the process of evolving into mature units, we do not recommend changes in the legislation relating to them.

We are aware that area agencies are being asked to do a great many things with budgets that often are incongruously small. In some states, these area agencies are one- or two-person operations, yet they carry formidable responsibilities.

A number of state agencies, particularly those in rural areas, are asking for more flexibility in the development of area agencies on aging. Specifically, they are concerned that after the 15% allowed for administration is expended, there are still sections of their states in need of area plans and the services of trained aging personnel. Often these areas are the neediest in the state, yet under present law, programs can be funded there only at 75-25, instead of the 90-10 matching ratio enjoyed where there are area agencies in operation. We would like to propose an addition to section 304 (b), which describes groups acceptable as area agencies. We feel it would be very helpful to allow the state agency to establish a local advisory council, and assign a state agency staff member to work in that area in very much the same way as the area agency. This would be an interim arrangement until the local area could itself establish an acceptable area agency.

Title IV-A. The states have found the Title IV-A training funds made available to us this year by the Administration on Aging useful. The funds have enabled us to carry out training for Title III and Title VII staffs. Many area agencies were involved in planning the training, and we reached members of advisory committees and other people working with the elderly or concerned about them, many of whom had never had the opportunity for such instruction before. Colleges, including community colleges, were involved, again often for the first time.

The flexibility with which these funds could be used is appreciated. Short-term training in a particular part of the state, or for a special group, is best done by the states.

Title V. The National Association of State Units on Aging strongly supports the development and operation of senior centers. Since Title I of the 1974 Housing and Urban Development Act now includes provision for the acquisition, purchase, construction or renovation of property for senior centers, we are encouraging senior groups to work through and with their local planning and political units of government to harness these 100 per cent federal grant services available under the HUD act for this purpose. This new procedure will be a slow but steady educational process before senior groups have effective and fair access to this source of capital funding. Title III, and indirectly Title VII, allow for partial financial support of such senior centers through the operation of senior service and nutrition programs in such centers.

We mention this because we are not prepared at this time to ask for funding for purchase or renovation of senior centers under Title V of the Older Americans Act.

Title VII. The nutrition program is one of the most successful and popular programs for older people to emerge in recent years. Unfortunately, it reaches fewer than 5% of those who are eligible. Without elaborating on the obvious effects of inflation on the program, we hope that the Congress will not support any effort to reduce or impound any part of the $125 million appropriated for fiscal 1975.

Although NASUA has testified previously about the need for states to be allowed to use up to 5% of their Title VII allocation for administration, state units on aging generally applaud the new administrative allocation proposed by the Federal Council on Aging, which increases the minimum allotment any state gets from $160,000 to $200,000, believing this would make it possible to cover both Title III and Title VII administrative costs, leaving all nutrition funds for that program. The formula as submitted presents a more realistic minimum for small states, but in order to prevent cutbacks to larger states, the 10% increase over the 1975 funding level for the other states is also imperative. Too, as states get new and additional responsibilities, there should be a proportionate increase in the administrative allotment.

Action. Concerning Older American Volunteer programs, specifically RSVP and Foster Grandparents, we feel that Congress should return responsibility for these to the Administration on Aging. These programs are for older Americans and should be a part of the overall planning process carried on by state and area

agencies in developing the Annual Operating Plan. ACTION operates under separate guidelines, quite often with limited coordination with the state agency. The foster grandparent program, which was once in the Administration on Aging, was transferred to ACTION under the mantle of a volunteer program. We cannot agree that foster grandparents are volunteers. The grandparents are recruited from the low income elderly, the so-called stipend being, in reality, an hourly wage. Because they are called volunteers, they are being deprived of the minimum wage. They are being paid $1.60 an hour under ACTION's guidelines, while older men and women in similar financial circumstances get work under other manpower programs at $2.00 or $2.10 an hour. It is difficult for the grandparents to understand why this is so, and it is difficult for us to understand as well.

The creation of volunteer activities for older persons is, in our view, a program to benefit the older person as well as provide service to a community agency. Of the two, the interest of the older persons comes first, and justifies the program being administered under the Older Americans Act. Although we have no supporting data, it seems likely that the overall administrative costs for the two programs would be less if administered by the Administration on Aging, and funded to the states in the form of block or formula grants.

