Nutrition
Evaluations Report
Volume I: Chapter 1
I. INTRODUCTION
With the aging of the U.S. population, increased attention has
been given to designing efficient and effective systems for delivering
health and related services to older people. Of particular concern
is the development of service networks that can provide elders
with a continuum of home and community-based long-term care, to
allow them to avoid unnecessary and costly institutionalization.
One very important component of any overall package of home-
and community-based services for elderly people is the provision
of comprehensive nutrition services. Adequate nutrition is critical
to health, functioning, and quality of life for people of all
ages. For elderly people, nutrition can be especially important,
because of their vulnerability to health problems and physical
and cognitive impairments. Key nutrition services include nourishing
meals, as well as nutrition screening, assessment, education,
and counseling, to ensure that older people achieve and maintain
optimal nutritional status.
This report summarizes the results of a comprehensive evaluation
of the largest U.S. community nutrition program for older persons,
the Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP). The ENP, which serves the
general elderly population under Title III of its authorizing
legislation and Native Americans under Title VI, is authorized
under the Older Americans Act and is administered by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration
on Aging (AoA). The evaluation was conducted by Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., (MPR) in conjunction with MPR's subcontractor,
the University of Minnesota. It was directed by three principal
investigators, Michael Ponza and James Ohls of MPR and Barbara
Millen, Associate Director for Research, Boston University Schools
of Public Health and Medicine.
The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the ENP
and summarizes the research objectives of the evaluation.
A. OVERVIEW OF THE ELDERLY NUTRITION PROGRAM
The ENP is authorized under Title III and Title VI of the Older
Americans Act (OAA). Through Title III, State Units and Area Agencies
on Aging implement a system of coordinated, community-based services
targeted to older individuals. Title III authorizes the provision
of nutrition and supportive services, such as meals, nutrition
education, transportation, personal and homemaker services, and
information and referral. Similar nutrition and supportive services
for elderly American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians
are authorized separately under Title VI. The OAA has been amended
frequently since the creation of the ENP in 1972. These amendments
have added new responsibilities for agencies in the aging network
and clarified responsibilities that were to have been performed
under the original legislation.
1. Title III Nutrition Services
Under Title III-C of the OAA, the AoA provides grants to State
Units on Aging (SUAs) to support the provision of daily meals
and related nutrition services in either group (congregate) or
home settings to persons age 60 and older. The program specifically
targets older people with the greatest economic or social need.
In fiscal year (FY) 1994, OAA Title III-C funding for the ENP
was nearly $470 million. In that year, 127 million meals were
served to 2.3 million people at congregate sites, and more than
113 million home-delivered meals were provided to 877,000 homebound
elderly people.
Administration and Funding. Under Title III,
SUAs receive federal grants for provision of congregate nutrition
services (authorized under Part C-1), home-delivered nutrition
services (authorized under Part C-2), and supportive services
(authorized under Part B) from DHHS. Funds are allocated to states
and territories according to a formula that is based on the state's
or territory's share of the population aged 60 or older (as compared
with all states and territories). The OAA also requires the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide SUAs with commodities
or cash in lieu of commodities, the value of which is based on
the annual number of meals served. (In FY 1994, USDA provided
approximately $150 million in cash and commodity assistance to
the ENP.) In the annual appropriations process, Congress allocates
separate amounts under Title III for congregate nutrition services,
home-delivered nutrition services, and supportive services. However,
the actual amounts available differ from the initial appropriations
because states are allowed, within limits, to transfer funds among
various Title III components.
SUAs distribute the funds to Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), which
administer the nutrition services program within their respective
planning and service areas. AAAs receive funds from SUAs on the
basis of state-determined formulas that reflect the proportion
of older people in their planning and service areas (PSAs) and
other factors. The AAAs award grants to and contract with nutrition
projects to provide nutritional and supportive services in their
planning areas. AAAs are often direct providers of nutrition services
as well. In addition to receiving AoA funds, AAAs and nutrition
projects receive financial support from state and local government,
in-kind contributions, private donations, and voluntary contributions
from participants. Congregate meals and supportive services are
provided at nutrition projects' meal sites (such as senior centers,
religious facilities, schools, public or low-income housing, or
residential care facilities). Home-delivered meals are provided
to homebound clients, either by the congregate meals sites, affiliated
central kitchens, or nonaffiliated food service organizations.
AoA program data collected during the past 15 years show an increase
in the number of Title III-C meals served. Most of this growth,
however, occurred in the early 1980s. The total number increased
by 43 percent during the entire period between FY 1980 and FY
1994 (from 168 million to 240 million meals), but increased by
only 7 percent between FY 1985 and FY 1994. There has been a continuing
shift in services over time from congregate to home-delivered
meals. Most of the program growth during the past 15 years can
be attributed to the substantial increase in the number of home-delivered
meals. The number of congregate meals served during FY 1994 was
four percent less than the number served in FY 1980 (126.7 million
and 132.0 million meals, respectively). In contrast, the number
of home-delivered meals increased 210 percent during that time,
from 36.4 million to 113.1 million. The percentage of total meals
served as home-delivered increased steadily, from 22 percent in
FY 1980 to 47 percent in FY 1994.
