Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Cmich?

Mr. SLATER. I am Don Slater. Mr. Cmich has not arrived yet. I will be happy to present his statement for you.

Senator EAGLETON. I am very conveniently located right across the hall. We can either recess until he gets here or take your statement

now.

Mr. SLATER. He left a note at the airport that I could read his statement and he would be here as soon as possible.

Senator EAGLETON. Fine. Give us the statement, sir, if you will.

STATEMENT OF HON. STANLEY CMICH, MAYOR, CANTON, OHIO, FOR THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD A. SLATER

Mr. SLATER. As the statement indicates, Mr. Cmich is mayor of Canton, Ohio.

I am here today to testify on behalf of the National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors on several bills pending before this committee which deal with some of the problems of the elderly.

For too long now, our senior citizens, who have contributed so much to our way of life, have been, at worst, disregarded, at best, given secondary consideration, by all levels of government. It is hardly necessary to recapitulate for you gentlement the inadequate response to the problems of the aging that has characterized our governmental policy. I am heartened to see the current bipartisan efforts by both the administration and the Congress to rectify this lack of adequate concern. While it is true that all our efforts in the past have been to few and too infrequent, it might be instructive to indicate for you how local governments, given their exceedingly limited resources, have tried to come to grips with the problems of the elderly. Among the innovative initiatives to provide services for the aged, many cities have inaugurated programs such as reduced mass transit fares during nonpeak hours; nutrition programs to assure the elderly at least one adequate, nutritious meal per day; establishment of recreation and learning centers for our senior citizens including preretirement counseling for public employees; utilization of urban renewal projects to provide special housing for the elderly. In the Canto area over 380 housing units for the elderly have been built with an additional 300 units under construction. However, there is a waiting list of 980 eligible applicants in the Canto area. To meet our needs, we estimate construction of over 100 units annually in the next 5 years.

The bill sponsored by Senator Hartke takes cognizance of these initiatives by mandating such services in legislation. While it is complimentary to note that our efforts have proven useful, valuable, and worthy of being incorporated into law, legislation which earmarks funds for diverse categorical programs, reduces the flexibility to provide the most necessary services in a given locality. Needs vary from city to city and while, for example, reduced fare transportation may be of the utmost importance to the senior citizens of one particular city, mobility may pose no problem whatsoever for those of another. With funds earmarked specifically to provide a categorical function, the money is mandated solely for a program that may be of secondary in portance in a given area. Precluding flexibility in the use of avai

funds serves only to make the task of improving the quality of life among older persons more difficult. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, extensive earmarking tends to compartmentalize people functionally rather than encouraging the formation of programs to serve the whole person.

Cities have not, in the past, been the traditional providers of social services. Most cities today lack not only the capacity, but the fiscal resources as well, to provide services beyond those that have been their raditional functions over the years. In all candor, Mr. Chairman, city governments, with some very notable exceptions, have not developed nor operated many programs which serve the elderly. Parenthetically, however, those few that have reallocated their very limited resources to provide services to older Americans, ought not be required to go through various governmental levels to continue, expand and improve the programs they already have operational. At the very least, these cities, in particular, ought to be provided the option of direct prime sponsorship.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest for your consideration, the proposition that city governments are the appropriate institutional framework for the development of new capability which has any likelihood of providing adequate programs to serve older Americans. Effective programs, adequately planned and managed, are only possible when pursued by an operational unit which is emminently relevant to older citizens and is multifunctional in its basic character. Cities are the only units which meet these tests.

I'm sure that this committee has the interests of older Americans very much in the forefront of its priorities. This priority can only be realized by the development of programs at the local level. If this is the case, then the legislation before you should be shaped to see that the appropriate local institutions, city governments, are the planners and managers of programs developed with and for the elderly. This should be the case for several reasons:

1. Cities have unmatched comprehensive planning experience and authority for both physical and social programs. Comprehensive programs for the elderly should tap into this existing capability.

2. Cities regulate the physical and social environment more intimately than any other level of government. Older American programs should tie into the existing collateral programs which profoundly affect their lives.

3. Cities, through visible and accountable local elected officials, present the only opportunity to marshal and focus public and private resources on difficult local problems. Older Americans require the kind of attention and support which can only come from concentrated, concerted efforts.

4. Cities are the most singular source of innovation in new program delivery concepts in both social and physical projects. The model city program and housing for the elderly are prime examples of the kinds of concerns which could be developed for older Americans.

5. City governments have dealt historically and responsibly with the inclusion of new groups in the political life of the community. Cities are the only unit of government that has had experience and developed concepts in citizen participation as in the model city and

OEO programs. Older Americans should be represented as a very special interest in the development of programs serving the elderly. 6. Furthermore, 60 percent of the elderly in the United States reside in urban areas; 35 percent in central cities. The elderly population in Canton alone has risen 10.2 percent since 1960. Very basically, cities are where the people are and they are where the action is.

For these reasons, I believe it is imperative that the committee develop the strongest possible legislation guaranteeing prime city participation in program development and delivery. Since this is clearly a national problem, cities should receive 100-percent reimbursement for the development, coordination, management, and evaluation of comprehensive programs for older Americans. In addition, projects to implement comprehensive plans should be adequately funded in the aggregate with liberal Federal matching requirements which cannot be reduced below 90 percent Federal share. The 10 percent local share should also be a very flexible "in-kind" contribution.

It is our judgment that attainment of the above goals requires the development of a legislative instrument which guarantees city government program development without the imposition of undue restrictions established by State government. Effective local programs, without exception to our certain knowledge, require strong local control and a minimal interjection of the diverse concerns of constituents represented by State governments.

