Federal National Mortgage Association

The Federal National Mortgage Association, under its special assistance functions is authorized to purchase the FHA 231 insured mortgages on nonprofit sponsored projects under advance commitments. With such commitments, sponsors are assured of permanent financing and find it easier to arrange for interim construction financing. The FNMA, however, cannot purchase any mortgages offered by or covering property owned by Federal, State or municipal instrumentalities. In its secondary market operations, FNMA may purchase FHA 231 insured mortgages for both profit and nonprofit sponsors on either an "over the counter" or on a standby basis.

CFA direct loan program

Rental housing-section 202.-The Housing Act of 1961, amending the Housing Act of 1959, authorizes the Housing and Home Finance Administrator to make loans up to 100 percent of development cost to private nonprofit corporations, consumer cooperatives, and public bodies (except public housing authorities receiving their funds exclusively under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937) which sponsor rental or cooperative housing and related facilities for older families and persons. The purpose of this program is to provide suitable housing for older people whose incomes are too high for public housing but not sufficient to meet the cost of good housing in the private market. It is for persons 62 years of age and older, and for families the head of which (or his spouse) is 62 or older.

The Housing Act of 1961 increased the authorization for this program from $50 million to $125 million. Actual appropriations, however, provide a revolving fund totaling $80 million.

The Housing Act of 1961 increased the maximum Government loan from 98 to 100 percent of development cost, including the cost of construction, cost of land, and necessary site improvements. Loans may also cover related facilities for dining, recreation, health, and other purposes. For fiscal year 1962, the interest rate on these loans is 3% percent. Loans may run and are being made for as long as 50 years.

An applicant for a loan under section 202 must demonstrate that he is unable to obtain a loan on terms and conditions equally as favorable as those available under this program. Similarly, applicants may secure construction advances only when interim financing on reasonable terms is not available from private

sources.

Low-rent public housing

Public Housing Administration. The low-rent public housing program was authorized by the Housing Act of 1937 as a local-Federal aid through which communities may provide safe, decent, and sanitary housing to shelter low. income families who cannot afford standard private housing. The dwellings are planned, built and operated by local housing authorities and permanently financed through the public sale of new bonds sold by the local housing authorities. Any deficits in the debt service charges on these bonds, which cannot be met out of rental income, are provided by annual contributions from the Public Housing Administration. Since rents charged are based on the occupants' ability to pay, local housing authorities can, with these contributions, make suitable housing available to the elderly at very low rentals.

Although low-rent public housing has been a source of decent housing for many low-income older families from the inception of the program, the Housing Act of 1956 was the first to provide for the design of public housing to meet the special needs of older people. The Housing Act of 1956 also made eligible as a "family" for the first time, single men and women who were 65 and over. In 1959, the law was amended to lower the age limit for admission to 62 for women to follow changes in the Social Security Act and the 1959 amendments also pro vided that disabled persons at least 50 years old would be considered eligible for occupancy as an elderly family. The Housing Act of 1961 gave strong impetus to the public housing program for senior citizens by providing for an increase in the room cost limit for housing units designed specifically for older persons of another $500, bringing the total to $1,000 above that for nonelderly. The 1961 act also authorized payment of an additional subsidy of $120 per year for units occupied by older families, if necessary to enable a local authority to rent to low-income aged and still operate on a solvent basis. With the 1961 changes in the Social Security Act lowering the retirement age to 62 for men, single persons of either sex became eligible for low-rent public housing at age 62 and

disabled persons regardless of age now qualify as "elderly" if under a disability as defined in section 223 of the Social Security Act. The remaining balance of the $336 million annual contributions authorized in the 1949 Housing Act was made available in the Housing Act of 1961 and this is expected to provide for an additional 100,000 units over time. Although these units are intended for all age groups, recent experience indicates that local authorities are requesting that a greater proportion of units be allocated for senior citizens than heretofore.

SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING ACTIVITY IN 1961

In 1961, the Administrator gave major emphasis to accelerating activity in housing for senior citizens. With momentum building up, the volume of applications, program reservations, and commitments for specially designed senior citizen housing increased rapidly.

Applications

In 1961, constituent agencies of the HHFA accepted applications for and programed a total of 44,353 housing units in projects for older persons. This 1 year's total is about equal to the combined total of 44,602 for the previous 5 years. In dollar amounts, the 1961 total represented an estimated replacement cost of over $500 million, about the same as from 1956-60. The cumulative replacement cost to December 31, 1961, is estimated at approximately $1 billion. The rate of increase in applications in the past year, suggests that interest will continue to mount in the next several years. The need for suitable housing for senior citizens, especially at low rentals, is large. Hundreds of responsible groups are increasingly recognizing the need and are moving forward, with financial assistance from the Federal Government to meet this critical situation. Commitments

The data on applications and units programed reflect, as one index, the volume of interest in the various programs of housing for senior citizens. Actual commitments by the different agencies, however, reveal the extent of construction which can more realistically be expected to take place.

Commitments for 22,483 units in 1961 were more than double the 10,623 total of 1960 and activity in 1961 alone was almost 80 percent of the combined total of commitments of the previous 5 years. By the end of 1961, the dollar volume of commitments accumulated for the whole period from 1956 through 1961, amounted to over $600 million.

Completions

In 1961, 4,644 housing units for senior citizens were completed, a total in this 1 year, greater than the combined total in the previous 5 years. Almost 22 times as many units were completed in 1961 as was the case in 1960 when 1,924 were completed. Obviously, this represents the results of earlier applications and commitments coming to fruition. The dollar volume of 1961 completions amounted to an estimated $58 million compared to the estimated combined figure of $53 million for the 5 years, 1956-60. Of course, the bulk of units completed so far are divided between the PHA and FHA section 231 programs. It is important to emphasize that the low-rent public housing figures on completions refer only to units specially designed for senior citizens. They do not include the many elderly families and individuals who live in public housing which is available for any age group of low income. Altogether, approximately 116,000 persons 62 and older are presently sheltered in low-rent public housing. There are about 75,000 elderly families in public housing units, including 33,000 single older persons.

Nursing homes-section 232

The program of mortgage insurance for the construction of nursing homes became active toward the latter part of 1960 and took a very substantial spurt in 1961. By the end of 1961, the FHA had received applications for mortgage insurance for 7,486 beds as compared with 2,468 beds in 1960, making a cumulative total of 9,954.

Commitments were issued for 932 beds in 1960 and 5,159 beds in 1961, going from $4.6 million to $28.5 million, in dollar volume.

In 1960, 171 beds were insured for $621,000; in 1961, a total of 1,630 beds were insured for $8,194,000.

Remaining applications in process

The sharp increase in applications received in 1961 left all the programs with a substantial carryover as of December 31, 1961.

In the case of FHA, applications involving more than 9,000 units of rental housing were still in process amounting to $107,660,271.

In the direct loan program, 8,784 units were covered by applications still in process, amounting to $92.1 million.

In public housing, there were 10,554 units of housing for the elderly in process under reservation, representing approximately $137 million in total development cost.

The FHA section of 232 nursing home program had applications in process for 3,164 beds, amounting to $19.6 million.

OFFICE OF HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

In 1961, the Office of Housing for Senior Citizens was created by the Administrator to provide for the coordination of the objectives and operations of the several housing programs for senior citizens administered by the HHFA.

During the year, this new Office of Housing for Senior Citizens worked with the constituent agencies to develop a common national policy on the objectives of housing for older people. Essentially, this policy is one of assistance in the financing of housing which sustains the independence and dignity of the older person and encourages and provides opportunities for continued relationships with the community as a whole.

A common set of standards applicable to the major programs, have been developed for the design and construction of housing for older people. These standards avoid rigidity, permit imagination, and provide for the development of housing suitable for the elderly and at the same time, protect the public interest.

