ting to the elderly, many people might think that community action has no or very little significance for the elderly.

It has great significance and can have even greater significance provided local Community Action Agencies request this type of financing which Boston has requested and received.

(b) Dayton, Ohio, has a senior citizens recreation project in a public housing project with 1,124 participating who are over 65. They are using a team approach-nurses, doctors, counselors, and recreation leaders for arts and crafts. Their services are also available to 40 older persons who do not reside in the housing project.

(c) In Chicago, a grant provides senior citizens centers where 3,500 persons over 60 years of age are offered adult education, trips, creative arts, health education, and counseling at a rate of $6 per beneficiary per month.

(d) In West Virginia, Monongalia County, the CAP there, Senator Randolph, has a grant to establish a recreation center in the basement of the city library, and five part-time centers in outlying areas specifically for the elderly.

(e) In New York City, the Economic Opportunity Committee of New York has a funded program, sponsored by the Federation of the Handicapped, called PATH (Personal Aides to the Handicapped) in which 250 older persons are participating.

Mr. Chairman, what I have just described to you are some of the specialized separate programs requested by communities and sponsored by the Office of Economic Opportunity specifically for the elderly poor.

There are many, many more of these specific programs within the umbrella of community action which do reach the elderly, but they are not under some simple title like say Headstart and, therefore, they are not as easy to dramatize, but the work that they do in our judgment is extremely important.

Our concept of the Community Action Programs is to provide a comprehensive set of assistance and benefits for all the poor regardless of age. The older poor, as well as the young, are participants and beneficiaries in such Community Action Programs as health services, homemaker services, food distribution, consumer information, legal services, social and recreational services, and adult basic literacy.

Many of these components when put together with their outreach efforts are the main elements of our multipurpose neighborhood center program of which we expect to have a total of 600 funded by June 30. We are assuring that the multipurpose neighborhood centers are giving consideration to the poor senior citizens who are especially in need of the centers' services.

A neighborhood center doesn't serve just young people or adults in the 30- to 40-year age group. It serves all the people in the community, including, of course, the senior citizens, so that those 600 centers all over America will be helping.

These also are financed through community action funds.

Finally, I think we ought to recognize the outstanding work done by older people who have become VISTA volunteers.

Of course, we must not forget that 12 percent of VISTA volunteers are age 65 or over. There are 350 VISTA volunteers over 65 years of age right now. This is a pioneering effort to utilize constructively the talents of older people. Some of the volunteers are-

(a) Edgar Slater, an 85-year-old man, teaching Crow Indians a comprehensive manual arts course.

(b) George Cottell, 71, working with the department of welfare in Hartford, Conn., assisting in job placement and providing encouragement to other elderly persons.

(c) Margery Dritea, 68, working in a State mental hospital in West Virginia helping patients through music.

(d) Mrs. Maurice Frink, 75, teaching preschool children at Fort Defiance, Ariz.

Now, let me share with you a perspective from which we view problems of the older poor American. While there is much that remains to be done for the poor senior citizen, our Nation is making a major effort in meeting the economic and social needs of the aged.

For example, in the fiscal 1967 budget presented to Congress, it is estimated that the Federal Government poverty expenditures as a whole, not just what we do in our agency, will total $21 billion. Of this amount, it is estimated that more than 40 percent will benefit persons over 65 years of age.

To give a sharper focus on this, let us look at 1964, the last year for which detailed data on the number of poor are available. In that year, the 5.4 million aged poor represented one-sixth of the total poor. While we do not have sufficient data to show how much of the Federal poverty dollar went to this group, it was at least twice their proportion of the poor population.

This was prior to the landmark enactment of Medicare and the OASDI and OAA increases of 1965. Further, in 1964, other poor groups' needs were even greater than those of the aged.

For example, the income deficit-the amount of income needed to reach the poverty level-of all families with children under 18 was 2 times that of all of the aged poor.

