Full text of "Family support multi-cultural project : request for proposals (RFP) #92-1(3)(B)"

See other formats

fWc&rti^^A/^aAoriy asu£ finances

Administering Agency for

Developmental Disabilities

(617) 727-4178

m°iy Co :

FAMILY SUPPORT MULTI-CULTURAL PROJECT

Request for Proposals (RFP)
#92-1(3) (B)

Funded under the Authority of the

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and

Bill of Rights Act of 1990

Public Law 101-496

Interested applicants must submit a Letter of Intent by
June 4, 1993. If you have any questions, technical assistance is
available via telephone Monday through Friday, 10 am - 4 pm.

Contact:

Daniel Shannon, AADD Director

617-727-4178 Voice
617-727-1885 TTY
617-727-1174 FAX

^ May 17, 1993

^ y,MN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. STATE PLAN OBJECTIVE 2

B . PROJECT SUMMARY 2

C. ELIGIBILITY 2

D. STATEMENT OF NEED 2-4

II. THE PROJECT

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 5-6

B . FUNDING AND MATCH REQUIREMENTS 6

C . PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 6-7

D . PROJECT GOALS 7

E . OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES 7-8

F. AWARD CRITERIA 8-10

III. THE APPLICATION

A. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS 11

B. TIMELINES 11-12

C. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS 12-19

1-2 . Cover Page/Table of Contents 12-13

3. Project Narrative 13-14

4. Project Workplan 14

5. Budget 14-18

a. Costs 15

b . Matching Funds 15

c. Line by Line Instructions 16-17

6 . Budget Justification 17-18

7 . Applicant Qualification Documents 18-19

8. Project Related Addenda 19

9 . RFP Application Checklist 19

D. FORMAT AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 19

E . FUNDING RESTRICTIONS 2 0

F . OTHER CONDITIONS 20-21

IV. APPENDICES 2 2

A. Definitions

B. "Costs" Excerpt, Conditions of Grant Award

C. State Plan Excerpts, 1993 MDDC State Plan

D. Summary of DMR Related Activities

E. Human Rights requirements

F. Application and Assurance Forms #1 - #14

I. INTRODUCTION

A. STATE PLAN OBJECTIVE

"To inform families of color about disability services and
family supports, and to include them in the Family Support
community/movement" (See Appendix C, MDDC 1993 State Plan
Excerpts) .

B. PROJECT SUMMARY

$90,000 in Federal Developmental Disabilities (DD) funds are
available to provide outreach to individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families in at least two multi-cultural
neighborhoods. It is anticipated that this will be a three year
grant project, with funds for years two and three contingent upon
approval of the MDDC FFY 1994 and FFY 1995 State Plans. The
emphasis of year one will be to expand the family support
movement and to inform families of color about disability issues,
family support philosophy, and how to access services.

Grantee activities will include networking with existing
groups active in family support, implementing strategies to
provide outreach to families of color, convening informal groups,
developing a "care management" tool for families, and providing a
"family advocacy series".

C. ELIGIBILITY

Organizations eligible for these funds must be:

Private, non-profit organizations;

Educational institutions, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) ; or

Public agencies (state, county, city, local) .

All applicants must be based in Massachusetts. RFP funding is
not available to individuals, for profit organizations, or groups
that do not have official nonprofit, tax exempt status. If
applications are developed jointly by more than one organization,
the applicant must identify only one organization as the lead
organization and official applicant. The other participating
organizations can be included as co-participants, subgrantees,
and/or subcontractors.

D. STATEMENT OF NEED

It is estimated that there are over 90,000 people with
developmental disabilities living in Massachusetts. Although no
studies have specifically targeted developmental disabilities in
multi-cultural communities, other related studies clearly support
the concern that these communities contain a significant number
of individuals receiving little or no services.

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, in the last ten years,
communities of color in Massachusetts have grown in increments
ranging from 25% to nearly 200%, and "... nearly 10% of the state
population is African-American or Latino and the number of Asians
has nearly tripled since 1980." 1

Asbury, Walker, et.al completed a study on Disability
Prevalence and Demographic Association Among Race/Ethnic Minority
Populations in the United States. Their conclusions noted that
"...the distribution of disability in minority populations far
exceeds that of the non-minority population." 2 Further, ... "the
Hispanic-American population is the fastest growing segment of
the disabled working-age ethnic minority population." 3 Bowe
documented in 1985 that African-Americans ages 16-64 constitute a
proportionately larger segment of the disabled population than
any other ethnic group in the country." 4

The U.S. 1990 Census of Population and Housing documents the
percentages of populations below the poverty line as follows:

White ( 7%)

American Indian (24.4%)

Other (40.1%)

Black (23%)

Asian and Pac. Islands. (19.7%)

Hispanic Origin (36.7%) 5

Asbury, Walker, et.al, also state that there is a
"disproportionate prevalence of chronic conditions among Latinos
and African-Americans at younger age levels, compared to their
white cohorts,"; that "African-American, Latino and other persons
from multi-cultural backgrounds who experience a variety of
disabilities, consistently appear at the bottom of the economic
ladder,"; and that people "of color... face the multiple burdens
of disability, race, cultural difference and/or disadvantaged

economic status.

In 1988, the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities
Council (MDDC) conducted an analysis of the respite care program
for people with developmental disabilities living in Boston,
which was then administered by the Department of Social Services
(DSS) . Out of a total of 3200 users, 32 were identified as
people of color (1%). Although it can be argued that the method
for tracking ethnicity among recipients was inadequate, the
overwhelming disproportionate use of services clearly suggests a
utilization gap.

In December 1988, Action for Boston Community Development
Inc., conducted a survey to assess the needs of people of color
with disabilities in Massachusetts. The major findings indicated
that nearly half of all respondents felt there are not enough
services available: neither "basic services" such as health
care, housing, employment & training, education and information &
referral, nor "specialized services" such as assistive technology
and transportation services. More significantly, 65% of the
respondents reported encountering barriers to receiving services
and/or to living independently. These included linguistic,
transportation, and accessibility barriers, a lack of

sensitivity, and discrimination based on race and disability.

In addition to minimal outreach to multi-cultural
communities, these communities have had a fear of the health care
system in general, based on past interactions. In many
communities, information is passed through informal networks, and
many of the health care provider staff are not representative
of the community being served. Many minorities are unwilling to
relinquish control of their well being to a clinician (a belief
that responsibility for "getting better" stays with the family) ,
and some people will only accept treatment from a traditional
healer. There is also a common belief that a disorder is a
prelude to further disaster.

Traditionally, the service system has viewed the needs of
consumers based on their deficiencies, which results in a
negative perception of the system by the consumers, and
reinforces the stigma associated with using it. As a result, the
consumer is more likely to drop out of the system, which
reinforces the service provider's negative view of the consumer.
When viewed in the context of the additional barriers facing many
people of color, this negativity makes dealing with an extremely
complicated service system almost impossible.

This project will begin to address the issues facing
individuals of color with developmental disabilities and their
families through targeted outreach, support, education, and
inclusion in the family support movement.

FOOTNOTES

1. Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council 1993 State
Plan, p. 34.

2. Asbury C A, Walker S, Maholmes V, Rackley R, White S:
Disability Prevalence and Demographic Association Among
Race/Ethnic Minority Populations in the United States:
Implications for the 21st Century 198?, Howard University
Research and Training Center for Access to Rehabilitation
and Economic Opportunity, p. 2.

3. Asbury, et.al, p. 3.

4. MDDC 1993 State Plan, p. 34.

5. 1990 United States Census of Population and Housing, p. 19.

6. MDDC 1993 State Plan, p. 34.

II. THE PROJECT

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Family Support Steering Group (FSSG) of the
Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council (MDDC) started
in 1985 as a sub-group of the Committee on Case Management and
Childrens' Services. The FSSG is now one of five MDDC standing
committees, and has a primary objective to "forge an informed,
community based mandate for entitling families to family
support." Since its inception, the FSSG has worked in
collaboration with the Executive Office of Health and Human
Services (EOHHS) and a variety of other public and private
agencies to advocate for services based on the philosophy of
family support. The MDDC has had a Family Support objective
included in each State Plan since 1987.

In 1986, the Council formed an ad hoc committee to identify
issues affecting individuals with developmental disabilities in
communities of color. The MDDC established the Multi-cultural
Outreach Committee (MOC) as a standing committee in 1987. This
committee has worked to make Council membership more
representative of the state population, and has strongly
advocated for the MDDC to commit resources to address issues of
access to services for people of color.

During FFY 1992, funding was awarded to Human Services
Research Institute to promote and support the formation of a
statewide grassroots organization of family members of people
with disabilities. As a result, Families Organizing for Change
(FOC) was organized to form regional groups, hold meetings and
informational events throughout the state, and to maintain an
ongoing group of family members committed to advocating for
family support services. FOC members drafted legislation to
formulate the principles of Family Support (An Act To Support
People with Disabilities and Their Families) , which was filed
with the State Legislature during the 1992 and 1993 Legislative
Sessions. Despite extensive efforts to publicize the 1992 FOC
regional forums in multi-cultural communities, very few people of
color attended. Although disappointing, this setback served to
strengthen the Council's commitment to recruit people of color
into the family support movement, and to provide access to
information and services.

In 1992, the Administering Agency for Developmental
Disabilities (AADD) awarded funds to Latino Health Institute to
provide technical assistance and resource training about
developmental disabilities to providers serving multi-cultural
communities. In addition, Stavros, Inc. was awarded funds to
implement a three year project in self advocacy for people of
color in western Massachusetts. Appendix D provides information
on related activities initiated by the Department of Mental
Retardation.

The Family Support Multi-cultural Project will complement
these efforts by providing opportunities for people of color to
participate in advocacy efforts through existing family support
groups.

B. FUNDING AND MATCH REQUIREMENTS

1. Federal Funding for the Request for Proposal - In its annual
plan for the implementation of the Developmental
Disabilities Program, the Administering Agency for
Developmental Disabilities (AADD) has budgeted $90,000.00 in
Federal funds for activities associated with the first year
of this project. Accordingly, that amount will constitute
the limit on any subgrant award (s). However, applicants
should, when budgeting, recognize that the AADD conducts a
cost analysis of each proposal and utilizes evaluation
criteria which includes rewarding an applicant's ability to
meet the program objectives at the lowest possible cost.

2. Matching; Requirement - All applicants must provide financial
support to the project in the form of a non-Federal
"match" . The match can be cash and/or in-kind by the
grantee and/or a third party and must be documented in the
budget section of the proposal. A 25% non-Federal match
must be provided unless the applicant organization primarily
provides services for persons in urban or rural poverty
areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. In this case,

a 10% non-Federal match is required. Applicants using the
poverty match rate must provide the Census Tract number for
the area(s) eligible for the reduced match. Applicant
organizations are allowed and encouraged to provide more
than the minimum match, however no applicant will be
penalized for not doing so. The minimum match for this
project is $30,000.00 for a non-poverty match, $10,000.00
for a poverty match.

C. PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The successful applicant will be required to recruit a
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the grantee on
all phases of project development and implementation,
including the review of project materials and products.
Grantee staff cannot be PAC members, although the project
coordinator of the grant will represent the grantee at PAC
meetings. The PAC should meet at least quarterly and all
PAC meetings must be accessible. The PAC should consist of
at least ten members and be comprised of the following:

a) A majority of the members should be people of color;

b) At least half the members should be primary consumers
and/or family members with a range of developmental
disabilities ;

c) At least two members should be professionals

representing multi-cultural organizations serving the
targeted neighborhoods;

d) At least one member should be experienced in providing
outreach and/or consumer education; and

e) At least two members should represent the family-
support groups/organizations identified in
Section II, E below.

D. PROJECT GOALS

The Family Support Multi-Cultural Project will:

1. Provide individuals of color with developmental disabilities
and their families the opportunity to participate in the
family support movement.

2. Educate individuals of color with developmental disabilities
and their families about family support issues and
philosophy.

3. Assist individuals of color with developmental disabilities
and their families to access and effectively utilize the
service delivery system.

E. OBJECTIVES & ACTIVITIES

The following list outlines the minimum required project
objectives and activities. Applicants are encouraged to include
in their proposal additional objectives and activities that will
enhance the effectiveness of the project.

Objective #1. Increase and maintain the participation of

targeted families with existing family support
groups and organizations.

Activity #1.1 Network with existing groups active in family

support and childrens' issues, including Families
Organizing for Change, the Alliance of All Kinds
of Families, Legislative Childrens' Caucus, and
Council projects in Family Support and
Multi-cultural outreach.

Activity #1.2 Develop and implement strategies to provide

outreach to families of color in at least two
neighborhoods, to introduce these families to the
groups identified above, and to encourage and
maintain their active participation in these
groups .

Activity #1.3 Convene informal groups, in whatever manner is

appropriate to the target neighborhoods, as a
forum for interaction among families.

Objective #2. Increase the knowledge base of targeted families

concerning family support philosophy and issues.

Activity #2.1 Develop a "family advocacy series", through new or

existing resources, focusing on family support
philosophy and services, empowerment, and
additional topics as chosen by the families.

Objective #3. Increase the ability of targeted families to

accurately maintain information about their
child's disability.

Activity #3.1 Develop a "care management" tool which allows

families to maintain accurate information about
their child's disability.

Activity #3.2 Provide training in the use of the "care

management" tool, and follow up activities to
insure continued and accurate use.

Objective #4. Project Advisory Committee (See Section 11,6).

Activity #4. To be developed by applicant.

The applicant will identify potential performance measures for
the above objectives in the Project Workplan section of the
proposal. Final performance measures will be approved by the
AADD prior to the start of the project.

F. AWARD CRITERIA

Each request which meets the technical compliance review
will be evaluated by the AADD Independent Grants Review
Committee. The Committee uses the following criteria to review
and rate each application. Each criterion within a group is
assigned a score of 0 to 5, with 5 being the maximum point
value. After the criteria are rated, the scores are subtotaled
and multiplied by the weight factor to calculate the category
total. The application with the highest point value will awarded
the grant funding.

I. UNDERSTANDING THE PROJECT (Weight Factor =3.0)

1. The proposal reflects the knowledge of and a
commitment to the philosophy of family support.

2. The proposal reflects an understanding of and
sensitivity to the issues of access for people of
color.

3. The proposal reflects an understanding of, or the
willingness to gain a understanding of, the needs of
individuals with developmental disabilities.

4. The goals, objectives and activities are consistent

with those required in the guidelines.
Maximum Score = 60 points

II. METHODOLOGY (Weight Factor =2.5)

1. The proposal places an emphasis on outreach activities
and community collaboration.

2. The project design for achieving the goals and
objectives is appropriate.

3. The timelines for project activities are realistic.

4. The potential impact of the project is reasonable, and
plans for future year activities are logical.

5. The methods and techniques to be used to evaluate the
project are appropriate.

Maximum Score = 62.5 points

III. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES (Weight Factor =2.0)

1. The project budget provides the resources necessary to
meet the goals, objectives, and activities/tasks of the
proposed project.

2. The individual cost items are reasonable (personnel
costs, fringe benefits, supplies, equipment, travel,
contractual, etc.).

3 . The cost items and matching funds are presented clearly
and are consistent with RFP requirements.

4. The proposal identifies and provides methods for
utilizing other existing community resources.

Maximum Score = 40 points

IV. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY (Weight Factor =1.5)

1. The applicant has experience in community and group
development and/or outreach projects.

2. The applicant has a history of providing services to
the neighborhoods identified in the proposal.

3. The applicant possesses a knowledge of, or the
willingness to gain a knowledge of the service delivery
system, particularly those resources significant to
individuals with developmental disabilities residing in
the neighborhoods identified in the proposal.

4. The positions and/or subcontractors identified in

the proposal are appropriate for meeting the project
goals and objectives.

5. The applicant demonstrates the management capacity to

implement the fiscal and administrative requirements of
the project.

Maximum points = 37.5

V. PROGRAM PRIORITIES (Weight Factor - 1.0)

1. The extent of (primary) consumer participation in the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of the
project.

2. Special provisions for addressing the needs of urban
and rural poverty areas.

3. Special provisions for addressing the needs of multi-
cultural populations.

4 . Extent to which the needs of the most severely involved
segment of the population with developmental
disabilities have been addressed.

Maximum points = 2 0

TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS = 2 20

VI. MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (MBE)

In accordance with Executive Order 237 and 801 CMR 11.00,
the AADD awards bonus points to MBE organizations certified with
the State Office of Minority and Woman Business Assistance
(SOMWBA) . In general, an MBE is defined as a private
organization which is owned or controlled by members of a
minority group. Applicants must identify themselves as certified
MBE organizations in the project narrative (Section 111,0,3), and
include a copy of the certification letter in the Project Related
Addenda Section of the application (see Section III,C,8).

Certified MBE organizations will be awarded an additional 5%
of their total score as bonus points.

