Dr. BINSTOCK. Not if active, backup steps are taken to get that planning effective. I think it can be done if something is written in the law, and this committee and other committees stay on the backs of the administrators over at HEW.

Senator EAGLETON. Do you have any idea why the report of President Johnson's Task Force on Older Americans-that is the one on which you served as executive director-was never released?

Dr. BINSTOCK. Yes. I do not believe there was anything mysterious about it. President Johnson had a routine of having some 20 such task forces going at any one time, and they were financed through funds not authorized specifically for that purpose by the Congress. He wanted to set them up as possible material for legislative initiatives by himself, or to sit on them if he did not care to use them.

That report came out after President Johnson had decided to return to Texas. He took it back to Texas with him, and that was virtually the end of it.

I do know that Secretary Cohen read it, and Secretary Wirtz read it, and Secretary Cohen in particular called upon members of the Administration on Aging to account for certain issues raised in the report, and they were responsive to some of those suggestions.

Senator EAGLETON. Are you at liberty to give us any recommendations based on your experience with that task force that would be germane to the matters that are before this committee at this time?

Dr. BINSTOCK. I certainly am at liberty to do so. In a general way I would say that we felt that the matters surrounding this Administration on Aging program were much lower priority than income matters. Indeed, Mr. Cummings, of Senator Javits' staff, was the prime mover of many brilliant pension reform proposals which we felt to be among our more important recommendations.

With respect to the Older Americans Act we had a number of minor suggestions dealing with impact research, dealing with the attempt to get some actual mechanisms developed for service delivery so that people would stop talking about it but establish the ability to do it, to do something very similar to what the administration is proposing here, but in a much slower and more graduated fashion.

What troubles me about these current bills is that all of a sudden we are going to have all these units with all this money, and nobody to carry out the programs in a thoughtful way. I think this is the main problem.

Senator EAGLETON. Do you identify as the No. 1 problem with respect to the elderly some program of income maintenance, income stability?

Dr. BINSTOCK. Yes. I think, for example, if one looks even at the service priorities older persons expressed at the White House Conference, the main ones are best dealt with through income-such as transportation which is best dealt with through the purchasing of that service.

Senator EAGLETON. Or the purchasing of adequate housing, adequate meals and nutrition. It all stems from income maintenance; does it not?

Dr. BINSTOCK. Yes, sir. This is what comes through to me at every meeting of older persons that I have ever attended. If they could get help with their income, they would not be so concerned about services.

Senator EAGLETON. Under the administration bill there is a 3-year termination date, a 3-year cutoff period. Would you have any comment to make on that in terms of the advocacy of these programs if they would be terminated, at least from the Federal point of view, at the end of 3 years?

Dr. BINSTOCK. I think it is very good to keep that in there because it forces the administration to take a serious and hard look at what it has, and to rethink what it is doing.

Are you referring to the specific grant programs?

Senator EAGLETON. Yes.

Dr. BINSTOCK. Yes. I think that this is a very good thing to have in there, because I do not think services can be supported indefinitely from the Federal level.

If we are going to talk about local services, responsive to local needs, if the demand is that great, then there would be some meeting of that financial demand at the local level, and I think 3 years is adequate time to do it.

Senator EAGLETON. Is it realistic, realizing the financial bind that almost every State and almost every municipality finds itself in, to anticipate that in 3 years they will be able to fund and take over these programs if they are deemed to be worthwhile?

Dr. BINSTOCK. It is unconventional to say it, but I do not think that States are in such a financial bind.

Everyone talks about a crisis, but this is a crisis of the media. If it were really a strong crisis, people would be willing to tax themselves at a much higher rate, and I suspect that on schools they are going to find in a few years that they are willing to tax themselves at a much higher rate, even if it is not through the property tax.

When we get down to the crunch, something will become a crisis when people are willing to pay through the nose for it, and I think we have not reached that test yet. If these services are important to people, as opposed to income maintenance, I believe they will pay for them and tax themselves for them a few years from now. Otherwise we will have to recognize that services are relatively unimportant to people. Senator EAGLETON. I would hope you are right, but the present climate of public opinion is such even with respect to schools that they are turning down tax levies and bond issues right and left. At one time it was thought at anytime you put something on the ballot that pertained to schools, there would be an automatic landslide in favor of it. At least for the moment that is not the pragmatic reality of the views of the voting public; do you think?

Dr. BINSTOCK. I may very well be wrong about the future. I would suggest that if one is to tap into further resources, there is a great reservoir of untapped resources sitting in the legislation in the Social Security Act, titles I and XVI, which provide for social services that are not tapped at all.

In my own State we have a secretary for elderly affairs at the cabinet level, and in our phase II of governmental reorganization where he can propose what belongs under elderly affairs, he is trying to administer all the adult services under the welfare program in the State to develop real service opportunities for the first time through the Social Security Act.

I believe this provides a very important reservoir which could be tapped if leadership were prone in the administration to tap into it. That opportunity has been available since 1967, but not developed.

Senator EAGLETON. Finally, I take it from your statement you are not terribly happy with the idea of trying to uplift the bureaucratic level of AOA to give it greater identity, greater visibility?

Dr. BINSTOCK. Not unless somebody really is in there backing it up, because I think it will do more harm than good, even as having a President's Council on the Aging cooled people off for a while, then having a Commissioner on Aging appointed by the President, then a special assistant to the President.

None of this apparently has had much impact on anything. The best example I know of of the meaninglessness of nominal location is the Council on the Humanities and the Council on the Arts which were created at the same time in the Executive Office of the President. The arts budget went up and up, and the humanities went down like that [indicating]. I looked into that at the time I directed the task force for President Johnson.

