBLICITY (PLEASESPECIFY)

1'

1 2

9

1 2

2

2 9

9

. X

95

O

,. _

30. IS:dt State Unit_On_Aging (SUA) policy to:provide a translator/bilingual. interpreter atall SA public hearings? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

.1,= YES

2 NO

9 DON'T KNOW

31. Does the State Unit on Aging translate and publish State plans inIangdages other than English? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBEE.)

1 = YES

2 = NO

9 = DON'T KNOW

32. How many of the complaints received during fiscal year 1980,by the StateUnit on Aging's long-term care ombudsman program were filed byminorities ?. (ENTER NUMBER:OF COMPLAINTS FILED BY MINORITIES. IF NONE,SKIP TO 35. IF YOU DO.NOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER O.K.)

FISCAL YEAR 1980

33..How many of the complaints by minorities received dOring. fiscal year1980 by the State Unit on Aging's_long-term care opbudsman programallege racial discrimination and/or denial of equal access to afacility? (ENTER NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS. IF NONE/ SKIP TO 35. IF YOU DONOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER O.K.)

.

FISCAL. YEAR 1980

34. How many of the complaintS by minorities received by the State Unit onAging lon0-term care ombusman prdgram alleging racial discrimination ordenial of equal access were resolved? (ENTER NUMBER OF COMPLAINTSRESOLVED. IF YOU DO;VOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER O.K.)

FISCAL YEAR 1980

4.'

STATE_ADVISORY- COUNCIL-ON-AGING

35. 'ENTER NUMBER OF PERSONS ON THE STATE ADVISORY,COUNCIL ON AGING FOR EACHGROUP AND THE TOTAL ..NUMBER OFMEMBERS-ON THE,STATE_UN1T ON AGING'SADVISORY COUNCIL. .IF YOU DO NOT KNOWi PLEASE ENTER 9.K.

GRSUP NUMBER OF ADVISORY COUNCIL

BLACKS (NOT OF HISPANICORIGIN)

_ HISPANICS

ASIAN. AND PACIFIC ISLANDAMERICANS, .

-AMERICAN INDIANS/ALASKANNATIVES

WHITES (NOT OF HISPANIC _

ORIGIN)

TOTAL NUMBER ON ADVISORYCOUNCIL

36. Are any.of the following criteria_Uted exp4citly_tlithe,Staterlit onAging in-determining the intrastate_ fUnding'allocations among Planning .and Service Areas (PSAs)--ii-e the State? (CIRCLE "1"-IF THIS IS A

.CRITERION FOR FUNDING ALLOCATIONS. CIRCLE:"2"*IF IT IS NOT4" CIRCLE

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THIS-IS A FUNDING CRITERION.' PLEASE ATTACH

INTRASTATE/FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FORMULA.)

YES NO DON'T KNOW

NUMBER OF PERSONS IN PSA I 2 9

NUMBER OF MINORITY PERSONS IN PSA -1: 9

NUMBER OF PERSONS 60 YEARS OR OLDER:1N 135A 2 9

NUMBER -OF MINORITIES 60 YEARS OR OLDER IN

,PSA

NUMBER OF PERSONS 6CY,YEARS,OR OVER AT OR 'A)

BELOW POVERTY PSAo

NUMBER _O ;MI ITIES 60 YEARS OLDER AT ORBELOW OVER IN PSA 3 -1

AAA's PAS =FUNDING OR-MINORITY-OWNEDFIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS .1

\OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) "1 2

f

9

9,

THIS.COMPLETES THE SURVEY. THANK OU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.\

O

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED STIONNAIRE TO:.

FRANK KNORRPROJECT DIRECTORU.S. COMMISSION CIVIL RIGHTS1121 VERMONT AVENLE, N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20425

98

r.

:

0,18 NO. 3035-0008Apprbval_Expires March 31, 1981'

Minority Participation in.Federally-Assisted Piograms/ - - For bider Persons .

AREA AGENCIES ON AGING SURVEY

PrepareO by QUE$TIMNAIRE#U.S. COMMX,SSIONON CIVIL RIGHTS1121 VERMONT AVENUE, N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20425

r

4.

The. U.S. Commis§ion on Civil Rights is conductiho this survey as a-part o±' study intended.to examine the participation of minorities infederally=assisted brogram4or older persoht4 The Study and this'questionnaire concern the employment, the awaid.of grants /contracts and the-participation of minorities as recipients of Service§ in Older AMeficans Acfprograms administered:by thaAdministratiop on Aging (AoA): .-The-questionnaire;sho0.0 be completed bY,a person or those personsAno tfamilidtwith eachof these three subject areas 4. Your answers, along with these ofother area agencies, will form part of our:report to the Congress And.thePresident scheduled for.relepse in call:1981. ALL RESPONSES TO E SURVEYARE CONFIDENTIAL: AT NO TIME WILL THE RESPONSES-OF AN INDtVIDUAt AREA.AGENCY BE IDENTIFIE0.

We appreciate yourcoopefation in. this study since your help is essential -insupplying Congress and the President WithAha inforMation they need_td.help.ensute that all older Amerioans share in the benefits of Older Americant Actpragrami.

If you have-any question_regarding_this survey; please telephone. Mr.'FrankKnorr, Project_Director, at '(202)'254-r6648. For your convenience, aglossary-of_selected terms used in this survey can be.found at the beginningof the questionnaire.

