sistently educated communities on the needs of the elderly and supported federal legislation which would meet them, in addition to the financial support our members have given to the variety of services they rendered to older adults. We, therefore, welcomed the enactment of the Older Americans Act because it recognized a national responsibility to provide the rapidly increasing older population with special facilities and services and to experiment with new approaches to productive living for those retiring with health and vitality. Its operation for the past four years has demonstrated the need for the program and the effective use of the limited funds authorized. We, therefore, strongly support current proposals to extend the program and to increase the authorization of funds. As a pioneer in the development of a volunteer service program for senior citizens, our Senior Service Corps Program, we are particularly pleased that the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to the Older Americans Act of 1965, which will provide funds for the development of a National Older Americans Volunteer Program. We are particularly gratified that this amendment includes a recommendation we made during the hearings before this Committee in 1967, that funds should be made available for the compensation of volunteers for transportation, meals and other out-of-pocket expenses. Our experience with the National Council of Jewish Women's Senior Service Corps convinces us that this amendment can be as important to the mental and emotional health of the elderly as Medicare is to their physical health. It is a major breakthrough in the concept of the role of the elderly in our society. It will alleviate one of the tragic afflictions of old age, the sense of having outlived one's usefulness, of not being needed by any one and of living meaninglessly in a vacuum. This affliction has led to the deterioration of increasing numbers among our citizenry and poses new and acute problems to the community The program will give older people a place in society in which they can find social usefulness, personal dignity and function as vital human beings. Such a program also offers major benefits to society as a whole. It will promote the utilization of human resources at a time when there is a critical shortage of professional manpower in the country and a growing need for volunteer services. In addition to the traditional services required by institutions, health and welfare agencies and community organizations, the war on poverty requires literally an army of volunteers to meet the newly identified needs of economically and culturally deprived groups in our population. The skills and knowledge acquired over a lifetime of experience can once more be put to the use of communities desperately in need of them. In recent years the need for such a program became not only apparent but acute. Compulsory early retirement created a new type of senior citizen; the vital elderly person who has a need to give, rather than receive. Our experimental program-the Senior Service Corps has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that: 1. older people can and will make significant contributions to their communities for mutual benefit. 2 meaningful jobs can be found for the older volunteer-from the unskilled to the professionally qualified. 3. volunteer service promotes respect for older citizens, particularly on the part of younger people. The senior volunteers are seen as active people doing essential community work. Our limited pilot experiments have also demonstrated that a Senior Service Corps concept is a workable one and that its benefits are manifold. The various comments we have received from community agencies and the evaluations of the program made by competent individuals support this statement. As a volunteer organization, we believe that democracy requires the active volunteer participation of the citizenry, regardless of age. We also believe that older people should have the opportunity to volunteer their services if they are in a position to do so. The authorization of funds to compensate volunteers for transportation, meals and other out-of-pocket expenses, adopted by the House, will aid greatly in providing opportunities for volunteer service and encourage the participation of older Americans. We urge the Committee to extend the Older Americans Act, including the National Older Americans Volunteer Program. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., June 24, 1969. DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: The National Education Association supports the extension of the Older Americans Act due to expire June 30. It would particularly favor proposals for (1) grants for community planning, services and training; (2) strengthening State agencies on aging; (3) broadening and improving the foster grandparent and senior companion programs; (4) the addition of a new title to facilitate non-compensated participation by volunteer workers in any phase of the program, with the express statement that no such volunteer program would "supplant” rather than "supplement" any existing or future employment of paid workers; and (5) the addition or modification of provisions which would tend to facilitate inter-agency cooperation in the administration of the Act. Yours sincerely, WM. H. MCLIN, Senior Consultant, Legislation and Federal Relations. NEW YORK STATE, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE FOR THE AGING, Albany, N.Y., June 17, 1969. DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: I am pleased to write you as Chairman of the Advisory Committee to the New York State Office for the Aging, a lay citizen's committee appointed by Governor Rockefeller to advise and assist him and the Office for the Aging on the need and concerns of New York State's nearly 2 million older citizens. The comments in this letter reflect the views of the committee on H.R. 11235 (as passed by the House on June 16th) and the companion bill, S. 268 covering amendments to the Older Americans Act of 1965. Our committee joints with the staff of the New York State Office for the Aging and other state units on aging in urging prompt passage of a responsible and progressive bill to both continue and expand the valuable programs which have been established under the Older Americans Act. Though much of the language of the bill is desirable, our committee feels that there are two major shortcomings in the bill which must be corrected. First of all, the authorizations which are proposed for all sections of the bill are woefully inadequate to even begin to tackle the serious problems of nearly 20 million older persons. We are fully aware that the Older Americans Act was not designed as the be-all and end-all of federal funding for the elderly. On the other hand, neither was it designed to arouse false hopes on the part of older people who so desperately need the programs and services which it could provide if there were sufficient funds. In this present federal fiscal year, the New York State Office for the Aging has become the first state agency to receive more than One