The office has organized and is operating an information and technical service for sponsors who are often uninformed in the fields of finance and construction. An internal clearinghouse of information on each of the senior citizen housing programs has been developed to minimize duplication of activity, to exchange knowledge, and to provide a means by which each constituent agency can benefit from the experience of the others.

In addition, the Office assists in expediting the processing of applications and accelerating activity to meet the housing needs of the Nation's senior citizens. Other functions include training of personnel within the agency in the fields of aging and of housing for the elderly and stimulating the development of programs in universities to provide professional training in the management of housing for senior citizens.

The Office of Housing for Senior Citizens represents the Administrator of the HHFA on the executive committee of the Federal Council on Aging and participates in the Council's review of Federal programs and policies. It cooperates with other Federal agencies whose functions and responsibilities affect the living conditions of the Nation's older persons. This cooperative activity has been effective in furthering the training of persons equipped to manage housing projects for older persons, in insuring the adequacy of health, recreation, and social services in connection with housing developments; in undertaking research; and in providing detailed information and experience on housing requirements and policies to private and public groups concerned with the field of aging.

The Office of Housing for Senior Citizens thus does not itself administer any of the programs. Actual operation continues to be carried out by constituent agencies, but the Office is authorized to examine and review the operations. In total, the agency has a basic set of programs whose variety is related to the individual requirements of senior citizens. The program permits wide, individual free choice in selecting the kind of housing most suitable for personal needs.

REPORT FOR THE GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, REGARDING THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AGING, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MICH., JUNE 1720, 1962

(Submitted by Ted Ellsworth, special consultant on aged and aging)

Among our senior citizens and among those persons who work closely with them and with their organizations there is a growing fear that no Federal legislation for the aging will be passed at this session of Congress despite the many hearings, conferences, and discussions that have been held since the White House Conference on Aging in 1961.

Even if some compromise legislation is passed there is fear that it will only provide for further conferences and studies rather than action programs. Finally, it is felt that financial assistance from the Federal Government is needed to stimulate local action and that the most effective assistance would be through State planning grants so that special attention could be given to expansion of senior citizens centers and of programs primarily designed to keep our elderly population ambulatory and independent.

The above conclusions represent the overwhelming majority feeling of the delegates in attendance at the 15th National Annual Conference on Aging held at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Mich., on June 17-20, 1962. These opinions supplement and are similar to opinions expressed at the White House Conference on Aging, other similar conferences, and hearings concerning the problems of the aging held by this subcommittee and the Senate Committee on Aging. The conclusions were reached as the result of opinions expressed in and out of regular sessions and as a result of actions taken at the Michigan conference.

It should be noted that some 500 persons were in attendance at the conference. They came from practically every State in the Union. They represent every important State or local commission or committee on aging. There were representatives present from every recognized academic institution dealing with gerontology; from many senior citizens' organizations; and from a large number of voluntary, religious, educational, cultural, civic, and nonprofit institutions.

It is doubtful if a more representative group of persons interested in programs for the aged could be assembled. Many had been active at the White House Conference on Aging; many had testified at the hearings of this subcommittee, and many had attended the seminar for State executives on aging sponsored by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in April of this year.

The group at Ann Arbor, therefore, had definite thoughts concerning the needs of the aged; they had opinions and ideas based on years of experience; they had hopes and aspirations that had been nurtured by study, seminars, conferences, and government-sponsored programs and hearings, and yet they expressed serious doubt, and even fear, that no legislative program would be enacted at this session—or, perhaps, that an undesirable type of program might be established.

