Senator KENNEDY. All right, that is very good. Now, there will be some forms right down here. They are all addressed, and if you didn't have a chance to speak today and you would like to, just fill that out. Write on the back of it. You can fill out another couple of pages if you would like. Give your name on the bottom and then we will make that a part of the record. We try to make it easy. Just take it with you. Now, just a final point. We are going to fight the reduction of funds for legal service. The administration has requested the reduction of money. We have already appropriated the money, and we are going to make every effort to defeat the administration request to cut back the Legal Service Corporation. We want you to know that. I am sure the Congressmen will be talking to you, if you are in their areas, about that in particular. We will also work on earmarking funds for the elderly in the appropriations made to the Legal Service Corporation.

Third, we want to work for mobile legal service units and for more units permanently located where large numbers of elderly reside, staffed by paralegal aides.

POSSIBLE FEDERAL AND PRIVATE ACTIONS

We have talked a little bit about the private bar. I will ask other members of our committee to join me in requesting their cooperation in providing legal services for the elderly, and in requesting a response from them, indicating what they have already done. I think, in the areas where it has been good, the people ought to know about it. I am sure there have been many instances where there has been superb service, and we ought to know about it, as well as where the service has been inadequate.

We will also explore problem areas with the LEAA, the Federal Government's principal instrument for providing assistance to State and local communities. One of the things we didn't explore very thoroughly today is the relationship of senior citizens and the problems of crime. I think that there are areas in which LEAA can provide some additional resources to help protect the elderly.

The Senate will also be working on the passthrough provisions, which the House is acting on today. We will explore some legislative solutions to assure adequate notice for housing residents, and to prevent entire social security increases from being eaten up by rent increases alone. There are opportunities for action at the Federal level. This ought to be an area of priority, and we will work with you and your groups, your State groups, your local groups, and national groups to gain support for these legislative actions..

As a result of the hearing we had 5 years ago, we were able to spark some movement. It is still not nearly enough. We have talked about Boston and Massachusetts and New England being ahead of some parts of the country, but we have also heard about how far yet we have to go. I want you to understand my full commitment to this program.

This is something I am interested in. I know you are. I appreciate your patience and your sharing with us during the course of this hearing your own concern for your fellow citizens. The committee stands in recess. Thank you, very much. [Applause.]

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.]

1 See appendix 3, p. 201.

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1

STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS

ITEM 1. STATEMENT OF DOROTHY KING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, SSI
ADVOCACY CENTER, BOSTON, MASS.

The SSI Advocacy Center has assisted the elderly and disabled and their advocates with supplemental security income (SSI) for over 2 years. My comments and suggestions concerning the legal issues of importance to them draw on this experience.

If the SSI program is to fulfill its promise to provide direct and simple income maintenance to the needy elderly, much change should be made in its current substance and procedure. I will briefly discuss several of the areas which are of particular importance to elders and which are ripe for litigation or legislative change.

Delay. The application process for an elderly person can be full of delays and inefficiencies. It can take several months for the district office to verify income, resources and household expenses. Except in a few areas, like Cambridge, where case law has enforced a 45-day time limit for processing applications (Santos v. Weinberger, No. 75-166G, D.C.MA), there is no statutory or regulatory time within which the Social Security Administration must act on a claim. The hardship which long delay causes can be alleviated by litigation forcing a reasonable time limit construction upon the statute and regulations. I also recommend legislation to establish a 30-day time limit for processing nondisability applications for SSI.

Nonreceived, Lost or Stolen Checks.—When through a computer error, a postal error or otherwise, an SSI recipient does not receive a regular monthly check, the computerized procedure for a replacement takes so long that recipients lack the essentials of daily life. Pursuant to Federal litigation, the Boston Region of SSA made a study of checks not received, lost, or stolen before negotiation. Of those cases where a substitute check was issued, the report noted that it took from 8-18 days after the recipient reported the case before she or he received a check. A 3-week wait for a check which represents a minimal income supplement can easily place the life of an elderly person in jeopardy. Our office and the Chelsea-Revere legal services office have brought a mandamus action against the Social Security Administration and the Department of the Treasury requesting that the court recognize an obligation to issue checks immediately to those recipients. Moore v. Mathews, D.C. Mass. No. CA-75-2555-T.

It is recommended that the district offices have prewritten checks available for the immediate replacement of their nonreceived, lost, destroyed, or stolen checks. The SSA itself, in the report mentioned above, suggested the use of the district office imprest funds to replace checks. Legislation should also be drafted requiring the local offices to arrange for the replacement, within 3 days of reporting, of checks lost or stolen before negotiation, or never received.

