VI Secretary Elliot L. Richardson announced that the Administration would seek $39.5 million for AoA rather than $29.5 million. This increase, while welcome, would have been only 38 percent of the $105 million authorized for AoA by Congress. Fortunately, Congress saw the need for additional appropriations. The late Senator Winston Prouty joined me in a bipartisan effort to raise the funding levels, as did other members of the two Committees. Members of the Appropriations Committee in both Houses were receptive, and the final AoA appropriation was for $44.75 million: the highest level yet for the Older Americans Act. In addition, Senator Charles Percy, a member of the Senate Committee on Aging, led a successful effort for H.E.W. reversal of its decision to discontinue twenty-one vitally-needed nutrition projects for the elderly. Such victories may be gratifying, but they do not resolve two fundamental questions: If the Administration on Aging does not now live up to original expectations, shall it simply be renewed or suspended when its present authority expires on June 30, 1972; or should it be replaced by an entirely new, and much more powerful agency or agencies? To help the Senate Committee on Aging develop a broad base of informed opinion on that subject, I appointed an Advisory Council on the Administration on Aging or a Successor. It was an unusual step, but, I believe, well-warranted. Congressional committees should have access to information and viewpoints from all sources before seeking action on major issues especially on matters that call for experienced evaluation and innovation. The Advisory Council has responded with enthusiasm; members met for two days in July and appointed a subcommittee to complete preparation of the report which follows. To Dr. Harold Sheppardwhom the Council elected as its Chairman-I am especially grateful for his hard work and leadership role in bringing this report to completion in such a short time. I also wish to thank the full membership: Walter M. Beattie, Jr., Dean, Dr. Wilma Donahue, White House Schools of Social Work, Syracuse University William D. Bechill, Chairman, So- Dr. Blue Carstenson, Director, Mr. Charles H. Chaskes, Execu- Nelson H. Cruikshank, President, Conference on Aging Staff and former Director, Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan Mr. William C. Fitch, Executive Director, National Council on the Aging Mrs. James H. Harger, former Director, N.J. Division on Aging and former President National Association of State Units on Aging William C. Hudelson, Director, Division of Services & Programs for Aging, Prince George's County Department of Community Development, Md. VII Margaret Schweinhaut, Chairman, Maryland Commission on Aging J. R. Jones, Director, Office of Mrs. Mr. Garson Meyer, Chairman of Dr. Woodrow W. Morris, Insti- Mr. Bernard E. Nash, Executive Dr. Harold Sheppard, Staff So- Clarence M. Tarr, Vice-President, Bernard S. Van Rensselaer, Direc- Mrs. Kay Pell, Director, Idaho Department of Special Services Thanks to the Advisory Council, the Committee on Aging now has before it a proposal reflecting the best thinking of a distinguished group of persons representing many viewpoints and many disciplines in the field of aging. This report will be helpful to us as we prepare to make our own recommendations after considering the proposals to be made at the White House Conference on Aging during the week of November 28. It is to be hoped that the Administration will soon make it's own recommendations in this area. For that reason, I welcomed the news that Secretary Richardson appointed a Task Force shortly after I announced that I would take similar action. With such interest from many quarters, we can hope that 1972a year of decision on many crucial issues related to aging and the aged in the United States-will also bring positive action on a matter which has stirred debate and experimentation for decades: establishment of a Federal unit, or units, capable of developing coherent policy and actions on behalf of 20 million persons now aged 65 or over, and all those yet to come. FRANK CHURCH, Chairman. Key concepts underlying the Older Americans Act_. A fundamental issue: Sub- or Supra-HEW?__ Part II. Pros and cons of specific proposals---- A. Office on Aging in HEW, headed by an Assistant Secretary__- E. Establish a White House on Aging Advisory Committee-to be located in the Executive Office and directly responsible to the President-to report on the follow-up and the action needed to implement the recommendations urged at the White House Conference on Aging----- F. Executive Office on Aging within the Executive Office of the President, Operation of grant programs under the Older Americans Act would remain with AOA---. Appendix 2-Text of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended__. THE ADMINISTRATION ON AGING OR A SUCCESSOR? A Report by an Advisory Council* to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Agin Americans of all ages-and particularly older Americans and thei families, their communities, their states-have a stake in finding a answer to the following question: How shall the Federal governmen organize the most effective and most realistic administrative and pro gram structure to help resolve problems affecting older American and to help them achieve lives of fulfillment rather than denial? This question must be answered because the United States canno afford a half-hearted commitment on aging. A social revolution_re lated to aging