ing. The Council proposes that the factor of "the population age 60 or over who are living in poor households" should be added to the factor of the number of state residents age 60 or over in all the present state allotment formulae in the Older Americans Act. The Council concluded that the most simple and accurate single indicator of vulnerability among the elderly is poverty and the best statistical tool is the classification "living in poor households" which is the way the Census Bureau collects information. The concept behind this formulation was that since resources are limited, allotments should be oriented in greater degree to those in the over 60 population who are most vulnerable and most disadvantaged. The Council also devoted its attention to the question of what ought to be done to provide adequate funding of state administrative costs. The Council agreed that ideally a percentage minimum would be preferable to a dollar minimum but, since the amount to which the minimum is to be applied is limited, it was felt that for the present a dollar minimum was necessary. Accordingly the Council recommended that in Fiscal Year 1976 a dollar minimum for each state be set at $200,000 and for the territories $62,500. The Council also recommended that in Fiscal Year 1976 no state should receive less than a 10 percent increase over its Fiscal Year 1975 funding level and that in each succeeding year of the period for which the authorization of the Act is extended the dollar minimum and the total funding in Section 306 should increase by at least 10 percent. These recommendations reflect the question frequently raised by state units on aging about inadequate administrative funds. Many states feel they are not provided with sufficient resources to administer both Title III and Title VII programs on their present Title III monies. In addition, this eliminates the situation whereby states have remained at a constant minimum. The 10 percent increases are intended to offset the impact of inflation.

The response of the states to these recommendations was mixed. In general the larger states seemed to be satisfied with the present allotment formula which is based upon 60+ population alone. Some of the smaller states and those with greater levels of poverty preferred the recommendation of the Council. Some other factors were suggested including the level of state effort and the geographic distribution within the state. It was not found feasible to include these factors into a readily calculated formula. Congress now has before it the recommendations of the Council and its action will presumably depend upon the degree to which it is felt that an emphasis upon vulnerability is necessary and desirable. Upon the question of administrative costs there was general agreement. The states generally, including the National Association of State Units on Aging, greeted the recommendation with favor and felt that an increase in the minimum level to $200,000 with a provision for periodic increases in each succeeding year was highly desirable. We hope that Congress will give thorough consideration to the Councils study.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. I have just three quick questions and yours was a very thoughtful statement.

One, in respect of increased funds for State agencies' administrative costs, the Federal Council report recommends increasing those funds, I understand.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. BRADEMAS. And the latest figures I have seen show an average of over 20 staff persons per State agency. That is not very large by Federal bureaucratic standards, but it is significantly more than in the past. Of course, there are administrative staff and expenses at the area levels.

I am wondering what you would consider to be adequate for a State agency staff.

Mr. MARTIN. The Council recommended after a careful study that it be raised to $200,000 minimum. We believe that that would alleviate much of the difficulty at the present time and that it be increased by a 10 percent factor in the 2 succeeding years after the first, after the amount is first established.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Second, Mr. Martin, what do you say to the dispute with respect to the future course of the voluntary programs presently

administered by ACTION? Should they be, in your view, brought back to the AOA or left where they are?

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, we are not unhappy by the way the program has been developed in the ACTION agency. We think that the people who have been working on the program have done a good job in that regard. We think that the point made yesterday is a valid one, that the Administration on Aging has a primary concern with the elderly and that the ACTION agency has a primary concern with the poor, so that we think that should be taken into account.

We have not taken a formal position on the question of return of the agency. However, if it is returned to the Administration on Aging, we have a strong feeling that Federal supervision ought to be continued in the foster grandparents program much as it exists in the title IX program, that is, that this is a national program and should not be decentralized.

RSVP, we think, could be decentralized in due course. Initially, if programs are returned to AOA, we would like to see them handled on a national basis for the time being.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Finally, what have you to say with respect to the need for closer coordination of title III and title VII? I heard a comment that it is difficult for some of the AAA's to build the nutrition programs into their area plans because the nutrition projects are often funded through a separate mechanism.