Eligibility. Persons aged 60 and older, and
their spouses of any age, may participate in the Title III congregate
program. In addition, the following groups may also receive meals:
(1) disabled persons under age 60 who reside in housing facilities,
occupied primarily by elderly people, in which congregate meals
are served; (2) disabled persons who reside at home with, and
accompany, older persons to meal sites; and (3) nutrition service
volunteers. Title III home-delivered meals are available to homebound
persons 60 years of age or older and their spouses (who may be
younger than age 60) and disabled persons younger than age 60
living with elderly persons. Persons eligible for the home-delivered
meal program may be homebound as a result of disability, illness,
or isolation. The ENP does not have a means test, but services
are targeted at older persons with the greatest economic or social
need. Participants are not charged for meals but are encouraged
to contribute toward the meal costs. However, participants cannot
be denied meals or other services because of inability or an unwillingness
to contribute.
Benefits and Participation. Congregate and home-delivered
nutrition projects must offer at least one meal per day, five
or more days per week (except in rural areas). Each meal must
provide a minimum of one-third of the daily Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDAs) established by the Food and Nutrition Board
of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council.
The meals must also comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
published by the Secretaries of DHHS and USDA. In addition to
meals, nutrition service providers offer a variety of nutrition-related
services, such as nutrition education and screening, shopping
assistance, and health promotion activities.
2. Title VI Nutrition Services
ENP services are also authorized under Title VI of the OAA. The
AoA awards Title VI funds directly to Indian Tribal Organizations
(ITOs) from federally recognized tribes and organizations serving
Native Hawaiians. Title VI has two parts: (1) Part A--American
Indian and Alaskan Native Program; and (2) Part B--Native Hawaiian
Program.
Administration and Funding. Title VI of the
OAA established a grant program directly from the federal government
to tribal organizations and other organizations to promote the
delivery of nutrition and supportive services for older American
Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians. These services
are to be comparable to those provided under Title III. ITOs and
agencies serving Native Hawaiians receive grant awards directly
from the AoA. These agencies typically administer the program
as well as provide the services.
Grants are awarded to ITOs and other organizations on the basis
of the number of elderly American Indians and Native Hawaiians
represented by their respective agencies. In FY 1994, Title VI
grants were awarded to 226 ITOs; one grant was awarded under Title
VI-B, where the overall grants totaled $17 million. OAA provisions
permit nutrition programs funded under Title VI to also receive
donated dairy products and food commodities or cash in lieu of
commodities from USDA. In FY 1994, Native American and Native
Hawaiian grantees provided 1.3 million meals to 41,000 American
Indian and Native Hawaiian congregate participants and 1.5 million
meals to 47,500 American Indian and Native Hawaiian home-delivered
participants.
Eligibility. Only federally recognized tribal
organizations and nonprofit private organizations serving native
Hawaiians are eligible for funding under Title VI. Additionally,
to receive funding, ITOs and agencies representing Native Hawaiians
must represent at least 50 individuals who are 60 years of age
or older. They must also demonstrate the ability to deliver nutrition
and supportive services. Spouses of eligible American Indians,
Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians may participate, regardless
of age. Unlike Title III, which requires participants to be at
least 60 years old to receive services, Title VI allows ITOs and
agencies serving Native Hawaiians to specify the minimum age (which
generally ranges between 45 and 60) for participants to receive
nutrition and support services.
Benefits and Participation. Title VI nutrition
programs may provide congregate meals, home-delivered meals, or
both. A hot or otherwise appropriate meal must be provided at
least five days a week, unless the tribal organization can justify,
on the basis of its needs assessment, fewer than five days a week.
The meals may consist of cold, frozen, dried, canned, or supplemental
foods. On average, each meal must provide a minimum of one-third
of the daily RDAs established by the Food and Nutrition Board
of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council.
The meals must also comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
published by the Secretaries of DHHS and USDA. In addition to
meals, nutrition service providers offer a variety of supportive
services, such as nutrition education and screening, shopping
assistance, and health promotion activities.
3. ENP Nutrition Requirements
The 1992 amendments to the Older Americans Act (P.L. 102-375,
Section 339) require that meals provided through the ENP comply
with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published by DHHS and
USDA, and meet the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) as established
by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council
(NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences.
a. Dietary Guidelines
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans make seven broad dietary
recommendations for persons age two and older to help them choose
food for a healthful diet:
1. Eat a variety of foods
2. Maintain healthy weight
3. Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain
products
4. Choose a diet low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol
5. Use sugars only in moderation
6. Use salt and sodium only in moderation
7. If you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation
In some of these recommendations, the Dietary Guidelines provide
specific quantitative standards. In particular, the recommendation
for the consumption of a variety of foods is specified in terms
of a suggested number of daily servings from each of five basic
food groups:
1. 3 to 5 servings of vegetables
2. 2 to 4 servings of fruits
3. 6 to 11 servings of breads, cereals, rice, and pasta
4. 2 to 3 servings of milk, yogurt, and cheese
5. 2 to 3 servings of meats, poultry, fish, dry beans and peas,
eggs, and nuts
The Dietary Guidelines also make specific quantitative recommendations
for the amount of total and saturated fat in diets:
- Intake of total fat should not exceed 30 percent of food energy
(calories)
- Intake of saturated fat should be less than 10 percent of
food energy (calories)
However, the Dietary Guidelines do not provide quantitative benchmarks
for the intake of cholesterol, sugar, or sodium.
