with a regulation requiring all businesses be equipped with hydraulic lifts for wheelchairs and this is going to, by itself, cause such a reaction that the Biaggi amendment which provides for access for handicapped and the elderly be thrown out by Congress because everybody will go up in outcry that this can't be done with the money that transit systems have. I think we do need to move to producing senior transportation. This is the most critical area of concern to the area agencies and State agencies and the fact that, in the last 2 years well over a thousand projects or systems have been set up throughout the country on senior transportation under the Older Americans Act indicates that this is a high priority. Thousands of people have been involved. State and local governments have put up funds and it is a critical problem which I am glad this committee has moved ahead on, the McGovernSchweiker 309 transportation money. I would like to comment in one other area which has to do with the employment programs. As most of you are aware, I used to be Director of Green Thumb and have appeared many times before this committee concerning the employment problems of older people. In the last section of testimony in this report I have some new information from the Labor Department which clearly indicates that its manpower program discriminates on a very serious basis against older people. By the best count we have 1.2 million people out of the 6.5 million people over age 45 who are unemployed. When you add the hidden unemployed it goes up to 2 million unemployed people over 45. When you look at the percentage of the services of the Manpower Administration which serves older people, the best you can come up with is less than 6 percent. When you analyze as I did in the case of Rhode Island, the long-term unemployed, what I am really concerned about, and I think you are concerned about, is the person who is employed 10 or 13 weeks, then you find that approximately a third of the people who are unemployed long term are older workers and yet. practically a very small proportion of the services now go to older workers. You in this committee have worked hard to try to instruct the Labor Department in the intent. I am afraid they haven't listened. I hope that you will look seriously at the middle aged and older worker program that was enacted in the Senate in 1973, and look at it from the point of view if the Labor Department cannot hear what you have tried to instruct so patiently, and I know, Mr. Chairman, that you have on a number of occasions talked with them and have tried to insist that the Labor Department work on the problems of the older workers, they simply have not heard you, and the evidence is here. The Administration on Aging has tried mightily as well, and I think it does call for some specific action at this time. I would like to share my time with David Crowley, who is director of the Ohio Commission on Aging. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Mr. Crowley? Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you very much for giving me the opportu nity to talk with the committee this morning. I am a State director in the western part of Ohio. I helped prepare the testimony that my colleagues gave earlier so I will not go on too long except I did want to say and highlight a few points that I felt might best be said by one individual State director. First of all, I would like to emphasize and say very emphatically that Ohio endorses the philosophy and goals of the Older Americans Act, and that this approach to a Federal, State, and community level arrangement of planning and coordination at all three levels in my mind greatly raises the public consciousness about both the problems and the potentials of the elderly and allows for a lot more citizen input. Ohio, I have to admit, is certainly not a leader in the field of programs for the aging. I would like to comment and inform you about some things that are happening. I think in view of the fact that Ohio, as I have to admit, is not a leader, the kind of things that are happening in Ohio are probably not uncommon but they are a frequent result I believe of the new awareness and the new push that this committee and the Congress has given to programs for the elderly. I would like to begin by saying first of all there was created in Ohio a Commission on Aging at the highest level of State government with the director and the Commission members being appointed directly by the Governor, and reporting directly to him. For the first time in Ohio the State has appropriated reduced fares for elderly citizens. A coalition of 10 statewide elderly groups has been formed and they are prepared to deal in their initial effort with the high cost of utility bills as one of their first projects. There has been significant liberalization of the amendment to the supplemental security income as a result of some citizen input and effort from Ohio as well as other States across the Nation. For the first time there is a House and a Senate standing committee concerned primarily with the needs of the elderly. I mention these things and there are others because I believe these are direct tangible results again of the impact that the Older Americans Act has made at least in one State. In regard to the renewal of the Older Americans Act, I believe you will hear if you have not already heard that there have been conflicts between the area agencies and the State units in some States. I believe that there is a certain amount of creative tension that can be helpful. I do believe that the responsibilities and the roles of these various units, both the State and the area agencies, can be more clearly defined so that there is not the bureaucratic infighting that seems to take place. I would make a few concrete suggestions. I would suggest that the 15-percent limit on area agency administration be liberalized. I know there is an argument about higher cost for administration versus more funds for services. When I talk about administration I include in that the very significant role of advocacy. Many of the area agencies around the State are multicounty. They are staffed with minimal staff. I believe that we have to recognize there are great other sources of funds and, of course, this is one of the premises of the Older Americans Act. There are other sources of funds that can be available for older people's programs but it takes a strong, dedicated, hard-working area agency staff to secure those funds and do the planning, coordination, and advocacy that will free up those funds for older people. I would also suggest that the consumer input be strengthened. The area agency is an entity, it is not an assurance there is going to be consumer input on the local level. There has to be a bona fide effort to develop that consumer input. That includes training of consumers and functioning on committees and on boards. It includes expenses for advisory council members particularly the low-income people to attend meetings. I would also suggest that the Administration on Aging be removed from the Office of Human Development. In region V we have had particular problems with the regional office staff being understaffed almost at the point of 50 percent because of raids on our staff by the OHD. I would also suggest that the committee begin to consider the possibility of a waiver for title III and title VII programs to secure financial information on certain participants in order to determine eligibility for title XX funding. We anticipate, knowing that the XX social service amendments have a means test and title III and title VII do not, that we may have some administrative difficulties there unless title III and title VII waivers are allowed to secure some types of financial information so that increased funding can be gained for participants in those programs through title XX. I would also suggest that revenue-sharing funds be considered as a possible match on the local level as compensation for the fact that so few revenue-sharing dollars have gone into elderly programs and as a preliminary step to enticing local officials to put more local funds into aging programs. I would suggest also that RSVP and the foster grandparent programs be transferred to the Administration on Aging. I would like to request that the committee consider a $200 million funding level for the Older Americans Act including the senior citizens centers, section 309 transportation, and emphasis on services specifically defined to allow the elderly to remain in their own homes. In Ohio in the past year we have received approximately $3 per elderly person for funds appropriated under the Older Americans Act. We are challenging in the State of Ohio the State to make its fair share. We are requesting in our biennial budget a 200-percent increase in State funds for older Americans programs. We are asking the Congress to at least double the appropriations of the past year. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Mr. Carstenson. Mr. CARSTENSON. I have one question. You urge that RSVP and foster grandparents and other volunteer programs that are presently in ACTION be brought back to the jurisdiction of AOA. Can you tell us why you take that position? Mr. CARSTENSON. Yes. The climate is the best word, the climate and understanding in the ACTION agency has not been conducive to the functioning of the program. Being more specific, many of the staff people in the regional offices and at the policy level do not understand older people, do not understand the intent of the programs and have caused some very serious difficulty in terms of developing the program. We have had long discussions with people in the field who are running local programs. The problem is that the policy at the top is not conducive. The second thing is that I think there is an awful lot to be gained in terms of technical assistance and cooperation. For example, in Rhode Island the close cooperation between the State office on aging and the local programs has made those programs effective. In fact, most of the State units on aging have done much of the spade work necessary to make the programs, the RSVP programs go in the first place. I think your statement was right in the first place. I do have one comment, though, and this is that the administration, I think, has failed to follow the intent of Congress in terms of the OHD and the reporting to the Secretary. If the administration is not willing to have the Commissioner on Aging report directly to the Secretary because he is a Commissioner, it is time to start thinking of an Assistant Secretary of Aging so that he can report to the Secretary and then maybe have a Commission. for the Older Americans Act, the Administration on Aging, maybe one for the older volunteer program and if they can't think of any better way to really work on the problems of social security, maybe those three ought to be together. In any case, I would like to say that the commitments that were made to this committee and to the chairman in trying to negotiate the problem of location of the Administration on Aging have not been kept. Then I think you have every right to insist through legislation that this agency do as you say which is to have access, to allow Commissioner Flemming, maybe it should be Assistant Secretary Flemming, to report and to have access at the highest levels. Your original judgment was right. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Carstenson. Mr. CORNELL. I just have two observations to make. I notice that you mention that transportation for senior citizens is one of the critical problems. I like to keep underlining that fact that the administration wants to eliminate those funds from the budget. I am particularly concerned about transportation for the elderly in rural areas which I think is perhaps an even more critical problem than in our urban areas. Secondly, I have been surprised at the proposal to eliminate programs, and I know you mentioned the various programs, for employment of our senior citizens, such as the green thumb program. I receive a surprisingly large amount of mail expressing the hope that the green thumb program will not be abandoned as currently most of those who have been involved in it have been so notified. Mr. CARSTENSON. I want to say in my work with the Wisconsin Commission on Aging the need for transportation again reflected that it is extremely critical, especially in rural areas. As you say, what use is it to create nutrition programs and centers and social security offices and hospitals and all the things that you and Congress have created and want to create if older people can't get to them? That is where we are today. The other thing is that I just want to express appreciation to the Members of this committee, including the chairman and Congressman Quie and others who have steadfastly fought for the continuation of green thumb. It would not be in existence today if it had not been for a good, strong bipartisan support that it has had in Congress and in the communities across the country. Mr. CORNELL. Thank you. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, gentlemen. Our next witness is Mr. Robert J. Ahrens, director, of the mayor's office for senior citizens, the city of Chicago. I must now leave for a few minutes to preside on the House floor. Mr. Lehman will chair the hearing until I return. Mr. LEHMAN [presiding]. Mr. Ahrens, will you try to summarize your statement so that we will have more time for questions by the committee members, STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. AHRENS, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS Mr. AHRENS. Mr. Chairman and committee members. I think I can summarize at least page 1 by saying that I am pleased to be here. and Mayor Daley joins me in thanking this committee for the invaluable leadership given over the years in behalf of our senior citizens. I brought with me two documents which I would like to enter into the record. We accepted something like $3.6 million Federal grant in 1971 before a committee of Congress, not this one as it happens, and we said at that time when the money ran out we would report the results. It was to be used to establish in Chicago a model of comprehensive coordinated services. That model has been established. We are reporting on it to the Nation in a conference at the end of February at which your chairman will appear. The two documents which I have are a statement which was given to the finance committee of our city council last November and a current statement on the budget that was adopted in 1975. [The documents follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. AHRENS, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS, TO THE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE Staff members at the Mayor's Office for Senior Citizens work to plan and coordinate, and to put into action, a network of city-wide services and programs to meet the special needs of Chicago's elderly men and women. Our Community Education Division brings information to the public about the elderly; brings information to the elderly about services, in several languages; issues publications and stages special events, conferences and exhibits. Working with a citizen committee it also conducts the City of Chicago Hall of Fame which annually honors people for outstanding acitvities and accomplishments after the age of 62. The Division for Program Development is concerned with improved and new programs for the aged, especially in education, recreation, employment, retirement, training, housing, health, transportation, legislation, and social services. The Division staffs most of our Planning Council Program Committees related to these areas. It undertakes special studies on the aged, seeks to find solutions |