action by departments of welfare, education, labor, recreation, employment, and others.

Common to recommendations of all surveys is that, to insure a total outlook on the problem and efficient accomplishment of objectives, the State unit on aging should be a separate agency functioning autonomously, whose chief responsibility would be to differentiate and integrate the services of existing agencies and act as a catalyst to stimulate an extension of services within these agencies, and to establish new services where the need is indicated.

66

This structural arrangement has been recommended by the Council of State government has been toward independent status, particularly and Their Older Citizens," the Federal-State Conference on Aging held in Washington, D.C., in 1956, the Special Staff on Aging of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in its survey of Rhode Island in 1957, and it is incorporated in its publication called Aging in Rhode Island," and the White House Conference on Aging, 1961, in the publication called "The Nation and Its Older People. The trend for the place of State units on aging within the structure of State government has been toward independent status, particularly toward placement within the Governor's office. This has happened in California, where originally the staff was in the department of public welfare and is now located in the executive department. In New Jersey, where it was originally subsumed under the department of health, the division on aging is now lodged in the department of the secretary of state. In New York, the unit is in the Governor's office. In Rhode Island, we moved out of the department of social welfare and into the executive department, and it was only then that we really got off the ground.

The summary of State recommendations coming out of the State conferences preceding the White House Conference on Aging indicates that 36 States had recommended a separate and independent agency. Much discussion took place on this subject in the section of State organization at the White House Conference on Aging.

Delegates from Pennsylvania asked for recommendations that would recognize the virtue of locating this unit on aging within an operating State department, specifically in the department of welfare, as it is now located in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania amendment was defeated by a vote of 54 to 16. The White House Conference on Aging recommendation was overwhelmingly in favor of independent status and especially for placement in the Governor's office.

The decision was arrived at on the basis of which structure would ultimately serve our older persons best.

Legislation passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly in 1958 to create a division on aging within the executive department was the result of a survey made by the Special Staff on Aging of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

This group of 25 experts, organized and headed by the Special Staff on Aging, stated that: "There is need for machinery designed to make maximum use of existing agencies."

In reviewing the various functions that such a unit would have, the survey team noted:

That these functions are at once broad and comprehensive in nature, and that they can be successful only to the extent that they take fully into account and

strengthen existing program operations; that the nature and scope of these activities calls for the creation of a central agency with broad responsibilities operating outside of any existing program agency. Any such central agency would necessarily have to work in close harmony with all agencies, both public and private.

The Special Staff on Aging survey team in Rhode Island drew up a five-point format indicating the significant elements for this kind of central autonomous agency. These elements include:

First, designating an agency which is in a position to be responsive to the total needs of older people and of the community.

Second, making this agency directly responsible to the Governor; hence enabling it to operate freely with all existing administrative and operating units.

Third, involving the official State departments and agencies which are already providing services to older people.

Fourth, taking advantage of the knowledge and concern of professional persons and citizens who are outside the Government structure. Fifth, locating an executive in a position where responsibility is clear and where he can work at the same level as the heads of existing operating agencies of the State.

I have discussed the State unit on aging, because the mechanism at the State level in this respect should have its counterpart at the Federal level; not just in theory but in practice.

Planning and programing for the aging cross departmental and agency lines at the Federal level, just as they do at the State level, and structure that is appropriate for State level functioning may logically be applied to Federal level procedures.

Congressman Fogarty stated in his testimony before this committee on Tuesday, April 17, in support of his bill, that the proposed U.S. Commission on Aging is similar to the structure of the Rhode Island Division on Aging, which is directly responsible to the Governor and has the kind of autonomy and latitude of operation which he seeks for the Federal unit on aging.

His analogy is well drawn. Aging plans and programs at the Federal level would be the concern of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Labor, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Department of Agriculture, Veterans' Administration, and other agencies of the Federal Government.

All these departments and agencies should have equal representation and recognition; so that a balanced program on aging might be realized with overall Government-wide perspective. In this way, program development would not become compartmentalized or restricted to any one department or agency and would consequently obviate fragmentation and imbalance in planning and programing. This emphasis on the structure of the Federal unit on aging, specifically on the independent status of the proposed U.S. Commission on Aging, should not be interpreted as a downgrading of current attempts and technical skills of the special staff on aging, working within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The present organizational structure presents roadblocks to the special staff on aging in any attempt at broad, overall interdepartmental coordination which would go beyond the Department of HEW boundaries. Furthermore, the many subdivisions within the Depart

ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, which deal with large and complex programs, would call for the full-time efforts of the current special staff on aging in planning and coordination within the Department.