Compliance with the Dietary Guidelines is a new requirement for
states, although some have encouraged nutrition projects to incorporate
them for several years. The Dietary Guidelines have never before
been included in program requirements, however.
b. Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)
The NRC defines the RDAs as the levels of intake for essential
nutrients that, on the basis of scientific knowledge, are judged
by the Food and Nutrition Board to meet the known nutrient needs
of practically all healthy persons (NRC 1989a, p. 10). The NRC
sets age- and gender-specific RDAs for each nutrient. The RDAs
are based on the needs of an average person of median height and
weight within the specific age and gender population group.
The most recent RDAs provide guidelines for assessing the intake
of energy and specified nutrients for adults up to age 50 and
for those 51 years or older. Age- and gender-specific recommendations
exist for the following essential nutrients: energy (calories);
protein; vitamins A, D, E, K, C, B6, B12, thiamin, niacin, riboflavin,
and folate; and the minerals calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron,
zinc, iodine, and selenium. Guidelines on safe and adequate daily
levels of other vitamins (biotin and pantothenic acid) and trace
mineral elements (copper, manganese, fluoride, chromium, and molybdenum)
are also provided.
ENP meals are required to meet the RDAs. Specifically, program
meals provided to each participating older person must provide:
- A minimum of 33 1/3 percent of the RDAs if the nutrition project
provides one meal per day
- A minimum of 66 2/3 percent of the RDAs if the nutrition project
provides two meals per day
- 100 percent of the RDAs if the nutrition project provides
three meals per day
Before the 1992 amendments, the ENP required that each meal contribute
one-third of the RDA. For nutrition projects that provide more
than one meal or eating occasion daily, the requirements now focus
on the nutrient content of the total meal package rather than
on each individual meal.
B. EMERGING ISSUES IN THE ENP
Older persons constitute a significant, growing percentage of
the United States population. Currently, 17 percent of the population--or
42 million people--are age 60 or older (U.S. Bureau of the Census
1993). This percentage is expected to increase to approximately
25 percent (89 million people) by the year 2030 (Day 1993). The
"oldest old"--those 85 years and older--and elderly
nonwhites and Hispanics are expected to be the most rapidly growing
segments of the elderly population in the next several decades.
Between 1990 and 2030, the oldest old and the elderly Hispanic
populations will nearly triple in size, and the elderly African
American and other nonwhite populations will double.
Despite overall improvements in the economic status of elderly
people in the past two decades, a substantial number of these
people are poor--12 percent, or 4,901 million people in 1991 have
cash income below 100 percent of the U.S. poverty threshold (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1993). A disproportionate number of the poor
and near-poor elderly are women, minorities, those who live alone,
and the oldest old. Moreover, these groups are expected to continue
to have poor economic status for the next several decades (U.S.
General Accounting Office 1986).
Proper nutrition is very important for elderly people. Nutritional
status has been shown to affect the age-related rate of functional
decline for many organs and to be a determinant of changes in
body composition associated with aging, such as loss of bone and
lean body mass (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1988).
Furthermore, diet and nutrition have been related to the etiology
of many chronic diseases affecting elderly people, such as osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis, diabetes, hypertension, and certain forms of
cancer (National Research Council 1989b). A 1991 study showed
that about 85 percent of older persons suffered from one or more
of these nutrition-related chronic conditions; chronic disease
risk is particularly pronounced in black and Hispanic elderly
persons (Dwyer 1991). These chronic diseases have been shown to
cause physical and mental impairments in elderly persons that
threaten their independence, well-being, and quality of life.
The last reauthorization legislation for the OAA was signed into
law in September 1992 (P.L.102-375). This authorization of the
OAA programs expired at the end of FY 1995, but the appropriation
is still being maintained. The following emerging and recurring
issues make the current ENP evaluation particularly timely:
- Targeting program services to older persons
most in need--especially the lower-income elderly and groups
that tend to have high proportions of low-income members, such
as racial/ethnic minorities and socially isolated individuals
- The impacts of program components
on participants' nutrition and socialization
- Program linkages with the long-term care
system
- Efficient and cost-effective program administration
and service delivery
- Nutrition quality assurance of the program--service
quality and promotion of food sanitation and safety
- Fund transfers between Title III congregate
and home-delivered nutrition services, as well as between nutrition
services and supportive services--to assess their impact on
program operations and participants
- The adequacy of the Dietary Guidelines and
the RDAs
1. Targeting
The ENP authorizing legislation stated that services were to
be targeted to those with the "greatest economic or social
need." Over the years, several amendments to the OAA have
tried to strengthen the program's ability to provide nutrition
and supportive services to this group of older people. These amendments
have also attempted to help nutrition projects target services
more effectively and implement appropriate outreach activities.