In other words, the income deficit for the aged poor was $2.7 billion, whereas the income deficit for all of the poor was $12 billion. In other words, for all the poor to get out of poverty, their income deficit was $12 billion.

Older people have special maintenance and assistance needs. Many older people are very poor. But, in our concern for all poor people, which is our responsibility, we must recognize the existence of competing needs relative to a limited supply of poverty dollars, certainly with respect to our agency.

While our Nation is doing a great deal for older Americans relative to other poor groups, much remains to be done. In order to bring all older people out of poverty by our minimum standards, we would have had to spend in calendar 1964 an estimated additional $2.7 billion. To bring all of our poor, as I said a minute ago, above the poverty income line, we would have had to spend nearly $12 billion a year, for the aged poor approximately $2.7 billion.

Congress has charged the Administration on Aging of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with the general responsibility for older Americans. We believe that the new Commissioner, Mr. William Bechill, and his staff are highly qualified.

I am confident the Congress will assure that this agency's authorization and appropriation will be adequate. We are cooperating with and supporting other agencies of the Government that have responsi

bilities for the aged, such as the Social Security Administration, the Welfare Administration, and the Public Health Service, to the best of our ability.

A final aspect of the perspective which must be considered is the fact that OEO has a primary mission of attacking the causes of poverty. We want to prevent poverty rather than merely treating poverty's symptoms. Prevention of poverty in the older years is much more difficult to achieve than prevention of poverty among the children.

This Administration has supported legislation to broaden the benefits of Social Security and we at OEO have encouraged full participation in the Medicare program. We even, as I testified back in January, urged that Social Security be improved as a way of helping the elderly. The Congress has already taken a first step by blanketing in people over 72 and making them eligible for benefits.

While the Congress has placed emphasis on youth type programs in the OEO legislation, such as Headstart, Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, and college work-study, the Congress has recognized that the OEO program is not just a youth program, but it must serve all who are poor.

In fact, the Smathers amendment has given specific legislative direction to include the elderly. Section 610 of the act reads:

It is the intention of Congress that whenever feasible the special problem of the elderly poor shall be considered in the development, conduct, and administration of programs under this Act.

A summary of all Community Action Programs reveals that we will spend approximately $50 million for programs that benefit the older Americans this fiscal year. These include 561 separate grants, employing about 19,000 older persons, and benefiting some 4.4 million. These figures include the Operation Medicare Alert program.

We consider this number of participants and beneficiaries, along with the dollar value of programs, to be a fair proportion considering the appalling magnitude of the needs for programs by the 32 million poor we are trying desperately to help with a mere budget of $1.5 billion for fiscal year 1966.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to interject a comment about our fiscal year 1967 program. The effect of the House Education and Labor Committee bill, which was reported out on May 17, is to reduce funding for the Community Action Programs by more than $100 million below the President's budget request.

The changes have a restrictive effect on the proposed fiscal year 1967 program for the aged. We proposed, for example, a modest $70 million for fiscal year 1967, which corresponds to the $50 million program provided in fiscal year 1966, but if we don't even have the $70 million we are not going to be able to do as much in 1967 as we have done in 1966.

In summary, we have developed specific projects designed to serve older persons. Our local CAA's have used their initiative and allotted their guideline funds for programs in many instances. Finally, most CAA's include those in later life in the entire gamut of program activities.

Now let me move to the third general area: the direction of our efforts for the next fiscal year.

We shall make every effort to include older persons in existing programs. We are reevaluating existing programs with this in mind. and we are studying new methods which will insure larger participation by older Americans.

We shall participate in a high-level conference at Notre Dame University in August, meeting with selected authorities in the field of aging, to further refine our long-range goals in this area.

By memos, surveys and on-site visits we shall assist CAA's in establishing meaningful and effective programs for older Americans to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with local initiative and available dollars.

