Page images
PDF
EPUB

Answer. (a) As of June 30, 1974, there were 22 grants for local projects that were made to State Agencies on Aging. This represents 2.6% of all Older Americans Volunteer Program grants or 5% of the grant funds expended. In addition, in the spring of 1972, two-year RSVP development grants were made to 48 State Agencies on Aging, totaling $3,400,000.

(b) RSVP is primarily a local program and is limited in geographic size because of the availability of transportation and other services and because of the nature of potential local funding sources. Though ACTION has found it administratively advantageous to fund some projects through State Agencies on Aging, most sponsors are either local organizations or city, county or regional governmental units.

(c) There have been no studies funded by ACTION which recommend that RSVP be administered by State Agencies on Aging.

A previous RSVP study funded by the Administration on Aging offers as one alternative funding through State agencies on aging.

A study of RSVP prepared by E. F. Shelly and Company in December 1973 indicates that more than half of the State RSVP Resource Specialists favored community organizations and multipurpose senior agencies as sponsors. Service and volunteer agencies were least often mentioned by this group as the best type. The responses of most State Executives on Aging, on the other hand, did not identify any particular type of organization as best qualified to operate a local RSVP. Two State Executives declined to express and opinion.

Question 7. Up until July, 1974, I understand that State Agencies on Aging, with grants provided by ACTION, helped develop, provide technical assistance to, and monitor RSVP projects.

(a) Why were these grants not continued?

(b) To what extent have ACTION Regional and State staff assumed the responsibilities for assisting and monitoring RSVP projects?

Answers. (a) The RSVP development grants to State Agencies on Aging were made for a limited two-year period to help ACTION rapidly develop new projects when the RSVP appropriation was increased from 0.5 to 15 million in FY 1972. These awards were made under the "development" authority provided in the legislation. ACTION has legislative authority to make RSVP project grants. It does not have legislative authority to fund to State Agencies on aging to provide technical assistance or monitor RSVP projects. ACTION has an agreement with the Administration on Aging in which the Administration on Aging encourages State and Area Agencies on Aging to utilize staff resources to assist in the support of OAVP programs. (b) ACTION Regional and State staff have full responsibility for providing technical assistance to communities seeking ACTION resources, and to project sponsors and staff. Training is also provided to project sponsors and directors through regional conferences. ACTION staff participate in project recognition ceremonies to honor volunteers. Monitoring of projects is accomplished through staff visits to assess program and operational effectiveness. Question 8. The legislation also states that State Agencies on Aging are to be given at least 45 days in the case of RSVP, and 60 days in the case of the Foster Grandparent program, to review and make recommendations on project applications.

(a) To what extent were comments obtained from State Agencies on the new and continuation projects funded in FY 1974?

(b) Did your office agree with and follow the recommendations given by States?

Answer. (a) Regions submit all new and most continuation grant applications to the appropriate State Agency on Aging for review and comment.

A closer working relationship is being developed through arriving at a written Memorandum of Understanding (or Agreement) between the State Agency on Aging and the ACTION State Office. Ten Memoranda have been completed thus far. More are being negotiated.

(b) The recommendations of the State Agencies on Aging are generally adopted; if not they are discussed with the state agency. Comments are usually received for all new grant applications; not so often for continuation grant applications.

Question 9. Can you tell us specifically how you coordinated with the Administration on Aging and the State Agencies on Aging in the deevlopment of your recently issued Program Operations Handbook for RSVP Projects?

Answer. The RSVP Operations Handbook for Sponsors is a compilation of currently operative regulations, policies, guidelines and operational procedures.

In that there were no substantive policy changes made in the preparation of the handbook, it did not merit coordination with the Administration on Aging or the State Agencies on Aging.

Question 10. Can you tell us what percentage of your total domestic budget is spent on Older Americans Volunteer programs?

Answer. 45.3%.

Question 11. In the long run, would you like to see all ACTION volunteers, lose their identity as Peace Corps Volunteers, RSVP volunteers, or Foster Grandparents and become known as ACTION volunteers?

Answer. No. Identity is important. Morale and esprit d'corps is of the greatest value. ACTION has not, nor does it intend, to adopt any policy wherein longestablished, successful major programs on the order of VISTA, the Peace Corps, and the Foster Grandparents and Retired Senior Volunteer Programs would lose its identity. The history of the Retired Senior Volunteer Programs and Foster Grandparent Programs-including their growth record under their respective identities-under ACTION aegis demonstrates concern about following program identity. The Agency's latest major initiative responsive to the needs of the elderly, the Senior Companions Program, was provided with a unique identity within ACTION's older Americans program framework.