TOTAL MBE ORGANIZATION MAXIMUM POINTS = 231

III. THE APPLICATION

A. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

1. The AADD requires that all grantees conduct an independent
evaluation of project activities. This evaluation will
measure the achievement of the project objectives, grantee
activities, materials, and products. The grantee must
contract with an individual/organization that is not
associated in any way with the grantee organization. The
contract for the independent evaluation is subject to the
review and prior approval of the AADD.

2. All applicants must be in compliance with all licensing and
certification standards as required by Federal, State or
local laws and any regulations or administrative orders
which are applicable to the successful completion of the
program requirements of this RFP.

3. All applicants must include the most recent three (3) year
audit history of their organization with their proposals.

4. All applicants must complete a human rights review to assure
compliance with the requirements set forth in the RFP (see
Appendix F) .

5. By submitting a proposal, the applicant agrees that, if it
is awarded DD grant funds, it will comply with the fiscal
and administrative requirements imposed by 45 CFR 74 and 45
CFR 92 as applicable, the AADD's Conditions of Grant Award,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Standard Terms and
Conditions contract, and all other appropriate State and
Federal legislation, regulations, administrative procedures
and guidelines.

B. TIMELINES

The schedule of events leading to the selection of the
grantee is as follows:

1. Public Notice of Availability May 14, 1993

2. Letter of Intent June 4, 1993

3. Bidder's Conference June 7, 1993

5. Final Date for Submitting Proposals July 1, 1993

6. Projected Award Notification July 30, 1993

7. Project period Sept. 1, 1993-

August 31, 1994

Letters of Intent - Organizations intending to submit a proposal
are required to submit a letter of intent to the AADD Director by

by June 4, 1993. The letter will enable the AADD to notify
prospective applicants of any revisions to the RFP material
and/or procedures. The letter of intent will include the
following information:

(a) RFP identification number - # 92-1(3) (B).

(b) Name, address, phone and fax numbers of applicant
organization;

(d) If applicable, indicate that the potential applicant
will require interpreter services at the Bidder's
Conference.

Submission of a letter of intent does not commit an organization
to submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.

Bidders' Conference - The purpose of this conference is to
entertain specific questions from prospective applicants relative
to this RFP and the application process. The bidder's conference
will be held:

Monday, June 7, 1993, 1 pm
Conference Room #3, 21st Floor
1 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA.

C. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
1. Cover Page (Form #1)

Title of Project - Family Support Multi-cultural Project.

RFP Number - # 92-1(3) (B)

Name and Title of Project Director - List the full name and
title of the individual responsible for project activities.

Name, Title, and Address of Financial Officer - List the
name, title and address of the individual responsible for
the receipt, accountability, and use of Developmental
Disabilities project funds.

Type of Agency or Organization - Check the space which most
accurately describes your organization.

Proposed Term of Project - 9/1/93 -8/31/94

Reguest Special Matching Rate for Poverty Area - If the
proposed project will primarily serve or impact residents of
urban or rural poverty areas identified as such by the
Federal Census Bureau, the applicant should check "yes." If
"yes" is checked, the applicant is required to match all DD
Project costs at a minimum rate of 10%. If "no" is checked,
the applicant is required to provide a 25% match.

Total Funding of Project - List the totals here as they
appear in the "Budget Summary" (Form #3, Part 2).

Signature and Title of Responsible Officer - The application
must be signed by an officer of the agency who is authorized
to commit the agency or organization to the requirements of
the application. In the case of a State agency, this will
generally be the commissioner or his/her authorized
designee. In signing the application, the applicant
certifies its agreement with the Terms and Conditions
indicated on the Cover Page.

2. Table of Contents

Construct a Table of Contents for the completed proposal and
include it here.

3. Project Narrative

The Project Narrative must address each area described below.

1. Provide an agency history and mission statement.

2. Describe the services that your organization currently
provides, including information on services to individuals
and/or families of color.

3. Describe your organization's philosophy and strategies for
providing services in multi-cultural communities.

4. Describe the strategy for recruiting the Project Advisory
Committee (PAC) .

5. Describe strategies for networking with existing groups
active in family support and children's issues, as
identified in the Project Activities section.

6. Describe strategies to provide outreach to families of color
in at least two neighborhoods, to introduce these families
to the groups identified above, and to encourage and
maintain their active participation in these groups.

7. Detail a plan for developing and disseminating the "care
management" tool for family members. The tool should be
designed for easy use and include separate sections for
information such as diagnosis, school plan (IEP) , medical
data, treatment history, provider contacts, etc. Explain
what the tool will include and how it will be disseminated.
Describe the steps that will be used to train family members
to utilize the tool, and follow up activities to insure
effective use.

8. Detail a plan for providing a series of informal groups
as a forum for interaction among families. These groups
should include regularly scheduled activities, and

opportunities for members to discuss similar interests,
etc.

9. Detail a plan for providing the "family advocacy series".
Identify existing resources that can be used in addition to
those provided by the applicant. Include a list of
potential topics in addition to the required topics. Some
potential topics include resources/services, advocacy,
negotiation, parenting children with disabilities,
assertiveness training, networking strategies, and community
organizing. The applicant is encouraged to identify other
topics deemed relevant to the target population.

10. Describe existing linkages with other agencies and community
groups and explain how these relationships can benefit the
project.

11. Describe the expected impact of the project on the target
communities.

12. Provide a narrative description of the resources needed to
implement the project. Include the functions of all project
staff and be sure to include resources to provide for
accessibility and reasonable accommodation for all potential
participants. Include information on the management
structure of the project (supervision, reporting) and the
organization's capacity to implement AADD administrative
reporting requirements.

13. Briefly describe potential activities for the second and
third year of the project, including expansion of activities
to other communities, based on expected first year outcomes.

14. Describe plans for securing an independent evaluation. This
evaluation will measure the achievement of the project
objectives, grantee activities, materials, and products.

15. Include the following items at the end of the Project
Narrative:

a) Job descriptions of project positions (including who
will be responsible for writing and submitting
quarterly reports) ;

b) Resumes of project staff;

c) Applicant organization chart; and

d) Project organization chart.

4 . Workplan (Form #2)

The applicant must prepare a workplan which details the
activities as described in the Project Narrative. The workplan
must be completed according to the following instructions:

Obj ective - List each major objective.

Activities - The activities necessary to address each
objective should be subdivided into separate, time specific
activities. Successful completion of each scheduled
activities should result in the successful completion of the
objective. The first activity under any objective should be
labeled "A", the second "B", etc.

After each activity's description, the projected start and
end dates to implement that activity should be noted.

Tasks - Each activity should be subdivided into its
component tasks. Each task should be time specific, and
assigned to a staff person (s) . The successful completion of
all tasks under an activity should result in the successful
completion of that activity. The first task under activity
"A" should be numbered "1", the second "2", etc.

Staff /Days - For each task, include each staff member who
will be working on the task and estimate the number of
business days the employee will need to complete the task.
Work days should be identified as follows: one day = 1.0;
four hours = .50; one week = 5.0; etc.

Performance Measures - Identify potential performance
measures that would indicate successful completion of each
objective.

5. Budget (Form # 3)

a. Costs

Costs charged to the grant must be necessary and reasonable
for proper and efficient administration of the grant program.
Refer to the attached "Costs" excerpt from the Conditions of
Grant Award for more specific information on allowable costs.
Costs which are "Not Allowable" may be charged to matching
contributions from other sources, subject to any conditions
imposed by those other sources.

b. Matching Funds

Matching contributions may include third party "in kind"
contributions such as a volunteer's efforts and donated supplies,
equipment or space, provided their valuation is based upon
procedures established under 45 CFR 74 and 45 CFR 92, as
applicable, and they are documented in the same fashion as
project costs borne by Federal or non-Federal funds.

The matching contribution should be included in the
appropriate budget category reflecting its use so that the budget
reflects total project costs.

c. Line by Line Instructions

The proposed budget (Form #3) should be completed according

to the following instructions:

1. . Personnel - Identify each position by title. Include

the annual salary and the full time equivalent (FTE) to
be dedicated to this specific project in the
appropriate columns. The Executive Director of an
applicant organization cannot be the Project Director.
However, his/her supervisory time can be charged to the
project.

2 . Consultation, Professional Fees, and Volunteer Costs -
Enter the area of consultation to be sought (e.g.,
Personal Care Attendant, Sign Language Interpreter,)
under "Nature of Expense". Calculate the total cost by
multiplying the number of units (e.g. , hours, days,
sessions) by the rate of payment for that unit.

3. Travel - This item is for staff travel only. Any
travel listed in this category must be for the
purpose of suporting grant activities as described in
the appication. NOTE: The current approved rate for
private auto mileage is $.22 per mile. This allowance
covers gas, tolls and parking fees.

4. Equipment - Individually list each item of equipment to
be purchased, leased or rented. If several pieces of
equipment are to be purchased, leased or rented, list
the total here and use Form #3.3 to itemize individual
pieces of equipment. For state and local governments,
equipment is non-expendable tangible personal property
having a useful life of more than two (2) years and an
acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. For all
other applicants, the threshold for purchased equipment
is $1,000 or more per unit.

NOTE: DD funds cannot be used to purchase
computer equipment.

5. Supplies, Materials, and Publication Costs - List all
supplies and materials that will be required to support
the program during the project. List per page costs
for each anticipated publication.

6. Furnishings - List individually each furniture item
that will be purchased, leased, or rented (including
the charges for installation, insurance, and freight) .
Enter the number of each item and the per item cost.

7. Renovations - NA for this RFP.

8. Space Occupancy Costs - Identify the space being used
(office space, conference room, etc.). Under "Cost or
Rate of Payment," list the number of square feet and
the cost per month. Remember to calculate the total
cost for the 12 month project period.

9. Other Direct Costs - List separately all other direct
costs not already provided for that will be incurred
during the project (e.g. , audit, telephone, postage,
independent evaluation, etc.). The grantee will be
required to conduct an audit in accordance with the OMB
circular applicable to the grantee's organization.

10. Indirect Costs - Indirect costs are those costs which
cannot be identified as separate unit costs and are
incurred by the organization in the conduct of a number
of projects and functions. No more than ten percent
(10%) of direct costs can be charged to the indirect
cost category. If the applicant has an indirect cost
rate approved by the Federal Department of Health and
Human Services or another federal agency, the amount
above 10% must be attributed to matching funds.

11. Budget Summary - The "Total" line under each budget
category listed in the previous section must be
transcribed onto this summary page. The "Total" line
on this form will then be a comprehensive summary of
all costs associated with this project. These figures
should be the same as those listed in the "Total
Funding of Project" box on the cover page (Form #1) .

12 . Itemization of Equipment and Furnishings (Form 3.3) -
If necessary, itemize all equipment and/or furnishings
to be leased, rented, or purchased as part of this
project.

6. Budget Justification

A separate budget justification must be included to
fully explain and justify the following major items:

o Personnel - Identify by title(s) or name(s). Briefly

explain the position's function on the project. Submit
the resumes of project staff already in the employ of
the applicant.

o Fringe Benefits - Include a breakdown of amounts and

percentages that comprise fringe benefit costs, such as
health insurance, FICA, retirement, etc.

o Consultation, Professional Fees, and Volunteer Costs -
For each consultation service, describe the specifics
of the service to be rendered. When subcontracting
part or all of the program to another agency, the
applicant must submit a budget and budget justification
for that agency. Identify the name of subcontracting
agency, purpose of contract, and cost elements.

o Travel - for mileage, include the projected number of
trips, and the reasons for travel. For other travel,
include the name(s) of travellers, destinations, length

of stay, transportation costs, subsistence allowances,
and the reason for travel.

o Equipment - For each type, explain its function.

o Furnishings - Explain the purpose of all office

furniture that must be purchased, leased or rented for
the project.

o Space Occupancy - Explain how the cost for office space
was determined, and justify the need for the space. In
addition, if the project involves sponsoring public
forums or conferences, include information on location,
purpose and estimated attendance.

o Other Direct Costs - Include an explanation of other
expenses that cannot be categorized elsewhere in the
budget but relate directly to the project.

o Indirect Costs - Indicate if there is a current

indirect cost rate approved by the Federal Department
of Health and Human Services or another federal agency,
and attach the agreement.

o Non-Federal Match - Explain the source (s) of the non-
federal match.

7 . Applicant Qualification Documents

Submit the following documents with the application:

a) Financial information concerning stability of the
organization, including financial audits from the last
three (3) years.

b) The following assurance forms must be completed by all
applicants for Federal Developmental Disabilities (DD)
funds, and included with the application. Be sure that
all forms are signed by the appropriate authorized
individual .

Form #4 - OMB Assurances for Non-Construction Programs

Form #5 - Habilitation Plan Assurance

Form #6 - Merit System Certification (public agencies only)

Form #7 - Certificate of Vote (private agencies only)

Form #8 - Certificate of Legal Existence (obtained from
the Commonwealth's Secretary of State's
Office - private agencies only)

Form #9 - Financial Interest Disclosure

Form #10 - Human Rights Assurances (see Appendix E)

Form #11 - Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion

Form #12 - Certification Regarding Lobbying for Grants,

Loans, and Cooperative Agreements

Form #13 - Compliance with the Americans With

Disabilities Act (ADA)

Form #14 - Affirmative Action Plan for Grants Exceeding
$50,000

8. Project Related Addenda - Optional

Submit any other documentation not accounted for elsewhere
(agency brochures, letters of support) .

9. RFP Application Checklist

Fill out the top section and attach it to the front of the
original application.

FORMAT AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Applicants must submit one original with six (6) copies. Do
not staple the original copy. Each copy of the proposal must be
submitted as a single document, and all documentation submitted
with the proposal must be included in the single volume.
Proposals must be typed in standard-sized or large print and all
pages must be 8 1/2" x 11". Do not submit proposals in binders
or notebooks. The original and all copies must be sequentially
paginated from the first page of the application to the last
page, regardless of the individual components (including charts,
assurances, attachments, financial audit, etc) . If the applicant
chooses to submit letters of support, they must be included in
the application. Letters of support or any other documentation
sent under separate cover to the AADD will not be reviewed or
acknowledged. The AADD has the right to reject or penalize any
application that does not conform to this format and/or is
incomplete.

All applications must be received no later than 3 pm on
Friday, July 2, 1993. Applicants who mail their documents are
advised to send them via an overnight courier to ensure that they
are received by the deadline. Any application that arrives after
the deadline will be unconditionally refused. There will be no
exceptions. Submit completed applications to:

RFP # 92-1(3) (B)

Administering Agency for Developmental Disabilities

600 Washington Street, Room 670

Boston, Massachusetts 02111

E. FUNDING RESTRICTIONS

DD funding for this project is subject to the following DD
funding requirements:

1. DD funds cannot be used for existing client services or
programs, or ongoing agency expenses;

2. DD funds cannot be used to duplicate or supplant
existing State or Federally funded programs or
services;

3. Publications, products, etc. must be reviewed and
approved by the AADD, or its designee, prior to
dissemination/ publication; and

4. Funding will be provided in five installments and will
be made on a quarterly basis at the beginning of each
quarter as established by the Notice of Grant Award
(NGA) .

5. The grantee will be required to submit quarterly and
final fiscal and programmatic reports to the AADD by
the dates indicated on the NGA, and in the manner
delineated in the Instructions for Completing AADD
Quarterly Reports.

6. DD funds must be expended by September 30, 1994.

F. OTHER CONDITIONS

1. Cost of Preparing Applications - Costs for developing
applications are entirely the responsibility of the
applicant and shall not be reimbursed in any manner by
the State.

2 . Clarification of Applications - The State reserves the
right to request any necessary clarification of the
applications without changing the terms of this RFP.

3 . Acceptance of Applications

a. It is the intent of the AADD to select a grantee
based on the responses to the RFP. The AADD,
however, reserves the right to reject any or all
applications received in response to the RFP if it
is in the best interest of the State to do so.

b. The acceptance of any application and subsequent
award of DD funds by the AADD shall be dependent
upon the appropriation, allocation, and
availability of Federal funds, and subject to
Federal and, if applicable, State approval.

4. Freedom of Information - All proposals received are
subject to State regulations regarding Freedom of
Information, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 4,
Section 7, Subsection 26, and Chapter 66, Section 10.

5. Modifications to RFP Guidelines - Each organization
which submits a letter of intent will be notified in
writing by the AADD of any changes or modifications in
the RFP guidelines. All such changes will be announced
prior to the date when all applications are due.

6. Material Ownership - All material submitted becomes the
property of the State and may be returned at the
State's option. Selection or rejection of the
application will not affect this right.

IV. APPENDICES

A. Definitions

B. "Costs" Excerpt, Conditions of Grant Award

C. State Plan Excerpts, 1993 MDDC State Plan

D. Summary of DMR Related Activities

E. Human Rights Requirements

F. Application and Assurance Forms #1 - #14

I *

APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS

1. "Activity" means a major effort which must be
undertaken to accomplish an objective.

2 . "Administering Agency for Developmental Disabilities"
or "AADD" means the agency that administers all DD
grants.

3. "Applicant (s) " mean(s) the respondent (s) to the RFP.

