While HUD management criteria protects the brick and mortar by providing budget considerations for a full-time manager, engineer, and janitor in each project, little thought is given to human needs of the elderly, other than shelter. That is what HUD is doing, HUD's money, the brick and mortar. HEW may be at the same time providing some of the social services as provided by the Older Americans Act of 1945, as amended, but invariably on the other side of town inaccessible to the average elderly person who will not or cannot leave the security of his home.

Would it not be a great act of wisdom to wed the "brick and mortar" to the social services in the protective environment of the projects themselves? Is it not possible for HUD and HEW to live in the same Louse?

Traditionally, it has been sponsors who have had great interest in the human needs of the tenants who have produced successful projects, ot those who have excelled in architectural design. It seems only logical that we provide funds for programs; not just buildings. The most likely people to accommodate these needs are the people who care enough to build the buildings. In the two projects of which I am the president. I need a director of social service to meet the personal human needs more than budget and management seminars. We know Low to operate a business, but we are more interested in the people. There is before the Congress presently a bipartisan bill (H.R. 12876) ted as the "Older Americans Housing Act of 1972." Among the particulars of the bill is the provision for the appointment of an administrator who would be responsible for all existing sections 202 and 236 elderly housing projects as well as those to be built in the future. He would be responsible for the supervision and coordination of many other programs related to the elderly. While I strongly disagree, and I underscore that, while I strongly disagree with some parts of the bill, I do support the concept of a single administrator of elderly programs. He could operate within either HUD or HEW and should have a position at least at the assistant secretary level. His division should be separated from other federally subsidized housing projects and should be directed to wed the buildings with the programs. I think this is absolutely essential. Surely the 28 million Americans over 60 deserve this consideration.

Senator, you are a young man and you have a good political base. Your chairing the recent television program in America, having been in the Senate only 3 years, was a great honor to you and our State is proud of you. I think you have a great political future. I have heard some talk of the presidency.

Senator EAGLETON. That is my Aunt Hazel.

Reverend DOLLAR. But let me point this out to you, I predict that unless a comprehensive program is produced some energetic 60-yearold executive will retire, become bored with inactivity, and politically unify these elderly Americans. Their vote if unified could be the balance of power in any presidential election.

The next problem, the Federal bureaucracy someway, somehow must be trimmed.

The Federal Government has attempted to solve the problems of modern America with broad social legislation. A government responsive to social needs has given us the highest standard of living on

earth. Yet we are now encountering grave problems in the administration of these programs.

With each new program has come new agencies, new guidelines, and new administrators. The responsibility for supervision has been delegated to the various Cabinet officers. The departments have become so vast, budgets so huge, so complex, so inconceivably unwieldy that it is simply incomprehensible. Almost every inquiry receives the same response, "We don't know the answer. That is the responsibility of another department." I have heard this over and over and over and so have you.

This confusing maze of complex programs, complicated guidelines, and multiplicity of agencies has spawned a whole new profession of consultants. The H. R. Block Co. came into existence because people couldn't figure out their income tax. We spawned a new generation of consultants with the Federal programs. Their only purpose is to exploit the Federal bureaucracy by selling their knowledge of the programs and familiarity with the administrators to less informed but eligible sponsors. The Federal Government even allows their fees to be included in the project loans. I chose to personally coordinate our project rather than pay the traditional 1-percent fee which would have amounted to $27,000. I think this is absurd.

I should think that the great number of consultants would suggest that the programs need to be simplified. If these consulting services are necessary it would be a better solution for the Government to provide them for sponsors. I believe the savings would be considerable and the projects would more closely reflect actual needs. I happen to know that one of these consultants, unless he lied to me, was the primary author of H.R. 12876, introduced in the House of Representatives on February 2, 1972, by Representative Robert Stephens and Representative Ben Blackburn, both of Georgia. On Tuesday of this week the same bill was introduced by Senator David Gambrell of Georgia and it is the counterpart of the Senate bill.

