I would like to explain to the people here the absence of some of the members of the minority party. Due to the very unfortunate success of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, our numbers have been reduced very substantially. I find myself ranking member on one committee. For a while, I was a member of five other subcommittees. We had to man them all. As a result, all of us sometimes have unavoidable conflicts.

I would like to explain why some of the Republican members are not here today.

Mr. Bell is out of the country.

Mr. Peyser is attending an Agriculture Committee hearing, which I just left to come here, on the food stamp program, also of great interest to many of our older Americans. He is trying to represent us there and I am trying to protect the interests of the elderly citizens here.

Mr. Pressler is also away on business.

I am sure that similar conflicts arise on the other side.

I just wanted to express to you our concern and interest and that we will try our best to attend all the committee meetings we can. Mr. BRADEMAS. I thank the gentleman from Vermont.

The Chair has just one other question to put to Secretary Thomas and then what I should like to do, Mr. Secretary, and Dr. Flemming, is provide you today with quite a lengthy list of questions that are more specific in nature which we have simply not had time to ask. I would ask that you get replies in writing to us by next Tuesday, if you would, so that we can have them for the benefit of the subcommittee.

This is just a rather fundamental question, Mr. Secretary.

You will recall that Congress specified in law that the Administration on Aging would be taken out of Social Rehabilitation Services and placed in the Office of the Secretary and that one of the reasons for this action was the conviction on the part of Members of Congress that SRS was usurping staff and responsibilities of the Administration on Aging.

You are certainly aware from your knowledge of the history of this legislation of the deep concern of members of this committee on both sides of the aisle to assure the independence of the Administration on Aging.

In light of the law, can you tell us how the Administration on Aging has been established in the Office of Human Development and how much the staff of the Office of Human Development has grown since the Administration on Aging became part of your responsibility? Mr. THOMAS. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Office of Human Development came into being simultaneously with the transfer of the Administration on Aging in the Office of the Secretary. We have since that time been very cognizant of the interest of the Congress in insuring that the Commissioner have final responsibility, for example, in areas such as the signing of grants, about which the Congress was very clear in its intent.

Now, we have attempted as much as we could, and I think we have been successful, to insure that the intent was in no way or in any context abridged. I think the record will show that has, in fact, been the

case.

My management philosophy, Mr. Chairman, is one which suggests that one of my most important roles is to provide the kind of resources to the various elements which will insure the effective management and planning of their activities.

I think it has been important to note, and I again tip my hat personally to the Commissioner and to his staff, that a year and a half ago there were hardly any area agencies, a year and a half ago there were hardly any older persons receiving meals under title VII of the nutrition program.

So, I think the proof is in the pudding.

The fact is that there are now 412 area agencies which are functioning and over 220,000 older persons receiving meals 5 days a week. Mr. BRADEMAS. That was not my question, Mr. Secretary.

Because time is precious-I don't say this to be discourteous-I would rather you focus on my question rather than telling us what you have been doing.

I want to know the impact on the Office of Human Development of the assumption of responsibility of the Administration on Aging and how you have so structured yourself in your own shop in respect of this new responsibility which Congress has inflicted upon you. Is that not a clear question?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes; it is very clear, Mr. Chairman.

I just say again the Office of Human Development and the Administration on Aging joined at the moment of creation, if you will, and my offices are organized so that they provide services to the various elements of Human Development, not only the Administration of Aging but Child Development et cetera. For example, in the area of administrative services, our administrative services branch is concerned with such questions as how can we get better space. We also have a branch that is concerned with forwarding to the Office of Personnel actions which have been put in place by the various programs direc

tors.

After the determination has been made that we are going to fund grants by the Commissioner or by other elements of Human Development, we have the responsibility for the processing of those grants and to assure that the appropriate notifications are made.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, and that is consistent with your intent, we are very much concerned with what we call target planning. We recognize that the Administration on Aging does not have all the resources for the elderly; accordingly, we provide them with the tools so that they can develop long-range plans on how the Department as a department can meet its obligations with respect to the elderly.

We have also put great emphasis on long-range planning to make sure what we do this year is consistent with what we want to achieve ultimately and to provide the agencies with the process by which they can address long-range issues.

Those are fundamentally the roles that our office has.

In terms of increase in staff size, I think since our creation, under my immediate jurisdiction, we have added in the neighborhood of seven or eight people.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that.

As I said, I will have more specific question in writing for you.

I am sure you must be aware from having watched the development of this legislation that Congress does not intend that there should be created another SRS in your shop so that we are going back over the same kind of problems that we encountered.