4 . "Consultant" means an individual who enters into a
service contract with the Commonwealth or is hired by a
private nonprofit organization for a limited period of
time to perform specific duties and/or develop
identifiable products under a contract.

5. "Consumer" means a person who meets the requirements of
the definition of developmental disabilities.

6. "Consumer representative" means a parent, other
immediate relative or guardian of a person who meets
the requirements of the definition of developmental
disabilities.

7. "Contractor" means an individual or public or private
organization who enters into a contractual obligation
for the purpose of providing specific products or
services.

8. "DD" means Developmental Disabilities.

9 . "Debarment" means a formal process which prevents an
organization from receiving Federal funds for a defined
period of time due to that organization's gross
misconduct in performing grantee activities or in
expending federal funds.

10. "Developmental disability" means a severe chronic
disability of a person 5 years of age or older which --

(a) is attributable to a mental or physical
impairment or combination of mental and
physical impairments;

(b) is manifested before the person attains age
twenty-two ;

(d) results in substantial functional limitations
in three or more of the following areas of
major life activity: (i) self-care, (ii)
receptive and expressive language, (iii)
learning, (iv) mobility, (v) self-direction

(vi) capacity for independent living;
(vii) economic self-sufficiency; and
(e) reflects the person's need for a combination
and sequence of special, interdisciplinary,
or generic care, treatment, or other services
which are lifelong or of an extended duration
and are individually planned and coordinated;
except that such term, when applied to
infants and young children means individual
from birth to age 5, inclusive, who have
substantial developmental delay or specific
congenital or acquired conditions with a high
probability of resulting in developmental
disabilities if services are not provided.

11. ••Empowerment11 means a process of increasing personal,
interpersonal, or political control so that individuals
can take actions to improve their life situation.

12 . "Goal" means a general statement indicating what the
grantee will accomplish pursuant to this RFP.

13. "Grantee" means the applicant (s) who receive (s) an
award pursuant to the RFP.

14 . "High Risk Grantee" means a previously funded DD
grantee with a record of unsatisfactory programmatic or
fiscal performance.

15. "MDDC" means the Massachusetts Developmental
Disabilities Council.

16. "Multi-cultural community" means a community of people
protected under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts'
affirmative action policy. Specific groups include but
are not limited to:

(a) Asian - All persons having origins in any of
the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent or
the Pacific Islands. Areas include China,
India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands
and Samoa;

(b) Black - All persons having origins in any of
the Black racial groups of Africa, or the
Cape Verde Islands;

(c) Hispanic - All persons of Mexican, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or
other Spanish culture or origin regardless of
race ;

(d) Native American or Alaskan Native - All
persons having origins in any of the original
peoples of North America, who maintain
cultural identification through tribal

affiliations or community recognition; and
(e) Portuguese - All persons having origins in

Portugal. This latter category is not given
affirmative action recognition by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but is
classified as a multi-cultural group by the
MDDC.

17. "Nonprofit institution" is defined as an entity that:

(a) operates primarily for scientific,
educational, service, charitable, or similar
purpose in the public interest;

(b) is not organized primarily for profit; and

(c) uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve,
or expand its operations. The term includes
colleges and universities. The term does not
include hospitals that are not affiliated
with a college or university; and

(d) is a tax exempt organization under applicable
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
(I.R.C. ) .

18. "Objective" means a specific, measurable, time-limited
step for attaining a goal.

19. "Organization" means a public or private nonprofit
agency, including State, city, local and local
education agencies (LEAs) .

20. "Prior Approval" means permission, either written or
verbal, from the AADD in advance of an act which would
result in a change to: 1) the approved obligation or
expenditure of funds; 2) the performance of an approved
activity and/or timeframe under the grant supported
project, and/or: 3) the profits of products required
under the DD funded project, including manuals,
curricula, scripts for videos/PSAs, evaluation forms,
etc.

21. "Product" means standard products required in all DD
funded projects, (e.g., quarterly fiscal and
programmatic reports, final reports, independent
evaluation, financial audit, Project Advisory Committee
agenda and minutes, training materials, curriculum,
surveys, needs assessments, etc.) and specific products
required in the RFP (e.g., How-To Manuals, Executive
Summary, Resources Directory, etc.)

22. "RFP" means request for proposal.

23. "Standard Service Contract" means the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts' Standard Service Contract (SC) which all
DD grantees must complete and submit prior to the

reimbursement of services.

24. "State" means the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

25. "Sub-grantee" means a public (State, City or Local unit
of government and/or agency) or private nonprofit body
receiving a grant award from a grantee subject to the
same rules and regulations that govern the disbursement
of funds under P.L. 101-496.

26. "Suspension" means an action by the AADD which
temporarily interrupts assistance under the grant.

27. "Task" means a specific staff responsibility within an
activity area.

28. "Termination" means an action by the AADD which
discontinues funding to a grantee organization for a
specific grant due to repeated noncompliance or
malfeasance on the part of the grantee conducting the
project.

The fact that these definitions may not correspond exactly
to those included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Sections 45 CFR 74 and 45 CFR 92 should not be construed to
change the applicability of those parts to funds awarded by the
AADD under Public Law 101-496. These definitions are adopted for
administrative convenience only in describing the relationships
between the AADD and its subrecipients.

APPENDIX B

"COSTS" EXCERPT
AADD Condition of Grant Award

APPENDIX B

COSTS

The pattern of expenditures among categories of expenses shall
follow the amounts established in the Notice of Grant Award of
Project Contract. Transfer of funds within an approved grant
budget shall be governed by the provisions of 45 CFR 74 or 45 CFR
92, as applicable. If, however, the grantee has been designated
high-risk under applicable regulations, the AADD may require
advanced approval on all transfers among cost categories. When the
need for an item requiring prior approval arises subsequent to the
submission of the grant application or budget request, the request
for approval must be signed by the authorized grantee official.
Funds may not be transferred from the indirect cost category to any
direct cost category of the approved budget without prior approval.

The listing below includes allowable and unallowable
expenditures most frequently encountered as direct costs in
connection with Developmental Disabilities grants. Omission of a
particular item of a cost is not intended to imply that such item
is either allowed or not allowed as a direct cost.

,f Indirect Costs" of a project are those not readily identified
with the project itself, but nevertheless incurred by a grantee —
as in the operation and maintenance of the building or in the
payment of utility costs or administrative salaries — for the
joint benefit of the project activities and other activities. By
AADD policy, no more than 10 percent of the direct costs of the
project may be charged to a Developmental Disabilities grant as
indirect costs.

Only the "cost pools," as defined in the DHHS publication
0ASC5 entitled "Cost Principles and Procedures for Establishing
Indirect Cost Rates for Grant and Contracts with the Department of
Health and Human Services," are allowable as indirect cost pools
for Developmental Disabilities project grants. Costs in any of the
following categories which can be specifically prorated for the
Developmental Disabilities grant project should be generally
entered as direct costs:

Compensation for Personal Services

Contingencies

Employee Health, Morale, or Welfare Services

Fringe Benefits

Insurance and Indemnification

Minor Maintenance and Repair Costs: Equipment

Other Business Expenses

Professional Service Costs (Legal, Accounting, Scientific

and other)
Public Information Services Costs
Recruitment Costs
Rental Costs
Termination Costs

Trade, Business, Technical and Professional Activity Costs

Training and Educational Costs

Transportation Costs

Telephone and Communication Costs

Minor Modification of Space and Utilities

If the grantee has an established indirect cost rate with the
Federal government, a copy of any negotiable agreement that the
grantee may have must be included with the application. If
technical assistance is needed, please contact the AADD.

The following is a list of costs:

(1) Advertising - Allowable if specified in the Request for
Proposal for initial advertising and public relations only for
newspaper, radio, or television advertising to inform
potential applicants of the availability of direct services.
Advertising costs related to the objectives of other types of
grants are allowable subject to prior written approval of the
AADD.

(2) Audit - Allowable for the costs of performing an independent,
organization-wide audit in accordance with the provisions of
the applicable Office of Management and Budget Circular (A-
128 — governments, A-110 or A-133 — nonprofit organizations) , or
for an independent audit restricted to Developmental
Disabilities grant funds in a case where such organization-
wide audit is not required.

(3) Books and Periodicals - Allowable when required for the
conduct of the project, or directly related to the purposes of
the project. Books and periodicals obtained for libraries or
for general use of the staff are not allowable unless they
meet these conditions.

(4) Communications - Allowable for costs resulting from local and
long distance telephone calls, telephone surveys, telegrams,
postage, or similar costs reflected in the approved
application and necessary to the project.

(5) Computer Equipment - Hardware may not be purchased. In
certain cases, if deemed appropriate pursuant to the RFP,
hardware can be leased.

(6) Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, New Additions or
Extensions - Not allowable.

(7) Consultant Services - Allowable, subject to the following
restrictions:

(a) Consultant fees may not be paid to an employee of the
Federal government;

(b) Consultant fees may not be paid to an employee of the
Commonwealth during his/her regularly scheduled working

APPENDIX B

COSTS

"Indirect Costs" of a project are those not readily identified
with the project itself, but nevertheless incurred by a grantee —
as in the operation and maintenance of the building or in the
payment of utility costs or administrative salaries — for the
joint benefit of the project activities and other activities. By
AADD policy, no more than 10 percent of the direct costs of the
project may be charged to a Developmental Disabilities grant as
indirect costs.

Compensation for Personal Services

Contingencies

Employee Health, Morale, or Welfare Services

Fringe Benefits

Insurance and Indemnification

Minor Maintenance and Repair Costs: Equipment

Other Business Expenses

Professional Service Costs (Legal, Accounting, Scientific

and other)
Public Information Services Costs
Recruitment Costs
Rental Costs
Termination Costs

Trade, Business, Technical and Professional Activity Costs

Training and Educational Costs

Transportation Costs

Telephone and Communication Costs

Minor Modification of Space and Utilities

The following is a list of costs:

(5) Computer Equipment - Hardware may not be purchased. In
certain cases, if deemed appropriate pursuant to the RFP,
hardware can be leased.

(6) Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, New Additions or
Extensions - Not allowable.

(7) Consultant Services - Allowable, subject to the following
restrictions :

(a) Consultant fees may not be paid to an employee of the
Federal government;

(b) Consultant fees may not be paid to an employee of the
Commonwealth during his/her regularly scheduled working

hours;

(c) Consultant fees may be paid to an employee of the grantee
agency or organization only under unusual circumstances
and with prior approval of the AADD; and

(d) Consultant contracts must receive prior approval by the
AADD.

The grantee's policy prevails as to determination of
consultant fees, unless the AADD determines that the projected
fee is unreasonable with respect to the nature of work to be
accomplished and the credentials of the consultant.

(8) Equipment and Furnishings - Allowable. However, prior AADD
approval is required for:

(a) any item the acquisition cost of which exceeds $500;

(b) printing or audio-visual equipment;

(d) furnishings, exclusive of office equipment, if specified
in the RFP.

Equipment may be rented or purchased — the grantee must
select the option which is least expensive.

A grantee may be reimbursed for the capital cost for an item
of equipment already owned only when it is in its central
purchasing department and held in a central stockroom for
issuance and sale to an organizational component.
For purposes of charging Developmental Disabilities grants,
the cost of a single unit or piece of equipment includes
necessary accessories, duty, excise and sales taxes (unless
the organization is exempt from such taxes) . If the
organizational policy provides that charges for
transportation, protective-in-transit insurance, and
installation are a part of the cost of equipment, such charges
must be included in the equipment costs if they are to be
charged to Developmental Disabilities grants.

(9) Equipment Maintenance and Repairs - Allowable on equipment
used specifically on the Developmental Disabilities project.

(10) Equipment Rental - Allowable provided the equipment is not
owned by the grantee. Rental charges to a grant must be made
in conformance with grantee policies and in the same manner
that similar charges are made to any account.

(11) Films - Allowable for purchase of a film provided the film is
used only for training purposes in connection with the
project. Not allowable for public showing unless prior
written approval is obtained from the AADD. Allowable for
film production if fully justified in support of the goals and
objectives of the RFP, with prior approval by the AADD.

(12) Fringe Benefits - Allowable for employer's share to the extent
that such payment is made under formally established and
consistently applied organizational policies, uniformly
charged as a direct cost on an actual rather than an estimated
basis, and charged in proportion to salary charged to the
grant. The employee's share is part of the gross salary and
included therein.

If a grantee has an established fringe benefit rate with the
Federal government, the rate charged must be supported by the
following: (1) the rate negotiated; (2) the date of
negotiation; (3) the agency or Federal office with whom the
negotiation was conducted; and (4) a copy of the negotiation
agreement issued by the Federal agency.

If a grantee requests reimbursement for fringe benefits
through a fringe benefit rate not established by the Federal
government, then this rate must be supported by the following:
(1) basis for the rate; (2) a breakdown and explanation of
what the rate consists of; (3) any other supportive data
justifying the rate; and (4) a copy of any negotiation
agreement that the grantee may have.

If technical assistance is needed, please contact the AADD.

(13) Honoraria - Not allowable. An honorarium is considered a
payment or reward whenever the primary intent is to confer
distinction on, or to symbolize respect, esteem, or admiration
for the recipient. A consultant fee, on the other hand, is
compensation for services rendered and is allowable.

(14) Insurance - Allowable for liability insurance, workers'
compensation insurance, business interruption insurance, fire
insurance, health insurance, and insurance against vandalism
and malicious mischief, equipment or automobiles in accordance
with the same policies as are employed for non-Federally
funded activities.

(15) Land or Buildings - Not allowable.

(16) License Fees - Allowable on start-up grants for direct service
only.

(17) Meals - Allowable for service recipients, or when an agency or
organization customarily provides for meals to employees or
volunteers. Meal expenses are not allowable for non-project
related persons.

(18) Minor Modifications of Space and Utilities - Allowable only if
specified in the Request for Proposal and only for essential
"minor" modifications of space and utilities within to
complete structure for the purpose of adapting it to meet the
needs of the project objectives more effectively.

hours ;

(c) Consultant fees may be paid to an employee of the grantee
agency or organization only under unusual circumstances
and with prior approval of the AADD; and

(d) Consultant contracts must receive prior approval by the
AADD.

(8) Equipment and Furnishings - Allowable. However, prior AADD
approval is required for:

(a) any item the acquisition cost of which exceeds $500;

(b) printing or audio-visual equipment;

(d) furnishings, exclusive of office equipment, if specified
in the RFP.

Equipment may be rented or purchased — the grantee must
select the option which is least expensive.

(9) Equipment Maintenance and Repairs - Allowable on equipment
used specifically on the Developmental Disabilities project.

If technical assistance is needed, please contact the AADD.

(15) Land or Buildings - Not allowable.

(16) License Fees - Allowable on start-up grants for direct service
only.

A grantee receiving funds for minor modifications of space and
utilities must —

(a) comply with the Executive Order No. 11246 entitled "Equal
Employment Opportunity" as supplemented in Department of
Labor regulations (41 CFR Part 60) .

(b) comply with the Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act (18 USC 874)
as implemented in Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR
Part 3) if the grant is in excess of $2,000. All
suspected or reported violations of the Copeland Act must
be reported to the AADD.

(c) include a provision for compliance with the David-Bacon
Act (40 USC 27 6a to a7) as supplemented by Department of
Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5) in all construction
contracts awarded in excess of $2,000. The grantee shall
report all suspected or reported violations to the AADD.

(19) Ongoing Program Expenses - Not Allowable.

(20) Publication and Distribution of Materials - Allowable for
costs of publishing books, monographs, pamphlets, brochures,
or other materials described in the grant application, subject
to the conditions noted in paragraph #2 above. Costs of
publishing or reproducing reports required by the AADD and of
distributing materials as stipulated as a condition to
receiving the grant are also allowable.

(21) Recruitment Costs - Allowable for recruitment of full-time
staff if specified in the Request for Proposal and only for
costs related to want ads and other advertising. Out-of -State
travel costs related to recruitment will be considered only
when and if in-State recruitment cannot be accomplished.

(22) Rental of Space - Allowable when charges are made in
conformance with grantee policies and in the same manner that
similar charges are made to any account. No rental charge may
be made for space owned or controlled (managed or
administered) by the grantee or by an affiliated organization,
except that a charge may be allowed equivalent to the cost of
ownership (e.g., depreciation or use allowance, taxes, and
normal maintenance and operating costs) . Also, when a grantee
transfers a facility to a third party through sale, lease, or
otherwise, and then leases the facility back from that third
party, the lease cost which may be charged to the project may
not exceed the equivalent of the "cost of ownership".

NOTE: All conference/training/project activities

space must be accessible for persons with mobility
and sensory impairments.

(23) Salaries and Wages - Allowable for time or effort spent on a
grant supported project. No supplementation of base salary is

permitted; however, when a project employee's full-time base
salary covers a period less than 12 months, the salary may be
prorated to the grant period. Salary and wage rates must be
in conformity with those permitted by the grantee's wages and
salary scales and policies. Requisite documentation (e.g.,
time and attendance records as required by the Federal Cost
Principles applicable to the Grantee) must be maintained.