Resources.-The Social Security Act allows a person to be eligible for SSI only if their home is valued below an amount "the Secretary determines to be reasonable." 42 U.S.C.A. § 1382b (a)(1). The Secretary's determination is that any person is ineligible for SSI who lives in a house valued at over $25,000, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1216. In the low and moderate income neighborhoods of the northeast, houses are often if not always valued at over $25,000; thus, many individuals otherwise eligible for SSI receive no benefits. The $25,000 upper limit, although reasonable

in many sections of the country, operates in a very discriminatory manner in urban areas with a high cost of living. The regulation forces the elderly to choose between their homes and the minimal SSI benefit.

The reasonableness of the Secretary's determination should be challenged at the same time legislation is introduced directing that the Secretary establish upper limits for the value of homes which reflect the current market values of lowincome homes in various areas of the country.

Imposition of a 6-Month Rule on Eligible Couples.-The so-called "6-month rule" provides that two eligible individuals who have previously resided together as husband and wife, and who have not been separated for 6 months, shall be considered to be an eligible couple for SSI purposes (42 U.S.C. § 1382c (b)). That means they receive a lower benefit and have their income counted in a less advantageous manner to determine eligibility and benefit level.

I can think of no justification for the requirement that two individuals who have ceased to live together shall be considered to still be living together for a 6-month duration. The financial burden this imposes on two eligible individuals is considerable. Because the spouse's income is deemed to the eligible individual even if it is no longer available, the financial burden imposed is cruel and unconscionable. A not uncommon situation encountered by advocates in this State is that in which a husband disappears with the couple's savings, leaving the wife with no source of income save her half of the couple's benefit, about $204 per month. If one member of a couple is forced into an institution, the other member has the full burden of supporting her or himself on the couple's grant for 6 months. If the institutionalized spouse has other income than SSI, it lowers the couple's SSI grant, only half of which the noninstitutionalized spouse receives. The spouse in a nursing home may need all of his or her social security and SSI to pay the nursing home, leaving his or her spouse with a pittance.

I recommend the elimination of the "6-month rule." Eligible individuals no longer residing in the same household should be entitled to receive benefits computed on an individual basis, beginning with the month after the month of separation.

Representative Payee.-Under the statute and regulations, social security has broad, discretionary powers to appoint and select a representative payee for an SSI recipient. 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (a) (2), 20 CFR § 416.601 (a) (1). There are no specific guidelines for the agency in the selection of a representative payee, other than that he or she evidence interest or concern. See 20 CFR § 416.610. Once the decision to make representative payment has been made, there are no specific guidelines regulating the conduct of the representative payee, and no enforceable remedies if the payee is determined to have misused benefits.

The decision to make representative payment is made solely at the discretion of the district office, as is the selection of the representative payee. The recipient is afforded no prior hearing in which to raise objections, if any.

The constitutionality of this denial of personal and property rights without a prior hearing is ripe for litigation. I also strongly urge legislation which would (1) require an impartial hearing prior to the decision to have a representative payee appointed, (2) establish guidelines for qualification as a representative payee, (3) require periodic written reports accounting for payments certified to the representative payee, and review of the necessity for representative payment, (4) establish enforceable penalties for misuse of benefits on the part of a representative payee, and provide for enforceable methods of restitution of misused benefits, and (5) require immediate issuance of duplicate checks in cases where funds have not been used for the benefit of the recipient.

Conclusion. All the SSI problems outlined above can be alleviated by legislative action. If the changes are made, it will be possible to avoid the lengthy and costly litigation involved in challenging the practices and procedures of the Social Security Administration. I have recommended a few important changes. Several other problem areas which I have not had time to touch upon are: inadequate notification of termination and reduction of benefits, inequitable deeming of a spouse's income, reduction or termination of benefits upon temporary institutionalization, coercive methods of recouping innocent overpayments, and unrealistic liquid resource limitations.

ITEM 2. STATEMENT OF LEWIS M. LEVENSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOMERVILLE-CAMBRIDGE HOME CARE CORP., SOMERVILLE, MASS.

Mr. Chairman, I am executive director of the Somerville-Cambridge Home Care Corp., a nonprofit corporation with local management responsibility for elderly services available under titles III and VII of the Older Americans Act and title XX of the Social Security Amendments.

We are entering the third year of a subcontract relationship established with the Cambridge-Somerville Legal Services, Inc., to provide access to appropriate legal services by the elderly in our area. Title III funds made available to us through the State's Department of Elder Affairs have been used for this purpose. Our experience of the last 2 years has demonstrated that legal services for the elderly clearly perform two different functions: subsidization for personal legal services needed by the elderly poor, and class action advocacy proceedings necessary to protect the elderly from administrative restrictions imposed on other groups.

The needs of any local area-and Somerville-Cambridge is no different in this regard-far exceed the ability for those needs to be met through present or foreseeable levels of funding for title III. Local pressures must therefore tend to push aside the class action function when allocating the basically inadequate funds to local services. Yet the broad issues of society which can be resolved through class action advocacy clearly is an investment in the future with a very high cost-benefit effectiveness ratio.