Million Dollars in federal funds under the Title III program. To dramatize how inadequate even this sum is to the needs which must be met, the first 20 applications the Office received for Title III projects back in 1966 had budgets of over $1.2 million. Our second major objection deals with the philosophy of the Older Americans Act which seems to be thwarted rather than assisted by this bill. One must assume that the overall objective of the Older Americans Act is to increase the number and type of programs and services which are available to individual older persons across the nation. In the present hierarchy of units on aging, a state unit should be closer to the individual older persons than its federal counterpart. In like fashion, a local public or private nonprofit agency should be closer still. Responsibility and authority (including the funds to operate programs) should flow as quickly as possible through such hierarchies to the agencies where they will do the most good. The pattern for such an organized flow of responsibility and authority has been established in the original Older Americans Act: federal Administration on Aging, to State Unit on Aging, to local public or private nonprofit agency. The present amendments to the Act appear to circumvent this logical flow of responsibility and authority by an over-concentration at the federal level with only cursory "consultation" with the state unit on aging in many instances. In addition to the major concerns above, the committee offers the following constructive observations on particular sections of the bill as printed on May 14th. Extension of duration of project support If the program is to provide funding beyond the presently limited three years, our committee believes that appropriate language should be set forth in this section of the law to show that such continued funding will only be available on a highly selective basis—after thorough scrutiny by the state agency—and will be designed to assist a local sponsor to attain financial independence so he may continue the program on his own. If the impression is given that this proviso allows carte blanche funding of all programs for periods beyond the original three years and there is such a danger in the present vague language then the purpose of this extension, as we see it, will have been defeated. The amendment proposed for Sec. 3(a) (1)—allowing a state to adjust the maximum federal support available for a project year—would appear to be covered in Sec. 302(c) (1) of the original law. State plan requirements for planning, coordination, and evaluation The new clause (4) only provides for "consultation" with state agencies on aging in establishing criteria for planning, coordination, and evaluation. If the Title III program is to be coordinated at the state level, then the states must have a stronger role in determining their needs and the best approaches to meeting these needs. The state units should be responsible for developing their own statewide planning, coordination, and valuation techniques which can then be submitted to the Secretary for approval. If this is not feasible, then a representataive body of state units on aging should be established to develop the "national criteria" to which all states would then comply. Past history has shown that mere “consultation" by the Secretary is not always sufficient to reflect the necessary differences of approach which exist in the states. Planning, coordination, and evaluation and administration of state plans The principle of separating the funds for projects from those available to assist the state agency in administering its program is a sound one and will go a long way in strengthening the state units on aging. However, our committee would hope that this important section of the bill could be strengthened both in the amount of funds available, the manner in which they will be allocated, and the purposes for which they will be available. First of all, the funding formula described in this section creates a double standard for earning administrative funds and, in addition, a contradiction between how a state may earn administrative funds as opposed to grant funds. At one point, a state may earn administrative funds based on flat percentage population ratio formulas—and yet, later in the same section, the maximum amounts available to a state are restricted despite the formula. The effect of this double standard is to penalize those states which have a larger responsibility because of their larger population of older persons. In addition, our committee feels that this section is only a polite attempt to establish the "maintenance of effort” principle. If, in fact, this is the intent, then the Congress should be prepared to commit itself to such a principle in a fair and judicious manner. Because of the establishment of state units on aging is such a relatively new undertaking, it will require a substantial commitment on the part of both federal and state governments to begin to plan, coordinate, and develop programs and services for our nation's nearly 20 million elderly. To spark such commitments, our committee feels that it will be necessary for the Congress to provide assistance for all aspects of a state's programs in the area of planning, coordination, and program development—and not restrict such activities to the Tile III program. Our committee feels, therefore, that it would be neither unreasonable nor exorbitantly expensive to allow $2.00 of federal funds for every $1.00 of state funds expended for such purposes. The committee also respectfully requests that all references to programs approved by the state unit-such as the amendment suggested for Sec. 302 (b) — refer to "grants or contracts" for such programs. Authorization of areawide model projects under title III Our committee enthusiastically supports this new section 305 as a significant step in assisting the state units on aging in carrying out their responsibilities for developing and/or operating programs to serve and help their older citizens. Furthermore, it significantly complements the new section separating administrative funds from projects funds. 