The Executive Director of an organization cannot be the
Project Director for the grant.

(24) Services Provided by Affiliated or Cooperating Organizations -
Costs incurred by affiliated or cooperating, separately
incorporated agencies and organizations in support of grantees
are allowable with prior AADD approval for reimbursement by
the grant only if one of the following conditions exist:

(a) the grantee is charged for, and pays for, a service
provided through a contract or sub-grant with the
affiliated or cooperating agency or organization
specified in the grant application;

(b) the affiliated or cooperating agencies or organizations
submit joint applications and the award is made to them
jointly. In this case, costs incurred by either or both
may be reimbursed to the extent otherwise allowable.

(25) Supplies - Allowable.

(26) Taxes - Allowable only for those taxes which a grantee is
required to pay in connection with employment, services,
travel, renting, or purchasing for a project.

(27) Travel - Allowable for domestic travel when such travel is
essential to the successful conduct of the project being
supported. Travel on grant funds may be allowed for those
persons listed in the application who are holding staff
positions at least 50 percent of full time in the conduct of
the project (others with prior AADD approval) . Prior approval
is required for such travel if the total required for travel
exceeds the amount approved by the AADD. Foreign travel is
not allowed. Less than first class air travel must be used
when available. Mileage cost and expenses related to the
travel will be applied in accordance with the grantee's and
State's policy. U.S. Government Travel regulations (GSA
Bulletin FPMR-A40, Supp. 20, issued under Title I, P.L. 99-
234, 5 U.S.C. 57) and State policy must be followed when a
grantee has no established guidelines.

(28) Tuition and Related Costs - Allowable with prior written
approval from the AADD when short-term specialized staff
training is required for successful implementation of the
objectives of the project.

(29) Volunteer Reimbursements - Allowable for the reimbursement of
in-State travel and meal expenses incurred by volunteers as a
direct result of activities undertaken as part of the project.
Such reimbursements should be made on the basis of receipts
showing the exact nature and amount of expenses incurred. If
the grantee's stated policy regarding volunteer utilization
and reimbursement allows for expenses in excess of travel and
meals, those costs may be treated as a match to the grant.

APPENDIX C

STATE PLAN EXCERPT
1993 MDDC State Plan

SECTION III-l:

SUPPORTING FAMILIES

A. Background/Family Perspectives

• History of Council Involvement

The Family Support Steering Group
(FSSG) started as an ad hoc sub-group in
1986 and became an official Council com-
mittee in FY 1992. Its purpose is to select
and execute initiatives supporting families
caring for a family member with disabili-
ties at home. Group members share infor-
mation on family support programs in the
state, analyze the state budget for family
support funds, and advocate for a coherent
family support policy for Massachusetts.

The FSSG has a history of working in
collaboration with the Executive Office of
Health and Human Services (EOHHS) and
a variety of other public and private agen-
cies to obtain endorsement of the philoso-
phy of family support by the executive and
legislative branches of state government.
Several parents, whose children have
different disabilities and are varying ages,
are actively involved in the Group. Two
parents co-chair the group. Family em-
powerment is central to the mission of the
Family Support Steering Group. To obtain
family input into the design of a family
support system, the FSSG held four yearly
statewide Family Support conferences from
1986-1989. In the fall of 1986, approxi-
mately 150 people came together from all
over the state and provided insights which
were compiled in the paper, Families
Uniting for Change. The theme of the
second conference was political empower-

ment, and respite care was the theme of
the third. The fourth conference focused
on reaching out to and including people
from multi-cultural groups and making
information accessible to them.

During the past few years, the Group has
worked to establish a relationship with
staff from EOHHS and has promoted the
formation of a grassroots organization of
family members. These efforts and others
are described more fully under Section C. ,
Status of Current Council Efforts.

• Defining Families and Their Needs

A family with a member with a disability
is defined as one or more people residing
together in one household and where one
or more of the people is a person with
disabilities. Families come in all ages,
from all geographic areas of the state-
rural, urban, and suburban; they may be
rich or poor; and of any racial heritage.
Family includes biological as well as foster
and adoptive parents, and people in ex-
tended family relationships. The common
denominator for these families is that a
family member has a developmental disab-
ility—beyond that, their circumstances and
needs will vary from one another, and will
also change over time as individuals within
the family reach different ages and/or
stages of development.

• The Role of the Family

In society, the family has a dual role: (a)
to provide for the basic needs, socializa-
tion, and nurturance of its members, and
(b) to mediate between its members and
larger social groups. The "service sys-
tem" should not supplant either role or
else the well-being of the individual, the
family, and the society is threatened. One
example of this has been the bias towards
avoidable, costly out-of-home placements
for children.

• What are Family Supports, and What
is the Rationale for Family Support?

However, people with disabilities may
need supports to conduct daily life activi-
ties and to participate in their communi-
ties. A parent at the Council's June 1991
public forum denned family supports as
"what families want, what they need,
whenever they need it."

Unfortunately, society does not appear to
understand the key role of the family in
caring for members with disabilities. A
common complaint is the lack of resour-
ces: "(there is) nothing else out there."
"(The) system needs flexibility to meet all
these (needs)."

A Council member recently said that
"people with disabilities do not want any-
thing that anybody else does not get. "

UNIVERSAL HUMAN NEEDS

Examples of Family Supports include:
respite care, personal care attendant ser-
vices and personal care attendant surro-
gacy services, home health aides, cash
assistance or vouchers to purchase needed
services, case management/service coor-
dination, home modifications, assistive
technology, integrated day or after-school
care— anything which enables the family
and/or individual with disabilities to par-
ticipate in the community.

Promoting supports for families to care for
family members with disabilities at home
or in the community gives the person with
disabilities the opportunity to develop in a
typical, societally valued way. Some sup-
ports, such as after-school or day care, can
help other family members to obtain or
maintain employment so they can pay
taxes. Often, without integrated day care
or aftercare, mothers or fathers cannot
work outside of the home and lose job
opportunities. Many families cannot make
it on just one income.

Furthermore, a child is more "productive"
doing what typical children do-going to
their local school ("the least restrictive
environment" for most children), learning
with peers, and making friends. When a
person is enabled to stay in the commun-
ity, integration can occur naturally, to the
benefit of all citizens.

bers who experience (developmental)
disabilities. Partnerships, in which re-
sponsibilities are shared between equals,
have developed between family members
and professionals. While some progress
has been made in expanding the range of
supports, much more needs to be done. A
comprehensive array of supports must be
available to "enhance the ability of the
family to meet the need of persons with
developmental disabilities and to function
effectively as a unit." (1)

While some helpful supports are available,
consistency and coordination are lacking.
Sometimes the geographic location of a
family determines to what services it has
access. Enabling people with developmen-
tal disabilities to live in the community
means we must ask them and their families
what they need, and then provide the
supports that will make it possible. Al-
though families may differ in their opini-
ons about life or politics, they share the
belief that they must be the decision-ma-
kers.

A Family Support System is defined as a
statewide initiative that enables families to
provide care at home to persons with
disabilities and alleviates the financial and
emotional costs incurred by families prov-
iding such care. The most important
characteristics of such a system include:

B. Key Issues and Analysis

• Introduction

Within the past decade, there has been a
growing realization that children grow best
in families, and that families are the "ex-
perts" on the needs of their family mem-

1. ensuring flexibility in availability and
delivery of supports;

2. offering a range of supports to fami-
lies;

3. identifying the family as decision-
maker about what specific supports
they want and need;

4. coordinating existing supports and
resources; and

5. addressing the needs of all families.

A Family Support System must incorporate
certain fundamental values to guide pro-
gram design and administration, as fol-
lows:

1. Everyone, able or disabled, needs
family ties and enduring relationships.

2. Families must receive the supports they
need to care for the family member
with disabilities at home and to en-
hance family members' capacity to
provide care.

3. A system for supporting family efforts
must build on existing social networks
and natural sources of support in the
community. Q)

The policy of supporting families has
far-reaching implications for Massachu-
setts. When families are enabled to stay
together, thus preventing more costly
institutionalization, all citizens benefit.
Keeping families with a member who
experiences disabilities together enables all
of them to be more productive members of
society.

• Problems Families Face

(a) Lack of a coordinated, comprehensive
service system: Agencies with differing
mandates work with an individual in only
one particular area. There is no single
entry point, so families must contact sev-
eral agencies. Some families may have
the energy and resources to pursue this
effort, while many others may not. Fami-
lies consistently identify the need for
information as one of their most important
needs.

(b) Lack of incentives to create integrated,
inclusive neighborhood school programs:
Although Massachusetts has been consi-
dered a leader in special education because
its state law preceded the federal mandate
and provided a stricter standard (maximum
feasible benefit to the student), in actual-
ity, the trend since the law's implemen-
tation has been to include children with
special needs in increasingly segregated
placements.

(c) Mis-application of reimbursement
mechanisms which promote segregated
placements: To give some fiscal relief to
Massachusetts cities and towns, legislation
was passed to allow cities and towns to
share expenses for special education resi-
dential placements with the state (now
reimbursed at 50%). Contrary to the
intent of the legislation, the available
reimbursement has encouraged cities and
towns to send children to programs outside
of their own communities.

d) Systemic Inconsistencies and/or Ex-
clusions: To families attempting to do the
right thing and care for a member with
disabilities at home, it feels like the system
works against them and actually promotes
their dissolution. Two examples are des-
cribed below:

^Medicaid, as a publicly-financed
payer of basic health care, could, if
available, really help a family caring
for a child or adult with disabilities at
home. However, because Medicaid is
for "poor" people and many families
are "over-income," families struggle
along without health insurance or other
help to keep their children at home. In
contrast, a child in a long-term care
institution may individually receive

Medicaid benefits and a higher level of
service, by virtue of being in the facil-
ity.

* The Department of Social Services
provides day care and authorizes the
Department of Public Welfare to allow
Medicaid eligibility for families who
abuse their children without regard to
parental income, but cannot provide
this same support to families who do
not abuse their child with disabilities.

(e) Lack of Resources and Flexibility for
Housing Adaptations: The Massachusetts
Department of Public Health used to ad-
minister a small program to help families
modify their houses for children with
physical disabilities, but the program has
received no funding in recent years.
Families with children can theoretically
access funding through Independent Living
federal funds, Part A, but the amount of
money is very limited, and the waiting
lists are long.

In addition, middle-income families are
often frustrated in their attempts to make
their homes more accessible for a child with
physical disabilities. (They are considered
a poor risk by typical lending institutions— if
they bought their house within the last few
years, they might have a large mortgage and
not be making enough money—and they are
over-income for loans through the Massa-
chusetts Housing Finance Authority.)

(f) Lack of an "open intake" system which
welcomes families to access services inter-
mittently without repetitive paperwork:
Families should be able to come into the
service system when they need services;
they should not have to stay in the system in
order to reserve their place. A "slot"
should stay open throughout the life span of
the family member with disabilities, which
would allow them to move in and out of the
system based on their need for supports.

"The single most frustrating and anxiety-
roducing part of having a disabled child
is not the child, but getting services to
meet his needs. And getting support for
his family, who's in desperate need at
all times, or most of the time, just trying
to get through and to keep some normal-
cy in our lives." 0)

(g) Inadequate Financial Commitment to
Family Supports and Services: It is one
thing to support families philosophically, but
another to commit to funding what is needed
year after year. As various services have
been cut because of the state's fiscal situa-
tion, many families have been left with
fewer and fewer supports which could help
them to maintain their family member with
a disability in the community.

"I think the hardest thing for us is the
energy level it takes in managing Kevin.
And I know we are not alone. If we get
even less than what we get now, Kevin
would not be in as good shape as he is
in physically and mentally, because we
wouldn't be in as good shape either." (4)

(h) Poverty and the Economy: Massachusetts
has experienced a worsening economy over
the last few years, and many people are
finding it harder to make ends meet.

It has been documented that people living in
poverty are more likely to experience disab-
ilities. In addition, many families of color
experience poverty to a disproportionate
degree.

"A clear and disturbing picture emerges:
environments in which economically
disadvantaged children develop from
conception on are far less supportive of
physical and mental growth than en-
vironments of children who are not
disadvantaged. These economically-
influenced differences are profound,
enduring, and inter-generational. We
must urge communities to become com-
mitted to equality and strengthening
families— enabling parents to do their
jobs well— with communities and families
joining in caring pursuit of the develop-
ment of competence and the prevention
of developmental problems.

" (5)

• Complex and Generic Service Delivery

Needs

Because their needs are complex, people
with developmental disabilities do not fit
into any one place in the service system.
They need a multi-disciplinary approach,
and since they do not fall under any one

human service agency, very often their
multi-faceted needs are neglected. Given
these facts, a single point of entry to the
service system is very attractive; a family
could go to one agency and obtain what-
ever kinds of help they need.

People with developmental disabilities also
have the same kinds of needs as everyone
else, such as for housing and food. In its
report entitled Children are Hungry in
Massachusetts. Project Bread documents
that "hunger is a reality for 195,000 child-
ren under 12 in Massachusetts—one in
four." <6) During state Fiscal Year 1992,
the state administration cut out the clothing
allowance for children on AFDC; fortun-
ately, in FY 1993, the $150 allowance has
been restored. Meanwhile, the real in-
come of people on AFDC has continued to
lag behind the poverty level, logging in at
approximately 40% below.

• Cuts in Services

In 1991, the state withdrew its legislative
mandate for "optional" Medicaid services
which provide for basic needs.

In addition, although the Office for Child-
ren continued to exist during FY 1992, its
local and statewide advocacy functions
have been decimated. This Office former-
ly provided critical support services for
individual children and families and served
as a watchdog for these vulnerable popula-
tions.

At a State House press conference in June
1990, Richard Rowe, former Chair of the
OFC Statewide Advisory Council, said:

"As an employer, I am increasingly
concerned by the state's retreat from

children... less money for child care,
regular and special education, job
training, child abuse prevention and
treatment, drug treatment and other
social services hurts the children and
families who need it most. These
children grow up with no job skills
unable to compete in a skilled labor
force and unable to raise their own
children. That's bad for business. In
fact, it's this shortsightedness that
might cause me to think about reloca-
ting in another state, not taxes or state
regulations. " m

In the area of special needs adoption,
advocates feel that the administration is
undercutting the support needed to return
children to their families where appropri-
ate, or to make them available for adop-
tion. Over the last two years, the Depart-
ment of Social Services has lost over 200
social worker positions. Sandy Wickset of
the Special Needs Adoption Network, a
group working on speeding up adoptions
for special needs children, expressed her
concern:

"Cuts are not our idea of how to move
children out of the system—in fact, you
need more funds to move them out
quicker. " (8)

On another front, the backlash against
special education continues. As cities and
towns have received a smaller share of
state aid, they have watched their educa-
tion budgets, especially for special educa-
tion, grow, and resentment has built up.
Because of problems with "regular" educa-
tion, such as large classroom sizes, teach-
ers have been less able to cope with the
diverse learning styles of students, have
received less support for their efforts, and

have often referred students out for special
education services inappropriately.

In January 1992, the definition of which
children are eligible for special education
was changed: a child must now have a
definable "disability" instead of "special
(educational) needs. " This change is
supposed to bring Massachusetts more in
line with the national average of 12% of
the student population using special educa-
tion services. However, the current Mas-
sachusetts percentage is 17%, which trans-
lates into a difference of 50,000 students.
While there may be some students who
receive special education services inap-
propriately, we are not convinced that
50,000 students were inappropriately
classified as having special educational
needs.

It is disheartening that basic family sup-
ports are often perceived as extras, not as
necessary as "bricks and mortar" institu-
tions. Even though these supports can be
very cost effective, they are the first to go
when budgets are cut. Very often, these
supports can enable a family to stay to-
gether. It is far less costly to provide a
family help to keep a child at home, than
to put the child in an institution or in
alternative care.

• Exemplary Efforts

Most service systems look at the child or
individual as if he or she existed in a
vacuum. No one can achieve total inde-
pendence, and an undue emphasis on this
value can translate into isolation. All
people are inter-dependent, and this trait
must be recognized as healthy and human.
There needs to be more emphasis on the
child or individual as a community mem-

ber who belongs to a family and/or other
people and support systems with whom the
child and family relate.

To ensure that resources will be provided
to achieve this end, high-level managers in
human services agencies and the Depart-
ment of Education as well as a represen-
tative from the Massachusetts Children's
Legislative Caucus have been meeting on a
regular basis since early 1991 as the Child-
ren's Services Policy Group. The group
promotes coordination among the agencies
to better meet the needs of children under
their purview. It has worked on revenue
maximization (such as obtaining increased
federal funds) and on how to bring more
services to people in the community. It
provides a forum where agency represen-
tatives can have ongoing communication
and identify and work on issues of com-
mon concern.