108

9

TO INSURE THE CONFIDENTIALITY 05 YOUR' RESPONSES THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL

RIGHTS WILL'REMOVE THIS PAGE LPON'RECEIPI OF THE QUESTIONNAIgE.

1, We. of Area Agency on Aging (AAA)

2. Address'

City State _Zip Code

4. Telephone (Include area code)

5. Name(s) of persons with overall respon*bility for completing

100

questionnaire:

POSITION

POSITION, '

AREA AGENCY ON AGING SURVEYGLOSSARY

AAA:- Abbreviation for Area Agency on Aging.

AFFIRMATIVEACTION-RLANS: Goals and/or timetables for minority participation.

Action objectives targeting specific racial andethnic minorities for hiking, promotionhdtraining opportunities who have been underutilizedbecause of past discrimination. Goals aredifferent from quotas.

,Timetables Specific time periods_during which activities areinitiated to hire, train and promote racial/and_ethnic minorities targeted for affirmative action.

AoA Abbreviation for Administration on Aging.

CLERICALS: Persons who per general office work. Includes,for example, file clerks, office machine open ors,.stenographers, and typists.

Goals:

COMPLIANCE REVIEWS:

'EVALUATION-

Method for deterMining Whether required standardsare met.

Abbreviation fot don't knoW.

.

The formal'appraisal and study of the operation ofa program. 0

FULL=TIME: More thap 35 hours of work per week in an'agency.1

GRANTEE/CONTRACTOR: Any organization of agency having a State' Unit on,Aging orqAAA contractor grant.

Subgrant eetSubcontractor:. Any organization or agency having a grant/contract

with a prime grantee /contractor or another sub- .1

contractor. calling for provision of supplies orservices required for the perfotmance of a StateUnit on Aging or Area Agency on Aging.icontract/grant.

American Indians/Alaskan Nativesi Asian and Pacific/ Island Americans, Siatka and Hispanics.

110101

American Indian orAlaskan_Netive: A person havingsorigins in any of the original

people* of North America, and who maintainscultural identification through tribal affiliatfor comMunity recognition.

'

Asian_ or PacificIsland ,American:

BlaCk:

Hispanic:

A person_having_origins in any of theoriginal.peddles of the Far ESsti Southeast. Asia, ttlb e IndianSubcdntinenti or the Patific'Islands. Thlatea-:includes; 4C1xampIe; China, Japan, KoreaithePhilippine Islands; and Samoa

A person having origins'in:any of the VaCk racial

groups of Africa;. .

A person of Mekican, Puerto,Rican, Cuban, Centralor South American or_other Spanish culture oroAgin'i regardless of race.

MINORITY ORGANIZATION: An organization whose board of directors CT otherlike policy-making bodies is at least 50%minorityor whose total- staff is at least 50% minority group

members (as defined above)..

MINORITY -OWNED -FIRM: A firm whosesole ownerShip, or_at-least 50.1% ofwhose stock is-owned by minorities (as defined_above),---In a partnership, at least 50% of theinterest in the partnership must be controlled by aminority individual. . ,

MONITOR: To watch, observe or check theSdOeption of aProgram in an informal or. formal Wai4

-pi .- V

MULTIPURPOSE SENIORCENTER:

NEEDS ASSESSMENT:

102

, A community or neighborhood facility for the.organization and provision of a broad spectrum ofservices including health, social nutritional andeducational services and a facility forrecreational group activity for older persons.

Reasonable and objective method for determining theneeds of all eligible residents of a geographicarea.

OAA:

Title III:

Title IV-A:

Title VI:-

OLDER PERSONS;

PARAPROFESSIONAL

PART-TIME:

PROFESSIONALS:

PSA:

SENIOR ADVOCATES:

SUA:

VOLUNTEER:

o

Abbreviation for, 1978.

.1

.Grants for Ste-te,

Training Grants.

'-IOlder Americans Act as amended: in

and Commu nity 'Program on Agingi.:

'Grants for.' Indian Tribes.

. Those individuals who are 60 years of age or oldtr.

Occupations requiring either junior collegetraining or on-the-job training. TermMost oftenapplies to job catpgories in the human servicesfields, e.g., social serviceft and mental healthservices. Includes, for ex mole, outreach workers,homemaker-aides, and nutrition aides.

Less than 35 hours of work per week in an agency.

Occupations requiring either college graduationexperience of such a kind and amount as to providea-comparablp background. Includes persons who setbroad polities, exercise overall responsibility forexecution of these policies, and direct individualdepartments or special phases of an Area Agency OnAging's operations. Includes, for example, program,directors, planners, nutritionisti--nurses and.

social workers. ,

Abbreviation fol$ Planning and Service Area.

Persons trained to perform activities to initiate,modify or eliminate public ancrprivate policieSthat have significant impact on the lives of olderpersons. I

.I

Abbreviation for State Unit on Aging.

Person who works two or more ho rs per week for theagency without pay. This c'te ory may includeclerical duties or use of ial skills in teachingarts and crafts, e.g., pot ery making, knitting, anddancing. It does not persons functioningsolely in the capacitysof /Advisory Council members.

i -

2 7

V J

103

1. Type of Area Agehty,bh Ating. (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER AND ATTACH

ORGANIZATION CHART.)