Question 12. It is my understanding that present ACTION goals formally commit the agency to helping "the poor overcome the handicap of poverty." Of course, this is an admirable goal. However, it seems that it might conflict with the goals and purpose of RSVP. Can you comment on this potential conflict?

Answer. The purpose of RSVP is to create meaningful opportunities for persons of retirement age to participate more fully in the life of their communities through volunteer service. There is no conflict between that purpose and the goal of ACTION which are basically to mobilize volunteers, support local programs using volunteers, increase participation in anti-poverty and other community improvement projects, stimulate interest in community problem solving, increase the relevance of volunteer activities, and to create and stimulate new approaches to volunteerism.

We are proud of ACTION's anti-poverty orientation, but it is not an exclusive focus. RSVP is structured to provide a great variety of service opportunities to match the interests and preferences of Senior Volunteers. This often includes activities that benefit low income Americans. In fact, many RSVP volunteers are also in the low income category themselves.

Question 13. To what extent do you maintain a separate program identity for the Foster Grandparents and RSVP programs, in relation to all other ACTION programs, and in relation to each other?

Answer. A separate grant is made for each. The Notice of Grant Award identifies them distinctly. They have separate project directors. There are separate recruitment procedures, recognition activities, including lapel pins, award certificates, program brochures and banners. There is no effort or intent to deny the individual projects separate program identity.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The next witness is Miss Janet Sainer.

STATEMENT OF JANET S. SAINER, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, AGING COMMUNITY SERVICES SOCIETY OF NEW YORK

Miss SAINER. I am Janet Sainer, director of programs for the aging of the Community Services Society of New York. CSS is a voluntary, nonsectarian social agency dedicated since 1848 to the strengthening and betterment of family and community life.

Today I am speaking to you not only as a professional who has a longstanding affiliation with the field of aging, but also as a representative of the committee on aging of Community Services Society which is a prominent citizens' committee particularly concerned with the well being of the elderly. We have testified over the years about the importance of expanding services and opportunities for older men and women. We reiterate that conviction today as we express our appreciation to your committee and to Congress for the legislative ad

vances that have been made over the past number of years in behalf of the elderly.

The impact of the Older Americans Act is being felt throughout the length and breadth of the land and the response from the elderly for additional services is certainly evidence of the need for increased appropriations for all the titles included in this significant piece of legislation.

The 1971 White House Conference on Aging highlighted the importance of providing a variety of options for the elderly in their retirement years. Although we have been strong advocates for older persons to serve their communities through volunteer service, we have also been advocates for increased employment opportunities for the elderly. We reiterate these positions today and respectfully urge that the parttime employment programs now being conducted by the AARP, American Association of Retired Persons, the NCOA, the National Council on the Aging, the National Council of Senior Citizens, Green Thumb, as well as the foster grandparents and the senior companion programs of ACTION, be expanded."

Community Service Society has been the sponsoring agency for many programs for the aging over the past number of years and it is as a result of this experience that we make our comments today. Our first and perhaps best known project was funded in 1967 by the Administration on Aging as a title IV, research and demonstration grant and was known as Project SERVE. SERVE, serve and enrich retirement by volunteer experience, was based on the premise that older persons needed to develop new roles in their retirement and that one important way of accomplishing this was through volunteer service to their community.

We believed that this involvement and subsequent contribution would help to enhance not only the self-esteem of the elderly and their status in the community, but that it would help dispel the stereotyped attitudes the community had developed toward older persons. We hoped that as the elderly benefited from the giving of volunteer service, so too, would the agencies and the communities where they served. We also believed we would demonstrate that older persons need not be put on the shelf once they reached that magic age of 60.

The data gleaned from the SERVE research and demonstration project validated these theories. We were indeed pleased and proud that Congress saw fit, some 212 years after the initiation of the SERVE project, to enact legislation, cosponsored by your chairman, Congressman Brademas, to establish the retired senior volunteer program (RSVP).

The RSVP legislation, which was modeled on SERVE, became title VI, part A of the Older Americans Act as amended in 1969. Not only was the intent of the legislation in concert with the broad recommendations and goals of the SERVE program, but it was also specifically responsive to the seventh objective of the Older Americans Act, that is, the "Pursuit of meaningful activity within the widest range of civic, cultural and recreational opportunities."

In January of 1971, Congress appropriated the first funds for RSVP, and the Administration on Aging staff developed the original program design, regulations, and policies for RSVP. By June of 1971, the first local RSVP programs were funded by the Administration on Aging.

48-087-75-19

Shortly thereafter, under the Nixon reorganization plan, ACTION was established, by Executive order, as an independent agency to serve as an umbrella for some of the Federal programs that had special interest in dealing with the problems of poverty, notably VISTA and Peace Corps. Since ACTION was designated as the new Federal volunteer agency, RSVP, the new Older volunteer program, was transferred to it from AOA even though most of ACTION's programs were quasi-employment programs.