Yet, studies examining the effectiveness of program targeting
have reported conflicting results (O'Shaughnessy 1990; Ponza et
al. 1994; Posner, 1979; and Kirschner et al. 1983).
Both Title III and Title VI provide nutrition services to elderly
American Indians. Title III programs provide services to American
Indian and Alaskan Native elderly people living in urban areas,
as well as to state-recognized tribes and others who are not members
of federally recognized tribes; Title VI provides nutrition services
only to federally recognized tribes. Although Title VI was specifically
established to provide services to American Indians, elderly Native
Americans receive most nutrition services through Title III (Jackson
and Godfrey 1990).
The current ENP evaluation has provided national estimates of
the levels of program participation for low-income and minority
elderly people and other elderly subgroups. In addition, the two
main program components, congregate and home-delivered meals,
are designed to serve somewhat different groups. In particular,
recipients of home-delivered meals may be bedridden or homebound
or generally too frail to leave their homes to obtain meals in
a congregate setting. The evaluation data facilitate comparisons
of home-delivered and congregate participants' characteristics
along such dimensions as age, health, functional capabilities,
and nutritional risk.
2. Program Impacts on Participants' Nutritional Intake
and Socialization
To date, few studies of the ENP have provided reliable estimates
of program impacts on participants' nutritional intake and socialization.
The current evaluation assesses the impact of the program's nutritional
components on participants. This assessment, which is based on
comparisons of nutritional and other outcomes for participants
and nonparticipants, after controlling for other factors, represents
the most rigorous analysis to date of program impacts.
3. Linkages with the Long-Term Care System
As the older population grows--especially those over 85 years
of age, who are most likely to be frail and at risk of losing
their independence--the availability and accessibility of a well-managed
system of home- and community-based services to assist these people
with activities of daily living will play a greater role in delaying
or preventing institutionalization for acute or long-term care
(that is, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, and nursing homes).
Service planners have increasingly emphasized the importance of
developing a continuum of services, including geriatric assessment,
acute care, home care, assisted living, adult day care, respite
services, hospice care, and community-based services such as transportation,
nutrition, and so forth. Any gap in the continuum will tend to
increase the individual's level of dependence and need for more
costly services and, possibly, unnecessary or premature institutionalization.
The nutrition and supportive services offered under Title III
and Title VI, which are a critical component of this continuum
in any locality, are interconnected. For example, transportation
is available through Title III and Title VI to ensure that clients
can attend congregate sites or receive home-delivered meals; shopping
assistance may be provided so that clients can have access to
food at times when program meals are unavailable. However, it
is likely that Title III and Title VI services are most effective
when they are integrated with other community services, to ensure
that service gaps are closed and to prevent service duplication.
This evaluation has provided an opportunity to examine how well
the ENP is integrated with other types of home- and community-based
care (such as geriatric case management, local health agencies
and providers, discharge planning units of hospitals, and other
local formal outreach programs).
4. Efficient and Cost-Effective Administration and Service
Delivery
The environment in which the ENP operates today is substantially
different from the one that the program faced 15 years ago. The
program must provide services to a targeted population that is
growing dramatically at the same time that federal resources are
decreasing. In this challenging environment, the efficiency of
program administration and operations must continually improve.
The current evaluation includes a comprehensive set of analyses
designed to provide information about ways to reduce program costs
and improve productivity, as well as a detailed analysis of meal
and other program costs. In addition, information on contracting
and purchasing practices, use of USDA commodities, use of volunteers,
and coordination with agencies within and outside the aging network
has been obtained to inform strategies for program improvement.
5. Quality of Program Services
To ensure service quality, Congress has required the ENP to meet
several criteria related to nutrition services. These include
meeting nutritional requirements for meals, providing nutrition
education to participants, and conforming with state and local
laws for food sanitation and safety. By collecting and analyzing
data on the nutritional content of meals offered, procedures and
policies for food sanitation and safety, and other aspects of
the program, the evaluation has obtained data with which to determine
the extent to which nutrition projects and sites meet these criteria.
Data on participants' perceptions of the quality and other aspects
of program services are included.
6. Effects of Funds Transfers
A series of amendments to the authorizing legislation for Title
III during the 1970s and 1980s defined and augmented the program's
flexibility to transfer funds between home-delivered and congregate
meals and between nutrition and supportive services. Since the
vast majority of transfers historically involved moving resources
out of the congregate program and into the home-delivered one,
and to a lesser extent, into supportive services, the limitations
adopted in the 1992 amendments are an effort to moderate the reduction
of funds for congregate nutrition services that has been occurring.
There is considerable debate about the need for further legislative
action to impose additional constraints on how agencies in the
aging network use AoA funds. On one hand, some argue for greater
flexibility--that the transfers enable the program to better serve
those most in need of nutrition services. Others argue that the
practice erodes the effectiveness of the congregate program--the
very foundation on which nutrition and supportive services provided
in the community are built. The evaluation has provided an opportunity
to investigate the extent and nature of funds transfers and the
resulting variation in services for different areas. It has also
assessed why program administrators make transfers and the effect
of resulting service adjustments on the types of clients served
and the program's ability to meet their needs.