31-022-69-11 The committee would suggest two changes to strengthen this section: (1) The allotment of funds by the Secretary should be done according to a formula spelled out in the bill so as not to create a situation where one state might receive funds at the expense of another, and, (2) The mere "consultation" by the Secretary with the states to establish regulations weakens the states' responsibilities. The submission of a state plan developed within guidelines recommended by the Secretary would appear to be a better method for acknowledging the diverse approaches which can be taken by the states. The committee assumes that the wording "contract seal" should be "contractual." Finally, as with other sections of the Act, the committee feels that the funds authorized are woefully inadequate to meet the needs which exist in these areas: Reallotment Though our committee understands and appreciates the intent behind this section, we must question the lack of specificity with regard to the criteria which the Secretary would use to determine whether a state was, indeed, going to use its funds or not. As presently written, this section is a usurpation, without explanation, of the state's ability to determine its own program. Extension of contract authority for research and development projects and training projects Our committee endorses both of these sections as sound and logical extensions of the research and demonstration and training programs under Titles IV and V of the Act. The committee feels the conjunction "and" rather than "or" between (e) and (f) would better describe the intent. Title VI-National older Americans volunteer program Though our committee agrees that more programs are needed which will utilize the talents, energies and abilities of our older citizens-as well as programs which will provide supplemental income, we must question whether the establishment of a new funding program is the best method to achieve this goal. The new Title VI program would not, in fact, provide any "new" authority to state units on aging in terms of the types of programs which they could fund. It would, however, establish not one, but two, completely different funding mechanisms-each with different eligibility criteria for both older persons and applicant agencies. The establishment of this new title would also very likely have an insidious effect on the regular Title III program since such volunteer programs are now able to be-and, in many cases, are-funded as Title III projects. The new, more attractive funding under Title VI will only undermine such present efforts. Another deleterious effect would be to further weaken the position of the state unit on aging as the responsible agency for planning and coordination of programs for the aging. Although the state unit "may" be an eligible recipient of funds, the overall responsibility and authority remain with the Secretary. Our committee feels that Sec. 301 of the present Act (particularly as strengthened by other amendments herein), already provides the authority to the state agencies to operate, or contract for the operation of, such programs. Placing such programs under Sec. 301-and limiting them to the present funding formulawill provide uniformity rather than competition among potential program sponsors. Our committee feels strongly that the flow of authority and funds from the federal to the state to the local level is the only logical and economical way to increase programs and services for our older citizens. We further feel that the mechanism to achieve this flow now exists in the Title III program of the Older Americans Act, and we would hope that your committee would concur. Evaluation Our committee would object to the usurpation of 1% of the state's appropriation under Title III by the Secretary for evaluation when amendments noted above have already recommended that such procedures be the responsibility of the state unit. Our committee feels that many states, besides New York, must already have evaluative techniques developed for the ongoing assessment of their Title III projects. The original Act gave the authority for approval and continuation of projects to the states and, thereby, the implicit obligation to do evaluations of these programs. If the Congress now wishes to strengthen and formalize such evaluation, it might more properly think of providing special funds to the state units, rather than to the Secretary, for this purpose. On behalf of the Advisory Committee to the New York State Office for the Aging, permit me to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed legislation. Sincerely yours, GARSON MEYER, Chairman, Advisory Committee. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, DIVISION ON AGING, DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: * * * I merely want to state that I am pleased with both the original S. 268 and the amendment to it proposed by you and Mr. Williams of New Jersey. The extension of the Older Americans Act itself is of major importance and I sincerely hope that the recommended funding will be forthcoming so that the progress stimulated by this legislation may continue. The authorization for a National Older Americans Volunteer Program eliminates the confusion with paid employment present in amendments offered last year. The concept of areawide model projects seems to offer an avenue to explore heretofore unsolved problems on a regional basis. The emphasis on the planning function of the State in the overall field of aging is an important new emphasis. One of the major handicaps in the field of aging has been fragmentation, often aggravated by a project approach. Lack of adequate communication between multiple agencies with some responsibility in aging and failure to broaden goals in aging so that the current crop of older people as well as those of the future are both considered gives limited value to many efforts. I still find myself uneasy about the Foster Grandparent Program, as included in S. 2120. I spoke at length on this almost a year ago in testifying for the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor. I realize that in the present situation this is probably the best arrangement that can be made; however, I would like to quote from a previous statement as to the limitations: "Regrettably, it is little more than a restatement of the Foster Grandparent and the Home Health Aid concepts. Both are excellent ideas, but hardly enough to be the total content of Service in Retirement. The income limitations and the specific mention of non-competition with community action programs raises the question of why, if the similarity is recognized, there is need to include this limited new title in the Older Americans Act. "The Foster Grandparent's Program has been universally hailed as an outstanding demonstration of the value of older people in serving children and of the feasibility of part-time jobs as a supplement to existing services in institutions and day care centers. Because of this success, it would seem much more appropriate to move to have such services approved as positions for Federal matching in established programs related to health or institutional services. When the total number of foster grandparents recruited is compared to the need of older parents for jobs, and of children for the services represented, it would appear much more practical to devise ways of extending the opportunities more widely than is possible under the project method. Once the value of an activity is demonstrated, appropriate utilization of the findings should be sought. This amendment to the Older Americans Act hardly seems to have that potential." Thank you for your championing of the field of aging. This new population dimension of our burgeoning society must be given continuing recognition lest it become a greater problem. Although most Americans seem prone to deny that aging is their future, this cannot prevent them from becoming victims of the omissions of today. Public policy can play an important part in how the older population of the future fares. Sincerely yours, Mrs. EONE HARGER, Director, Division on Aging. |