These professional consultants, I think, have become, in fact, the actual initiators of hundreds of projects. They look for possible applications of a Federal program which would involve a consulting fee. Then potentially eligible sponsors of the projects are sought out. It just seems to me that the need for solutions to problems should be the motive for Federal projects, not the need of a consulting fee.

The Government should make known to the eligible sponsors available programs. They should be simplified to the point that the Government can work directly with the people sponsoring the projects. Some means must be found to cut through the vast layers of bureauc

racy.

I thank you, sir.

Senator EAGLETON. It is truly a dangerous thing to play favorites we have had so many excellent witnesses who have discussed various facets of these problems, but I don't think I will be hurting anyone else's feeling when I say that on the subject Reverend Dollar addressed himself to, the area of housing, I think it is one of the most intelligent, pointed statements I have heard on the subject. At times it is eloquent but it is not abusively so. At times he has some boldness. There are a lot of statistics. It is a remarkable speech, presentation. I will tell you what I will do, I will put it in my file and Monday I will place this

a the Congressional Record. I don't know how many Senators will bother to read it, but I hope lots of them do, because I think you point it extremely well some of the dilemmas we face in this labyrinth, his thing we call the Federal Government, and that one you underined there I smiled when you read it. Don't tell us that is in someody else's department. They don't only tell it to you but they tell it to Senators. I call them and say there is a certain situation we have out in Missouri; well, gee, I am sorry, that isn't in our department, I think I'd try Commerce. You call Commerce, well, it is sort of close to us but why don't you try the Labor Department.

Reverend DOLLAR. Even within the departments?

Senator EAGLETON. Oh, yes. One I know best is HEW, I am on that committee. That is the most confused labyrinth that I have ever dealt with. I don't have any angle on the answer. I think, Reverend, you Fill agree the complicated important problems do not lend themselves to taking a simple, sweet route to the solutions.

Reverend DOLLAR. I found part of the answer when I got to my section 236 project is that I called your office every day for 4 weeks and Mike Kelley walked across the street, down the street, to the HUD fice and talked with George Romney. And I harassed them until they inally did something. That was the only solution I could find.

Senator EAGLETON. You keep us on the ball and we, in turn, have to try to keep them on the ball to get you off our back.

You are a fine man, we appreciate it.

Reverend DOLLAR. Thank you, sir.

Senator EAGLETON. The next witness is Mrs. Martha Williams, director of area 5, Human Resources Corp.

Mr. Murphy will preside during this presentation.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARTHA WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, AREA 5, HUMAN RESOURCES CORP., ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY TOMLINSON

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Mr. Murphy, I would like to thank you for having the privilege of talking about the problems of the poor and the very

poor.

We have had many things that have been brought to our attention his morning, but none of them have reached the problem that we face. This problem is one of not having money and resources to do many of the things that you have heard here this morning. We have any Federal programs, many Federal dollars that are coming into Kansas City, but none are geared to the needs of poor people.

We have been researched and tantalized and you name it. But we haven't had money that has reached down to the people, and this is what they need.

We run the gamut of needs for transportation, health, nutrition, and recreation.

At the present time there are no programs, I would like to emphaSize, Federal or otherwise that are reaching poor people.

We have now, I think, in Congress, as you would know, and the Senite, a nutrition bill and bills for meals on wheels.

If these programs are going to be instituted by the regular orgaa.zations and agencies that they have been in the past, then the poor

people still are not going to be able to be a part of receiving even one balanced meal a day.

Mr. MURPHY. I might say, Mrs. Williams, in that connection this bill that we have talked about many times during the day today has lots of provisions. As each person comments on the bill, it is appropriate to mention another provision that has not been discussed before. This bill provides that in every State that projects operated for and on behalf of people of very low incomes, minority people, people who are non-English speaking, they have to be represented roughly in proportion to their numbers in the State. It is not an absolute-that is, if we have a Spanish-speaking population of 3 percent-3 percent of the money must go to the Spanish-speaking individuals. What it does mean is that the administrators of the program have to be certain that they are meeting the needs of everyone, and with particular reference to those who are most often excluded from such programs. We have tried to do something about that.