01 = COUNCIL ON GOVERNMENTS (COG) REGIONAL PLANNING AND-DEVELOPMENT.

OISTRICT/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

02 = CITY GOVERNMENT

.03 = COUNTY GOVERNMENT

04 = CITY/COUNTY GOVERNMENT

05 STATE GOVERNNNT

PRIVATE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION

Dt= COMMUNITY COLLEGE/STATE UNIVERSITY

Or INDIAN PROGRAM/TRIBAL GOVERNMENT

88 = OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)---.

:99 = DON'T NOW

Please estimate the total current population figures and thecomposition of the 6years or older population for your Planning andService'Area: (ENTER KimBER AND. PERCENTAGE FOR EACH GROUP., IF NONE,

OR LESS THAN ONE PERCENT, ENTER "0". IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS_TO__CURRENT POPULATION FIGURES FOR A GROUP, PLEASE ENTER. O.K. FOR DO NOT

KNOW.)

GROUPTOTAL

:POPULATION% OF

POPULATIONNUMBER OF PERSONS60 YEARS OR.OLDER

% OF 60+POPULATION

BLACKS _(NOT_ .

OF HISPANICORIGIN). ,

I

_.2.',......z ___..L....,___,- -,_ .... .-

HISPANICS 1 1

ASIAN & PA- ,

CIFIC'ISLANDAMERICANS' , , . .-.L-. ....-......... ..... ...... ...........-

.-4

AMERICAN IN=-VIANS/ALAS= .

.

KAN NATIVE'S

WHITES_(NOT_

--, __ _ ___

OF HISPANICORIGIN) - 9 1

TOTAL ; 71 0 0 % ,

'

1.0 0 %

10'4

what year are these figures? NTER YEAR)

113

3. Estimate the percent of persons in your P1 nning andLService.Area60years or,o1der that cannot speak or have di. ficulty,communicating,p

/ English and who speak one of the following 1-nguages as either theirusual_o : 2.e_ =? .(USING THE ODES 'IN TH BOX TO THIt... !

RIGHT, PLACE THE APPROPRIATE:NOMBER FOR-THE CORRESPONDI PERCENTAGE NJ XTO EACH LANGUAGE. PLACE A Ou:BESIDEA LANGUAGE IF YOU :KNOW.- APERCENT OP' THE Psivs OLDER POPULATIONLSPEAK THIS LANGUAGE A :THE1R'USuALOR,SECOND LANGUAGE.) '

LANGUAGES

. AMERICAN INDIAN(PLEASE SPECIFY LANG

NINESE

FILIPINOATAGALOG)

JAN

SRANISH)

OTHERII

(PLEASE ECIFY)

if

= LESS THANr2 = 2 -'5%'3 = 6:- 10% -.

.4 = 11 -,15%5 = 16.- 25%6 = 26 --50% ,

7 F 51 - 75%::= 76- 100%

9 = DON'T KNOW

-ATHE FOLLOWING.ARE_gUESTIONS CONCERNING THE DPLOYMENT AND-STAFFING__PATTERNS OF THE AREA

',AGENCY ON AGING (AAA)*g

4. Complete the following table for permanent salaried employees who work fsior the Area

Agency,on Aging full-time as of January 1-, 1981 (i.e., 35 or more hourseer week

\regardles Of, funding source.) (PATER THE NUMBER OF F?ERSONS HOLDING POSITIONSLISTED BELOW FOR EACH_GRQUR. _IF NOU DO NOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER O.K.) NOTE THAT

HORUOTAL' FIGURES FOR EITCHPJOB CATEGORY SHOULO SUM TO THE TOTACCOLUMN. PLEASE

ATTACH OPY OF STAFFING=PATITERNS_REOORT.

i BLACKSINOT., ,

OF HISPANICORIGIN)

It,:

. .

HISPANICS

ASIAN ANDPACIFIC.ISLANDAMERICANS

APERICAN:INDIAN/ALASKANNATIV&

WHITES(NOLOF_HISPANICORIGIN) TOTAL

.

_AGEND _DIRECTOR L_ __ __ -- --t-PROFE SIGNALS --\ -- -- __

PARA=L .

-- PROFESSIONALS

-i,.f;-:.

.

CLERICALS .

_--_-- .'

. ..

OTHER .(PLEASESPECIFY) -- -- -- --

, .

-To;Xi----i-- --- _ ',

:_Complete the,

followingtab e for Dermaheni salaried employees who work .for the Area

'Agency on Aging partti4*. Of diFiGgF717-1981._fi_.e.5 leas. than 35 hOtirt per week

\ regardless of funding &Jun (ENTER THE. NUMBER OF PERSONS. HOLDING POSITIONS

LISTEDBELOW FOR EACH GROLP. IF YOU 00 NOT KNOW,,PLEASEIENTER O.K.), NOTE. THAT

HORIZO TAL FIGURES FOR EACH J _CATEbORYSHOULO SUM TO THE TOTAL COLUMN. PLEASE

ATTACki _A COPY. OF STAFFING PATTE REPORT.

AGENCY'OIRECTOR

ELACKS(NOT.OF HISPANICORIGIN) -HISPANICS

ASIAN ANDPACIFICSLANO -

RICANS

'AMERICANINDIANVALASKAN.NATIVES

WHITES(NOT07-HISPANICORIGIN) TOTAL

PROFESSIONALSPARA -

PROFESSIONALSi

CLFRICALS

Raw

- -OTHER ' (PLEASE

SPECIFY-)- - - - -

Total

..

