I have been working also to provide section VIII rental assistance to mobile homeowners who must rent the space on which to park their homes, and I am glad to report that the chairman of our Housing Subcommittee, Lud Ashley, has agreed with me to incorporate this into legislation for housing this year, and it will be, and it is a part of the housing amendments for 1978, and I think will certainly become law as a consequence of that. That was a proposal made to me by Christ Egger of Seal Beach, and out of that suggestion, we are going to have a national policy following.

I am sure that our hearing participants know that the city of Long Beach has one of the largest concentrations of elderly of any city in the Nation, and this is one reason that I have urged Ed to hold this meeting here, and I am so glad that he has responded so generously.

There are about 80,000 seniors in this city, and that is about 23 percent of the city's population. Long Beach deserves much praise for its initiatives in senior citizen programs and for its efforts, along with numerous individuals, and public and private groups to establish a geriatric health care system. This system should serve as a model to the rest of the Nation, and I am eager to see the system operating in full swing.

I want to thank all of you for your help, and all of the senior organizations, in helping me to understand the problems of the aging. I want to thank my friends from Leisure World, who are in Orange County, Ed, who have such an imaginative and zestful mode of living for senior citizens, that I am sure will be discussed here today.

So again, I welcome my colleagues and thank you all, the witnesses and the rest of you, for coming. I would recognize just one other group, who are not quite as senior as some of the rest of us in the room, and that is, Margaret Hultrest, of Golden West College, is here with 70 political science students to witness these meetings. And I want to thank Long Beach City College, where I am still a member of the staff, for allowing us these beautiful facilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congressman ROYBAL. Thank you, Mr. Hannaford.

The chair and I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Evans.

STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVID W. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Hannaford. I am also very pleased to be here with you this morning.

As Mark said I do serve with him on the Housing Subcommittee, on the Banking Committee, and I know that is going to be an important bill we are going to be working on and marking up during the next couple of weeks, but we have held a number of hearings in Washington over the last 10 or 12 months in regards to the Older Americans Act, because it is up for reauthorization this year, and I think now, this hearing here in Long Beach, can be the local type of input and the local type of hearing that I think we need to supplement the views of many national organizations and nationally known individuals that we have heard from in Washington, D.C.

In perspective the hearings that I have attended around over the country and also in Washington, as a member of the Aging

Committee, this is one of the best turnouts of any that I have attended, and I think that again, Mark, this indicates the kind of interest and involvement of persons here in the California area, and I am pleased to be able to join you here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROYBAL. May I concur with the remarks just made by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Evans, when he said that this is one of the largest groups I have had the pleasure of being with in the hearings that we have held throughout the country. I particularly like the fact that senior citizens and students are here together and will participate in the hearing today.

The first witness this morning is the mayor of the city of Long Beach, Dr. Thomas J. Clark. Would you please come forward.

STATEMENT BY DR. THOMAS J. CLARK, MAYOR, CITY OF LONG BEACH

Mayor CLARK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Evans and, of course, our own Congressman Mark Hannaford.

On behalf of the citizens of the city of Long Beach and the Long Beach City Council, I would like to welcome you to our city. And again, before I get into the body of my remarks, I would like to indicate how pleased we are with the work that Mark has done for us on the congressional level, and the excellent job he has done of representing the city of Long Beach.

I am aware of the constraints that are on the committee, that you are working towards a deadline of May 15, and I am going to try to be rather brief in my remarks and not go through a complete list of what we would like to see done, but rather to utilize my time to highlight the issues that are most critical to us, the local level.

As has been indicated, we have about 80,000 citizens who are over 60 years of age. This is out of a population of roughly 360,000.

My main concern must be directed to the most effective way that we can provide the necessary services and meet the most pressing needs of the elderly, within the constraints always of the limited available resources that we have.

Unfortunately, to this date, the Older Americans Act has provided the direction to do this, but not the means. The act calls for a nationwide system of comprehensive, coordinated services for older persons but has left the implementation of this dream to others. Others have tried, without real success.

I feel it is now time to allow the Nation's cities to become a partner in this noble effort to assist our elderly to achieve dignity in their later years.

The establishment of comprehensive service networks throughout this country can only be accomplished with a local base which is visible and available, where the public can hold someone to be responsible for its effectiveness. There is not now, nor will there ever be, enough resources within the Older Americans Act to establish these networks. Therefore, the act must be viewed only as a means to lever other funding sources, and this levering can only be accomplished if the local jurisdictions which are the recipients of CETA, HUD and other Federal and State resources, are allowed to actually participate.

If the Congress takes any other approach, it would be equal to again holding out on a promise that we cannot fulfill, and you, as well as myself, know that any elected official does not want to do this.

It is also important for us to understand that even with this approach, and even with the direct involvement of cities, we cannot be the single source of everything good for every older person. The only viable, responsible approach is for the local community, working together with the older people, their organizations, and also the private sector agencies, to join in with Government to establish priorities and to assure maximum utilization of available resources. In the State of California, we have some 3 million seniors. The State unit on aging cannot do this alone. In Los Angeles County, there are 80 cities outside of the city of Los Angeles. The county agency cannot do this on its own. Only with the cities working together can the current system, or lack of it, prevent this from happening.

The very lives of our older citizens are vitally affected by much more than the Older Citizens Act. Social security, medicare, medicaid, HUD, CETA, and many other programs, also offer resources to assist the elderly. We need to develop a coordinated systems approach in the utilization of these resources.

I would like to respectfully recommend that the new Older Americans Act legislation have the following provisions:

1. It would require all major programs for the elderly within the Federal and State systems to be coordinated through the Administration on Aging.