It was explained very easily by Barnaby Keeney who directed the humanities program. He said: I do nothing for the President. Roger Stevens, director of the Arts Council is over there at the White House all the time giving the President cellists and singers, and the President knows he exists. He does not know I exist, and there is no reason for him to know, and what I get is a Christmas card.

I think this is about the situation.

Senator EAGLETON. So in terms of realities again you believe you would leave it in AOA where it is.

Dr. BINSTOCK. Ideally, I would like to see this office created if this committee and I am throwing the ball back to the Congress-will stay in there and doggedly hold hearings on an active basis to find out what that office is doing and why it is not doing anything. I think with that kind of tenacious congressional oversight it would be a wonderful thing to have that office.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, Dr. Binstock. You have been very helpful to the committee, and we appreciate it.

Our next witness is Mr. Allen Jensen, special assistant for Human Resources, National Governors' Conference and National Legislative Conference.

Mr. Jensen, we welcome you, and you may proceed. You are at liberty, if you wish, to read your statement, or to highlight it as you see fit. In any event it will appear in the record in its entirety.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN JENSEN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE

Mr. JENSEN. Thank you, Senator Eagleton. Since it would be difficult to try to paraphrase the statement, I believe I will read it in full, and of course will welcome your questions during the presentation of this statement, if you wish.

I am a member of the staff of the Office of Federal-State Relations for the National Governors' Conference and National Legislative Conference. I serve as the primary staff member to the Human Resources

Committee of these two organizations which are affiliates of the Council of State Governments.

My presentation today will not prescribe specific positions on the legislation being considered by the committee to extend and amend the Older Americans Act. Instead, I will outline some of the trends in State government which are having an impact on the planning, organization, and delivery of human services. These actions by States, intended to improve the delivery of human service programs, have major implications for Federal legislation involving programs for the aged.

In essence, I propose that Federal legislative actions whether related to the Older Americans Act or other human service legislation should complement the major efforts being taken by many States which affect human services programs.

I am aware that one of the issues with which this committee is concerned is determination of the best organizational structure in government related to services for the elderly. We are also aware that the impact and effectiveness of State agencies on aging is of concern to this committee. The following is an effort to outline some of the major efforts taken by States to establish planning and operational procedures to improve the delivery of human services.

I. REORGANIZATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO CONSOLIDATE INTO A SINGLE DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOVERNMENT A LARGE NUMBER OF HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAMS

Approximately half the States have undergone reorganization of human services programs to establish departments called Department of Human Resources, or Health and Social Services, or Health and Rehabilitative Services, or similar titles.

The purposes and goals of these organizations include:

(a) Reduction of the number of individual agencies reporting to the Governor including making such agencies administratively responsible to the Governor rather than to autonomous boards or commissions.

(b) Provisions of authority to coordinate a broad range of human service programs to a single department administrators.

(c) Improvement of managerial systems and capabilities of the States in respect to the delivery of human services.

(d) Facilitate, definition of responsibilities among human services agencies in the States, including cross agency and cross program planning as a means to target resources on a particular problem area or client group.

On May 11, our office called a meeting of the directors of a number of these State departments of human resources. The responsibility given to these department heads by the Governors who appointed them is a unique and relatively new responsibility in State government. We believe that the States represented in that meeting were part of the vanguard of States that are making a major effort to provide a stronger State mechanism to administer these programs. This responsibility involves attempts to mesh together and rationally administer under one department a large number of human services programs or agencies and to make such programs responsive to the variety of needs at the local level.

Most of the State departments of human resources have included in their structure the State agency on aging, receiving funds under title III of the Older Americans Act. The result is that many State agencies on aging are now part of departments which also include varying combinations of agencies and programs including health, welfare. social services, mental health, developmental disabilities, vocational rehabilitation, corrections, comprehensive health planning, State OEO offices, and State employment service agencies.

State-elected officials are, like Federal officials, often confronted with competing demands for establishing major visibility, coordination power, or high level advocacy positions in State government to represent various groups of people needing governmental services. These include, as this committee is well aware, the aged, children, mentally ill, and developmentally disabled. At the same time, there is the necessity and requirement for interagency planning and programing for particular services like health, social services, food and nutrition programs, manpower programs, and child development services.

In the development of these State government reorganizations plans, States have interpreted in various ways the primary function of the State agency on aging. Some have placed them as a staff and advisory arm to the Director of the Human Resources Department.

Mr. Chairman, I have attached as attachment A to this testimony the tentative plans for the organization of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.

You will notice that in the State of Georgia they have designated the council on aging as in effect a staff office arm to the Commissioner. In this case the Commissioner has yet to be appointed because the Governor just signed the legislation about a month and a half ago.

In contrast, attachment B indicates the umbrella department in the State of Florida. There the State agency on aging is placed in the family service division, and is made part of the series of programs that we see listed there in the lower right-hand part of the chart under family services.

In other States besides those I have given examples of here the agency is attached to the Governor's office.

I believe initially when these State agencies were funded they were for the most part in the Governor's office or an independent agency attached to the Governor's office, and not placed in one of these larger departments. Of course, most of these reorganizations of State governments have taken place since the passage of the Older Americans Act.

I should however make it clear that the placement of the State agency on aging does not look into that location in State government the various roles and functions of advocacy, planning, coordination, or power to allocate resources for services to the aged.

For example, many of these departments of human resources are moving toward program budgeting which attempts to identify all the resources in the department aimed at particular groups such as the aged in the State.

It should also be noted that State agencies on aging, funded under title III of the Older Americans Act, are oftentimes in a department with total expenditures for services to the aged population many times the funds which have been available to the State agency on aging. A