,

*YOU MAY WISH TO REVIEW POSITION DEFINITIONSIN THE GLOSSFRY. s..THOUGH MANY OF AAA.STAFF --,,.

. . .

MAY PERFORM VARIOUS:DUTIES, EACWEApLOY7EE SHOULD BE,ENTEREO-IN THE,POSITI*CATtGORY FOR

WHIGNA:S OR HER MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE INCLUDED. .I:.

i

.6. How many volunteers were on the Area A6encyfn Agin staff as ofJanuary__14:1981? AENTER-NUMBER FOR EACH. GROUP.. IF\ U DO NOT KNOW,

GROUP

',J

1PLEASE ENTER 94.1:: ,.- _-

'---- : 7 ''..;/NVMBER-OFVOLUNTEEFMON STAFF,

BLACKS (NOT OF. HISPANIC ORIGIN) ,

HISPANICS .

.b

AND ~PACIFIC ISLAND AMERICANS. ,

-Vi!AERICAN INDIANS/ALASKAN NATIVES:

WHITES (NOT. OF 1400ANIC ORIGIN)

6 "'TOTAL

-

; Does the Area' (AAA)haveon Aging (AAhave staff members who fluently speak

any of the following languages,in additionAO English (i.e._i have.the Jrability.to converse effortlessly) rapidly' and smoothly in the lahguaga)?

(CIRCLE "1" IF THE AAA STAFF (INCLUDE_FULL= "'=PART=TIME AND VOLUNTEER

rbt%F) INCLUDES SOMEONEAND FLUENTLY SPEAK .THE NGUACE. CIRCLE "2" IF

THE AAA STAFFDOES NOT INCL _SOMEONE WHOTLUENTLY SPEAKS THE LANGUAGEIRCLE "9" IFYYOU DO.NOT:K )

'LANGUAGE

AMERICAN INDIAN(PLEASE SPECIFYLANGUAGE)

CHINESE

FILIPINO (TAGALOG)

JAPANESE4SPANISH

OTHER(PLEASE SPECIFY

DON !-TKNOW

6

2 9

107

Does thas'Area Agencycurrently in effect?

- 1 = YES

a,onZinglhAve an affirmative action plan that is

( RCLE APPROPRIATE-NUMBER.)

= NO...KIP TO 111

9 = DOWT KNOW

API'.

9 es the. Area Agencly on Aging's (AAA's)pf the following .requirements? (CIRCLEAdTION PLAN CONTAINS THE ITEM. CIRCLE

NOT KNOW.)0- .

/

GOALS FOR HIRING MINORITIES*:

'GOALS AND TImtTAELES'FOR HIRIMINORITIES

0

'affirmatiVe action plan have any."1" IF THE AAA'S AFFIRMATIVE"2" IF V DO7 NOT. CIRCLE "9" IF

YES DON!T-KNOW.'

1 2 9

`AOALS FUTpROMOTING-_MINORITIES

GOALS AND TIMETABLESFOR_MOTING MINORITIES

GOALS FOR TRAINING MINORITIESI .

GOALS AND- IMETABLgt FOR TRAIN--:ING MINORITIES

9THER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 2

9

9

9

9

/ *FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, THE WORDS MINORITY AND MINORITIES,REFER TO BLACKS; HISPANICS; ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLAND AMERICAWAND AMERICAN

IANS/ALASKAN NATIVES;

108

?0,

10. Was the Area Agency on Aging successful in meeting its affirmativeaction_ goals for the hiring and 'promptiOn of-target groups in fiscalyears 79 and 80? (CIRCLE. ARPROPRIATE NUMBERS.)

HI$ING

'"'FISCALYEARA79)

YES

2 = NO

FISCALYEAR (80)

I =-YES

Se=:NO

8 = NOT 8 = NOT_APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE,NO GOALS NO GOALSSET SET

9 = DON'T 9 = DON'TKNOW KNOW

. .

PROMOTION

:FISCAL.YEAR (79)

= YES

2 =

8,_=, NOT

APPLICABLE,NO GOALSSET

9 = DON'TKNOW

FISCAL_YEAR (80).

-1 =YES

2 = NO;-1

8 =- NOT 1

APPLICABLE,!.- NO GOALS \

SET \

9 DON'TKNOW

THE FOLLOWING ARE QUESTIONS CONCERNING-THE AREA AdENCY-ON-AGINWS-CONTRACT_SYSTENur m

11. Did_the Area_Agendy. on aging award any grants or contracts* during fitcal years 79= or 80? (CIRCLE APpR9PRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = YES -.

12. How many grants and/or contracts fot services were awarded and what was, the totalamount of monies for grants and Contracts awarded by the Area Agency on Aging.during fiscal years 79 and'80? (ENTER NUMBER OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS AND TOTALDOLLAR AMOUNTS-FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR. IF YOU DO NOT (NOW, PLEASE ENTER D.K.)