Mr. MARTIN. I always believed title VII ought to be coordinated as a part of the title III program and developed that way. There is a historical background to it. We were faced with the fact that Senator Kennedy felt very strongly that it should be kept separate and prevailed upon the committees to provide that it should be kept separate in the act, so that that was something we had to live with. But I really believe that the program should be handled as a total program.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, I would just make an editorial comment. I have grave reservations about what you just said for reasons not dissimilar from those emerging from our earlier discussions of the implementation of title IX. I am very apprehensive about the real world implications whenever we move toward what may be called general revenuesharing types of approaches. Because somehow with respect to CETA, as we already heard, the older workers get lost somewhere along the

way.

I have the same apprehension with respect to the possible implications of a total program approach that would fold the nutrition program into it. But I am grateful for your observations, nonetheless. Mr. Cornell.

Mr. CORNELL. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

I notice that the administration has no funding for the title IV for training personnel and I understand the reason for it, they think they should not train personnel to deal with the elderly. Do you think it is true?

Mr. MARTIN. No; I think it is very unfortunate the administration proposed to eliminate the training funds. There is a great deal of training that needs to be done. I think the existence of those funds. has provided a substantial working force in the country now with real training in the field of gerontology and the jobs that need to be done in the aging field.

I think it is very unfortunate to eliminate that and to just assume that somehow that training will get done some other way.

Mr. CORNELL. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. No questions.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I suppose I ought to put one waspish rhetorical question to you as we conclude. How would you like to be Commissioner of Aging again and defending its budget?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't know that that requires an answer.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, on that note, I want to express our appreciation to you and the Chair again wants to say that he is apologetic about the fact we had uneven time to give to our many distinguished witnesses. As I observed earlier, we have had so many good witnesses and such splendid participation on the part of our subcommittee members that we are going to have to work out new techniques for hearing witnesses.

But I am very grateful to you, Mr. Martin and Mr. Ossofsky and Mr. Hutton, for having come today and, as I have said with respect to some other witnesses, I hope you will be willing to respond to any questions that we may wish to put to you in writing.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much and the subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 6, 1975.

Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS,

Chairman, House Select Education Subcommittee.

DEAR JOHN: Because your subcommittee is considering the Older Americans Act extention and amendments to that Act later this week, I am forwarding to you a copy of a bill I am introducing today to amend Title III of the Act, along with an explanatory floor statement.

I introduced the Older Americans Home Repair Assistance Act for the first time in August 1974. After its introduction, I wrote to all the state agencies on aging and to other interested organizations for their comments. Building upon the excellent suggestions submitted by many of the agencies, the bill has been revised for introduction today. I have enclosed many of the letters I have received describing the need among low-income older people for the kind of home repair assistance proposed in this bill and about home repair project experience in several states.

One of the major changes that have been made in the bill is the placement of the home repair program in Title III as a national home repair model projects program, with expectations of its substantial expansion after an initial two-year trial period. Another change was made to include the provision of both supplies and labor to the homeowner-a change which many states felt was essential to the program's success in reaching those older homeowners truly in need.

The bill authorizes $25 million for a two-year period to be spent on home repair projects. After informal discussions with officials at the Administration on Aging, we arrived at the following tentative estimates with respect to costs for the program:

Cost of labor/materials for 10,000 homes (average cost per home=
$1,500).

Federal administrative costs (salaries & expenses) –
State, local administrative costs___

Subtotal

Workers' compensation and possible underestimates in other areas__

$15, 000, 000 1,250,000 3, 000, 000

19,250,000

5,750,000

Although the introduction of this bill does come late in your considerations of the Oder Americans Act, I hope that you will be able to review the bill and the supporting data I have enclosed and consider it for inclusion in the Subcommittee draft bill. I would also like to request that the materials that I am hereby submitting be placed in the Subcommittee Record of the Older Americans Act Extension.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures.