Publicly Funded Programs Which Con-
sider Comprehensive Needs: Massachusetts
has pioneered various programs of this
type, as described below:

(1) Early Intervention Services, where
Individualized Family Service Plans look
at the child within the family and involve
the family in identifying strengths and
needs;

(2) "Turning 22" Planning Process, where
the Individualized Transition Plan can, if
well used, bring together a variety of
resources to examine the individual's adult
life needs, before s/he approaches the adult
service system. We are pleased to note
that federal legislation now encourages
transition planning starting at age 14; and

(3) Department of Mental Retarda-
tion/Family Support Services and Respite

Care, where the Department has moved
forward in funding some flexible family
support programs although funding for DD
respite care has remained static for several
years and not all families which need these
services have been able to access them.

Smaller/private programs: Several local
programs have helped families integrate or
maintain their son or daughter with disabil-
ities in the community by working with
"generic" providers. Examples include:

(1) Greater Boston Association for Re-
tarded Citizens' KOALA Program: This
program continues to provide technical
assistance to generic after-school programs
in Boston to include and integrate children
with special needs into their regular pro-
grams.

(2) Community Integration Projects: The
Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities
Council (MDDC) funded four different
pilot programs to work with individuals
with disabilities to identify and pursue
their interests by joining local civic
groups.

(3) Cash Assistance Project: Also funded
by the MDDC, this three-year pilot project
provides families with some control and
choice (through cash) to obtain services
not otherwise available.

(4) Respite Care Exchange Program:
Operated by Toward Independent Living
and Learning (TILL), this program is
similar to a baby-sitting cooperative but is
coordinated through the Program to match
families with each other.

Newer State Programs:

(1) Medicaid's Personal Care Attendant
(PC A) Surrogacy Program: This relatively
new service was designed for those in-
dividuals who cannot legally enter into a
contract (people with cognitive limitations
and children). This service is similar to
the PCA program for adults with physical
disabilities who can manage their own
PCAs. Under PCA Surrogacy, the fami-
lies, rather than an agency, must recruit,
hire, train, and fire the PCAs (which saves
the "system" money by avoiding overhead
and administrative expenses which are
charged by agencies which provide home
health aides). Although not every family
with a child with disabilities may benefit
from this type of support, there are many
families and individuals who can benefit
from it. However, the state's Medicaid
Program has been slow to implement these
programs, which are in jeopardy as of
mid-summer 1992.

(2) Department of Social Services/Family
Preservation: During this past year, discus-
sion has taken place about a refocusing of
the DSS service delivery system to em-
phasize family preservation. The Depart-
ment will attempt to prevent placements
out of home, offer rehabilitation and reuni-
fication services to families whose children
are in substitute care, and assure perman-
ent plans for children who cannot be reuni-
fied with their families. DSS plans to
place about 250 children into specialized
community-based family settings in early
state fiscal year 1993. (Some of these
children have been in residential schools,
while others have never been placed in
private residential schools.) (9)

As of the summer of 1992, DSS plans to
fund twenty-six family support service
centers throughout the state to provide help

to families through an open referral pro-
cess have been put on hold. Although
DSS, as a child protection agency, is
mandated to serve families of vulnerable
children and protect children from mal-
treatment (neglect or abuse), these centers
would serve a broader population which
could include families with children with
disabilities.

(3) Department of Mental Retardation
(DMR) and Department of Education
(DOE) Interagency Agreement, Commun-
ity Residential/Education Pilot Project: As
of the summer of 1992, plans were under-
way for this Project. Its goal is:

"To support less restrictive and more
cost-effective residential options, spe-
cial education services, and commun-
ity-based supports for young people
with mental retardation or young peo-
ple with autism and mental retardation
for the purpose of facilitating effective
transitions from school life to indepen-
dent adult life within the community. "

A Model Array of Family Supports

• Generic Agency

Developmen

• Solid Funding
Supports

• Public Policy 4
Laws

• Respile Care \

• Temporary Day Care n.
•Companion Services S\

• Sitter Services / \

/ "Home- ^

v. 'Systems

/ maker/Home

\ Advocacy

/ Health Aid

/ Services

/ 'Personal Self- \

/ 'Visiting Nurse

/ Advocacy \

/ Association

/ 'Personal Care Services

, ^~~\ / and 1

• Medical Services

Tl
FA*

\ 'Parent/Sibling Support 1

\ Group
1ILY

• Temporary Foster Care \

re Mother resources:

\ 'Core Residential Programs / ^

./ •Inlormation 4 Referral Services /
1 \ •Counseling •Transportation /
\ •Recreation «Case Man- /

/ TRAINING \»Equipment agement j

/ 'Professional
4 Support
Personnel

\ 'Employment 'Camping /
• Parents \ .Nutrition /

\ 'Housing /
•Family \ Adaptations /

•In-Service

• Adaptive \ /
Behavior \ /

•Specialized Skill

Shaping \^S

Training

SOURCE CASS— R«D'tc S«rvic«l Community Development Omini Neora\k&
AO«Ole<3 t>y trv« UamchuMtti Do v^oomeniii D-t4D'M.*i COunc-

An agreement will be made between
DMR, DOE, and the Executive Office for
Administration and Finance to set aside
$1.25 million from the DOE "50/50 Ac-
count" in state fiscal year 1993. This
Account reimburses public school systems
at 50% for special education expenditures
for children in 502.6 placements (usually,
placements at private residential schools).
This agreement will enable the depart-
ments to bring adolescents and young
adults out of the 502.6 placements back
into the community and provide flexible
family support and/or community-based
residential services to them and their fami-
lies.

DOE staff estimates that the Pilot Project
will serve about 25 children. In addition,
if there are any savings from the Project,
the money will be used to "develop ad-
ditional community based services for
children and their families... or to bring
additional young people from residential
schools into the pilot project." (11)

C. The Council's Agenda for the Next
Two Years

• Status of Current Efforts

Since 1986, the Council has maintained and
enhanced its commitment to Family Sup-
ports. The State Plan has included an
objective for Family Supports for several
years.

*During FY 1991, the Family Support
Steering Group studied the issues of
health care, home care, and housing,
and then hosted a "Think Tank" (a
day-long meeting to exchange infor-
mation and ideas) in the fall with

Secretary Forsberg and other key
personnel of EOHHS. At a follow-up
meeting in early June 1992, members
of the FSSG met with Janet George,
Under-Secretary for Health, and Hans
Toegel, Director of Transitional Plan-
ning. EOHHS staff expressed recep-
tivity to the philosophy of An Act
Relative to Supporting People with
Disabilities and made suggestions
about how the family councils could
function. In addition, they talked
about other developments that would
help families:

(a) day care income eligibility
requirements for families with
children with disabilities are being
made more flexible;

(b) the Department of Mental Re-
tardation is applying to expand its
home and community-based waiver
(which would free up more money
for family support services); and

(c) an inter-agency agreement
between the Department of Educa-
tion and EOHHS is being revised
and will address family support
issues more specifically.

*In addition, staff and a committee
member kept track of developments
in child care and promoted the
inclusion of children with disabili-
ties in "generic" day care services.
In May 1992, Council staff par-
ticipated as part of a review com-
mittee for proposals for projects to
include children with disabilities in
child care and day care.

*The Council has funded a pilot cash
assistance project in Massachusetts for
three years. Several other states have
already funded pilot projects or im-
plemented statewide cash assistance
programs to support families caring for
family members with disabilities at
home.

Findings from the second year evaluation
of this Project include:

* "'participants felt more empowered,
especially with respect to having
choices and control over the purchases
they could make for their family mem-
ber with a disability;

**project families perceived their
family member as having less severe
disabilities than a comparison group
(and this perception continued over
time, even though the condition of the
family member did not change);

"""participating families remained
satisfied with the program (from year
one to year two), especially with the
availability of the family agent, the
ease of obtaining cash, and the amount
of cash received;

**43% of the participating families
felt that the program had a strong
influence on their quality of life;

nearly half of the families reported
at least one "opportunity gain"— seven
mothers of family members with disab-
ilities accepted part time jobs and three
started school/training programs; four
families purchased respite or special
items at less than traditional agency

costs which left them with more dis-
cretionary income. (,2)

The Project has demonstrated that families
are the experts on the needs of their child-
ren and should be given the freedom and
trust to purchase the services or equipment
their children need. While cash assistance
is only one type of family support service,
it is one which truly serves to empower
families.

*During FY 1992, the FSSG began to
work with the Human Services Re-
search Institute (HSRI) on a Parent
Training Project. HSRI has done this
type of work with grassroots organiza-
tions in several other states under a
federal grant, and wanted to expand its
efforts to Massachusetts. With out-
reach through Council and HSRI staff,
HSRI convened about seventy family
members (who represented different
geographic areas and disabilities, ages
of child and parent), to establish a
grassroots organization of family mem-
bers. The families decided to call
themselves Families Organizing for
Change.

HSRI provided support to a sub-group of
these families who then drafted legislation
to legitimize individual and family sup-
ports in Massachusetts. The legislation,
An Act Relative To Supporting People
with Disabilities and Their Families, was
submitted in November 1991, for consider-
ation during the 1992 legislative session. It
was reported out favorably by the Human
Services and Elder Affairs Committee of
the House, and was being considered by
the House Ways and Means Committee as
of mid-summer 1992.

As part of its effort, HSRI has helped the
larger group organize into regional groups
for local forums about family support and
continued advocacy activities around the
legislation. Members testified at the hear-
ings, made phone calls and wrote letters to
their legislators. One of the parents was a
presenter at the Council's Legislative
Reception in March 1992 at the State Ho-
use.

• The Council's Commitments for FFY
1992 and Beyond

During the past few years, as fiscal con-
straints have seemed to gain priority over
human needs, the Family Support Steering
Group has reiterated the need for a man-
date for family supports, and a desire for a
commitment by the state to assist these
families through less expensive, more
human, family-based alternatives. This
coming year:

•The Group plans to maintain contact with
EOHHS staff to follow up on the issues
described above, and to share suggestions
about how to help families maintain mem-
bers at home and in the community, to
exchange information on models of family
support services, and to promote the inclu-
sion of families with members with disab-
ilities in generic services. After the com-
pletion of the third year of the Family
Cash Assistance Project and Evaluation,
probably in calendar year 1993, the Group
will convene state policymakers and others
to discuss cash assistance as part of a
comprehensive family support system and
how to implement a cash assistance pro-
gram in Massachusetts.

• The Family Support Steering Group
expects to continue to work cooperatively

with Human Services Research Institute
(HSRI) to support Families Organizing for
Change, through continuation of the Parent
Training Project.

• In cooperation with Families Organizing
for Change, the FSSG will continue work
on An Act Relative To Supporting People
With Disabilities and Their Families or an
equivalent piece of legislation during the
next legislative session.

• The Family Support Steering Group will
also continue other efforts, such as net-
working, gathering and sharing inform-
ation on model family support projects and
practices, and participating on appropriate
groups. The Group is also concerned with
changing attitudes in the community.

• In addition, in FFY 1993, the Council
plans to award a new Family Support
Project grant, which will reach out to
families of color. Anticipated project
components are: outreach through com-
munity contact workers, a family advocacy
curriculum (which will include information
on the concept of family support), assis-
tance with care management, development
and dissemination of a care management
notebook for families (to help them keep/
organize their information and contacts),
and a regular group activity which will
encourage mutual support and networking.

References

(1> Jo Bower & Peg Freedman, Mothers.
Infants and Children at Risk. Boston:
Health Data Consortium, Inc., and Health
Planning Council, 1989, pg. 129.

a) "Families Uniting for Change," Pro-
ceedings of the First Statewide Family
Support Conference, Nov. 1, 1986, up-
dated excerpts, page 1.

0) Linda Isaacs & Jack A. Clark, Life-
lines: People with Disabilities Speak Out.
1988.

Ibid., pg. 2.

(5) Alfred Baumeister, Paul R. Dokecki,
and Frank Kupstas, Preventing the New
Morbidity: A Guide for State Planning for
the Prevention of Mental Retardation and
Related Disabilities Associated with Socio-
economic Conditions. John F. Kennedy
Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
TN, 2/88, pg. 6.

(6) Children are Hungry in Massachusetts:
A Statewide Study on Childhood Hunger.
Massachusetts Community Childhood
Hunger Identification Project (sponsored
by Project Bread, Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Public Health, Massachusetts
Anti-Hunger Coalition), disseminated May
1991, frontispiece.

m Office for Children's Statewide Ad-
visory Council News (press release) for
June 12, 1991, "Nationally Recognized
Child Advocate and Local Supporters Ask
State Officials to Save Key Children's
Agency," Statewide Advisory Council,
MA Office for Children.

(8)

State House Watch. April 3, 1991.

(9) Department of Social Services Memo-
randum, "Family Preservation Activities,"
May 14, 1992, Pamela Kaufman, Director
of Program Audit and Assistance, Division
of Special Education, Department of Educ-
ation, and Evelyn Strawn, Deputy Com-
missioner, Department of Social Services.

<10) August 1992 draft, "Department of
Mental Retardation and Department of
Education Interagency Agreement Com-
munity Residential/Education Pilot Pro-
ject."

(12)

Ibid.

"Executive Summary of the Impact
Study of the Family Cash Assistance Pro-
ject, Year Two Results" (Division of
Social Science, Ethics and Law, The
Shriver Center, 1992), summarized from
pages 1-2.

SECTION IH-3:

SUPPORTING MULTI-CULTURAL AND
OTHER UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS

A. Background/Consumers* Perspec-
tives

• The Challenge of Growing Diversity

The face of Massachusetts is changing. In
the last ten years, the Commonwealth's
White population has grown by less than
1 % , whereas communities of color have
grown anywhere from 25% to nearly
200%, according to the 1990 U.S. Census.
(l) Today, nearly 10% of the state's popul-
ation is African-American or Latino and
the number of Asians has nearly tripled
since 1980. w

The state's growing diversity presents
substantial challenges in all arenas of
social discourse: including commerce,
public governance, education, health and
human services, and the arts.

• People of Color with Disabilities: Who
are They and What Do They Say?

Nationwide, there is little data available
about the prevalence and distribution of
disabilities among ethnic and linguistic
minority populations. People with disabil-
ities who are from non-dominant cultural
communities have been largely ignored by
mainstream disability researchers and
service planners, resulting in a large, and
largely uncharted, interlocking web of
problems.

However, a study conducted by Bowe in
1985 found that "African-Americans be-
tween the ages of 16-64 constitute a pro-
portionately larger segment of the disabled
population than any other ethnic group in
the country. " 0) A more recent study by
Asbury, Walker, et al., found similarly
disproportionate prevalence of chronic
conditions among Latinos and African-
Americans at younger age levels, com-
pared to their White cohorts. <4) In addi-
tion, these persons of color with disabili-
ties were much less likely to have received
a college education.

(S)

This study also found unmistakable evi-
dence that African-American, Latino and
other persons from multi-cultural back-
grounds who experience a variety of disab-
ilities consistently appear at the bottom of
the economic ladder, in comparison to
people of European ancestry with disab-
ilities. (6) This finding has serious impli-
cations for people of color who face the
multiple burdens of disability, race, cul-
tural difference and/or disadvantaged
economic status.

Responding to the lack of information
about the number of people from non-
dominant cultural communities who live in
this state, the Minority Disabilities Task
Force of Action for Boston Community
Development, Inc. (ABCD) convened in
December 1988, and asked ABCD to
conduct a survey. Completed in the fall of

1990, this first attempt to systematically
assess the needs of people of color with
disabilities in Massachusetts was conducted
through personal interviews and found
that:

• Nearly half of all respondents felt there
are not enough services available to them:
neither "basic services" such as health
care, housing, employment & training,
education and information & referral, nor
"specialized services" such as assistive
technology and transportation services.

• 65% of respondents reported encoun-
tering barriers to receiving services and/or
living independently. These included
linguistic, transportation, and accessibility
barriers, as well as lack of sensitivity and
discrimination based on race and disabi-
lity.

(7)

Although African-Americans as a group
have been found to receive more benefits
overall from the Disability Insurance and
Supplemental Security Income programs
than do Whites, those filing new ap-
plications are far more likely to be rejected
for Social Security disability benefits than
are White applicants.

(8)

The higher overall numbers of referrals for
benefits have been attributed to higher
rates of work-related disabilities among
African-Americans.

(9)

Conducted by the U.S. General Accoun-
ting Office, the study also found that
African-Americans also had a more dif-
ficult time winning appeals after being
denied benefits. These disparities date
back to 1961

Another national study examined differen-
ces in utilization of rehabilitation services
by African-Americans and White Ameri-
cans. It found that African-Americans
reported lower utilization of physical
therapy, counseling, and social services
than White Americans. Difficulty in
accessing services and low income were
suggested as factors contributing to lower
utilization.

B. Key Issues and Analysis

The 1989 Census figures on poverty and
income show that no significant progress
was made on reducing poverty in 1989,
and that the gap between rich and poor is
at its widest point in more than 40 years.

(12)

According to the 1990 census, per capita
income for African-Americans was
$10,867 and $7,833 for Latinos, while per
capita income for Whites was $18,003

(13)

(10)

Another study related to the concerns of
low-income people has found that women
who receive Aid to Families with Depen-
dent Children are more likely to be disa-
bled than other women their age.