We shall continue to make private and public agencies who also have responsibilities for the aged aware of the special problems faced by older Americans. We shall increase our efforts to make all of our staff at the local, regional, and Federal levels aware of the need to include older persons in a great variety of programs. We shall continue to work with other Federal agencies to alleviate the special conditions of older Americans which prevent them from having economic security and social support.

The President on April 8 asked the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to study the possibility of improving Social Security across the board, for the aged as well as other groups. We will continue to work with Health, Education, and Welfare, and other agencies which have primary responsibility for income maintenance (including Social Security), health, housing, and other programs which represent the bulk of the $26 billion the Federal Government will spend in Fiscal year 1967 for the aged.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned for older Americans in poverty. We are aware of the problems and special needs of this age group. We shall do all that we can within the perspective of our orientation and the dollar limitation imposed upon us.

The greatest assistance for the elderly must come from the primary mission agencies, especially those providing income maintenance. Only when we restore the dignity of sufficient income will the aged poor begin to rejoin the community. The local Community Action Agency may help them in this process through health centers, legal aid, neighborhood centers, and other components of Community Action Programs.

Thus, money income is part of a broader strategy to help the aged rejoin the community. We, therefore, will certainly support these agencies in developing their programs to serve older poor Americans, and we shall make every effort to integrate this special age group into the total efforts of the War on Poverty.

We will do everything that we know how to do within the limits of the moneys that are available to us in this coming Fiscal year.

I can't conclude, however, without saying that the bulk of the work that has to be done for the elderly I am afraid will have to be done by other agencies as long as we have as little money as we have to meet the needs of all the poor.

Income maintenance is, let us say, objective No. 1. The services through our multipurpose centers of health services, legal aid, and other components of community action will be helpful, but money, income, is a much more important part of the broader strategy to help the aged.

We, therefore, support all these other agencies which are testifying before you now and will testify in the future and we hope that we will be able to offer constructive assistance to them in bringing new hope to the aged poor in our Nation.

Thank you very much.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Shriver, I want to thank you for an extremely comprehensive presentation, as always.

I would first of all like to discuss with you some of the administrative and institutional problems which are presented by the program and then review briefly some of the things which have been outlined in your testimony.

One of the recommendations made by the Special Committee on Aging is that the OEO, by administrative action, establish a better priority system by appointing an individual in OEO who would have complete responsibility for the aging programs.

What would be your reaction to such a recommendation made by the Aging Committee?

Mr. SHRIVER. We favor that recommendation, Senator Kennedy. We, in fact, have requested a number of people to take on that responsibility for us and we have had a little difficulty from time to time, but I am happy to say that Dan Schulder, who is up in the State of New Jersey and who has proved to be very effective in that State working in the antipoverty program, has accepted our invitation and is coming down to do exactly that at OEO. He starts, in fact, next month.

Senator KENNEDY. What would be his access to the Director of the ОЕО?

Mr. SHRIVER. He would be a part of the community action operation in OEO; the Director of Community Action is himself a Presidential appointment, so the line of command would be to the Director of Community Action and from that man to the Director of OEO. Senator KENNEDY. He will be under the Director of Community Action?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is correct. He would be within Community Action where most of the work that we do with respect to the elderly is concentrated.

For example, Medicare Alert was in Community Action. Medicare Alert was carried out by 460, I think it was, 467, Community Action Agencies across the country.

It is a vehicle for doing a great many things. For example, our legal service programs, Headstart, Upward Bound, and all of those work out of the Community Action operation.

Senator KENNEDY. The recommendation that would come from the committee would be for an Assistant Director. I would observe from your comment that the person who would assume that responsibility would not have that title, or would he?

Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir; the Assistant Directors of OEO are like Mr. Bookbinder. We try to keep the assistant directors of operational units in the operational units, and the staff personnel like the general counsel or public affairs or Mr. Bookbinder's office at the staff level. Let me give you an idea of what I mean. The people who are interested in the rural problem would like to have somebody who is a specialist in rural affairs report directly to the Director of ÓEO. The