Number of Grants/ Amount of Grants/Contracts Contracts

FISCAL YEAR 79

FISCAL YEAR 80

13. w manyisubgrants/subcontracts for services were awarded'and what was the totalunt of monies for subgrants/subcontracts awarded by the Area Agency on Aging's

grantees/contractors during. fiscal years 79 and 80?. (ENTER NLMEER.AND TOTAL DOLLAR

, AMOUNTS FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR IF YOU DO NOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER D.K.), .

timber of Sub/grants/ Amount of Subgrants/Subcontracts . . Subcontracts

1

9 = OON 'T- KNOW

FISCAL YEAR 79-

FI5CAL YEAR 80

*OfR.THE ORPOSE OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE;. THE TERMS GRANT/CONTRACT REFER TO FUNDS AWARDEDBY _AWARE AGEN6 ON AGING (AAA) ITSELF, THE TERM SUBGRANT/SUBCONTRACT REFER TO FUNDSAWARDED AN AAA's GRANTEE OR CONTRACTOR ,

110

14. HOW many service rantswas the total amoun oon Aging during fiscalEACH GROUP. IF YOU DO

/co tracts were a rded to minol.it organizations and whatmo _es.awarded to minority organ by.the Area Agency

y rs 79i and 80? JENTER NUMBER AND TOTALLDOLLAkAMOUNT FOROT KNOW, PLEASE ERTER D.K,)

FISCAL YEAR 79

NUMBER OFGROUPS GRANTS/

CONTRACTS!

BLACK (NOT_OF:.

HISPANIC ORIGIN

HISPANICS

ASIAN AND PACIFIC -

ISLAND AMERICANS

AMERI AN INDIANS/ALA N NATIVES

FISCAL YEAR 80' --. 4 .

OOLLAR ih; :=-NUMBER/OF : DOLLARAMOUNT OF '''''' - . GRANTS/ .::, A

GRANTS / CONTRACTS CONTRACTS GRANTS/

TOTALMINORITY.AWAROS

NT -OF

NTRACTS

15i .HOW many subgrahts/subcontracts were_awarded.to minorityfirMs/organizations andWhat Wat the Idtal;a6bUht of-tubgratit whiet:awarded to-mihbrityfifms/organizations by the Area Agency on Aging 's gra6teeiicontractors duringfiscal years 79, and 80TAENTER NUMBER AND TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOREACH GROUP.IF YOU DO NOT.KNOW, PLEASE ENTER O.K.)

FISCAL YEAR 79

4r-DOLLAR AMOUNT OFSUBGRANTS/SUBCONTRACTS

NUMBER OFGROUPS SUBGRANTS/

SUBCONTRACTS

BLACK (NUT OFHISPANIC ORIGIN clA Q.

HISPWCS

ASIAN AND PACIFICISLANO AMERICANS

AMERICAN INOIANS/ALASKAN NATIVES

TOTAL'MINORITY AWARDS

FISCAL YEAR %0

NUMBER OF DOLLAR AMOUNT OF--SUBGRANTS/ . ;SUBGRANTS/SUBCONTRACTS_ SUBCONTRACTS

A

16. HOw many nutrition sited' in your Planning and Service-Area as ofJanuary 1, 1981 were funded by grants/contracts to minority organizations.of minority-owned firms? (ENTERIIUMBER OF NUTRITION SITES FOR EACH'.GROUP. IF YOV DO NOT KNOW, PLEASE. ENTER D.K.)

GROUPS - NUMBER .0F.NUTRIiION SITES

BLACKS (NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN)

HISPANICS .

ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLAND AMERICANS

AMERICAN INDIANS/ALASKAN NATIVES

I wia011m 011=

TOTAL_ MINORITY . \ / .:

1

, /

17. ...B0 many formal complaints against theAtea Agency on.Aging!Or itsgrantees were made by older minorities that racialdiscrimination? (ENTER NUMBER. IF NONE; SKr- TO 19. IF YOU DO NOTKNOW, PLEASE ENTER D.K.)

FISCAL EAR.79

TISCAL'YEAR 80.

. AH. - .

..

18. 'Howvany of.the formal complaints filed against the Area 'Agency on Agingorits_grantees_by older minorities alleging racial discrimination werefound to be valid? _(ENTER NUMBER OF VALID COMPLAINTS. IF YOU DO NOT

. ,

KNOW, PLEASE ENTER D.K.)

FISCAL YEAR 79

FISCAL YEAR 80 '

19.. Does the Area Agency on Aging'require grantees/contractors to incIudestaffiR9 plans by race and ethnic background in their proposal forfunding? (CIRCXAPPROERIATE.NUMBEM

. \

112

-1 4ES

20-.. How often are the following 'done y the,Area Agency on Aging (AAA) todetermine compliance by individua grantees/contractors with itsnondiscrimination'guidelines and regulations?__NSING,THE COWS IN THEBOX TTHE RIGHT, PLACE APPROPRIATE NUMBER BESIDE EACH OF IHE LISTEDPROCESSES. PLACE A "9" BESIDE A.PROCESS IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW OFTEN IfIS DONE.) ,

AAA_CONDUCTS ON-SITE REVIEWS'OF--SELEcTED,SERVICE FACILITIES FOREACH.GRANTEE/CONTRACTOR

AAA REVIEWS REPORTS SUBMITTEVY.EACH GRANTEE/CONTRACTOR-

AAA REPORTS OF EALUATIONSUCTED BY OTHER AGENCIES .