7. Appropriateness of the RDAs and the Dietary Guidelines
in Program Administration
The most commonly used guidelines on the nutritional requirements
of elderly people are the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)
determined by the National Research Council (NRC), Food and Nutrition
Board. The RDAs provide recommendations for the intake of vitamins,
minerals, protein, and food energy. Other important recommendations
include the DHHS and USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans and
recommendations of the NRC. ENP regulations require that program
meals meet the RDAs and comply with the Dietary Guidelines. However,
there is uncertainty about the appropriateness of the RDAs and
the Dietary Guidelines for elderly ENP participants, especially
the oldest old. These issues are described next.
a. Recommended Dietary Allowances
The RDAs are recommendations established and revised periodically
by the NRC's Food and Nutrition Board for planning diets and evaluating
the adequacy of the population's nutrient intake. The RDAs reflect
experts' current opinions on safe and adequate nutrition allowances
for the maintenance of good health among relatively healthy people.
The RDAs exceed minimum nutrient requirements and are estimated
to cover the needs of nearly all healthy persons in the population.
Thus, intakes below the recommended levels are not necessarily
inadequate for all individuals but are said to increase the "risk"
of deficiency. In addition, the RDAs are defined in terms of the
average, or usual, consumption of nutrients. Good health does
not necessarily require that a person consume nutrients at the
RDA levels each day; rather, the RDAs are general goals to be
achieved over time. As a result, the RDAs reflect experts' opinions
on the intake levels needed to prevent deficiencies and maintain
existing health. Adjustments are not made for health problems
that may alter nutrient requirements. Thus, persons with major
health problems may require considerably higher nutrient intake
levels.
The RDAs as applied to elderly persons have some other important
limitations:
- The RDAs Are Not Based on Direct Study of Older People. The
RDAs are largely extrapolations of data from studies of the
needs of healthy young adults, supplemented by a limited amount
of data from available studies of older persons. However, direct
studies of the elderly are now accumulating. Some researchers
have argued that the RDAs for some nutrients for the elderly
(for example, riboflavin, Vitamin B6, Vitamin D, and Vitamin
B12) should be increased.
- The RDAs Do Not Take into Account the Physiological Changes
Associated with Aging, the Degenerative Changes Related to Chronic
Disease, or Pharmacologic or Other Interventions that Can Influence
Nutrient Absorption, Utilization, or Excretion. The RDAs for
elderly people encompass a single group of persons age 51 and
older. Many researchers argue that this age group is far too
broad to allow a single nutrient level to reflect the heterogeneous
needs of all its members adequately.
- The RDAs Focus on Preventing Nutrient Deficiencies or Maintaining
Existing Health, Rather than Preventing Chronic Disease. RDAs
are set on the basis of nutrient levels that are necessary to
correct or prevent nutrient deficiencies. This criterion may
not be appropriate for elderly people, because the predominant
health concern for this population group is prevention of chronic
disease, not elimination of nutrient deficiencies.
Opinions differ about developing RDAs specifically for the older
population and for specific subgroups within this population.
Some have suggested developing two sets of recommendations: one
for healthy elderly people, and the other for those with chronic
disease. On the other hand, some researchers have cautioned against
premature establishment of separate standards for the elderly,
because they do not believe that the degree to which nutrient
requirements change with advancing age has been demonstrated.
The process is confounded by the difficulties inherent in distinguishing
between changes in nutrient requirements resulting from normal,
healthy aging and those arising from social, psychological, and
physical factors that could alter health status.
Clearly, the process of determining the appropriateness of the
current RDAs for older people and of developing, as needed, separate
recommendations for those of advancing age is complex. Consideration
must be given to the heterogeneity of the older adult population.
Research has not yet differentiated nutritional status and its
determinants among widely differing older populations, including
older persons institutionalized in acute or long-term care settings;
ambulatory, independently living, relatively healthy elderly people;
and the frail, homebound, older population. The impact of normal,
progressive aging on nutrient requirements must be evaluated in
both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of well-characterized
cohorts of middle-aged and older adults. Studies must also clarify
the degree to which nutrient requirements change as relative health
is maintained but chronic conditions progress. Furthermore, it
may be desirable for research to guide the development of dietary
recommendations that are consistent with the promotion of healthy
aging and the optimal management of chronic disease.
Despite these limitations, researchers seem to agree that, until
more appropriate age-specific RDAs are established, the 1989 RDAs
should be used as recommended levels for judging the nutritional
adequacy of the diets of older people and the nutrient content
of meals provided by federal food and nutrition programs.
b. Dietary Guidelines
Although the risk of nutrient deficiencies is of particular concern
for certain high-risk groups of older persons, excessive food
intake and diet-related chronic disease appear to be more prevalent
diet-related problems among elderly persons. Today, chronic conditions,
such as cardiovascular heart disease, strokes, and cancer, are
the most predominant health problems for elderly people, many
of whom consume excessive amounts of food energy (calories), fat
(especially saturated fat), cholesterol, and sodium, and insufficient
complex carbohydrates and dietary fiber. Genetic components are
important determinants of many chronic diseases, but there is
consensus that dietary factors play a significant role in the
cause, prevention, and treatment of these diseases (National Research
Council 1989b).