This is also true in other departments to a greater or lesser degree. It would seem that interdepartmental coordination, as well as intradepartmental cooperation, can be achieved only through an overall, high-level independent U.S. Commission on Aging whose responsibilities would be broad and whose authority would contribute significantly toward the overall objectives, unrestricted by organizational barriers, such as exist now, and would continue to exist if left within a department with specific program functions.

Expertness in production at the departmental and/or agency level is as essential as the breadth of functioning and policymaking of the overall coordinating and planning unit. Planning and programing at appropriate levels must be done with knowledge and skill. The total production is complicated. To achieve the best results in programs for aging, the job must be under the direction of an independent, overall unit with status and prestige, whose only interest and concern is for aging.

This unit would not detract from the functioning of a program agency, but would help it to function better. It will help it to coordinate its program with those of the departments.

When this responsibility is placed under the direction of an operating department or agency, a conflict of interests may result. In the attempt to involve other agencies and departments in the broad program, the agency staff worker leads from weakness instead of strength in his attempt to meet heads of departments on their level. Experience in Rhode Island, as well as in other States, will attest to this fact; and this experience would and maybe already has obtained at the Federal level.

Furthermore, the agency person must on the one hand. be interested in developing the best program possible for aging; on the other hand, he is interested in his own Department and does not want to share credit with other Departments. Furthermore, he would be less knowledgeable about programs and activities in other departments, and about decisions which led to these activities.

When a person is both an agency worker within a department and also has responsibilities for overall interdepartmental coordination and planning for aging, a conflict of interests makes it likely that his decisions may be made on the basis of that interest which represents his own specialty or his own affiliation.

While this "line and staff" discussion may seem theoretical, it has practical and operational implications and aspects that are especially important to the people in the States. One of our greatest needs in the States is to have a counterpart at the Federal level, one unit to which we may appeal for help on all aspects of aging, coordinated help, so we will not have to flounder around and be pushed from one agency to another and receive only partial help from each one. It is clear that the Federal pattern has a significant impact on the State pattern and functioning.

The answer lies in the establishment of an independent unit on aging through enactment of H.R. 10014. It follows, then, that a

"line" mechanism will supervise the design of the program for our older adults at the national level. Thus there emerges the threefold function of this focal point within the Federal Government for, and I quote from the law:

(1) Developing national policy; (2) providing information, guidance, and support to the governmental and nongovernmental agencies with programs in the field of aging; and (3) sponsoring a balanced nationwide program to achieve such objectives.

Through the U.S. Commission on Aging, the collective wisdom of a cross section of knowledgeable persons in all relevant areas would be brought to bear toward the achievement of the objectives incorporated in H.R. 10014.

Enactment of this legislation is tantamount to the establishment, maintenance, and strengthening of the programs on aging in the States. I urge you to give prompt passage to this bill.

Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. I think you have made a very forceful statement on behalf of the guardian principles of Mr. Fogarty's bill, cosponsored by the senior Senator from my State, Senator McNamara. You did not dwell as much on the provisions of grants to State agencies and to local public and private nonprofit organizations for the purpose of conducting research demonstration projects and training of personnel, but I would gather from your remarks on this subject that you feel that financing in the States and in the local communities on this subject has not been adequate, and that this system of grants would have the effect of spurring much-needed activity with regard to the problems of the aging.

Dr. MULVEY. That is true, yes.

Mr. O'HARA. I thank you very much. You have made a very forceful statement on behalf of Mr. Fogarty's bill, and I concede that with you and Mr. Fogarty the State of Rhode Island is certainly doing all right for its aged.

Dr. MULVEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair observed in the earlier part of your testimony the figures you quoted on the participating States and the fact that only, I believe you said, 12 had made State appropriations.

Dr. MULVEY. With appropriations of $25,000 or more. Eight State units have budget appropriations of $25,000 or more; only eight. Mr. BAILEY. How many of them do not have any kind of an appropriation?

Dr. MULVEY. Well, I have said here that 18 State units have no appropriation.

I said 18 State units. Of course, there will be more than that, because there are some States that have no unit. So eight States have no unit at all. That will give us 28 States with no appropriation. I have the table here, I think.

Mr. BAILEY. If you have it, and if it is available for insertion in the record, I would like to move that it be offered for inclusion in the record, if there is no objection.

(Table referred to follows:)

State commissions on aging

[Explanation of symbols: (L) legislation; (A) administrative action; (*) appropriation from Governor's special fund]