Nursing Homes. We have long been aware of suspected abuses and neglect of patients in American nursing homes. The recent report of the Senate Special Committee on Aging titled "Nursing Home Care in the United States: Failure in Public Policy," and the subsequent publicity surrounding it, have confirmed the existence of serious and disgraceful mistreatment and neglect of aging persons in some of these homes.

In our opinion, it would be appropriate and desirable for the Older Americans Act to provide incentives to state units on aging to establish within their agencies effective and responsible nursing home ombudsmen. Such incentive should be at least in the form of specific language calling on state agencies to perform this function, thus strengthening the agencies' ability to do this successfully. Ideally, the ombudsman not only would investigate alleged abuses, but would let it be known to patients and their families that there is a place to turn when they have a legitimate complaint.

While we must do more to help the 5% of the elderly who are in institutions, we retain our focus on helping older Americans remain in their own homes and in their home communties as long as possible.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. We appreciate having this opportunity to present our views to the Committee.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNITS ON AGING

Members of the Legislative Committee who participated in developing this testimony

Dr. Louise B. Gerrard, Chairman. Executive Director, West Virginia Commission on Aging.

David Crowley. Executive Director, Ohio Commission on Aging.

Robert C. Benedict, Commissioner, Office for Aging, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.

Robert Q. Beard. Executive Director, Governor's Coordinationg Council on Aging, North Carolina Department of Human Resources.

Paul Hendrick. Director, New Hampshire Council on Aging.

Ms. Mary Kay Jernigan. Director, Office of Aging, Georgia Department of Human Resources.

Harry F. Walker, President, National Association of State Units on Aging. Executive Director, Maryland Commission on Aging.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker.

Does either of your associates wish to add any point to what you have said?

Ms. GERRARD. We are ready to respond to questions.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I wonder if you can generalize a little bit further with respect to the impact of the area agency on aging strategy, whether or not in your judgment that approach has proved to be an effective one?

Mr. WALKER. Many States are very pleased with the area agencies and the work they are doing. Some States are having difficulty so that my observations will have to be from a personal point of view.

Certainly the area agency concept is a good one. The idea that local planning and coordination can be done at the local level where the people are and where the services have been identified by locals is good. If there is a serious weakness in the strategy it is that the responsibilities which have been given to the area agencies are far in excess of their resources to do that job with the limited administrative money that they have.

Ms. GERRARD. May I add a point, sir?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Please.

Ms. GERRARD. The section of Mr. Walker's testimony on page 2 where he refers to the particular problem of rural States, speaking about West Virginia agencies on aging in the 11 parts of the State. We are very pleased with those.

We cannot afford to extend the area agencies for the next few years. We simply don't have the Administrative money. Projects in these parts of the States which are the neediest low income section are bound by a 75-25 matching instead of a 90-10.

We would hope that the legislation could be changed to authorize a State agency on aging to assign a staff person to these areas to develop an area plans, have an advisory council in preparation for an area agency so that the matching in these areas of the State could be 90-10 also.

Mr. BRADEMAS. To turn to another point on which you touch, Mr. Walker, you made passing reference to revenue sharing. I think you are aware of the GÃO report that was commissioned by Congressman Pepper of Florida that showed us that only two-tenths of 1 percent of the moneys administered by localities had gone toward programs that specifically benefited the elders.

I would be interested in any observation you want to give us about how revenue sharing, if the program is continued, could be made more responsive to the needs of the elderly and perhaps tell us if there is any role that either the area agencies or the State agencies can play in this respect.

Mr. WALKER. One reason that revenue sharing has not reached programs for older people is because local government is uncertain. about the future of revenue sharing and is reluctant to start service programs for which they feel funds may be terminated by the Federal Government and they will be left with the responsibility for funding them.

If there was some assurance that revenue sharing would continue, I think we would be able to persuade them to put a fair portion of those funds into program for the elderly. We have made contact with local government and with the local units on aging in the area agencies urging them to ask for some of this money. As you know, it has had limited success.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Just one other question.

I suggested earlier that I am apprehensive that President Ford will when he comes up with his message on deferrals and rescisions, go after programs to benefit the elderly with a real hatchet.

I wonder in this respect if you can tell us from your knowledge if

any 1975 nutrition funds for the elderly have yet been released to the States?