The Dietary Guidelines are intended to be the basis of menu planning
in federal food and nutrition programs and homes. They provide
advice about food choices that will meet nutrient requirements,
promote health, and reduce chronic disease risks (see Section
I.A.3 for the Dietary Guidelines recommendations). Diets with
the majority of calories from grains, vegetables and fruits, low-fat
dairy products, lean meats, fish, and poultry, and the minority
of calories from fats and sweets, meet the recommendations of
the Dietary Guidelines.
The Dietary Guidelines provide specific quantitative recommendations
about food variety and the amount of fat in diets. However, they
do not provide quantitative recommendations for cholesterol, sugar,
or sodium, or other dietary components.
The Dietary Guidelines recommend that intake from total fat should
not exceed 30 percent of total food energy (calories), and intake
from saturated fat should not exceed 10 percent of total food
energy (calories). However, some nutrition experts believe the
recommended maximum levels of total fat and saturated fat as a
percentage of calories for elderly people may be overly stringent,
especially for the oldest old. The argument is that the full implications
of lowering total and saturated fat intake on longer-term health
outcomes in elderly people are unknown. Furthermore, reducing
total and saturated fat intake may lower the intake of much needed
calories and other essential nutrients for this population, and
this intake needs to be carefully managed to preserve the nutrient
density of this population's diet.
C. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
Although established in 1972, there has been only one national
evaluation of the OAA Title III nutrition program. That evaluation
was completed more than 10 years ago (Kirschner et al. 1983 and
1981). Similarly, the last, and only, major evaluation of the
Title VI nutrition program was in 1983 by Native American Indian
Consultants, Inc. (Lustig 1983). The Title VI program was in its
third year of operation then; at that time, 83 ITO grantees were
participating. When Congress authorized the OAA in 1991, it recognized
that comprehensive data on the Title III and Title VI nutrition
programs were not available. As part of the 1992 amendments, Congress
included two mandates to ensure that current and comprehensive
data would be available to policymakers. One of the mandates called
for a national evaluation of the nutrition services program.
In order to address the policy issues summarized here, Congress,
in authorizing the current evaluation, identified 19 specific
objectives for the research. These 19 objectives fall into four
general categories:
1. To evaluate who is using the program and how effectively the
program reaches targeted groups
2. To evaluate the program's effects on participants, relative
to eligible nonparticipants
3. To assess how efficiently and effectively the program is administered
and delivers services
4. To clarify program funding streams and allocation of funds
among program components
The following sections discuss the specific research objectives,
classified according to these categories.
1. Program Participation and Targeting
AoA requires up-to-date information on the characteristics of
current participants to have an accurate picture of program participants
and to target services more effectively. Four of the questions
in the legislation relate to characteristics of program participants
and targeting:
1. Describe the Characteristics of Participants.
The logical starting point for an overall assessment of the
program is to determine who the program is serving. An understanding
of participant characteristics can help program administrators
and Congress assess the degree to which those served by the
program are in need of services provided. Information on both
demographic and economic characteristics is necessary, as are
indicators of nutritional, physical, social, and psychological
status and well-being.
2. Describe Differences Between Participants in Congregate
and Home-Delivered Meal Programs. The two main components
of the program--congregate and home-delivered meals--are designed
to serve somewhat different groups. The expectation is that
recipients of home-delivered meals are generally less able to
leave their homes to obtain meals in a congregate setting. To
evaluate whether the program is working as intended, the evaluation
compared the characteristics of participants in the two program
components.
3. Describe Changes Over Time in Participants and Program
Services. It is important to analyze the current characteristics
of program participants, as well as changes in these characteristics
over time. Tracking changes can provide important clues about
the direction in which the program is moving, thus making it
possible to predict future participation patterns under various
policy scenarios, and to refine targeting objectives.
4. Describe Program Effectiveness in Reaching Special
Populations of Older Individuals. Although all older
Americans are eligible for program services, the authorizing
legislation emphasizes a number of special populations for whom
services are believed to be particularly important. Accordingly,
the evaluation has examined the program's effectiveness in reaching
American Indians, Native Hawaiians, Alaskan Natives, Asians/Pacific
Islanders, African Americans, Hispanics, frail/disabled individuals,
residents of rural areas, low-income nonminority people, and
low-income minority people. This assessment has compared data
on the number of participants and program eligibles by race/ethnicity,
income, functional status, and residential location.
2. Program Impacts
A second set of research questions relates to direct program
impacts--the ways in which the program affects participants:
- Identify Impacts on Dietary Intake and
Opportunities for Socialization. Given the structure
of the program, the outcomes of particular and direct importance
are dietary intake (in relation to recommendations and guidelines
for nutrient intake) and opportunities for socialization. Effects
of the program on these outcomes have been addressed, both for
all participants as a group and for various subgroups, defined
by race/ethnicity, income levels, and other factors.
- Identify Impacts of Recent Increases in the Proportion
of Home-Delivered Meals Provided Under the Program.