and to retirement patterns has begun in this nation. Bu we have not yet resolved or even begun to understand vital questions related to the role of the elderly in American society and vital ques tions related to retirement income, health costs and services, meaning ful uses of time, including leisure, and much more. We are now paying great social, psychological, and economic costs for our failure to dea with such questions. We will pay even more unless the government organizes far more efficiently than it has thus far in the field of aging Six years ago, in an effort to answer the question expressed above the Congress enacted the Older Americans Act. It offered several striking features: a Federal-State relationship which has led to the establishment of units on aging in every State of the Union, a strong Congressional directive that this unit serve as a focal point on all Federal activities related to aging, including those outside of its parent department (the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare); and a clear mandate to develop demonstration and manpower training programs that would help cope with new social demands that are emerging with the growth of the so-called "retirement generation." The Older Americans Act-by establishing the U.S. Administration on Aging and by declaring that the nation must meet 10 farreaching objectives on behalf of aged and aging Americans-was the culmination of years of debate and gradual evolution of concepts. But from the very beginning in 1965 the AoA ran into difficulties: -Its Congressional sponsors regarded it as a questionable compromise which-instead of providing a high-level agency at the White House level-established instead a sub-unit within an existing department. How, then, could other departments be called upon to work together to develop and implement a national policy on aging? -Opposition to the very concept of an Administration on Aging had been expressed by high-ranking officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. How, then, could the AoA have an impact, or "clout" even with its own Department? -Funding levels for the AoA have been so low and time-limited See Preface by Senator Frank Church for Advisory Council membership and descrip tion of assignment. (1) 2 that-in a city where prestige and power are so often defined in terms of budget-this fledgling agency has attracted the interest and respect of very few persons within the Federal bureaucracy and within its own department. As if the difficulties described were not serious enough, the AoA suffered further downgrading. In 1967, a Democratic Administration placed the Administration on Aging within the Social and Rehabilitation Service, over protests that this action violated Congressional intent and that it was expressive of a generally low level of Federal priority on matters related to aging. Critics, including the Senate Speial Committee on Aging, were unimpressed with Administration arguments that AoA status had actually been improved by the reorganization. In 1970, a Republican administration made organizational changes which further reduced the power of AoA, including transfer of manpower and some program functions to the parent SRS and its regional offices. Finally, in 1971, the Foster Grandparents Program and the new Retired Senior Volunteer Program were taken from AoA and placed in the new volunteer agency, ACTION. In addition, the AoA has suffered from a chronic inability to perform the interdepartmental coordinating functions envisioned by its advocates. A President's Task Force on Aging described the situation succinctly in 1970 when it said that no agency has authority to determine priorities, to settle conflicts, to eliminate duplication, to identify and assess responsibility, to initiate concerted action, to keep Federal agencies constantly aware of how their programs affect the elderly. Expressing concern about the ways in which such problems become magnified at the State and local levels through Federal agency policies and grant-in-aid programs, the Task Force said: The experience of the Administration on Aging during the last four years-makes it abundantly clear that interdepartmental coordination cannot be carried out by a unit of government which is subordinate to the units it is attempting to coordinate. And so, the AoA falls far short of being the Federal "focal point in aging" sought by Congress. Instead, its concerns are splintered and scattered; there are limited, if any, policies and few clearcut goals. Recent reorganizations have not strengthened Federal programs and commitment in aging in any way. Rather, they have fragmented an already flawed and feeble agency still further. This situation has created chaos as well as a lack of direction in Federal and State programs. This Advisory Council sees no point in criticizing the AoA or HEW for the present state of affairs. The Older Americans Act, although not achieving its legislative intent, has provided a limited but valuable entity as to the potential of Federal response to the needs and problems of our aging citizenry. The Advisory Council therefore urges the Congress to enact legislative innovations that will make it possible to achieve the goals envisioned by the Congress when it established the Older Americans Act in 1965. There are compelling reasons for actions along the lines just suggested. Among them: -Congress must act before June 30, 1972, either to extend the Older Americans Act-which expires on that date-or replace |