Mr. WALKER. No, they aren't.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I hope that is not a harbinger of bad news. I think I am right in saying that members of the Committee on Agriculture are working to block the proposed increase in the cost of food stamps for the elderly as well as for other persons who may qualify for them. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. In talking about the foster grandparents program, you seem to express some concern about its being administered by ACTION.

Do you think it has suffered at all by being under ACTION rather than being handled by a specific aging agency?

Mr. WALKER. The ACTION agency regards the program as a volunteer program. The income that the foster grandparents receive is a stipend. I think, in fact, it is an employment program in a commendable service way.

It is providing people an opportunity not only to provide service but to earn money. Under the ACTION guidelines they may be paid only $1.60 an hour, which is a stipend.

Under other programs, senior aid programs under the Department of Labor, they can earn up to $2.45, $2.50 an hour.

Ms. GERRARD. Because it is considered a volunteer program the foster grandparents do not qualify then for having earned enough money under social security to qualify later for higher social security benefits.

We have in our foster grandparent program in West Virginia older people who for whatever reason have not had covered employment long enough to qualify for social security. If they were able to be considered with this CETA wage, then upon retirement they would be able to draw on social security.

Now, some of them are going to be forced to get just SSI.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Is this a change that could be brought about under the legislation for ACTION or is it necessary to transfer the jurisdiction of the program?

Ms. GERRARD. I think it is the attitude of the whole agency looking upon people as volunteers.

Speaking for a few of the States anyway we don't find that agency responsive. They don't have any tie-in really with the overall aging program in the States.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The gentleman from Washington, the ranking member of the subcommitteee.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate very much your testimony.

I would like to ask some questions about what you found out in the various States with regard to revenue sharing in the past.

Let me preface my remarks by saying in my own State of Washington, for instance, cities and counties have been told by the Attorney General that they do not have the authority to establish and use revenue sharing funds for senior citizens centers, for RSVP programs, many of the things that are done under the Older Americans Act.

Actually they have gotten around this by funneling it through their park and recreation departments, but it is really subterfuge.

Are there other States in which a similar situation has occurred to your knowledge?

Mr. WALKER. To my knowledge, I don't know.

Mr. HENDRICK. I can speak for the State of New Hampshire. Due to our particular structure of government and the dependence on the town for basically the provision of public services and education and the social services being vested largely with the county and State, we have little likelihood of revenue sharing ever being accomplished on a town-by-town basis at the local level of government.

Without revenue sharing being deposited into the general funds of the community and then by a specific item in the budgetary warrant being appropriated from the general funds back to the program it is a very complicated process.

I have been on our town budget committee and then at the county level there is some evidence of revenue sharing toward social programs in support of aging programs. The large support comes from the level of State government.

Mr. MEEDS. Are you aware of what percent of the revenue funds both local and State level are being used in New Hampshire for the older Americans?

Mr. WALKER. It would be less than 1 percent.

Mr. MEEDS. Could you respond to that same question for West Virginia?

Ms. GERRARD. The Governor's office just made a study. When I called to ask about getting a copy they kind of laughed. They said "Well, we came in next to last." I said, "What came in last?" They said, "Maybe miners with leprosy or something."

In other words, no attention has been paid to it and we are very concerned.

However, for example, in one of our neediest most rural counties the county court gave the nutrition program $5,000 out of revenue sharing because they said they could see the program, they could see it was serving their people.

We have been encouraging those county commissioners to communicate with others. We are hoping there can be a breakthrough but we have a long way to go.

Mr. MEEDS. $5,000 I noticed seemed significant to you.

Mr. GERRARD. In Mingo County, W. Va., that is a lot of money. Mr. MEEDS. Thank you.

You can respond.

Mr. WALKER. It would be less than 1 percent for Maryland.
Mr. MEEDS. Less than 1 percent?

Mr. WALKER. Substantially so.

Mr. MEEDS. Have you done any study of all the States in an effort to determine what proportion of revenue sharing is being utilized across the United States?

Mr. WALKER. I think Dr. Fleming reported two-tenths of 1 per

cent.

Mr. MEEDS. Two-tenths?

Mr. WALKER. I believe that was the figure. I will have to check that but it was very small.