Again, gentlemen, we want to thank you both very much. You have been very helpful.

We shall be getting a number of other questions to you and invite your response in writing to them.

Should it prove necessary, we will be pleased if you can come back again if the subcommittee feels it is necessary. We hope to avoid that request, but we will see how it goes.

Mr. FLEMMING. Could I just make one statement, Mr. Chairman? In the beginning of my statement, I talked about a new network on aging into existence. I just want to say this: We couldn't possibly have brought it into existence in as short a period of time had it not been for the kind of help, assistance, and cooperation that we received from the State agencies on aging and are now receiving through the State agencies, from area agencies on aging. There are a lot of new forces at work out in the country as a result of you and your colleagues developing the kind of concept you did and incorporating it in title III.

I am very enthusiastic about the possibilities.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Dr. Flemming and Mr. Secretary.

[The following documents were submitted for the record.] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND Welfare,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 4, 1975.

Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS,
Chairman, Select Education Subcommittee, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing answers to the additional questions you transmitted to me on January 31 related to the hearing the Select Subcommittee on Education conducted last week.

me.

If I can provide any further information, please don't hesitate to contact

Very sincerely and cordially yours,

Enclosures.

ARTHUR S. FLEMMING,
Commissioner on Aging.

Q. 1. Do you believe that there is yet any conclusive evidence that the Area Agency on Aging (AAA) strategy is working? That is, has the money been better spent in this planning mechanism than it had been spent on direct service for the elderly?

A. Area Agencies on Aging have been in existence for less than a year. They are just now in the early stages of implementing the first approved area plans on aging. It is too early to present conclusive evidence relative to their operations.

Q. 2. In an analysis of June 1973 data, GAO found that only two-tenths of 1 percent of the revenue sharing funds had gone toward programs to specifically benefit the elderly. Is there any evidence that Area Agency on Aging (AAA) activities have increased this percentage?

A. We do not have any direct evidence at the present time. A new Title III quarterly reporting system is being instituted which will yield such information. When we have the opportunity to analyze these reports in the middle of March, we will be happy to furnish this information at that time.

Q. 3. Have there been any evaluations to date of the Area Agency on Aging programs as authorized in Section 207 of the Older Americans Act?

A. The Administration on Aging intends to fund a large scale evaluation of the Area Agency on Aging program during this fiscal year. The study will evaluate the organizational effects of the Area Agencies on the services delivery system and the amount and quality of services delivered to the elderly in the geographic area. The Administration on Aging has waited to fund this study because evaluations of organizations similar in scope and purpose to the Area Agencies have generally been unsuccessful and we wanted to insure a useful study. Therefore in February, 1974, the Administration on Aging funded a study by the National Bureau of Standards to investigate previous attempts at evaluation of such programs. The National Bureau of Standards performed a literature search and follow-up interviews with individuals who had been involved with such studies. Program evaluations reviewed included studies of Model Cities, Comprehensive Health Planning and Health Start. The final methodology has been developed based upon the experiences of these programs, additional research and our knowledge of the Area Agency Program. This study will determine not only the changes which will take place but also determine the activities which led to them. The preliminary study by the National Bureau of Standards was especially useful in warning the Administration on Aging of the pitfalls and problems in evaluation of complex programs with a wide range of goals.

The study will provide results during the summer of 1976. In addition, under Section 207, the Administration on Aging is evaluating the State Agencies on Aging concerning their activities in functions analagous to those performed by the Area Agencies, including coordination, planning and advocacy.

Q. 4. Have there been evaluations of the extent to which the Areawide Model Project program achieved its goal which I understand were quite similar to those of the current AAA's?

A. In January 1973, the Administration on Aging Central Office and Regional Office conducted an in-depth review and assessment of 21 Areawide Model Projects. We recognized at that time that the Areawide Modest Project Program was in some respects a prototype for the area planning and social services pro gram which later became part of the amendments to the Title III Program. We launched this assessment to determine how well the program was meeting its goals of generating or redirecting community resources to meet the identified priority needs of the elderly, and of changing existing patterns of service delivery through the coordination of available resources and the joint funding of services not previously available to older persons. We also intended to identify those barriers or shortcomings in the Program which would bear on the development and promulgation of policy for the area planning and social services program. A national report was completed which we will briefly touch upon here.