An important program trend in recent years has been a shift
in resources toward home-delivered meals. The evaluation has
assessed the impacts of this shift on participants and program
operations, and whether it should be altered. Related shifts
in the provision of supportive services have also been considered.
3. Program Administration and Service Delivery
As concern about large federal budget deficits continues to increase,
all public programs are under scrutiny to assess whether their
operations are as efficient as possible. Accordingly, a number
of questions specified in the authorizing legislation pertain
to this area:
- Describe the Efficiency of Program Administration
and Service Delivery. The evaluation has described
program operations and service delivery at all levels of program
administration, including the state, AAA (or ITO), nutrition
project, and meal site levels, in order to examine the efficiency
of program operations. This process has involved assessing the
inputs--including staff time, food, space, and other factors--that
are used in producing program services. It has also involved
obtaining information on different procedures used by agencies
in delivering program services.
- Describe the Costs of Program Administration and
Service Delivery. Measures of program costs provide
a particularly important dimension for assessing the efficiency
of program delivery, because they offer a way of combining information
on individual inputs into an overall index of resource use.
As a result, part of the evaluation computes the average costs
of providing program meals.
- Describe Changes in Program Administration and Service
Delivery Over Time. It has been important for the evaluation
to examine changes in program administration and service delivery
characteristics over time. Highlighting changes in recent years
may make it possible to identify probable future trends, which
can then be examined to determine whether they appear to be
in the public interest.
- Describe Commodity Usage and Limitations on Commodity
Usage. Most nutrition projects are not making direct
use of USDA commodities available to them. Instead, they are
taking advantage of an option that allows them to receive cash
equal to the value of their basic commodity allotment, even
though extra commodities are available to projects that take
at least 20 percent of their commodities allotment in the form
of actual commodities. As part of an overall assessment of the
efficiency of program operations, the evaluation has examined
both the degree to which commodities are used in the program
and reasons why they are not used more.
- Assess the Quality of Services Provided.
A full assessment of program efficiency must consider not only
the quantity and cost of services (for example, meals) produced
but also their quality. Various quality measures have been included
in the evaluation: the degree to which program meals meet programmatic
requirements of nutrient intake including Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDAs) and the USDA/DHHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
the degree to which accepted sanitation and food handling standards
are met at program sites, and participants' subjective evaluations
of the services they receive.
- Describe the Levels of Nutritional Expertise of Staff
Involved in Program Administration. The efficiency
and quality of program operations are also reflected in the
qualifications of staff involved in the program. The evaluation
has examined the nutritional expertise of program staff, including
consultants, at all levels of program administration. Both educational
background and registration status were considered.
- Determine the Applicability of Health and Safety Standards.
The success of the program in accomplishing its nutritional
objectives requires that meals served meet high standards for
compliance with health and sanitation standards. The evaluation
has obtained information on the methods used in meal production
and delivery, to determine whether appropriate health and safety
precautions are being taken. Information on the applicability
of state and local food service inspection requirements has
also been obtained.
- Describe the Integration of Program Services with
the Long-Term Care System. Because of the aging of
the U.S. population and heightened concern about health care
costs, increasing emphasis has been placed on developing long-term
and case-managed systems that make it possible for elderly people
to remain in their communities and avoid institutionalization
for as long as possible. The ENP has the potential for contributing
significantly to this objective by providing a means for elderly
people to obtain nutritious meals and related services, and
by identifying older persons who are in need of nutrition and
support services. The trend toward home-delivered meals noted
earlier may in part reflect pressures to provide program services
to persons who need them as part of explicit long-term care
plans. Given these factors, the evaluation has examined linkages
between the ENP and the home and community based long-term system.
These linkages might involve (1) funding mechanisms, such as
Title XIX waivers; (2) referral systems, such as hospitals that
refer patients who need meal services as part of their discharge
plans; or (3) other types of linkages.
- Assess the Appropriateness of RDAs and Dietary Guidelines
in Program Administration. Nutritional goals for the
program are stated, in part, in terms of the RDAs for key nutrients,
as established by the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences. However, these allowances are the same
for all persons 51 years old and older, regardless of age differences
and health factors. As a result, some observers have questioned
whether the current RDAs are appropriate for ENP program administration.
The evaluation has addressed this issue.
4. Program Funding
Nutrition projects operating under the ENP often draw on a broad
array of funding sources in order to maximize the services they
can provide. Understanding where funding comes from, how it meshes
together to provide integrated program services, and what constraints
funding sources introduce into the overall system is crucial for
developing a comprehensive understanding of program operations.
Two questions address this concern:
1. Describe Sources and Uses of Funds. At
each level of program administration, the evaluation has examined
funding sources and the degree to which monies from specific
sources are linked to specific uses. In addition to OAA funds,
the following funding sources have been examined: other federal
sources (such as USDA); state and local governments; participant
contributions; donations of labor; and donations of other resources.
2. Describe Transfers of Funds Between Components of
the Program. As noted, the provision of home-delivered
meals under the program has increased substantially. One of
the administrative mechanisms through which this increase has
been accomplished is the transfer of funds away from congregate
meals. Funds have also been transferred from congregate meals
to provide more supportive services under Title III-B. The evaluation
has documented the degree of funding shifts and examined reasons
for the shifts.