2. To bring local municipalities into the network by providing an option in the legislation for the designation of cities as area agencies on aging. I think it has been indicated that Congressman Hannaford has proposed this on a national basis. Assemblyman Fred Schell, has proposed this to the State, and we feel that this is a must if the program is to succeed.

3. To state explicitly in the new legislation that the focus of the Older Americans Act is for those elderly that need it the most, the isolated, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the frail elderly. We can no longer afford to try to be all things to all people. We must, therefore, targe the direction of the act and the programs within it.

In summary, I am asking you to help me to be more responsive to our elderly citizens. We need to mobilize all possible resources to get the job done if we are really going to make a difference in this Nation as to how our elderly are treated.

Before I conclude, I would certainly like to thank you for all that you are doing, not only on behalf of the elderly, but on behalf of cities, and I think that many people simply do not realize the hours that you put in. I have had the experience of being back in Washington and knowing the process, and it is a difficult one, and knowing the time and effort that you put in working for the citizens, not only of the areas that you represent, but all of the United States, and I would like to thank you on behalf of our city for all that you are doing for the elderly and for the cities of this nation.

And again, I would like to thank you for being with us here today. I hope that you will be back again soon. Of course, we see, Mark frequently; he has been an excellent Representative, and Mark

gets back into our community very often, meeting with our people, and really getting the feel of our community.

But I would like to again thank you for being here and all that you are trying to do on behalf of our senior citizens.

Thank you.

Mr. ROYBAL. Well, Dr. Clark, on behalf of the subcommittee, may I thank you for your excellent testimony and for the recommendations that you have made.

In summary, you have asked this subcommittee to help you be more responsive to older citizens. You went on to say that we need to mobilize all possible resources to get the job done and to really make a difference in how this Nation's elderly lives. I think that is the key phrase in your testimony.

You can be sure that this subcommittee will do everything possible to help you do your job here in Long Beach, and with the help of your Congressman, I am sure that the job will be done. May I thank you for your testimony.

Mayor CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Mr. ROYBAL. Thank you.

The next witness is Hon. Lawrence Kapiloff. He is the chairman of the assembly special subcommittee on aging.

Would you please proceed.

STATEMENT BY HON. LAWRENCE KAPILOFF, CHAIRMAN, ASSEMBLY SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGING, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. KAPILOFF. Thank you, Congressman Roybal. It is a pleasure to be here.

I am Lawrence Kapiloff. I am chairman of the assembly special subcommittee on aging. The members of the California Legislature particularly appreciate the opportunity to present our perspectives on the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act.

One major objective of the Older Americans Act is to secure and maintain maximum independence and dignity in a home environment for older persons capable of self-care with appropriate supportive services.

We believe that each of us here today strongly agrees with this goal. I cannot imagine a person in this country who would not want this independence and dignity at any age in life.

The California Legislature wholeheartedly supports this objective, and in partnership with you in Congress, and with the Federal Administration on Aging, we are committed to pursue this goal. However, we are now beginning to realize we may never reach it unless there are some fundamental changes in the Older Americans Act and the Social Security Act, changes which will make it possible for us to develop a comprehensive and coordinated communitybased health and social service system that truly fosters independent living.

I would like to share with you what I perceive as the challenges facing us:

There are now 2.8 million persons in California who are 60 years of age or older. I thought that most of them were in my district, until I came up here today, Mr. Hannaford, and I am going back

comparatively to a group of young people. We do have a lot of seniors, though, in San Diego. Now, these people represent about 13.5 percent of California's population.

By the year 2020, which is really not that far away, there will be 7.59 million persons in this age bracket, or 21.8 percent of the California population.

Current statistics show that as persons get older, their financial resources decrease and their health deteriorates, thus raising the demand for supportive services. They see physicians more frequently and become more dependent on institutional care. Currently, there is evidence that persons over the age of 75 are three times more likely to require assistance with personal care than persons between the ages of 65 and 74.

With the expected rapid growth in the number of persons over 75, it can be anticipated that there will be an increased demand for long-term care and supportive services for the elderly.

In 1974 and 1975 in California, about 15.3 percent of the persons over 65 had annual incomes below the officially defined poverty level. I would like to repeat that: 15.3 percent of all those over 65 in California had incomes below the poverty level. Twenty-five percent of those over 65 had incomes below the near poverty level.

I think it is pretty clear that many of the elderly persons who will require supportive services will not be able to obtain those services using their own resources.

Presently in California, 8 separate State and Federal agencies administer about 25 different categorical service programs for the elderly with a combined total budget of more than $3.3 billion, yet no structure exists to insure that these resources are applied in a consistent, comprehensive manner to effectively address their needs. Each categorical program has its own eligibility levels, needs assessment criteria and processes, and service coverage limitations.

In the face of increasing number of older persons and rapidly escalating costs for publicly subsidized services, there is a compelling need to coordinate our service systems. Fragmentation and the way services are now delivered has resulted in a number of substantial problems; most notably the way the job is now being done is inequitable, inefficient and ineffective.

I would like to explain how we arrived at this conclusion: First, the current system of service treats frail elderly persons inequitably. Elderly persons in a similar health and socio-economic circumstance and with identical supportive service needs may receive entirely different services with very different results. Service programs and attendant outcomes are more a function of one's point of entry into the system, rather than the circumstances and the needs of the person. For example, an elderly person with a health problem that restricts mobility may go to the family doctor for help. The physician decides that placement in a skilled nursing facility to be the most appropriate treatment. That move is made, and what results is a general, physical and mental deterioration which so often accompanies a nursing home placement.

Another elderly person, one with a similar health problem and from the same general background, may seek help from a social worker at the county welfare department. The social worker decides to draw upon in-home supportive service resources, augmented