. 6 STATE HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCY)

.;,AAA PEVIEWS.AND:ANALYZES ADHERENCETO CRAWS/CONTRACT PROPOSALS

AAA ROUTINELY MONITORS AND ASSESSESGRANTEES/CONTRACTORSWHICH INCLUDESA REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE ITH NON-DISCRIMINATION CUIDELI S

:OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

Ca

CODES,.

= MONTHLY_:.

=141M7ERLY

5 = YEARLY.


5 = NEVER

-= NWT KNOW.

0

o

21. What action_has_the_Area Agency ongrantee/contractor failed to comply-(CIRCLE__n."__IF_THE_AAA TAKES_THISIACTION.NOT. CIRCLE "9" FOR'THOSE ACTIONS

NO GRANTEE HAS'EVER BEEN FOUND

Agingwith

ABOUT

YES

(AAA) taken whenAAA nondiscriminationCIRCLE "2" IF

WHICH YOU DO

NO

a_policies?

THSJ AAA DOESNOT KNOW.)

DON'T KNOW

TO'BE IN NONCOMPLIANCE 9

CONTRACTOR WAS BARREDFROM FUTURE CONTRACT

CONTRACTOR DID NOTRECEIVE AN INCREASE INFUNDS 9

CONTRACTOR WAS ISSUED AWARNING 1 2

CONTRACTOR WAS REQUIRED TOAPPEAR BEFORE HEARING BOARDFOR NONCOMPLIANCE

NO ACTION WAS TAKEN 9

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 2 9

.

22.. Who has arbitrated or would arbitrate disputes or appeals ofgrantees /contractors regarding the Area Agency on Aging's finding ofnoncompliance---with-nondiscr-imination_guidelineRCLAPPRCERIAT-FNUMBER.) -I

1 = AREA AGENCY ON AGING

2 = STATE UNIT-ON AGING

3 = REGIONAL/NATIONAL OFFICE OF THE.. ADMINISTRATION ON AGING


9 = DON'T KNOW

114,123

;THE_FOLLOWINO ARE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMIN YOUR PLANNING AND. SERVICE AREA (PSA)

PROVISION AND COORDINATION OF SERVICES TO OLDER PERSONS

23. Estimate the breakdown of_Area Agency on Aging service participation forfiscal_year 80 for your Planning-and Service Area for whites andminorities: (ENTER NUMBER (UNDUPLICATED COUNT) OF SERVICE PARTICIPANTSFOR EACH SERVICE FOR WHITES AND MINORITIES. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THISINFORMATION FOR ALL SERVICES_, PLEASE FILL IN INFORMATION THAT YOU DO HAVEAND ENTER D.K. FOR THE INFORMATION THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.)

SERVILE MINORITIES WHITES TOTAL

NUTRITION ..... .....z _ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

OUTREACH ,- -- -- -- -- - ..

INFOKMATIONAND REFERRAL __ __ _ __ __ __ __ .... __ __ __ - - - - - - - - - -

HOMEMAKER/HOMEHEALTH AIDE' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _.- __ __

____ __ __ __ __ __ - -_

CHORE. __ __ -- _- _- __ _- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -_

LEWIL____ -_ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -_ __ -_

_DAYCARE -- __

RESIDENTIALREPAIR__ :,R_7,,_ __ __ __ __ ._ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

OTHER_(PLEASESPECIFY)

----___

-- --

124 115

AA

NM-MON-PROGRAMS

24. How many Area Agency on Aging funded nutrition service sites arecurrently in the Planning and Service Area? (ENTER NUMBER. IF NONE SKTO 26. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER O.K.)

25. On the average, approximately how many older persons in y ur Planning andService Area are served daily? (ENTER NUMBER FOR EACH GROUP. IF YOU DONOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER O.K.)

116

GROUP ___CONGREGATE_MEALS HOME DELIVERED MEALSBLACKS (NOT OF-HISPANIC ORIGIN)

.

.

HISPANICS _ __ASIAN & PACIFICISLAND AMERICANS

..) _

---- --AMERICAN INDIANS/ALASKAN NATIVES

WHITES .(NOT OFHISPANIC ORIGIN) :

.

__ __ __ __ _

TOTAL . -- -- -- ---------

125-

MULTIPURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTERS-

. .How many multipurpose senior -citizens centers (paftislly or totallyfended by the Area Agency on:Aging). are there in your Planning and

ea? (ENTER NUMBER; IF NONE,SKI0 TO 28; IF YOU DO NOT KNOW,PLEASE ENT -D.K.) .

27; HOW mares of, AAA funded multipurpose senior citizen centers that are.in,your Planning*and Service Area are utilized primarily (greater than50%) by minority older persons? (ENTER NUMBER OF CENTERS. IF YOU DO NOT

GROUPS NUMBER OF CENTERS

.KNOW-, PLEASE ENTER D.K.)

ACKS (NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN) .

SPANICS

ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLAND AMERICANS

AMERICAN INDIANS/ALASKAN NATIVES

28. CIRCLE "1" FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGES, OTHER THAN \ENGLI FORWHICH AN INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICE IS AVAILABLE IN THAT LANGUAGEIN YOUR PLANNING AND SERVICE AREA_JPSA). CIRCLE "2" FOR EACHA.ANGUAGEFOR WHICH AN INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE IN, YOURPSA. CIRCLE "9" FOR THOSE LANGUAGES ABOUT WHICH YOU DO NOT KNOW.