Mr. Chairman, we recognize that we have placed before the committee concepts which, if acceptable, would require extensive work on the legislation before you. We are prepared to work with you and the committee staff to develop a practical, workable program which would contain strong incentives for city government leadership in this most important area.

Senator ÉAGLETON. I take it that the principal thrust of Mayor Cmich's statement is at variance with the attitude of our previous witness, Mr. Leff, from the State of Massachusetts in that the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are advocating a direct relationship, Federal to city, whereas Mr. Leff felt it ought to be Federal to State, is that a fair observation?

Mr. SLATER. Yes sir. It is our experience based on a history of participating in a number of programs that those programs which are the least effective are the programs which work without Federal-city relationships, that is they are coordinated and exclusively controlled by State agencies. Where there is an option for Federal-local relationships to develop for the establishment of clear national priorities and the effective implementation of those at the local level, we found that those programs worked well.

Most notable is the urban renewal program in which localities deal directly with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, many, Health, Education and Welfare programs have gone the route of State agency control, and local lack of implementation. We feel very strongly that there needs to be an opportunity for a city government to be a prime sponsor of this kind of program. It is our judgment that the city is the place where programs have to take place.

The State has proved repeatedly that it is not the place, and coordination that way only spreads programs thinner, waters them down and makes them ineffective.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much. Thank you for appearing on behalf of the mayor. I think we will recess for a brief period of time, and if the mayor does arrive, then the committee counsel may have some questions for him.

We will be in recess for 30 minutes or thereabouts.

(Recess).

Mr. MURPHY. The subcommittee will be back in session. Mayor, I am sorry that Senator Eagleton is tied up with a delegation in his office, and he is going to have some difficulty getting free, and he asked me if I could go ahead and elicit some comments. Mr. Slater read your statment. It was very interesting and presented a point of view we have not heard before.

Some questions came to mind, and of course some statements, perhaps if you do not mind, dealing with the second string, I could present to you, and get your answers.

The statement points out that there are few cities that have much experience in delivering social services, and yet goes on to suggest that municipalities be made prime contractors under the Older Americans Act with the Federal Government creating and running delivery systems for social services.

On the face at least there seems to be some inconsistency on this. I wonder if you could elaborate.

Mr. CмICH. Yes. Cities have not had an opportunity to take a leadersip role in this area. However, city government and the head of the government has the responsibility to bring together all the available resources and work for the benefit of the community.

In this one particular area of the elderly, cities lacking both authority and funding find themselves assisting private agencies such as United Fund and church agencies. In a very limited way what cities are doing for the elderly is more or less supporting private efforts by giving them aid and assistance where we can. We have not been able to give them financial assistance.

Recently we, in Canton, have established a task force comprised of over 30 agencies in the Greater Canton area brought together to document their needs. We find that they are in dire straits financially and are thus hard pressed to draw up and implement a comprehensive program.

A matching fund requirement is a detriment to these agencies, who are now in a limited way pursuing a course of helping the elderly.

We feel that the Federal Government dealing directly with the cities would be a more effective way to improve and expand programs for the elderly. We also must face the fact that throughout the years and particularly during the past 10 years, the mayor's office or city hall was the target for expressing all the needs of the community. The mayor is expected to be sensitive to these needs and to respond adequately. We are handcuffed at this point when it comes to the elderly. I am certain that the committee is aware that they have pursued a course of top priority for the elderly. I know that various people here that I did not hear this morning had various concepts or plans that were proposed, and the only thing I can say is we are willing to

work with the committee to come out with legislation and funding that would be more productive and effective.

Mr. MURPHY. In Canton does the city contribute any portion of the matching funds for these voluntary agencies that you have gotten banded together?

Mr. CMICH. No, we do not. The United Fund agency, which is a community agency, has contributed. The city government did not contribute any money. We have, however, provided assistance with personnel, planning, documenting the needs and preparing the documentation necessary to meet the requirements of the applications that will bring funds into the community.

Presently, the State of Ohio has a task force which will meet in the next week or two. All the cities and areas throughout the State will be asked to make recommendations to the State government, which is fine. However, I do feel that we can be more effective if we deal directly with the Federal Government.

Mr. MURPHY. What has your experience been in the past with dealing with the Ohio State Office on the Aging? Have you received any funds under the Older Americans Act through that office?

Mr. CмICH. We have no programing by the city and State of Ohio at the present, although we are preparing applications now and working through the State.

We feel that a direct type of communication and funding would be more effective in this case.

Mr. MURPHY. Have you run into barriers in dealing with the State? Mr. CмICH. We will know much more how effective their program will be in coordinating the efforts of the cities in the next month or so when they formulate their final plan.

Mr. MURPHY. In Ohio do you have any municipal league or league of cities, things like that, where mayors get together?

Mr. CмICH. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. In the course of those gatherings have you had any conversations with other mayors regarding their experience at the State office, in any particular area that

Mr. CмICH. In fact in the State of Ohio the mayors throughout the State have indicated many, many times not only in the elderly programs, but other programs, that they would much rather deal with. the Federal Government directly instead of going through the State. We find it to be more effective in getting programs through.

Mr. MURPHY. It may be useful to think about some other programs and contrast them. Can you think of a program which you deal directly with Federal Government as contrasted with another program which goes to the State? Of course so many health programs go through the States, manpower programs tend to by and large, I think, to have an opportunity for direct funding, or maybe other examples you could use.

Mr. CмICH. Yes. In the health programs we have failed miserably in dealing with the State. It may not be solely their fault. However, through use of the regional concept we find ourselves working within a seven-county area with which we have little or nothing in common. Most counties have quite different problems from ours. Where we have similar problems, the counties experience them in such a small portion in comparison to ours that we have not been able to get any significant