"According to the 1983/84 Survey of
Income and Program Participation
(SIPP), nearly one in four women on
AFDC under the age of 45 (22%)
report themselves as disabled compared
to one in eleven (9%) such women not
on AFDC. In fact, women on AFDC
have disability rates nearly as high as
women old enough to be their mothers
(or grandmothers.)" <14)

Many of these women face a "triple
whammy" of race, disability, and being
female.

• Factors Impacting Health

A recent study by the Massachusetts Dep-
artment of Public Health, "Disparities in
Health Status Among Racial and Ethnic
Groups in Massachusetts," confirmed what
providers and advocates have known for a
long time: the data unmistakably shows
that "African- American and Latino resid-
ents of Massachusetts are disproportion-
ately affected by chronic diseases, cancers,
substance abuse, AIDS, poor perinatal
outcomes, sexually transmitted diseases
and injuries..."05*

Factors which increase the risk of these
conditions include poverty, lack of ade-
quate housing and employment opportuni-
ties, lack of adequate medical care, and
discrimination, to name a few.

The disparities begin at birth. A separate
study conducted in 1990 by the DPH
shows the connection between socio-econo-
mic status and infant mortality - noting
that low income status makes it difficult, if
not impossible, for low income women to
meet not only the expenses of survival
such as food and shelter, but also other
child-related expenditures such as transpor-
tation to medical appointments, baby-sit-
ters for older children, etc. (16)

Infant Mortality

by Race and Ethnicity
Massachusetts: 1989

Rata per 1,000 Live Births

Aalan (rr-15) Black (n-126) Hl«panlc (r>-67)

Race/Ethnicity

Whlta (n-4.82)

Source Raglttry of Vital R^corda
and Statlatica - Death R«~giatry

• Infant Mortality

"In 1989, the infant mortality rate for
African- American infants was 19 per
1,000 live births. Among Latinos, the
infant mortality rate was 9 per 1,000
live births. White infants had a rate of
7 per 1,000 live births, and Asian in-
fants had a rate of 5 per 1,000 live
births. " (,7)

"Of 937 African-American infant
deaths that occurred between
1980 and 1988 in Massachusetts,
more than half, 53%, would not
have occurred if African-Ameri-
can and White infant mortality
rates had been equal." (18)

Among babies who survive, low socio-
economic status has long been associated
with higher incidence of developmental
disabilities, with concomitant factors of
poor nutrition, family disruption and lack
of access to regular health care for these
fragile infants.

Massachusetts' Early Intervention Pro-
gram, administered by DPH, tries to iden-
tify and serve those children at greatest
risk for developmental disabilities, but
waiting lists are long and resources inade-
quate to meet the expanding needs.

• Creating Educational Opportunity for
Children

Once children enter the school system, a
variety of complex issues must be addres-
sed if they have special needs. For child-
ren of color, there are additional needs
which, if not addressed, may seriously
hinder their learning and development.

•Will a child's learning needs be ac-
curately assessed, to avoid inapprop-
riate placement into special education?

•If a child has a documented need for
special education services, will those
services be provided appropriately?

•If English is not the primary language
spoken in the home, will his/her need
for bilingual services also be evaluated
and met appropriately?

•And finally, if a child is from a new-
comer refugee or immigrant family,
and if the child was exposed to violence
in his/her home country, does the
school understand the dynamics of post-
traumatic stress disorder?

These issues are only a few of the critical
questions facing special education profes-
sionals. As school demographics show
increasing numbers of children of color in
U.S. public schools, special and regular
education must find new resources with
which to respond.

Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky, Assistant Super-
intendent of the Oceanside (NY) Public
Schools, addressing a national conference
in 1991, said:

"When a student does not learn, rather
than first of all asking what is wrong
with her or him, might we not do better
to see the matter as a mismatch bet-
ween what the student needs - and is
ready to accept - and what we as the
professionals are offering?"

•The Effects of Violence

The impact of violence on the incidence of
disabilities in non-dominant cultural com-
munities can no longer be ignored. As
violence becomes more and more a daily
occurrence on the streets of Boston and
other Massachusetts cities and towns, it is
critical to recognize that it is a major
public health issue which requires a major
public response.

Intentional injuries, which include suicide
and homicide, account for 33% of all
injury-related deaths in Massachusetts.
Latino males have the highest suicide
death rate in the state. <19)

Overall, African -American residents have
an injury death rate which is 44% higher
than that of White residents.

"It is estimated that for every injury-
related death there are 16 injuries that
warrant hospitalization and 381 injuries
that require ambulatory care. " OT

The homicide rate among minorities:
African-American males had a rate that
was 14 times that of White males, and
Latino males had a rate that was 6 to 10
times that of White males. ai)

The DPH report underlines the need for
prevention and intervention efforts to

Homicides

by Race, Ethnicity and Gender
Massachusetts: 1989

Rate per 100,000 Population

Not
Available

Not
Avail abk

t <

• j

■•••■••

1 I ..'.J

Aaian Black Hlapanic White Aaian Black Mlapanlc Whit.

Malea Malea Malea Malaa Femalea Femalea Female* Femalea

Race/Ethnicity and Gender

Source-.

Reglatry of Vital Recorda and Statlatica

address "the larger social forces that inter-
act to foment and sustain violence among
racial and ethnic groups in the state (such
as) low socioeconomic status... discrimina-
tion, low educational attainment, low
income jobs, unemployment, inadequate
housing, and poor health.

(22)

The links between violence, injuries and
disabilities need to be recognized and
addressed.

beginning to be studied, research re-
leased [in May 1992] showed that one
of every ten children receiving routine
pediatric care at Boston City Hospital
had witnessed a shooting or stabbing
before reaching school age."

(26)

Violence is increasingly a topic of conver-
sation, not only in the public schools, but
in day care centers attended by very young
children.

Efforts in this area are beginning, with the
recent funding of a Massachusetts Adoles-
cent Violence Prevention Program, as well
as a variety of other prevention programs.

Violence resulting from social and political
upheaval also puts mothers and young
children at risk:

"...African American babies under a
year old are almost twice as likely to be
killed as White males between ages 15

and 41. " "*

Another study which examined the effect
of social and political violence in Santiago
Chile on pregnant mothers found that
women in high-violence neighborhoods
were much more likely to experience
pregnancy complications.

(25)

In addition to the risk of physical injury
itself as a result of violence, recent re-
search has found that witnessing violence
has a profound adverse affect on young
children's development. A June 1992
story in The Boston Globe poignantly
documented this growing problem.

"In Boston, where the rate of young
children's exposure to violence is just

"These children are fixated with death,
their own and of others," said one early
childhood educator.

(27)

Witnessing chronic violence may be eve
more damaging than exposure to a singli
incident, researchers say.

"In addition to producing sleep pro-
blems, unusual fearfulness and clinging
to parents, it can result in extremes of
aggression or withdrawal and profound
pessimism about a child's own life and
the future of his or her world.

(28)

Services to deal with the realities of inner-
city trauma are in their infancy at best,
and much more needs to be done to reach
out to these children. Meanwhile, parents
must walk a fine line between protecting
their children from violence, and allowing
them the independence they need to de-
velop and grow.

(29)

• Trie Impact of HIV as a Disability

Non-dominant cultural communities are
disproportionately feeling the impact of
HIV disease among both children and
adults.

During 1990, the rate of HIV infection in
African-American children was 23 times
that of White children and the rate among
Latino children was 4 to 13 times that of
White children. «

Women are also being increasingly im-
pacted by the epidemic worldwide, accor-
ding to researchers speaking at the Inter-
national AIDS Conference in July 1992.
In the U.S.,

"Women are now the fastest-growing
sub-group among AIDS patients... with
a very worrisome high proportion of
adolescent girls getting ill," according
to Anke A. Ehrhardt. 0,)

Over time, the impact of HIV on these
communities has been staggering. From
1982 to 1990, the rate of AIDS deaths
among African-American residents was
five times greater than among White resid-
ents and in the Latino community 2-3
times greater.

02)

Among Asian residents, there is much less
data on HIV, due in large part to limited
access to linguistically appropriate testing
services.

(33)

All people with HIV disease face num-
erous obstacles to getting the care they

Pediatric AIDS

by Race and Ethnicity

Massachusetts: 1990*
(Ages 15 and Under)

A<j«-epeclflc Rata p»f 100,000 Population

- >, :, ■ ,\

,;;y.v.y,v.v,;.*.;,;,;.v.v>

■:■:•:•:■:•.•*>:•:•:•:•:•:■:■:>:<•:•:•:

:■ >:.:-^ ' ■> ■ ,
.'.-.■. •.•.•.*.•.•. •.•.-•.%•.-.•. ■•-.•.

*:* -
:::->x:x<:>x-x>o>x">::::
yy.- :■:■:■:■:■:■:•:■:• >:■:■:•:■:<•:•:

'.'.•.-.■.SVAV.SV.'.y/.'X-
. .... > -,~

; . '- i ' ^ ; •4'-'-*

::'.::;S;S::

; -y "X

," -r,

■>,.:'■■<:.

« ..,,-.

.<:•:••< •:■:•:■■-•,

I ;-■■■ 1

Aalan (n<5) Black (n-30) Hlepanlc (n-15)

Race/Ethnidry

•Cumulative c*««« a-a of 7-00. Rat»«
calc-ulatod ualng 1987 C*naua proJactJona
Sourca: AIDS Survalllanoe Programa

Whit* (n«18)

(Note that many HIV+ children are not diagnosed with AIDS, so the
graph does not tell the whole story.)

need, including language barriers, the fear
of being stigmatized in the community or
workplace, problems with transportation,
lack of stability for those who are home-
less, and non-compliance with prescribed
treatment by clients with problems such as
substance abuse.

CM)

Sexually active adolescents and intravenous
drug users are two groups which are par-
ticularly at risk.

It is impossible to convey the full scope
and implications of HIV disease for Mas-
sachusetts citizens in a few short para-
graphs. Persons desiring more informa-
tion about HIV in Massachusetts should
call the AIDS Office at the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health at
(617) 727-0368.

Despite a broad array of resources avail-
able in the Commonwealth for those with
HIV, stronger linkages and more aggres-
sive advocacy are needed, as the disease
becomes more of a chronic disabling con-
dition. For all of these individuals, a
broad array of supports are necessary,
many of which are similar to those needed
by people with other disabilities. (See
Family Support and IPI narratives.) Many
persons with HIV could benefit from
services offered by Massachusetts' inde-
pendent living programs, for example.

The Developmental Disabilities Council's
work in building alliances in these com-
munities has shown that there are
numerous benefits to HIV/AIDS and disab-
ility collaborations for consumers, includ-
ing:

• appreciating how various groups share
common experiences;

• learning new advocacy strategies from
people who have used them;

• an opportunity to discard outdated
attitudes and stereotypes about people
with HTV disease and people with a
wide range of functional limitations;

•new allies;

• new friends. (35)

• Conclusion: Access and Inclusion

The notion of what truly constitutes "ac-
cess" must be expanded if we are to ad-
dress the service needs of all Massachu-
setts citizens with developmental disabili-
ties.

Services for people with disabilities some-
times have been deficient because planners
designed for the predictable needs of the
many, and not the unique situations of
individuals. Plus, we have often designed
services based on the desires and expec-
tations of professionals, rather than on the
stated, explicit desires of consumers them-
selves. Tuning in to what individuals need
to gain access entails not only the provi-
ders listening, but consumers, customers,
if you will, naming what they need.

In considering the needs of people with
disabilities from non-dominant cultural
communities, it is easy to assume that all
we have to do is open the door and put
down a ramp: folks will be able to pick
what they need from the "supermarket" of
services and supports, and their needs will
be met. However, even if there are goods
on the shelves (for which there is no guar-

an tee), they may not be usable by persons
from other cultures and backgrounds.
Both language and cultural barriers must
be taken into consideration.

Most people are not born empowered, but
everyone can learn, with support, how to
speak for themselves. Supporting consum-
ers from all cultures and with all types of
disabilities in this learning process is a
critical role for professionals to learn and
practice.

The alternative to empowerment is to
perpetuate a dependency on the system that
is unhealthy and increasingly economically
unfeasible. Empowered persons are
many times more functional, and can often
be partners in obtaining services and sup-
ports they need. Empowered persons use
services more efficiently, and are clearer
not only about what they need, but also
what they don't need.

C. The Council's Agenda for the Next
Two Years

• Status of Current Efforts

Since the publication in January 1990 of
"Creating Open Communities," the Coun-
cil's comprehensive policy analysis, the
Multi-cultural Outreach Committee and the
Council can point to the following accom-
plishments:

• two enormously successful two-day
conferences bringing together the HIV
and disability communities in Massa-
chusetts for discussion of their common
issues;

• steady growth of the HI V/ AIDS and
Disability Network as a major new

resource bridging the HIV and disab-
ility communities through numerous
consultations and presentations;

«a grant award to Stavros Foundation
to initiate a Project in Self Advocacy
specifically for consumers in multi-
cultural communities;

•a grant award to the Consortium of
Black Health Center Directors to en-
courage minority-run agencies to apply
for DD and other disability-related
grants and contracts;

•publication of two editions of an an-
notated bibliography, "Disability and
Diversity," which lists relevant resour-
ces on file at the Council office; and
continuing dissemination of disability
fact sheets in eight languages;

• ongoing collaboration with ACCESS
NOW, a coalition of groups dedicated
to enhancing employment and other
opportunities for people of color with
disabilities, including participation in
planning and hosting of a conference
focusing on these issues. Other spon-
sors of this effort included the Mas-
sachusetts Rehabilitation Commission,
Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries,
and Howard University;

• four roundtable programs, two focus-
ing on the needs of Native Americans
and two focusing on the needs of
Southeast Asians; and

• ongoing outreach to a variety of com-
munity leaders and groups, to foster
sensitivity to disability issues in their
communities.

•The Council's Commitments for FFY
1993 and Beyond

During this time of major budget cuts and
increased hardship in communities of
color, the Multi-cultural Outreach Com-
mittee has strengthened its resolve to be a
strong, outspoken voice for access and
inclusion of all people with disabilities
from multi-cultural communities in the
Commonwealth.

to inform them of Council and other
disability-related resources. Committee
members will strengthen the Council's
partnerships with community-based
agencies through networking and out-
reach in their own communities;

• build stronger alliances with the Black
Legislative Caucus, to advocate with its
members on issues of common concern;
and

The Multi-cultural Outreach Committee
has reaffirmed its 1992-94 three-year
objective, as well as its objective for the
coming year. (These can be found in the
next section.) In FFY 1993, the Commit-
tee will:

• continue to fund the Project in Self
Advocacy for consumers in multi-cul-
tural communities;

•conduct followup activities relating to
the second coalition-building conference
for the HIV and disability communities,
and consider strategies for "spinning
off the HIV/ AIDS and Disability
Network;

•plan and sponsor an African-Amer-
ican Roundtable, to be held in the
spring of 1993;

• convene a sub-committee to explore
issues and conditions which dispropor-
tionately impact children from non-
dominant cultural communities;

• continue its advocacy for multi-cul-
tural sensitivity in all of the Council's
activities, ranging from Council mem-
ber recruitment to the design and im-
plementation of all Council projects.
(Collaboration with the Family Support
Steering Group on their development of
a grant project began in the spring of
1992.)

Building a strong multi-cultural commit-
ment within the Mass. Developmental
Disabilities Program requires caring,
consistency and commitment over the long
term. Assuredly, all three are present,
along with available resources, and a
strong conviction about the importance of
this work. Stronger allies in the commun-
ity and among state leaders will enhance
these efforts and result in a better quality
of life for all Massachusetts people with
developmental disabilities, regardless of
their cultural heritage.

• continue its collaboration with
ACCESS NOW;

• continue its outreach to community
agencies serving communities of color,

References

(1) Peter Howe, "State Portrait - Census
Data Show Gains in People of Color, M
Boston Globe. 3/6/91.

(2)

(3)

Ibid.

Asbury, Walker et al., "Disability
Prevalence and Demographic Association
Among Race/Ethnic Minority Populations
in the United States: Implications for the
21st Century," Howard University
Research and Training Center for Access
to Rehabilitation and Economic Oppor-
tunity, (undated), p. 3.

<4) Ibid., p. 19.
(5) Ibid.

(6)

Ibid., p. 43.

™ "Summary of ABCD's Minority Dis-
abled Survey Project," Action for Boston
Community Development, Inc. 1990, p. 2.

w Stephen Labaton, "Benefits are Refused
More Often to Disabled Blacks, Study
Finds," in The New York Times 5/11/92,
p. Al.

(9)

(10)

(II)

Ibid., P. Al,12.

Ibid.

Faye Z. Belgrave & Sylvia Walker,
"Differences in Rehabilitation Service
Utilization Patterns of African Americans
and White Americans with Disabilities," in
Future Frontiers in the Employment of
Minority Persons with Disabilities
(Proceedings of the National Conference)
Washington, DC, 1991.