AMERICAN INDIAN(PLEASE SPECIFY LANGUAGE

yEs

2

1 2CHINESE

FILIPINO (TAGALOG) 1 2

JAPANESE 1 2

SPANISH 1 2

`OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

DON1T_KNOW

9

29. CIRCLE* "1" FOR EACH TYPE OF PUBLICITY THE AREA AGENCY -ON AGING OR ITSGRANTEES HAS USED TO MAKE MINORITY OLDER PERSONS AWARE OF THE SERVICEPROGRAM:: CIRCLE "2"-FOR EACH. TYPE OF PUBLICITY THAT. HAS NOT BEEN USED.CIRCLE.."9" FOR THOSE ITEMS .ABOUT WHICH YOU DO NOT KNOW.

ati,

V LANGUAGE OTHERTHAN ENGLISHENGLISH

F

YES NO K YES NODON'TKNOW

RECORDED TELEPHONE MESSAGES 1 2 9 2

POSTERS /DISPLAYS /LEAFLETSIN PUBLIC PLACES tINCLUDE-'MINORITY ORGANIZATIONS/OFFICES) 2 9

ADVERTISEMENT OR ARTICLES IN -

LOCAL MINORITY NEWSPAPERS 2

ADVERTISEMENT OR ARTICLES INNEWSLETTERS DISTRIBUTED TOLOCAL RESIDENTS/PARTICIPANTS 2

PEOPLE SPEAKING AT THE MEETING OFCLUBS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

LOCAL RADIO/TELEVISIONANNOUNCEMENTS 1

ANY OTHER METHOD OF PUBLICITY?(PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 . 2 9

118

r

12'

30. Using the following list of barriers that have been identified as directly or.indirectly_inhibiting the _full participation of minority older_persons in social.service and nutrition programs; describe the importance_ of each of these beitiersinyour_Planning and_Service__Area_tPSA)._ (USING THE CODES IN THE BOX TO THE RIGHT,PLACE THE NUMBER WHICH BEST DESCRIBES THE IMPORTANCE OF. THE IDENTIFIED_BARRIER_AS.IT ..APPLIESTO_MINORITYPARTICIPATION IN YOURPSA; , PLACE A "9" BESIDE A-BARRIMIFYOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THIS IS A BARRIER TO MINOR TY PARTICIPATION IN YOUR PSA.)

EXISTENCE OF ENGLISH - SPEAKING STAFF ONLY

LCC TI OF PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF MINORITW -A AS

CONTRIBUTIONBcFOR MEALS NEEDED FROM ,

PARTICIPANT

ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION NOT PROVIDED TOSERVICE LOCATIONS

EXISTING SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN_MINORITYCOMMUNITY NOT UTILIZED.

MINORITY OLDER PERSONS HAVE GEFEELING OF- NOT BEING WELCOME INCERTAIN PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS HAVE'STIGMA OF WELFARE IMAGE.

:STAFF -LACKS AOEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF.. MINORITY LANGUAGE /CULTURAL DIFFER NCES'

CODES

= VERY LARGE BARRIERTO MINORITY PARTICIPATION

= MODERATE BARRIER TO.MINORITY PARTICIPATION:.

= MINORBARRIER TOMINORITY PARTICIPATION

4 = NOT A:BARRIER INTHIS PSA

= DON'T KNOW

SUSPICION -OF- "MINORITY OLDER PERSONS OF GOVERNMENTPROGRAMS


119

31. ENTER NUMBER' OF PERSONSON AREA AGEK&:ON AGING (AAA) ADVISORY COUNCIL ON

-A FOR EACH CRIMP AND_THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE AAA ADVISORY

UNCIL. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW, PLEASE ENTER-C4K.

GROUPS

ASKS (NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN)

'HISPANICS

ASIAN_AND PACIFIC ISLANDAMERICANS

AMERICAN- INDIAN /ALASKANNATIVES

WHITES'(NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN)

TOTAL NUMBER ON ADVISORYCOUNCIL

tie

120

NiNBER ON ADVISORY COUNCIL

, .111. ..

AAA._MONITORINGLAND-EVAL-UATION OF THE SERVICE SYSTEM..

32. What standard is-used by the Area Agency-on Aging to deterMine hOWminority older persons.are being served throughout the Planning andSeryice-Aiee (PSA)? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER:)'

1 = WE COMPARE THE PERCENT OF OLDER PERSONS SERVED WHO AREMINORITIES WITH THE PERCENT OF7THE PSA'S MINORITYPOPULATION THAT IS OVER. 60 YEARS;

= WE:COMPARE THE PERCENT OF OLDER PERSONS SERVED WHO AREMINORITY-WITH THE PERCENVOF THE PSA'S POPULATION THATIS MINORITY.

MPARE THE PERCENT OF _OLDER'PERSONS SERVED-WHO AREMINORITIES WITH_THEPERCENT OF THE PSA'S. POPULATION OVER60 YEARS THAT ISMINORITY.

= OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

= AREA AGENCY ON AGING__DOES.NOT_HAdE A STANDARD TO DETERMINE HOWMINORITY PERSONS ARE BEING SERVED.