Note that not all the programmatic issues and, hence, study objectives,
discussed previously are of relevance to the Title VI component
of the ENP. In particular, transfers of funds among program components
and some aspects of program targeting are not applicable to the
Title VI program. In addition, because it was not feasible to
identify a comparison group, no separate "impact" analysis
of program components on participants' dietary intake and socialization
was conducted for the Title VI program.
D. STUDY METHODS
Many of the evaluations's analytic objectives were descriptive
in nature and required compiling detailed information about the
organizations and persons involved with the program. To address
these descriptive issues, interviews and/or observations were
conducted with program participants and with personnel from organizations
at all levels of the program hierarchy, including:
- AoA central office
- SUAs
- AAAs
- ITOs
- Nutrition projects
- Congregate sites
- Meal production facilities
Data on the contents of meals served in the program were also
obtained, and program administrative data were reviewed.
Interviews were also conducted with program participants. In
addition, in order to examine program impacts, it was necessary
to obtain data on a set of persons who were similar to program
participants but were not participating in the program. For the
Title III program, a comparison group of eligible nonparticipants
was identified for this purpose by screening a sample of persons
receiving Medicare that was supplied by the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) of DHHS.
Much of the analysis was done using descriptive tabular methods.
However, regression techniques were used in the impact analysis,
in order to attempt to control for differences between the participant
and nonparticipant samples.
Details concerning study methods are presented in Volume III
of this final report. Among the topics covered there are sampling,
telephone and in-person data collection, response rates, and weighting
the data.
E. STUDY LIMITATIONS
This study represents the most comprehensive evaluation of the
ENP conducted in the past 15 years. It provides important information
about program operations and funding, participants in the program,
and the impacts of the program on participants. However, interpretations
of the results summarized here must be made in light of the study's
limitations. Four of the most important of these limitations are
highlighted next.
1. Lack of Random Assignment. The strongest
evaluation design for measuring the effects of the ENP on participants
would have randomly assigned potential participants to the program
or to a control group that did not receive program services.
Random assignment was not possible in the current evaluation.
Instead, MPR selected a sample of nonparticipants in the same
locations as participants, from HCFA's Medicare Beneficiary
File, in which the nonparticipants were matched with participants
in terms of key variables. Without random assignment, underlying
differences between the participant and nonparticipant groups
might confound the comparisons made in the impact analyses.
MPR minimized this possibility, however, by matching the comparison
group to the participant group as closely as possible, and by
using statistical techniques to control for the effects of observable
differences.
2. Sampling Error. With the exception of the
data collection from SUAs, all of the surveys in this study
were based on samples of agencies or respondents. As a result,
the numerical estimates reported here are subject to possible
error resulting from random statistical variation. In general,
however, our sample sizes are large enough that sampling error,
while present, is probably not large enough to affect the overall
conclusions.
3. Potential Measurement Error in Nutrition Project
Meal Cost Estimates. Many nutrition projects in the
ENP do not keep sufficiently detailed cost records to provide
consistent cost information across projects. Accordingly, MPR
"built up" cost estimates on the basis of detailed
information from the projects about local operations, staff
wage rates, and other factors. This process may have introduced
some measurement error into the detailed cost estimates, but
MPR is confident that the overall order of magnitude of the
cost estimates is correct.
4. Difficulties in Allocating Funding by Source.
The agency surveys asked respondents to provide data on total
funding and funding by source, separately for congregate meals,
home-delivered meals, and supportive services. Because meals
and supportive services are closely intertwined in many projects,
it was often not possible to link services with specific funding
sources. As a result, much of the analysis of program funding
sources relied on aggregate program data.
These limitations should be kept in mind in assessments of the
study's overall findings, as they may affect some details of the
findings. Despite these limitations, however, the basic conclusions
drawn here are strongly supported by the information collected
in the study.
F. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Volume I of the final report on the evaluation presents the results
pertaining to Title III of the program. Volume II presents parallel
findings for Title VI. Details of the methodologies used are included
in Volume III.
In the remainder of Volume I of this report, we examine the Title
III program as it operates currently. Chapter II describes the
characteristics of Title III meal program participants, highlighting
similarities and differences between congregate and home-delivered
participants, and comparing Title III participants with the overall
elderly population. It also examines the extent to which the two
meal program components successfully target program services to
priority subgroups of elderly people, such as minority and low-income
elders. Chapter III describes Title III participants' dietary
intakes from program meals and assesses the contribution of the
nutrition program to participants' dietary intakes and opportunities
for socialization. It also compares the daily dietary intakes
and socialization of Title III participants with those of nonparticipants.
Chapter IV examines the Title III ENP and its operations, including
the array of nutrition and supportive services provided, the nutritional
expertise of program staff, and the quality of program services.
Chapter V looks at the costs of providing Title III meals, funding
sources and amounts, and program efficiency.
Back
to Previous | Main
| Next
>
Last Modified: 1/15/2009 11:05:56 AM |
|