JOHN F. SEIBERLING.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. SEIBERLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

THE OLDER AMERICANS HOME REPAIR ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Older Americans Home Repair Assistance Act. The purpose of this proposal is twofold: It would help to counter the rapidly rising costs of home maintenance for approximately one-fourth of our older citizens who would be eligible to receive home repair assistance,

and at the same time it would authorize home repair and maintenance jobs as a means for increasing employment opportunities for older Americans.

The bill-an amendment to Title III of the Older Americans Act—would authorize $25 million over a two-year period for a national system of home repair model projects. The Commissioner of Aging would make grants to State units on Aging for up to five projects in each qualifying state, repairing or renovating at least 10,000 substandard homes across the nation.

This is admittedly a very small scale effort. The program I propose is designed to give each state valuable experience in administering home repair projects and to assist some of the neediest older homeowners. The Nutrition for the Elderly program was begun on a similarly limited basis: at its inception it served about 3,200 meals a day and is now serving 220,000 daily. Hopefully after two years the home repair program might be well-established and allowed to expand in the same way the nutrition program did.

I would mention that results I have received from several home repair projects indicate that the 10,000 figure could be stretched much further in communities desiring to coordinate the repair projects with local resources such as Com munity Action Agencies, Community Development funds, Departments of Welfare and other existing programs.

An excellent example of this is the State of West Virginia which has supported home repair projects using various federal, state, and local funding. At the end of this statement I will insert a recent letter from Dr. Louis Gerrard, Director of the West Virginia Commission on Aging, detailing these projects, along with correspondence from several other states with home repair experience. Today older homeowners comprise about 70 percent of the older population. Upon retirement, when many older Americans face substantial cuts in income, the high costs of repair and maintenance can easily overwhelm the older homeowner. The costs of home maintenance and repair are outdistancing even the skyrocketing rate of inflation: over the last 5 years, home repair costs rose 53.9% compared to inflation's $38.3% rise a 15.5% difference.

Unfortunately, federal grant and loan programs are not meeting the needs of older homeowners who wish to remain in their homes. Not one national program repair grants is now in progress, and a rural home repair grant program (Section 504, authorized through the Farmers' Home Administration), which could be of great assistance to the rural low-income elderly, has been stymied for over a decade because available funds have been deleted from appropriations legislation.

Loan programs give little addition assistance. Living on a fixed or shrinking income, the low-income elderly cannot realistically be expected to apply for conventional loans. There are no low-interest loan programs aimed to meet the special housing and economic needs of the elderly. The older homeowner is caught in a dilemma: he-and more often she cannot afford to improve his property, but can ill-afford to live in it without repair.

The proposal I am offering today would provide a way out of this dilemma. This new program would supply materials for the repair project as well as labor for repairs involving insulation, carpentry, masonry, roofing, plumbing, and electrical work. To the extent that it would cover the supply of materials, the program's coverage is broader than the one I introduced last year. The addition of materials was a result of comments received from many older persons who indicated that their financial resources were so restricted that, unless materials were included, they could not use this program.

Assistance in insulation-or retrofitting-can also save older people substantial amounts on their winter heating bills. And I would emphasize the importance of the Administration's plan for a $55 million retrofitting project in FY 1976 for the poor and elderly poor, to be administered through the Federal Energy Administration. My proposed program will, if enacted, necessarily reach a limited number of people at its inception. However, in conjunction with the FEA project, substantial energy conservation services could be delivered to the low-income older population until the Older Americans Home Repair Program is expanded. The bill I introduce today also recognizes the growing unemployment of older workers, and encourages their employment when not in conflict with state and local building codes. Currently 600,000 older workers age 55 and over are unemployed, and countless more-although not officially listed as unemployed-have been squeezed out of the job market because of their age. The creation of this home repair program would be an important step in furthering the opportunities of older workers to pursue continued or second careers on a part time basis as a meaningful alternative to unemployment.