Second, it is provided that the employment in the programs, preference of employment, must be given to older people themselves. This is a program, not just for older people but by older people.

Mrs. WILLIAMS. We hope that this is true because from past experience we know that programs that have been geared to us and for us have not been able to run, we have not been able to manage, and we don't know what happens to the money.

Many of the programs that have been presented, you know, as far as we are concerned, have been on a paying basis, and we have people who are not receiving enough to pay $1 a day for a meal. So these people have to be taken care of.

Mr. MURPHY. Right.

Mrs. WILLIAMS. When I am talking about poor people I am talking about people who receive as little as $32 a month income and no other. So these people cannot go to nursing homes, they cannot go to hospitals.

Mr. MURPHY. Cen they go under medicaid?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Medicaid, I think, it would really be research here, and I will say throughout our State, and I am sure I am speaking for people nationally also, lacks very little in the way of medical care for indigent persons. Maybe somebody should go to general hospital and stand in line with people who are trying to receive service that are on medicaid.

Mr. MURPHY. Were there long lines, waiting lines?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. That's right. Not only that, they don't receive the type of care that would be consistent with just being taken care of for everyday prescription needs.

You know, it becomes a matter of us being able to determine, you know, what people need, and just because we are poor it doesn't mean that they don't need care. But this is what has happened to us many times.

Mr. MURPHY. How about poor people, older people who are poor, that live within the region in which you work who are on medicare. do they have problems in getting health care?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Certainly, this is what I am talking about.

Mr. MURPHY. I am thinking specifically of those who are eligible for medicare. Some may not be.

ཆ

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Well, this is true. Even if they would be eligible for medical care with, I guess, some other thing would help, sort of a rider attached to their medicare.

We have many homebound people right now that we are working with that are not able to leave their homes for many different reasons, and primarily it is income and no facilities to help them. We are trying to maintain a homemaker type service to keep these people in their homes because they cannot afford to go to the hospital and nursing homes.

Mr. MURPHY. I was wondering about that, and I was going to ask what are the home health services or homemaker or housekeeping services that are available here in Kansas City.

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Very inadequate. At the present time we are trying to get some type of funding for this particular thing in a joint venture. I don't know how that is coming out. But even if it is consummated, you know, tomorrow, it will not serve the needs of the people because it is only for a designated area and this will not take care of people who are past a certain boundary or for all over the city. We don't have poor people who are concentrated in just one area, they are all over the area.

Mr. MURPHY. We heard that testimony before the subcommittee in Washington and other places in the country, that it is much cheaper, of course, to provide home health services or homemaker service than to institutionalize someone. Has this been your experience?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. This is true because people don't have the money to go to a nursing home or transportation for a visit to a hospital. What small amount of care that we are able to give to them at least keeps them in their home, and this provides them some of the needs that they would not get, or otherwise, I guess, you know, if you are poor, you just lay there and die; you don't have any other means of getting help or care.

Mr. MURPHY. Are there other programs which your organization operates that are directed specifically to the needs and help for the poor?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. I might tell you about our programs. The program that I am involved in, which is an OEO program, does not provide direct service. Ours is a referral-type service. And we might do some direct services by virtue of need and we are working in an area where there are many, many people that are below poverty guidelines as the Government provides, but I don't think they were being realistic even when these guidelines were determined.

Mr. MURPHY. You say you operate a referral service. Do you mean that someone who is in need of health services you try to direct them? Mrs. WILLIAMS. That is right.

Mr. MURPHY. Or if they need help in their social security, you try to give assistance to them?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Whatever the problem is we try to help them. But in many cases, as I say, we are doing direct services because people have no other means. Transportation as you have heard here this morning is one of the greatest, I guess, inhibitions with the programs, and for people, you know, because I think that instead of being program oriented that we should be more people oriented and this is what our programs have not provided in the past and I think provision should

79-239 0 - 72-9