Page images
PDF
EPUB

can. Their presence was needed to vote on a bill in the committee downstairs. Do you want to go ahead?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. CHASKES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNITS ON AGING

Mr. CHASKES. I would like to comment, and I would submit a prepared statement for the record.

I am Charles Chaskes, president of the National Association of State Units on Aging, which represents the executive director of each State unit on aging as well as the chairman of each unit on aging. I am pleased to be here, even under these circumstances.

I was delighted to hear many of the comments the Secretary made. However, I must take exception to the one comment and the position that the Secretary expressed in his testimony which is primarily the location of the Administration on Aging in the Federal structure.

I would call the committee's attention to the fact that since 1967, when the Administration on Aging was placed in the Social and Rehabilitative Services, after having been in effect an independent agency reporting to the Secretary, there have been at least five or possibly six study groups that have concerned themselves with just this issue, the location of the Administration on Aging and its ability to be an effective voice for the elderly and its ability to provide an effective focal point for the elderly.

Briefly, the first survey of this type is one that was done by Dr. Robert Binstock of Brandeis University for the previous administration. While he dealt with the overall evaluation and analysis of the effectiveness of the Administration on Aging, the survey was never published.

However, I have the author's permission to quote from the survey which he allowed me to share, and which called for, one, a greater infusion of funds into title III programs to make them more effective and, second, the need for a strong independent agency within the Federal system, such as the Administration on Aging was envisioned to be by the Congress when it passed the Older Americans Act.

The second survey was the Greenblatt-Ernst survey which did not deal with the location of the Administration on Aging at all, but did deal with the title III programs. Because the Secretary, in his message, dealt specifically with title III programs, I would like to mention that, this study indicated the only thing wrong with the title III programs was that they had never been fully funded so that they could really blossom forth and show what they could do.

Mr. MURPHY. Whose study was that again?

Mr. CHASKES. Greenblatt and Ernst, from the State University of New York at Buffalo. The final document was published, I think. I saw a preliminary document which was submitted to the State executives of aging, at their meeting, I believe, in December of 1969.

Then we come to the Task Force On the Elderly appointed by this administration which reported in April of 1970, and which advocated a strong independent agency on aging, and advocated that it be located in the executive branch. The report made the statement which I am sure you heard quoted previously, that the experience of the Administration on Aging during the preceding 4 years made 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."

Then the second survey of recent times is the survey of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, by the advisory council appointed by this committee, and which deliberated on this point-the location of the Administration on Aging. This study recommended that the Administration on Aging be an independent agency in the Executive Office, directed by the Assistant on Aging to the President. And that there be also established in principal departments of the Federal Government, assistant secretaries to see that those departments, for example, Agriculture or Housing, were giving due attention to the needs of the elderly with their resources and their program thrusts.

Then Secretary Richardson's committee, which he himself appointed and which was headed by Dr. Flemming, and which included the people he now proposes as giving statute to the Administration on Aging.

This committee, in the interim report they released, strongly recommended that the Administration on Aging report directly to the Secretary. I understand the final report was ready the first of February, but was requested not to be released by the Secretary, but I understand the final report made this same recommendation regarding the location or AOA.

The Secretary is now appointing these same people to his advisory council. That these people did not protest the suppression of the final report of their study committee, does not lend credence to their ability to be anything other a "rubberstamp committee" in this new role to which they are appointed.

Then I would direct their committee's attention to the White House Conference itself. In all the 14 sections of the Conference, the nine needs areas and the five needs meetings areas, that in every instance; of though a section might be addressing itself to income, or to housing, or to roles and activities, or whatever, in every instance the delegates in that section felt it necessary to point out that what was needed was a strong focal point for the elderly in the Federal system, and called attention to the placement of the Administration on Aging.

For this Secretary to completely ignore the recommendations of all these study groups who gave serious throught and consideration to the placement or AOA, seems incredulous to me.

Mr. MURPHY. Have you had a chance to look at the administration's legislation and review it?

Mr. CHASKES. Yes, I did; and in its charts submitted here I still see the Commissioner of Aging at the bottom of the totem pole, reporting through the Administrator of SRS to the Secretary.

They do depict a dotted line with supposedly a direct contact to the President, but we know from past experience that this is not working, and has not worked.

The thing is that the advisory committee and the special consultant, and so forth, probably at this point in time with a very dynamic individual like Dr. Flemming, does get the attention of the President, but we feel very strongly that it should be in the structure rather than in the personality involved. A case in point, and I would like to make just about two points more, is when John Martin was chairman of the

[ocr errors]

commission on aging in the State of Michigan, die sme zME was serving as the Republican national committman Ee open door to the Governor's office, and at mas me I vas Romney who was our Governor. and Joen Man net vi m or three times a week, and there was not ang tut ve mi perceive as necessary or beneficial to the elderly, that ve

the Governor and would result in legislation

Since John Martin left, we have an equa ne teman is the chairman of the State commission on aging, but he ices not a

direct route to the Governor, and so the task of getting legsation introduced now is a hundred times more fond

I am saying that we should build the structures that the ICture itself can make, or provide us. the vehicle rather than the nė uals who happen to occupy chairmanships of advisory comes cetera.

Mr. MURPHY. The cult of the personality.