(12) "Rich-Poor Income Gap Hits 40- Year
High as Poverty Rate Stalls," Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, December,
1990, p. 1.

<l3) Census of Population and Housing,
1990; Summary Tape File B.

(14) Michele Adler, "Health and Disability
Status of AFDC Families," 1988
Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association.

(15) "Disparities in Health Status Among
Racial and Ethnic Groups in
Massachusetts," MA Department of Public
Health, May 1992, p. 1.

(16) "Unfinished Business: Poverty, Race
and Infant Survival in Massachusetts,"
Massachusetts Task Force on Infant Mor-
tality, Mass. Department of Public Health,
September, 1990, p. 9.

(17) M

Disparities in Health Status..." p. 64.

(18) "Unfinished Business..." p. 1.

(19) "Disparities in Health Status..." p.

115.

(30)

(21)

Ibid., p. 114.
Ibid., p. 117.

(22) Ibid., p. 124.

(23) Tbid., p. IX).

<24' "The Endangered Black Male/The
'New Bald Eagle' Community Planning
Perspectives," by J. Johnson. Management
Plus Consulting and Training Services,
1988.

m "The Influence of Social and Political
Violence on the Risk of Pregnancy Com-
plications," by B. Zapata, A. Rebolledo,
E. Atalah, B. Newman and M. King.
American Journal of Public Health. May
1992, Vol. 82, No. 5, p. 685.

™ "Growing Up, Skewed, with Vio-
lence," by Phillip Bennett, The Boston
Globe. 6/4/92, p. 16.

m Ibid.

<*> Ibid.

m Ibid., P. 17.

001 "Disparities in Health Status..." p. 16.

01) "HIV Rate is Said to Rise Fastest for
Women," by Richard A. Knox, The Bos-
ton Globe. 7/21/92.

02) "Disparities in Health Status..." p. 32.

m Ibid., p. 34.

°*] "Staying Alive," a publication of the
Health Action Research Group, No. 31,
Spring 1991, p. 6.

a5) Jo Bower, Opening Address from
"Building Alliances II" Conference, May
12, 1992.

SECTION IV.

SUMMARY OF 1993 OBJECTIVES

Objective #1:
FAMILY SUPPORT

Three Year Objective: To forge an in-
formed, community-based mandate for
entitling families to family support.

(Priority Area: System Coordination and
Community Education)

1993 Objective: To promote a
mandate for an entitlement to high
quality family support ser-
vices... work toward state legis-
lation... support families to articu-
late their needs and desires, share
information... and sponsor and
monitor innovative quality services
which enable families to support,
empower, and train each other.

Activities

A. Work toward state legislation and clear
policy in support of families with
members who experience disability,
and plan and implement public and
parent training and education toward
this end.

1 . Continue to provide technical assis-
tance and support to Families Or-
ganizing for Change, a grassroots
organization of family members.

2. Advocate for new state family
support legislation (with Council's
Public Policy Committee and Fami-
lies Organizing for Change).

3. Promote cash assistance as one
element of a comprehensive Family
Support System. Convene meeting
with state policymakers upon com-
pletion of Cash Assistance Pilot
Project and companion Evaluation
Project to discuss project findings
and how to implement a cash assis-
tance program in Massachusetts.

4. Continue and enhance contacts with
the Executive Office of Health and
Human Services and its agencies to
promote family supports/family
preservation services.

Support families to articulate their
needs and desires, share information
with families and policy makers regar-
ding model programs and systems, and
sponsor and monitor innovative quality
services which enable families to sup-
port, empower, and train each other.

1. Staff and support the Family Sup-
port Steering Group, a Council
committee composed of parents and
relatives of people with disabilities,
individuals with disabilities, agency
representatives, advocates, and
interested persons.

2. Award and begin to implement a
Family Support/Multi-Cultural
grant project.

3. Continue to gather and disseminate
information on family support
services in the state and on models
to meet the diverse needs of fami-
lies within their local communities.
Build on generic family supports
and maintain contact with them,
gather information from families on
what they consider to be "good"
family supports, and synthesize and
share this information.

B. 1. Committee Member and Staff
Activity

2. Three-year grant project (at
$90,000 per year). (It is antici-
pated that: first year funding will
be 1992 money, second year fun-
ding will be 1994 money, and third
year funding will be 1995 money.
1993 funds will not be needed for
the Project due to the timing of its
design, award, and start-up.)

3. Committee Member and Staff
Activity

Conduct other public awareness, poli-
cy, and advocacy activities.

1. Plan and sponsor a family aware-
ness day (probable date: spring,
1993). '

2. Advocate for adequate public fun-
ding for family supports and child-
ren's services.

3. Participate in and/or track activities
of related groups, i.e., groups
working on children's issues and
services.

C. 1. $10,000 in federal funds
$ 3.333 in matching funds
$13,333 TOTAL

2. Committee Member and Staff
Activity

3. Committee Member and Staff
Activity

Total 1993 federal funds: $36,000

Council Committee with Lead Respon-
sibility: Family Support Steering Group

Projected 1993 Funding and Support

A. 1. $26,000 in federal funds
(Year 2 of contract)
$ 8.667 in matching funds
$34,667 TOTAL

2-4. Committee Member and Staff
Activity

Objective #2:

LIVING AND WORKING IN THE

COMMUNITY

Three Year Objective: To promote activi-
ties that maximize the value and inclusion of
people with disabilities through their in-
tegration into their communities, increasing
their productivity in employment, volun-

APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF DMR PROJECT RELATED ACTIVITIES

Summary of DMR Project Related Activities

Board of Hispanic Families

In 1991 , several Latino families formed a board of Hispanic
Families in Springfield. It is an ongoing empowerment group; and
the people manage respite care (funded through DMR) themselves.
It works in collaboration with the Department of Mental
Retardation's Region I (West) Community Service Center and other
local groups. Its goals are to advocate for access to all DMR
services for Spanish-speaking consumers and families and to
ensure that DMR offers equitable individual and family supports
to these individuals as well. (The Board originally grew from
families who expressed concerns about budget cuts and funding for
family support services, and their desire for money resulting
from savings of closing Belchertown to go to services in the
community. )

An October 3, 1992 Conference, entitled "Mano A Manor Las
Familias Tienen El Poder" (Hand in Hand: The Families Have the
Power), was presented by the Board of Hispanic Families and DMR's
Community Service Center Region I, in Springfield. It was the
First Annual Conference for Hispanic/Latino Families with
Children with Disabilities. The Conference was conducted in
Spanish, with interpreters for non-Spanish speakers.

About 100 people attended the conference; 60% were family members
(from Springfield, Holyoke areas and region) ; participants were
Hispanic professionals, some service providers, speakers from
agencies ;parents presented, also people with disabilities were on
panels and attended) ; participants had the opportunity to meet
with each other and network. Families liked the conference
experience, and enjoyed information sharing. (Plans are underway
to have a conference in the future, for a couple of days; it will
include discussion groups on topics such as advocacy with school
systems and community participation.)

In its draft discussion paper, the Board makes several
recommendations in the areas of vocational, residential, family
support services, and other specialized needs.

Family support needs identified include:

o information and referral component (services)

o bilingual staff at serving agencies, especially for out-of-

home respite, and respite facilities; and
o involvement of Hispanic/Latino families in the design,

implementation, and evaluation of these services.

MONORAM Project

The Department of Mental Retardation has established a project
which targets Cambodian families through the provision of respite
care services and training in Lowell. (While Cambodia has a very
old culture, the modern wars and destruction have had a
significant impact on the people who have come to the United
States as refugees (i.e., after, as a result of, the Vietnam War)
in the 1970s-1990s. The Department of Mental Retardation found
that there had been no requests for services from Cambodian
families, even though there were 2215 Cambodian families living
in Lowell. According to population numbers, the DMR estimated
that approximately 193 Cambodian children would have a
developmental delay. The Department thought the lack of requests
was due to several reasons:

(1) the ethnocentricity of the helping system;

(2) linguistic and cultural barriers;

(3) Cambodian family's lack of knowledge of the availability of
respite care and family support services for families with
developmentally disabled children.

Boston Community Center, Study of the Needs of Haitians

During the past year (State FY 1992), the Boston Community Center
of the Department of Mental Retardation has undertaken an effort
to study the needs of Haitian families with children with mental
retardation or autism in the Boston area. (MDDC staff has had
input into discussions) . The Boston Community Center staff have
experienced difficulty in reaching and understanding these
families. They know that the schools are making referrals, but
the families are not always (consistently?) following through.
They suspect that there may be cultural issues, such as
acceptance of disability. Suspected barriers for these families
include: lack of information about services; language barriers;
and distrust of service providers. Staff feel unsure of the
exact needs of these families, so they are working to document
what the actual needs are.

The Study is being undertaken to determine the extent of the need
for Boston Community Service Center services and types of
services which would be culturally appropriate. Based on the
findings of the study, the Boston Community Center of the
Department of Mental Retardation plans to put out a Request for
Proposal for services to meet those needs.

APPENDIX E
HUMAN RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS

HUMAN RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

All applicants for Developmental Disabilities (DD)
funds must provide assurances that they are in compliance
with the policies and regulations of the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) concerning the protection
of the rights and welfare of persons with developmental
disabilities who are placed "at risk" as a result of their
participation in or receiving services from DHHS funded
grants.

The applicant must determine whether persons, other
than those who are participating in the project, will be
affected by the project activities. If the applicant
determines that persons are involved with the project, it
must then determine whether they are placed "at risk". For
those persons who are "at risk" of physical, psychological,
and/or social harm, appropriate safeguards must be
identified to eliminate or to minimize these risks. In all
cases, the determination must be made that the benefits to
the participation in the project activities outweigh any
risk involved.

DHHS regulations define "at risk" as: any individual
who may be exposed to the possibility of injury, including
physical, psychological, or social as a result of either
participating in any research activities or receiving
services from the project being funded. An individual is
placed "at risk" only if the project activities and
procedures used are not established and accepted methods
necessary to meet his/her needs and/or which increase the
ordinary risks of daily life.

Safeguards are practices which (1) ensure that the
rights and welfare of those persons affected by the project
are protected, (2) are designed to minimize potential risks,
and (3) are consistent with standard and acceptable methods.
Safeguards include: prevention of physical injury; design
of data gathering instruments to limit personal information
to that which is necessary to the project effectiveness;
safeguarding personal information in locked cabinets;
restricting access to data to authorized persons; coding
personal information; destroying obsolete files; implement-
ing procedures to ensure that clients can correct erroneous
information. The safeguards for the collection, maintenance
and access of personal data are required by Massachusetts
General Law, Chapter 66A, the Fair Information Practices
Act.

When determining the potential risks involved for
project participants, the type of project funded should be

considered. (A) Biomedical or Behavioral Research projects
involving persons include extensive human rights assurances
covering medical, legal, social, and ethical issues;
(B) Direct Services projects involve Federal and State
regulations for services and clients, licensing requirements
for facilities, services, and staff, and can apply to a
range of habilitation issues, such as individual habilita-
tion/service plans, etc. ; (C) Other Activities projects such
as public relations, information and referral, and advocacy
include risks and safeguards such as informed consent,
privacy and confidentiality, and protection of data from
physical harm or unauthorized use.

2. POLICIES

To further the goals of promoting the welfare and
dignity of all persons with developmental disabilities, the
following principles will apply: programs/services must be
appropriate for the individuals being served; provide the
opportunity to live and receive services in the least
restrictive and most normal setting possible; protect
confidentiality; ensure human dignity; protect the legal
rights of clients; provide client access to records; provide
humane and adequate care and treatment; and assure that no
individual who is placed in a program be subjected to
mechanical, chemical, physical restraints, corporal
punishment, seclusion, and/or any other unreasonable use of
force not necessary to protect him/her from bodily harm.

3. INFORMED AND VOLUNTARY CONSENT PROCEDURES

"Informed Consent" is defined as the voluntary and
knowing consent of an individual or his/her legally author-
ized representative. The following information applies to
informed consent procedures for DD grants and contracts:

A. A fair explanation of the procedures to be used and
their purposes, including identification of any
procedures which are experimental (particularly for
participants in biomedical and/or behavioral research) ;

B. A description of any attendant discomforts and risks to
be reasonably expected;

C. A description of any benefits to be reasonably
expected;

D. A disclosure of any appropriate alternative procedure
that might be advantageous for the participant;

E. An offer to answer any questions concerning the nature
of the project and any of the procedures/methods being
used;

F. An instruction that the person is free to withdraw his/
her consent, and to discontinue participation in the
project at any time without prejudice to the person;
and

G. With respect to biomedical or behavioral research which
might result in physical injury, an explanation as to
whether compensation and medical treatment is available
if physical injury occurs, and if so, what it consists
of, or where further information may be obtained.

4. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS AND

APPLICATION PROCEDURES

The applicant must review all proposed project
activities to determine (a) whether persons will be affected
by the project; (b) whether any risks are involved for
participants and whether appropriate safeguards have been
identified; (c) whether anticipated benefits to participants
outweigh any potential risks involved.

When these determinations have been made, the Human
Rights Assurances Form must be completed and signed. This
form assures that the applicant has completed the review of
project activities for human rights issues; the applicant
has identified risks, safeguards and benefits; the applicant
will notify the AADD when project changes occur that will
affect the human rights of project participants.

If the applicant has determined that there are no risks
to participants who are involved in the project and there
are no issues of privacy and confidentiality for project
participants, then a Human Rights Committee (HRC) will not
be required. However, the AADD must approve this
determination. During the grant period, if changes occur to
affect human rights of project participants, then the AADD
must be notified and a project human rights committee must
be convened.

If the applicant has determined that participants'
human rights will be affected, then a Human Rights Committee
must be convened. The minutes of the first Human Rights
Committee meeting must be submitted to the AADD to show
compliance with this section within thirty (30) days from
the notification date of grant award.

For projects providing direct services to persons, the
Human Rights Committee will meet on a quarterly basis
throughout the grant period; and for other activities
projects involving privacy and confidentiality issues and
informed consent requirements, the Human Rights Committee
will meet biannually. Minutes of the Human Rights Committee
meetings will be submitted to the AADD as attachments to the
appropriate quarterly progress report materials.

The Human Rights Committee must be comprised of at
least five (5) members, with varying backgrounds, to assure
complete and adequate review of the project. The Committee
may be an already existing one or especially appointed for
the project. The committee may include staff and/or
consultants. However, at least one third of the membership
must not have any affiliation with the project or any
sponsoring institution.

Any questions regarding the information and require-
ments contained in this section should be directed to the
AADD.

APPENDIX F
APPLICATIONS AND ASSURANCES

DATE: RFP #

APPLICANT:

RFP APPLICATION CHECKLIST

INCLUDED

1. Cover Sheet (Form #1)

2. Table of Contents

3. Project Narrative

4. Narrative Support Documents

a. Job Descriptions for Project

b. Project Staff Resumes

c. Applicant Organization Chart

d. Project Organization Chart

5. Project Workplan (Form #2)

6. Project Budget (Form #3)

7. Budget Justification

8. Applicant Qualification Documents

Three year audit history

b. OMB Assurances for Non-Construction (Form #4)

c. Habilitation Plan Assurance (Form #5)

d. Merit System Certification (Form #6)

e. Certificate of Vote (Form #7)

f. Certificate of Legal Existence (Form #8)

Financial Interest Disclosure (Form #9)

h. Human Rights Assurances (Form #10)

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension. .. (Form #11)

h. Certification Regarding Lobbying for Grants (Form #12)

i. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance Form (Form #13)

j. Affirmative Action Plan for Grants over $50,000 (Form #14)

9. PROJECT RELATED ADDENDA

.10. ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND SIX COPIES

(The applicant should complete this checklist and attach it to the cover
of the original application)

COVER PAGE (FORM #1)

TITLE OF PROJECT:

RFP NUMBER:

Family Support Multi-cultural Project #92-1(3) (B)

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT AGENCY (S) OR ORGANIZATION (S)

NAME AND TITLE OF PROJECT DIRECTOR:

PHONE NUMBER

FAX NUMBER:

NAME, TITLE, AND ADDRESS OF
FINANCIAL OFFICER:

PHONE NUMBER:

TYPE OF AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION

STATE

OTHER PUBLIC

PRIVATE NONPROFIT

REQUEST SPECIAL
"MATCHING" RATE FOR
POVERTY AREA:
YES NO

PROPOSED TERM
OF PROJECT:

TOTAL FUNDING
OF PROJECT:

9/1/93 - 8/31/94

DD FUNDS: $90,000.00

ANTICIPATED STARTING DATE:

ANTICIPATED ENDING DATE

NON-FED MATCH:

Terms and Conditions:

The undersigned accept, as to any grant awarded, the obligation to
comply with: terms and conditions pertinent to the awarding
programs as represented in the Administering Agency for
Developmental Disabilities' Conditions of Grant Award, RFP
requirements, AADD Quarterly Reporting Requirements, Assurances and
forms as submitted, and other Federal and State statutes,
administration policies, procedures and guidelines relative
thereto. The undersigned also certify that they have no
commitments or obligations inconsistent with compliance with the
above.