We are also designated as an area agency on aging and are therefore most conscious of and sensitive to the conflict between local priorities and issues which transcend the local area for benefit, but must be funded through diverting funds otherwise available for more directly visible benefit.

Legislation to create a separately funded title within the Older Americans Act to address the class action advocacy situation would remove pressure from the local areas that is not fair or appropriate for them to be subjected to. The most appropriate linkage would suggest funding to the area agency on aging level to ensure a close working relationship with the range of service providers in that area and thereby assure a comprehensive and integrated recognition of problems and development of solutions. Elderly residents of other areas would benefit through the formal reporting linkage between the area agency and the State agency, as well as the less formal communications network between area agencies, and that among legal service programs.

In other words, funds expected by the Congress to be directed toward the legal service concerned with responsible class action advocacy should be distributed outside any state allocation formula otherwise used for title III.

Such legislation would permit the proper development of the reservoir of awareness, skills, and cooperative interagency working relationships that can effectively provide a focus of the energy needed to make progress. Without such legislation, we must be concerned that there is little incentive to take such elderly issues seriously. The tendency otherwise is toward inadequate funding of available services, compounded by the reality that a sizeable chunk of that inadequate funding must be spent simply to bring the legal staff on board as to the elderly issues.

ITEM 3. STATEMENT OF PATRICIA A. CANTOR, MANAGING ATTORNEY, COUNCIL OF ELDERS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, BOSTON, MASS.

I am managing attorney of the Council of Elders Legal Services Program (COELSP) a legal assistance project for low income elders in Boston. We are funded by a grant from the Legal Services Corporation and operate as a cooperative undertaking of the Council of Elders, an elders' social service agency, and Greater Boston Legal Services. The office consists of four full-time lawyers, one full-time and eight half-time paralegals, and two secretaries. We provide a full range of legal services for seniors with civil, nonfee generating cases. We conduct an active outreach program to inform elders of the availability of the service and to encourage them to use it.

Appendix 2

LETTERS FROM INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

ITEM 1. LETTER AND ENCLOSURE FROM WALTER H. CROSS, SUPERVISOR, SENIOR VISTA VOLUNTEERS AND PROGRAM FOR LEGAL SERVICES; VICE PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF OLDER AMERICANS, INC., BOSTON, MASS.; TO SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY, DATED AUGUST 31, 1976

DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: For the past 9 years I have worked with and for senior citizens in Massachusetts.

As supervisor of a senior volunteer program, sponsored by the Massachusetts Association of Older Americans, and funded by ACTION, the Federal umbrella agency for all Federal volunteer programs, we are all too familiar with the many problems of the elderly population.

One-third of all older Americans are below or hover at the poverty line.

The average single senior citizen has approximately $75 a week to live on and the average couple about $105 per week.

65.

Twenty-five percent of all suicides in the U.S.A. are committed by people over

This segment of our population are living in constant fear and without hope. Legal representation, except for very isolated cases, are nonexistent. This segment of the elderly population is unable to recognize when legal assistance can be utilized and unable to obtain it if they do. Due to barely existing on their poverty income, the idea of using existing legal services is never considered.

To even begin to provide legal services for the elderly, a network of communications with the elderly should be established to advise them of the availability of such services. In my opinion this could be accomplished through local councils on aging, community action agencies, and other nonprofit agencies that are servicing the elderly.

I have serious doubts that this should be administered through the State Department of Elderly Affairs, but rather through a nonprofit statewide agency with a proven track record of reaching out and acting as advocates for the elderly.

Seniors who have been involuntarily retired should be trained to act as paralegals. The senior volunteer program has proven that the elderly will more readily communicate and confide with members of their peer group.

One of the most valuable services legal services could perform would be to work within the framework of the many categorical programs available to assist the elderly. These programs are a nightmare of complex eligibility requirements, and thousands of seniors are not participating even though eligible, due to lack of knowledge.

I regret that I was unable to attend the hearing. However, looking at the agenda, I think that my testimony in written form can supplement the oral testimony already provided.

Attached are recommendations for legislative proposals to eliminate many of the inequities in the supplemental security income programs, which if adopted, could help thousands of the low-income elderly.

Also, the amendment to H.R. 8911 offered by Representative Richard L. Ottinger to "increase SSI benefits to reflect certain expenses," namely to furnish to eligible individuals housing expense assistance whose housing expenses exceed 33% per centum of his or her annual income, the benefit otherwise payable under this title, section 17, part A of title XVI of the Social Security Act, shall be increased by an amount determined at a rate which is the lesser of “(1) $600 or (2) the amount by which such individuals annual housing expenses exceed 33% per centum of his or her annual income."