PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM SAXTON

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK CHAIRMAN ROYBAL AND MY COLLEAGUE AND GOOD FRIEND FROM NEW JERSEY, MR. RINALDO, FOR HOLDING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING TODAY.

1

WHILE THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT HAS BEEN

SUCCESSFUL IN PROVIDING ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS WITH NEEDED SERVICES, A SILENT SUBGROUP OF VULNERABLE OLDER ADULTS NOT RECEIVING THESE SERVICES HAS EMERGED.

THIS ISOLATION FROM ASSISTANCE IS DISTURBING AND I AM PLEASED THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING WAYS TO REMEDY THIS PROBLEM.

SENIORS IN MY DISTRICT ARE TYPICAL OF SENIORS

AS A WHOLE, IN THAT THEIR SOCIAL SERVICES NEEDS VARY
GREATLY.

WHILE MANY SENIORS ARE BETTER OFF TODAY

THAN THEY EVER HAVE BEEN, MANY MINORITY, RURAL,
HANDICAPPED AND FRAIL ELDERLY ARE IN GREATER NEED OF

OF ASSISTANCE.

AND FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, THEY ARE NOT UTILIZING THE SERVICES THAT THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT OFFERS.

I AM CONFIDENT THAT AS THE CONGRESS ADDRESSES THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT, CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO TARGET THIS "AT-RISK" POPULATION GROUP.

I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM OUR PANEL

OF WITNESSES FOR THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS W. FAWELL

Let me commend the Chairman and Vice-Chairman for calling this hearing to discuss the successes and deficiencies of the Older Americans Act. It has already been 22 years since the enactment of the Older Americans Act in 1966. During that time, we have seen the program grow from a few small social service grants and research projects to a network of over 1,500 individual community service projects serving older persons.

Since the enactment of this legislation, the Federal response to the needs of the elderly has been significant. Twenty-two years ago the poverty rate among senior Americans was 33 percent. The programs of the Older Americans Act then joined forces with Medicare, Medicaid, Title XX, food stamps, and expanded Social Security coverage to cut that poverty rate by over one half. Total appropriations for these programs have increased from $6.5 million in fiscal year 1966 to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1987. The Act has developed from a program of small grants in 1966 to one that now supports 664 area agencies on aging and 57 State agencies on aging under the Title III program. Approximately 9 million persons are served through the supportive services program alone.

Its

The Older Americans Act was not intended to meet all the needs of older people, however, nor can it reasonably be expected to do so. first purpose is to assist all seniors to be part of the mainstream of American society. Its second purpose is to assist those seniors who are frail in receiving the support they require to live with dignity. It is significant to recognize that the goals of the Older Americans Act have remained essentially unchanged throughout its history. The Older Americans Act is a commitment which we as a nation have made to the continuing independence and dignity which is the right of every American senior.

In this day of budget cuts and a trillion dollar federal debt, the reauthorization of a program as vital to the nation's seniors as the Older Americans Act still will not be easy. I am again pleased to participate in the debate in strengthening the Act's essential commitment. I am confident that we will excell in our task and I look forward to the responsible direction that this Committee will take in leading the debate on the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CONSTANCE MORELLA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to examine the access to Older Americans Act programs for specific elderly groups, such as minorities, the mentally disabled, and the rural

elderly.

access to these

I share your commitment to ensuring equal important groups, and I hope today's hearing will clarify problems with the existing program. I look forward to working with the members of this Committee to recommend improvements in the Older Americans Act, and I want to thank the witnesses here today for their

in this process.

assistance

Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Simmons.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL SIMMONS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CAUCUS AND CENTER ON THE BLACK AGED

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee on Aging, NCBA appreciates this opportunity to testify on the authorization of the Older Americans Act.

We have submitted our statement for the record and also I have some additional supporting material and I would just like to excerpt from my written statement.

My statement will primarily relate to Title III, Title IV and Title V.

We consider equitable treatment for minorities to be the single most issue for the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. This becomes even more critical now because the minority participation rate in the Title III-B supportive service and senior centers program has declined by 24.7% during this decade, from a high of 21.9% in fiscal 1980 to a low of 16.5% in 1985 and that's amply, dramatically demonstrated in the chart over to your left side of the room to show you the decline in the minority participation in III-B supportive services.