Congress 22 years later enacted authorizing legislation for ACTION through its Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 and at that time transferred the legislative authority for RSVP from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to ACTION.

It is interesting to note that during the first 2 years of ACTION's operation of RSVP programs, efforts were made to develop linkages with aging programs. Liaisons were developed by ACTION with State offices on aging, and 2-year development grants were awarded to each State agency. This enabled them to hire full-time staff whose sole responsibility was to assist local communities in developing RSVP programs.

During this 2-year period, there was phenomenal growth in RSVP. with the number of local programs growing to almost 600. It was evident that had the State offices on aging not participated in this development and utilized both their own expertise and that of the existing network of services to the aging, the number of local RSVP programs and the number of older persons involved would be significantly fewer today.

Because of CSS's experience in developing the SERVE demonstration project and subsequently SERVE in New York State, which was a title III AOA project, CSS was asked by ACTION to conduct a 2year national training program for State RSVP personnel, so that the concepts developed in SERVE and embodied in the RSVP legislation could be developed and put into practice across the Nation. CSS also worked with national RSVP staff in some of their training of local RSVP directors.

As our experience was utilized on the national level, CSS continued its support and sponsorship of SERVE, and ACTION awarded a grant to CSS as the local sponsor for RSVP in New York City. This is now the largest single program of older voluteers in the Nation, with over 3,100 active older volunteers.

Mr. Chairman, I could speak at great length about the heart warming experiences that RSVP volunteers have had in giving service to their communities, and the satisfaction and meaning RSVP has for them, but time does not permit. It is from the vantage point, however, of being deeply committed to the RSVP program and actively involved in its development both nationally and locally, that we express some of our current concerns to you.

We see a distinct and growing disassociation of RSVP from the local and State networks of services for the aging since the termination of the RSVP development grants to State offices on aging last year. Thus, the RSVP expertise that had been developed in every State office on aging is no longer available to local communities, and the formal relationships between ACTION and the local State offices is severed. In addition, many of the local RSVP's have lost a focal point

of contract with the State agencies on aging since the disappearance of full-time State office staff for RSVP.

Thus, while a comprehensive network of services for the elderly was being developed by the Administration on Aging in communities across the Nation, we found RSVP on the outside, rather than an integral part of it. We believe that the vast potential that RSVP has can best be developed if it were once again in the agency which gives primary emphasis to the aging-the Administration on Aging.

Moreover, we believe that the primary goals of ACTION and the primary goals of RSVP are not similar and cannot be met simultancously. ACTION's major emphasis is to address the problems of poverty. The primary focus of RSVP is to develop new roles for the elderly and to better serve their needs by enabling them to apply their talents, interests, and energies to volunteer service in their local communities. Since the goals of ACTION as an agency are and must be primary to its operation, it therefore follows that RSVP would of necessity have to assume a lesser priority if RSVP remains in ACTION. The attempt to fit RSVP into the objectives of ACTION is like attempting to fit square pegs into round holes.

Thus, you can see our concern with the fact that ACTION has made program integration a major thrust in meeting their goals. Implicit in this policy is the deemphasis of the unique qualities, special objectives, and individual visibility of each of ACTION's components. As a result, each program is subordinate to the overall agency purpose.

One of the major problems which results from the placement of RSVP in ACTION is the confusion which is created by having entirely different types of voluteers in one agency. If we examine their purposes closely, we will find three major categories:

1. Individuals who give full-time community service and receive stipends and living expenses.

2. Low-income persons employed half time to supplement their income.

3. RSVP older volunteers who are unpaid and who serve weekly or biweekly in community agencies of their choice.

The directive to integrate all of ACTION's programs has resulted in additional problems in that older persons, agency personnel and the community at large are confused about what is really meant by a volunteer. It has also resulted in the absence of a national identity for RSVP, no specialized RSVP staff of the State, regional and national levels, and no specially designated RSVP director with sole responsibility for this program even though it is by far the largest program in ACTION.

The findings of SERVE and the experience of the State RSVP personnel and many local directors is that in order to truly replace lost roles for the elderly, we must provide additional identification and status for them. This is particularly important in their later stage of life when lifetime affiliations are decreasing, and a sense of isolation and aloneness is increasing. Thus, the older person is the loser as a result of the program integration concept. The impression that is prevalent in the larger community is that RSVP is a stepchild in the total ACTION family.

Our comments are not meant to imply criticism of ACTION's goals as an agency; rather we question the appropriateness of placing

« PreviousContinue »