9 = DON'T KNOW

33. How often-are the Area Agency on Aging'S service programs evaluated withregard to whether minorities are being served by these programs? (CIRCLEAPPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 =_ONCE A YEAR

2 = EVERY SIX MONTHS

3 = EVERY THREE MONTHS

4 = MONTHLY

5 = OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY

6 = NEVER. FSKIP TO 35

9 = DON'T KNOW;

121

34. Who cond eta the evaluation_ of the service

p;_.,..ns? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

I = A AGENCY ON AGING STAFF

2 =. E UNIT ON AGING STAFF

3 = CE PROVIDERS

4 = OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY).

delivery teminority older

*9:= DON'T KNOW

35. When was the last time the:Area Agency -on AgingS,(AAA't) program was

evaluated by the.State Unitm3n Aging with_regardto whether the AAA was

serving2Minority older persdns.in proportion to the number -of minorities_

ip,the Planning and Service: Area? .(CIRCLE-APPROPRIATE; NUMBER'.)

122_

I = LESS THAN 6- MONTHS'AGO

2 = 6 MONTHS - 1 YEAR

3 = 1 = 2 YEARS

4 = 2 3 YEARS

OVER 3 YEARS

6 = NEVER

9. = DON!T KNOW

36. If tile_Aree Agency706 Aging (AAA)participation of older minorities

successful was the AAA(CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER)

sets goals for increasing the_in its/./ fiscal yearS' 79'and 80-areain meeting the goals that it set?

FISCAL-YEAR-79

1 = GOALS WERE FULLY 'MET

2 GOALS WERE PARTIALLY MET

3-= GOALS.WERE NOT MET AT ALL

8 = NOT APPLICABLE4 DID NOTSET THESE GOALS

9 = DON'T KNOW.

. .FISCAL YEAR' 80

1 = GOALS WERE FULLY MET :-

2 = GOALS WERE PARTIALLY MET

3 = GOALS WERE NOT MET AT ALL

8 = NOT APPLICABLE, DID NOT.SET THESE GOALS. \

9 = DON'T KNOW

37. Wilioh_of the following_ types of t chnical assistance has the Area Agencyon Aging provided to.its_grantee,/other aging_service.prOviders within

.

the last. two years_ xegarding:inc easing thei?artieipation of minorityolder_personsT(CIRCLE "1" IF TAE AREA AGENCY ON AGING PROVIDED THISTYPE_OFTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. CIRCLE "2" IF IT DID NOT. CIRCLE "9" IFYOU DO NOT KNOW.)'.

hi/.

11/TRAINING ON PROBLEASAND APPROACHES TO

SERVICE DELIVERY USING MAORITY.COMMUNITY RESOURCES.B41/4 EXISTINGFAMILY AND GROUP SUPPORT7 /-SYSTEMS)

.:/

TRAINING ON INTERPERSONAL -SKILL BUILDINGAND INTERVIEWING. TECHN QUES TO MINIMIZECULTURAL. AND ETHNIC. BARRIERS :,

HOLDING COMMUNITY FORUMS/TAKS ON pigNEEDS OF OLDER MINORITIES

DESIGNING/USING MINORI/TY: NEEDSASSESSMENT/PROGRAM'EVALUATIONINSTRUMENTS

TALKS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF rlINORITY.'ORGANIZATIONS IN PSA-(E.G., TRIBALGOVERNMENTS, Lptlie, URBAN LEAGUE)

TRAINING -OF- MINORITY COMMUNITY PEOPLE ASSENIOR ADVOCATES


132

,kS NO DON'T KNOW

1

r

2

9

123

38. Which of the f011OWing of technical assistance has the Area Agency

on Aging_receiYed_frOM- he State Unit on Aging within the latt two years

regarding increasing the participation of,minority older persons?

(CIRCLE' "1" IF THE:TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RECEIVED INCLOOED.THE FOLLOWING.

CIRCLE "2 ".IF IT,DID NOT. CIRCLE "9" IF YOU DO NOT KNOW.)

TRAINING ON PROBLEMS AND APPROACHES TO,SE VICE DELIVERY USING MINORITYCOMMUNITY RESOURCES (E.G., EXISTING'FAMILY AND GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEMS) 1 2

YES NO DON'T KNOW

TRAINING ON INTERPERSONAL SKILL BUILDINGAND INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES TO MINIMIZECULTURAL-AND ETHNIC BARRIERS 1 2

HOLDING COMMUNITY. FORUMS/TALKS ON THENEEDS OF OLDER:MINORITIES

DESIGNING/USING MINORITY NEEDSASSESSMENT /PROGRAM EVALUATIONINSTRUMENTS

TRAINING OF MINORITY COMMUNITY PEOPLE ASSENIOR ADVOCATES 1' 9

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 2 y 9

39. Is it an Area Agency on:Aging:(AAA) policy_toprovide atranslator/bilingual interpreter at all'AAA public hearings? (CIRCLE

APPROPRIATE NUMBERA---:-

1 = YES

2 = NO

9 = DON'T KNOW

124

40. Does the Area Agency on Aging translate and Oublish all area plans in alanguage othet than English? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.)

1 = YES

9 DON'T KNOW

THIS COMPLETES THE SURVEY; THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Please return'the completed questionnaire to:,

Mr._Frank_KnorrProject DirectorA00, Commission On Mil-Rights1121Nermont Avenue; N.W.Washington; D.C. 20425

GPO e77 213

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · made by the following current or former employees: Frank. Bessera,...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · made by the following current or former employees: Frank. Bessera,...