The harsh reality is that the minority participation rate has dropped every year during this decade except for fiscal 1982 when it remained unchanged. And one thing that's important when you look at the decline in the rate that contrasts that with this chart over to the right which really shows that between 1982 and the year 2000, the minority population is rapidly increasing.

A similar pattern exists for Title-C nutrition program for the elderly. Overall the minority participation rate has dipped by 13.7% from 10.0% in fiscal 1980 to 16.4% in 1985.

In fact, nearly 300,000 fewer blacks receive today Title III-B supportive services in 1985 than in 1980. As a practical matter, the 1985 participation rates in nutrition for all major elderly racial and ethnic minority groups are at an all time low for the 1980s. I don't want to overwhelm you with a litany of the problems that's amply set forth in the written testimony that I will leave with you. I'd like to move on to some recommendations that we are making to reduce, to reverse this downward slide for elderly participation in Older Americans program.

A clearcut need exists to strengthen the Title III language to emphasize that low income minorities should be served on the basis of their needs for services. Equity studies show that the minority aging needs for services is two and a half to three times as great as for the non minority elderly.

NCBA strongly believes that proposed statutory language can be of positive force in improving minority participation. NCBA also favors new statutory language to promote the appointment of minorities on advisory committees and boards for area agencies on aging and in State offices as well. It goes without saying that if we expect for there to be a major change, not only does there need to be a change in the law, but also there needs to be greater effort on the part of the government in terms of coming out with regulations

and guidelines to insure that State and area agencies will know what's expected of them and how they are to go about doing it.

NCBA is also deeply concerned about a number of proposals to target more scarce resources under the Older American Act to the vulnerable elderly.

NCBA certainly does not oppose serving vulnerable older Americans. However, these recommendations typically involve health related services which, in the judgment of NCBA, are more appropriately provided through other legislation rather than the Older Americans Act.

Moreover, these services for the vulnerable elderly will probably cost more and dilute existing limited resources for current client groups under the Older American Act. This does not make sense in our opinion, especially since the minority participation rate for Title III supportive and nutrition services has already fallen rapid. And also in addition, low income minorities have the greatest need for these services.

For these reasons NCBA opposes measures to change the formula for allocating Title III funds on the basis of 70 years of age rather than 60 plus; and secondly we're opposed to amending the definition of great social need to include vulnerable older individuals; and thirdly, we're opposed to promoting the establishment of community based services if the emphasis is on providing expensive health related service.

In the area of Title IV, NCBA has two recommendations for Title IV training, research and demonstration program.

First, we urge the House Select Committee on Aging to support the existing priority for funding demonstration projects, responding to the needs of low income minority and limited English speaking individuals.

Second, NCBA recommends that the 1987 Older Americans Act amendment should promote career preparation training for minorities, especially at historically black colleges and universities. This is needed to emphasize that career preparation, education for minority group individuals is a high priority. It is also essential to attract more minorities into the field of aging.

In terms of Title V recommendations, we urge that the program be continued and that the authorized funding level be increased to permit more aged minorities and other low income older Americans to participate.

Second we recommend that the current $5,111 average cost per enrollee be adjusted for the following reasons. The current cost level has been in effect for six years and it hasn't changed. Social Security and other payroll taxes will increase and will continue to increase and in addition to this, the Title V administrators have been given additional responsibilities such as interfacting with JTPA.

Third NCBA supports a 15% administrative cap, the same limit that now exists for most employment and training programs. The present two step reduction from 5% to 13.5% then to 12% in 1987 will adversely affect Title V operations, particularly for older Americans and the communities they serve.

It will be detrimental, very detrimental to minority sponsors that do not have the economies of scale to work with and furthermore,

if there's this cutback, some Title V participants will lose their jobs because of the lower cap. As a practical matter, sponsors will be forced to consolidate their operations by closing down smaller projects to lower their administrative costs.

Mr. Chairman, we have appreciated the opportunity of working with members of the Committee in improving the law and look forward to working with you in the future to see to it that those individuals who are in the greater social and economic need are served the way they should be served and that the kind of pattern that I showed you today that is changed.

Thank you very much for letting me be here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]