Date

Signature of Responsible Officer

Print Name

Title

FORM #2

The applicant must complete a workplan in the format
outlined below.

PROJECT WORKPLAN FORMAT
OBJECTIVE:

A. ACTIVITY (beginning and ending dates) :

1. Task Staff/ # Days

2 . Task

3. Task

B. ACTIVITY (beginning and ending dates) :

1. Task Staff/ # Days

2. Task

3. Task

II. OBJECTIVE:

A. ACTIVITY (beginning and ending dates) :

1. Task Staff/# Days

2 . Task

3. Task

—I
>

—I

CI
73

m
o

-u

o
o

—I

I— (

-a
?o
O

m
oo
oo

<
o

o
o
oo

—I
oo

—I
•>

►— i

2=
CD

oo
m

m
-n

I— H

H
oo

^9
O

—I

—I
>

00
H
oo

o
oo

>
a

00 >
> 2

>C
73 >
-< I—

73 -H
O hh

m m
o

oo
O

CD
O

o -a

OO 73

—\ o

OO C_i

m
o

73 O

m o
O

00 2

— I a
m oo
o

>
o

73
O

OO
O

73
O

m
oo

>
—I
m

TZJ
T3

>
UZl
O

C_i.

c+
O

CD
-1

Cu
3

<■+■

-h
O

-5

—J.

€

o
I/O
r+

?o
O
13
O
00

cz
o

<
m

r~
o

m
oo

3
O

-J

c
-1

•%
O
-Q
C
_i,

ft)
Q.

—I
>

_j.
N
0)

05
X

-o

fD
3
(/)
O

o
n

Oi
<~r
0)
lO

—J.
03

0)
X

■o

0>
3
(/)
0>

o
n
r+

—J.

>
—I
d
TO

m
O

m
to

I— I
CO

CD
CO

—I
>

-H

— 1

t— 1

-a

|—

t— 1

— I

>—*

m
x

CZ
00

o
o

— I
>

>
— I

cz
m

m
x

o
o

-o

en
o

o -o

CO 70
-H O
CO Cj

m
o

TO O
O

co ;

—i o
m oo

co
O

CO
O

CZ
TO

o
m
co

o
i— i

m
o

o
o
co

T3
O
O

m
o

o
o

—I

=5
CL.
fD
"O
CD

Q.
fD

zn
>

m
o

— 1
oo

-h

■s

-s

O
— I

—i

— I

CZ>

►— <

-n

-H

—I

-a

— I

-o

-a

-H

m
o

m
2:
o
<
>

-H

CD
O

O -o

CO 73
—I O
CO C_i

m
o

73 a
m o
o

co 2:
—I o
m co

a
co

CZ 73

c*.

C/5

ni o

s*fe

i — *

— 1

<-*•

C -Q

-s

-5 "O

—j .

=5 TO

_j.

— i.

— 'TD

-J.

— I

(-+■

—i.

— «.

— 1.

*>«,

r-t-

— i

3 io

C+

—1

_j.

-5
CU
00

c
cr

l .

c
3
r+
fD
fD
"S

n
-h

-s

_1.

— 1

-1

-to

— '•

<-l-

■ ■

o i—

oo -o

— 1 TO

OO o

73 O

m o

cz -n

m cz

oo z

—1 o

m oo

O —1

—1 o

ZC -H

m 3>

73 r—

OO T|

O CZ

cz 2:

73 a

0 00

m*-^

0 —1

O O

z —1

—i >

73 r-

1— (

00 3

cz >

— 1 —1

M O

0 in

■z.

cz
a
en

-n.
O
73

i — «

C/l

— 1

r-t-

C JQ

-S "O

—j .

r3 to

_j.

— i.

— >~a

-j.

— i

rt-

—J.

— «•

— i.

•»*,

— i

~<;

c-t-

— (

— "•

cr>

C+-

o
o

"5
cu

c
cr

c+
fD
fD
-5

£=
CL

-h

-5
—j .

C+

_i.

— 1

-ti

— '•

<-l-

■ ■

-i

o r—

oo -o

— I ?o

oo o

—1

73 O

m o

cz -n

m cz:

oo z

— 1 o

m oo

O —1

—1 O

zc —I

m 3>

x> r—

OO Tl

O c:

cz: -z.

73 o

o oo

O —1

o o

Z —1

—1 >

73 r—

t— 1

00 3

cz: >

—I — I

M O

o zc

r\j

cz
a
en

-n
O

c:
>

o
o

>
o
~n

»— i

o
o

— I

o
—I
>

o
o
oo

FORM #4

OM8 Approval No. 0348-0C40

ASSURANCES — NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Note:

Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions
please contact the awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants
to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified.

the duly authorized representative of the applicant I certify that the applicant:

1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal
assistance, and the institutional, managerial and
financial capability (including funds sufficient to
pay the non-Federal share of project costs) to
ensure proper planning, management and com-
pletion of the project described in this application.

2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller
General of the United States, and if appropriate,
the State, through any authorized representative,
access to and the right to examine all records,
books, papers, or documents related to the award;
and will establish a proper accounting system in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
standards or agency directives.

3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees
from using their positions for a purpose that
constitutes or presents the appearance of personal
or organizational conflict of interest, or personal

gain.

4. Will initiate and complete the work within the
applicable time frame after receipt of approval of
the awarding agency.

5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4728-4763)
relating to prescribed standards for merit systems
for programs funded under one of the nineteen
statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of
OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel
Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).

6 Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to
nondiscrimination. These include but are not
limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b)
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as
amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683. and 1685-1686),
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex;
(c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. § 794). which prohibits dis-
crimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age
D'Scrimination Act of 1975. as amended (42
SC.§§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrim-
'"ationon the basis of age;

(e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of
1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (0
the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of
1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
alcoholism; (g) §§ 523 and 527 of the Public Health
Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-
3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of
alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title
VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §
3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to non-
discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of
housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination
provisions in the specific statute(s) under which
application for Federal assistance is being made;
and (j) the requirements of any other
nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to
the application.

7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the
requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646)
which provide for fair and equitable treatment of
persons displaced or whose property is acquired as
a result of Federal or federally assisted programs.
These requirements apply to all interests in real
property acquired for project purposes regardless
of Federal participation in purchases.

8. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act
(5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit
the political activities of employees whose
principal employment activities are funded in
whole or in part with Federal funds.

9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of
the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-
7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 276c and 18
U.S.C. §§ 874). and the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act (40 U S.C. §§ 327-333).
regarding labor standards for federally assisted
construction subagreements

SlO^KlO'O Fo<m J2«0 (J 88)
Ptewi-GoO b> O-'O Ocui.il a 102

Authorized for Local Reproduction

10. Will comply, Lf applicable, with flood insurance
purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234)
which requires recipients in a special flood hazard
area to participate in the program andto purchase
flood insurance if the total cost of insurable
construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more.

11. Will comply with environmental standards which
may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a)
institution of environmental quality control
measures under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive
Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification of violating
facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of
wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of
flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO
11988; (e) assurance of project-consistency with
the approved State management program
developed under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.); (0
conformity of Federal actions to State (Clear Air)
Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the
Clear Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §
7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground sources
of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523); and (h)
protection of endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L.
93-205).

12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et seq.) related to
protecting components or potential components of
the national wild and scenic rivers system.

13. Will assist the awarding agency in assurinp
compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. as amended (16
U.S.C. 470). EO 11593 (identification and
protection of historic properties), and the
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-l etseq.).

14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the
protection of human subjects involved in research,
development, and related activities supported by
this award of assistance.

15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare
Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C.
2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and
treatment of warm blooded animals held for
research, teaching, or other activities supported by
this award of assistance.

16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§4801 et seq.) which
prohibits the use of lead based paint in
construction or rehabilitation of residence
structures.

17. Will cause to be performed the required financial
and compliance audits in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984.

18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all
other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations
and policies governing this program.

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL

TITLE

APPLICANT ORGANIZATION

DATE SUBMITTED

SF 12^0 M 88) 0.x:K

FORM #5

H. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PROJECT GRANT
HABILITATION PLAN ASSURANCE

(Name of Applicant)

HEREBY AGREES THAT IT WILL assure that when appropriate a
habilitation plan for each developmental ly disabled person who
receives services from, or under the project grant which meets the
following requirements contained in 42 USC 6011:

(1) The plan shall be in writing.

(2) The plan shall be developed jointly by (A) a representative
or representatives of the program primarily responsible for delivering
or coordinating the delivery of services to the persons for whom the
plan is established, (B) such person, and (C) where appropriate,
such person's parents or guardian or other representative.

(3) Such plan shall contain a statement of the long-term
habilitation goals for the person and the intermediate habilitation
objectives relating to the attainment of such goals. Such objectives
shall be stated specifically and in sequence and shall be expressed in
behavioral or other terms that provide measurable indices of progress.
The plan shall (A) describe how the objectives will be achieved and
the barriers that might interfere with the achievement of them, (B)
state an objective criteria and an evaluation procedure and schedule
for determining whether such objectives and goals are being achieved,
and (C) provide for a program coordinator who will be responsible for
the implementation of the plan.

(4) The plan shall contain a statement (in readily
understandable form) of specific habilitation services to be provided,
shall identify each agency which will deliver such services, shall
describe the personnel (and their qualifications) necessary for the
provision of such services, and shall specify the date of the
initiation of each service to be provided and the anticipated duration
of each such service.

(5) The plan shall specify the role and objectives of all
parties to the implementation of the plan.

(6) Each habilitation plan shall be reviewed at least annually
by the agency primarily responsible for the delivery of services to
the person for whom the plan was established or responsible for the
coordination of the delivery of services to such person. In the
course of the review, such person and the person's parents or guardian
or other representative shall be given an opportunity to review such
plan and to participate in its revision.

Dated:

(Applicant's mailing address)

(Applicant)
By

President, Chairman of Board, or
comparable authorized official)

Form #6

MERIT SYSTEM CERTIFICATION

The undersigned official (s) of a public agency which is submitting
an application for funds available through the Executive Office for
Administration and Finance under the authority of P.L. 100-146, the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
Amendments of 1990, hereby certifies that the following positions
named for staff to be employed in the project, activity, or service
described in the application are consistent with the merit and
classification systems of the government (state or local) with
which the applicant agency is affiliated, and that the titles and
salaries represented are consistent with those established and
approved by the civil service and personnel officials of the
government:

POSITION TITLE GRADE APPROVED SALARY RANGE

And that consultants and persons rendering professional services
now have or will qualify for contracts for service with the
approved rates of the government:

TYPE OF CONSULTATION AND NAME, IF KNOWN APPROVED RATE

DATE SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Form #7
Certification of Vote

With the application, the applicant must include a
"Certificate of Vote," signed by the clerk/secretary of the
applicant's organization, which lists the specific officers who are
authorized to execute contracts/agreements on behalf of the
applicant agency.

Form #8

Certification of Legal Existence

If the applicant is a private agency, it must include a
"Certificate of Legal Existence" which is issued by the Office of
the Secretary of State, Corporations Division, as evidence of that
agency's private, nonprofit status.

Form #9
FINANCIAL INTEREST DISCLOSURE

The applicant certifies under the penalties of perjury that the
following sets forth the names and addresses of all persons having
a financial interest in this contract, not including, however, any
person whose only financial interest consists of the holding of one
percent or less of the capital stock of a corporation contracting
to provide services, in accordance with the provisions of the
General Laws, Chapter 7, Section 14A, as inserted by Chapter 844 of
the Acts of 1963:

NAME ADDRESS

The undersigned is authorized to make these assurances on behalf of
the applicant and assures compliance by his/her signature.

Legal Name of Applicant:

Name and Title of Responsible Officer:

Signature of Responsible Officer

Date

Form #10
HUMAN RIGHTS ASSURANCES

1. will comply with the

policy of the Developmental Disabilities Program for the
protection of persons participating in projects or activities
supported by grants and contracts from the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) . This compliance will
include a review by the applicant agency and/or their human
rights committee to safeguard the rights and welfare of
persons participating in the project, as applicable. The

application for DD grant # was submitted by

this agency/organization on behalf of

, who will be responsible

for informing all staff of the conditions of this assurance.
An initial review of the aforementioned application indicated
the following:

A. In the opinion of this agency/organization, the risks to
the rights and welfare of individuals affected by this
project are:

B. The applicant states that the following safeguards
against these risks have been provided:

C. In the opinion of the applicant, the potential benefits
of this project to participants and/or to humanity
outweigh any probable risk:

D. In the opinion of the applicant, the following informed
consent procedures will be adequate and appropriate:

E. In the opinion of the applicant, the following privacy
and confidentiality procedures will be adequate and
appropriate:

F. The applicant agrees to develop and implement a mechanism
for the continuing exchange of information and advice
between the project director and the project's human
rights committee, particularly concerning proposed
changes in project activity or design which might affect
the persons participating in the project. This
communication will be implemented as follows:

G. Minutes will be kept of all human rights committee
meetings and submitted to the AADD:

H. The names, occupations, or titles of the members of the
committee are as follows:

NAME OCCUPATION/TITLE DEGREE/CERT.

Assurances are further provided that:

a. After careful review of project activities, it was determined
that no persons or human rights risks are involved for which
a human rights committee is necessary.

b. If no human rights committee is necessary, that notification
of project changes affecting human rights of project
participants will be reported to the AADD.

c. A human rights committee will be convened and minutes
submitted to the AADD within thirty days after grant award.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE

FORM #11

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT. SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY.
AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION — LOWER TIER TRANSACTIONS

1. The prospective/lower tier participant certifies, by
submission of this proposal/receipt of this award, that
neither it nor its principals is presently debarred,
suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by
any Federal department or agency.

2. Where the prospective/lower tier participant is unable to
certify to any of the statements in this certification, such
prospective/ participant shall attach an explanation to this
proposal .

The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by
submitting this proposal that it will include this clause entitled
"Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and
Voluntary Exclusion — Lower Tier Covered Transactions," without
modification in all lower tier covered transactions and in all
solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.

Date Signature

Title

FORM #12

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING FOR GRANTS,
LOANS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and
belief that:

1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,
by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee
of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering
into of any cooperative agreement, the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of the Congress
or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete Standard Form LLL, "Disclosure Form
to Report Lobbying" in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award documents for all
subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and
contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and
that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which
reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Any
person who fails to file the required certification shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more
than $100,000 for each such failure.

Date Signature of Applicant

Title

■*•*:* *i

FORM #13

COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)

REQUIREMENTS ASSURANCES

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Law 101-336,
104 Stat. 327, .42 U.S.C. 12101-122213 and U.S.C. 12101-122213 and
U.S.C. 2 25 and 611, extends Federal civil rights protection in
several areas to people who are disabled. The law prohibits covered
entities from excluding people with disabilities from jobs,
services, activities, or benefits based on disability. The law
provides fiscal penalties for discrimination.

The undersigned assures that at a minimum, the
organization/agency receiving Federal Massachusetts Developmental
Disabilities (DD) funds will:

1. Not discriminate against qualified applicants and employees who
are or become disabled. This assurance covers all aspects of
employment, including the application process, hiring, on-the-
job training, advancement and wages, benefits, and employer-
sponsored social activities; and

2. Not deny goods, programs, and services to people based on their
disabilities. This assurance includes providing physical
accessibility, changing policies and practices, providing
auxiliary aid/staff assistance, etc. to reasonably accommodate
people with disabilities if this does not impose an undue
burden.

Date Signature of Applicant

Title

-» • » ♦

FORM #14
Affirmative Action Plan for Grants Exceeding $50.000

Federal law requires that the grantee shall not discriminate
against any qualified applicant for employment because of race,
national origin, ancestry, sex, color, age, marital status,
military status, status as a Vietnam era veteran, and mental,
physical and/or emotional disability. The grantee agrees to comply
with all Federal and State statutes, rules, regulations, executive
orders, and administrative procedures prohibiting discrimination in
employment.

The grantee shall demonstrate that positive action will be
implemented within the context of the existing law to ensure
equitable participation in the project of people with disabilities,
minorities, women and Vietnam-era veterans in all employment
practices. The grantee shall demonstrate that a major effort will
be made to employ qualified persons with disabilities.

All grantee organizations receiving over $50,000 are required
to make a good faith effort to subcontract with minority businesses
for the purchase of certain goods and services included in the
subsidiary accounts listed in the Minority Business Enterprise
Purchasing Program (MBEPP) , as well as its employment objectives,
when appropriate and feasible.

All organizations applying for more than $50,000 in DD funds
must submit an organizational Affirmative Action Plan which shows
a work force analysis of its current work force for the project
receiving DD funds. The grantee should actively implement an equal
opportunity policy and act affirmatively to provide such
opportunity.

My organization's affirmative action plan is attached to this
document, and it will comply with the conditions set herein.

Date Signature of Applicant

Title

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Family support multi-cultural project : request for proposals (RFP) #92-1(3)(B)"

See other formats