Mr. CHASKES. Right. The second point I would be a me n the one I consider most important in regard to this wicie ming of location is, to quote the President himself in his remarks before the White House Conference on Aging, "any action with enhances the dignity of older Americans enhances the dignity of all Amemas I would say that to make the services available to the elder through an administration, meaning the SRS, with is prmany concerned with welfare and rehabilitation, does not add to the ing of the older American.

It makes him come "hat in hand" for services, or it makes have to admit that he is either completely devoid of resoumes or that he has slipped mentally and physically and is in need of rehabilitation services. The other point is that whatever happens at the Feder! level is duplicated at the State level, and we have now had several experiences where State commissions on aging have been folded into departments of social services, public welfare, public aid, or whatever name they happen to be called.

Several more State executives have told me that this is, at this point in time, a severe threat to their independent offices.

If the State legislators see that the federal system buries the Administration on Aging four deep as it is in the charts that the Secretary has presented this morning, or three deep, it is a perfect excuse for the States to do likewise.

Mr. MURPHY. Do you think the converse applies, that the Federal Government, if it elevates the position and the visibility of the spokesman for the elderly that the same thing is likely to happen in some States?

Mr. CHASKES. Yes. However, we have the cult of personality here. Dr. Flemming has been able to do more in contacting Governors and asking Governors their responses to certain things that he has requested than if he had not been here. What we are saying, of course, that it that we would rather it were a statutory office rather than the cult of the personality.

Mr. MURPHY. There are publications put out by SRS that y size services to the "vulnerable" elderly. Do you think that i

of an attitude that administers programs to the elderly or

dealing primarily with, as you say, vulnerable elderly?

[graphic]

Mr. CHASKES. Yes, and I think that in the Secretary's statement, this comes through, too. We are talking always about the people in the greatest threat of losing their independence, of being unnecessarily institutionalized, of providing services to keep people in their homes.

The SRS, as a matter of fact, in the pamphlet that they printed to explain the social and rehabilitative services, in the frontispiece over the administrator's signature, talks about the 14 million vulnerable Americans that SRS is geared to serve.

Yet we know there are 20 million older Americans, and so leaving out those people of other age groups that have need for rehabilitative services, we are disenfranchising over 6 million older Americans right there. I think that this whole area of where the services emanate from, the auspices under which services are provided, is extremely important to older persons.

You may have older people, as we do in the State of Michigan, who have worked in industry and who retire with a combination of social security benefits and the automotive pension, let's say, with an income of $4,800 to $5,000 a year.

This does not allow that person to live high. They get by but in most cases they have educated their families and the home they live in has been paid for. They still need services. If you ask such a person to go to get services in an agency which is under the auspices of social welfare, the minute he steps in the door, he is saying that he has lived a life that has not amounted to anything.

Still if he can get services without going to welfare, he can take pride in the fact that he is contributing to society, that he has educated his children, and that with the $5,000 a year, or $4,800 a year, he is able to get by and to provide for the needs of his wife and himself. I think that the auspices under which services are provided are all important to keep the self-esteem, the ego, the status of the elderly intact. All the disciplines that deal with older people will tell you that if we lose that, the older person deteriorates very rapidly. They must keep their self-esteem, their role in society, their status, and so forth.

Mr. MURPHY. Returning for the moment to the administration's legislation, do you have a view on that bill, and particularly on the provisions with respect to State agencies and subunits of States to deal with aging?

Mr. CHASKES. The figures they are offering here are different than the figures they provided us with on February 24 and 25 when the State units were called into Washington. The Secretary talked here about 8 percent being used for State planning efforts and 8 percent being used for subplanning efforts.

Our information at the meeting was that the $30 million of title III, $18 million of it was to be used in establishing regional councils as a planning effort, and only $12 million of the $30 million would be used for ongoing title III grants.

Now that is a 60-40 split, $18 million and $12 million. Now I see in this statement where they are going to ask 35 to 65 percent to support nutrition programs. I had not heard of this, until I saw the testimony this morning.

I didn't understand that at all. I wouldn't want to comment until I have studied it more.

Mr. MURPHY. Would you mind perhaps after you have had a chance to analyze the legislation submitting a letter or a statement setting out your views?

Mr. CHASKES. I would be happy to do so.

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Chaskes, were you present at any meeting where various State administrators were told about a 3-year phaseout of Federal participation in the nutrition program?

Mr. CHASKES. I didn't hear of this in exactly that way. It meant that. I heard that the bill would probably be 3 years or 5 years duration, and we should not think of it in terms of longer than that.

Senator EAGLETON. The State administrator in Missouri and his counterpart in Nebraska got the impression at a meeting in Washington that Federal funding would exist no longer than 3 years, and hence that puts a damper on the willingness of the State to participate in the program if they feel they are going to have to take over the entirety of the program in a 3-year timespan.

Mr. CHASKES. I think that those two gentlemen are a little more apprehensive than what was actually said.

Senator EAGLETON. Fine. Mr. Chaskes, thank you very much. I apologize for having to depart, but the legislation must go forth.

Mr. CHASKES. I would like to make one other comment, and that is the local support issue, the difficulty of getting the matching funds at the local level.

It has been a problem, it continue to be a problem, and I don't see it easing in the near future.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Chaskes. That will conclude today's hearings. There will be future hearings on this same subject on dates as yet undetermined.

(Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to call of the Chair.)

« PreviousContinue »