In regard to the draw down of other resources, we found that as a result of the $7.5 million investment of Areawide Model Project funds for Fiscal Years 1971, 1972 and part of 1973, approximately $10.2 million was generated from State, local and other Federal resources. We believed this to be a substantial showing of increased benefits to older persons. Guidelines for the Areawide Model Project Program called for an 'emphasis on coordinated and combined agency activity and funding arrangements", and did not envision increasing State and local capacity for developing comprehensive and coordinated service systems encompassed by the current Title III Program. Our assessment revealed that most Areawide Model Projects were indeed adhering to our program expectations in this more limited context. The success of an Areawide Model Project seemed in large part to be contingent upon the leadership and management capabilities exercised at the local level. We expect that this factor will continue to be important with area agencies on aging.

The Task Forces required under the Areawide Model Project Program in general proved to be viable and effective mechanisms for identifying and marshalling local resources and to provide a visible focal point for advocacy by and on behalf of the elderly. Perhaps, more importantly, the Task Forces were instrumental in increasing the dialogue, understanding, and willingness to cooperate among groups in the community.

However, in some cases the ongoing activity of the Task Force was interrupted or sporadic. This information had some significance for the advisory council and public hearing requirements which appear in the Title III regulations.

Some problems were noted in our assessment: active and continued planning seemed to get less attention as the projects focused on implementation of their Plans of Action; in some cases limited staff resources curtailed or reduced the

scope of coordination activity once program components became operational; absence of a clear-cut correlation between needs identified and project objectives and the services supported under the project's Plan of Action. The policies enunciated in the Title III regulations took account of these shortcomings and attempted to correct them by providing a clearer and more emphatic program direction.

Q. 5. There are other programs which have operated under concepts similar to the AAA's for example, the Comprehensive Health Planning Program and Model Cities. I think the general conclusion is that these programs have not been very successful. Why do you think the AAA program will be different?

A. We are aware of the program experiences gained through the Comprehensive Health Planning Program and the Model Cities Program. The Area Planning and Social Services Program is distinguishable in many respects from these Programs. We took into account many of their experiences when we developed the policies and guidelines for the Title III Program. Also, the results learned from them will certainly be valuable in the continuing operation of the Title III Program. There is no conclusive evidence relative to the operations of the area agencies on aging on which basis we could make comparison with the other Programs. Q. 6. How many persons are employed at the State and area agency levels in non-direct service capacities?

A. According to the Fiscal Year 1975 State Plans on Aging, the 56 State Agencies on Aging have employed 1533 in professional and clerical positions. These are all non-direct service positions in view of the fact that State Agencies cannot engage, except in cases of State Agencies that are also Statewide Area agencies, in the delivery of services.

We have detailed information on 336 of the 412 area agencies on aging current as of July 31, 1974. This indicates that the 336 agencies employed 615 (professional and clerical) persons in non-direct service capacities out of a total of 1589. Area Agencies normally do not deliver services directly but arrange through contracts or grants with other public and private bodies to provide such services. More up-to-date figures on services performed by Area Agency personnel will be available approximately March 15.

Q. 7. (a) Can you give us a breakdown of how the FY 1974 formula grant funds under Title III of the Older Americans Act were used by the following major categories-State Administration; Area Agency on Aging Administration; and Services?

(b) Does the AAA administration figure include those funds spent for AAA "coordination" and "pooling of untapped resources?"

(c) Why are these not considered to be administrative costs?

(d) If they were counted as administrative what proportion of total Title III formula grant funds would go for adminstration?

A. (a) The breakdown of FY 1974 formula grant Title III funds is as follows: State Administration-$12 million; Area Agency Administration-$8 million; Services under Area Plans-$52 million; and Services in Area without Area Plans-$8 million.

(b) No.

(c) The Title III regulations provide that there must be included in area plans and budgets provision for an action program designed to coordinate the delivery of existing services for older persons and the pooling of available but untapped resources from both private and public sectors for services for older persons. Coordination and pooling have been defined as social services activities.

These mandatory provisions were included because of a conviction that there is an opportunity for implementing these provisions in all planning and service areas and that when it is done some older persons receive services that they otherwise would not receive. This is why, as we understand it, that Congress placed major emphasis in the Older Americans Act, as amended, on the coordination of services.

It is this resultant increase in the delivery of services to older persons that led to the conclusion that the funds expended for this purpose should be regarded as funds expended for services.

(d) The Fiscal Year 1974 financial reports did not require State Agencies to account separately for the use of Title III funds to support coordination and pooling available but untapped resources from the public and private sectors. We gory. The Administration on Aging is in the process of establishing a new reporting system for the Title III Program which will enable us to collect and maintain such data in the future. Therefore, we are unable to determine what