The doubt existing as to the passage of Federal legislation that would stimulate programs for the aging was clearly expressed at a preconference meeting of representatives from many States and from many local community agencies. Clear and definite expressions of the opinion of this group are as follows:

(1) The activities of the Federal Government in the field of aging through conferences, hearings, etc., has led the older population to believe that the Federal Government has given recognition to its responsibility in assuming leadership in plotting a course for national action. A failure to provide effective legislation will cause a feeling among the elderly that they have been let down. Such a situation could cause bitterness among a large segment of the retired population that could lead to the creation of a political bloc which would primarily be a selfinterest pressure group. This has happened in some areas already, and it has not produced a healthy political climate. It is easy for a demagog to play upon the emotions of the needy and to use the voting strength of the retired population for programs for the elderly without regard to the overall good of the economy or of the total population.

(2) The White House Conference on Aging stimulated considerable activity on a State and local community level. Many recommendations came out of that conference: Leadership at a Federal level is needed to give impetus to existing programs and to encourage the various States and their political subdivisions

toward implementation of these recommendations with new and expanded programs.

(3) It was agreed that there was a continuing need for research, training, and evaluation programs but that Federal grants, if allocated only for those purposes, would lead many to believe that no real action program of the type desired would result. Many believe that already too large a proportion of the money available has been spent on studies and surveys and that now the primary need is some action programs that will keep up the morale of the elderly.

(4) It was also generally agreed that first priority should be given to State planning grants and that the proposal as outlined in H.R. 10014 (Mr. Fogarty) should be included in any legislation that is enacted.

(5) Second priority should be given to State grants. In some States there is an urgent need to stimulate programs already planned but for which there is no money available in order to carry them forward.

The types of projects especially mentioned were those that would help to establish badly needed senior citizen centers. Many of the programs so essential for the aged are dependent upon the existence of a center that is available 7 days a week that can be used as a base of operations.

Great support was expressed for support for programs that would emphasize keeping the elderly ambulatory and independent so that they could care for themselves in their own homes rather than to have to be hospitalized because of the lack of some rather inexpensive programs. Among those especially mentioned were homemakers services, visiting nurses services, meals-on-wheels programs, extended out-of-hospital services, well-adult clinics such as the one that has been established in Baltimore on an experimental basis, and readily available preventive service such as exist in the public housing projects in Cleveland where medical, visiting nurses, eye, foot, and dental care are provided regularly on a low-cost basis.

(6) Of equal priority is the need for training personnel for work with the aging. This applies to persons who will actually work with the aged and to possible instructors who will be able to train such persons. It was recognized that a shortage exists that will become even more critical as the elderly population increases and as the programs for them expand.

Special need for short-term training was emphasized. Training and educational programs for persons whose work is of a nature that causes them to have considerable contact with the elderly was felt to be most important and desirable. Among the groups in this category are Department of Employment personnel, religious leaders, social workers, union representatives, personnel managers, doctors and other professional people, nurses, and others.

Much of this program could be accomplished by utilization of the grants provided for university extension programs if H.R. 11340 (Mr. Bailey) is passed. (7) Of last priority, as far as most of those present were concerned, at least at this particular time, was allocation of large sums of money for research projects that are not closely associated with action programs. It was felt that such programs are needed, that they should be part of the legislation, but that if only a minimum amount is allocated for research in this field, that it will continue in any event.

(8) Strong desire for better cooperation between State and Federal Governments was expressed. A resolution which was passed unanimously at a meeting of State representatives at the conference proposed that all grants-planning, project, training, and demonstration, evaluation, and research grants be made through an agency to be designated by each participating State.

There was considerable feeling that Federal grant money going into any State to help programs for the aged would duplicate State plans in many States and in others would actually conflict with State activities. As far as State planning and project grants are concerned, they certainly should go through a designated State agency. However, in the case of other grants, I believe that it should be the intent and policy of the Federal Government to work with such State agency but that the right to make such grants direct to nonprofit agencies or to local communities should be reserved by the Federal Government as there may be situations in which a State agency may refuse to activate a program with a nonprofit organization with which the Federal Government is working in other States and which may be in the interest of national policy and programing.

The Federal Government should also reserve the right to make direct grants to local communities, if after a reasonable time, any State fails to take advantage of whatever program may be enacted. Such a provision does exist in H.R. 10014.