I am Jean Hanson Fisher, executive director for the Philadelphia Center for Older People, and I can tell you they are as American as apple pie. Have you ever seen or heard of any stories relating to these centers as you have seen about nursing homes and boarding homes? Your senior centers are clean and you can be proud of them.

I've spent 4 months in Europe visiting 11 different countries looking at welfare programs for the elderly, and the proudest program that I could talk about was the senior centers. And every country in the world which has developed senior citizen centers has patterned them after those founded in America, because the first center in the world was founded in New York City by Gertrude Landau who you heard testify this morning.

From a very clean record that senior centers have had you would be destroying them by having the means test. You would divide and fragment the people. The great thing about them is that they are integrated both racially and economically.

If you put in the means test we feel that our agency alone would have to spend $42,000 more on the papermill of paperwork that would be necessary, but if you took way the little group that is over the income level, we would lose some of our best volunteer services, because some people come to the center to work for 3 days a week or so, for free.

They are not implemented or encouraged to come in by offering them free transportation or a free lunch, or a stipend. They come and give freely of their services and our staff estimated that we get in volunteer services from our members another $20,000 per year. Can you take that away from us?

Also, the ill-will that is being engendered in just thinking about the means test is always there. Please keep us together.

It was togetherness that brought senior centers into being. They were implemented by the Older Americans Act, but what is being contemplated in title XX would destroy it.

Thank you. [Applause.]

[The prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF JEAN HANSON FIsher, PhiladelpHIA CENTER FOR OLDER PEOPLE Twenty-one hundred members of the Philadelphia Center for Older People at 1340 Lombard Street in Philadelphia wish to protest the means test of Title XX.

The Philadelphia Center for Older People is a Senior Center which has been in existence for twenty-eight years. It serves people over sixty of all races, creeds, and economic levels.

The majority of the people who come to the Center are poor, partly because of today's inflation. But older people should not be forced into pauperism before they can get help. The minute you start developing services solely for the poor, they are poor services.

What has been great about the established Senior Centers under voluntary auspices and those which came into being under the Older Americans Act was that anyone over sixty could join. It was a healthy mix of people in the best tradition of America.

Those people who have just a little more education and subsequently a better pension are the backbone of the Senior Centers. They supply a volunteer manpower that is incredible. Some of these members are giving two or three days a week in active volunteer service. No stipend, transportation, or lunch is offered as an incentive. If Centers lost this manpower, more staff would have to be hired.

Your children and grandchildren go freely to the public parks to play baseball or to the community center to shoot basketball. Why then shouldn't grandma go to the Senior Center to play pinochle or to join a discussion group? Why the Means Test for the elderly?

There should be an open door policy to all older people wishing to come to a Center for socialization, recreation, and education. Transportation and the continuation of low-cost meals without a means test would also be welcomed. Let the social service tab be placed elsewhere; otherwise, many older people may withdraw from their active life at Senior Centers and do injury to the state of their physical and mental health by hibernating.

A phrase has been used the past few years, called alternatives for institutional care, under which a composite number of outreach and in-service programs have been developed. Now just at the high point of active participation, along comes a mandate that would remove some of the life-restoring activities.

Senior Citizen Centers have been places where people have come to enjoy life, just as the more wealthy people seek a country club. The sense of belonging has been great, and dynamic programs have kept the older people in the main stream of the community.

The means test will fragment the fellowship.

The means test will provoke hostility and separation.

The means test will be more and more costly as it turns the Senior Center into a paper mill.

We urge the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to grant us a waiver for six months or to give group eligibility for the socialization, recreation, and education activities of the Senior Centers. You will only create havoc and unhappiness in the Senior Centers across the land if this amendment is not undertaken.

Mr. CORMAN. The next speaker, please.

STATEMENT OF SYLVIA K. BARG

MS. BARG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Sylvia K. Barg, and I am executive director of Senior Wheels East, a program in North Central Philadelphia. This is a center in Philadelphia which serves a population of around 3,000 persons and anticipates a larger services area in the future. I do have a prepared statement which I will submit for the record. It touches many of the points that have already been made and although I doubt in an emotional situation it could happen, I don't want to be guilty of overkill.

I do have a question I would like to address to the Chair, however. So many people have made comments of what we would like to see by April 1, and I, too, endorse that. But is it feasible, is it possible the legislation, effective legislation could be passed by April 1, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. CORMAN. Well, I——

MS. BARG. If the body so chose?

Mr. CORMAN. Legislation might be possible if the House and Senate both agreed, and we could pass something that would have the concurrence of the President, but that is not an easy task that you give us. You do not give it to us, really, we give it to ourselves.

MS. BARG. Yes, sir.

Mr. CORMAN. We are going to try to get HEW to tell us what legislation we need to be able to suspend the regulation. Some of the regulations HEW can suspend without legislation.

Some they will need legislation to suspend.

It is my hope that we-without pre-judging what the committee may do can suspend everything until October 1 so that we can take a look at the administration's proposal for block grants which may get us out of a good bit of this thicket. It may not though. But we have had little opportunity to look at it so far and we would hope we could leave everything in suspended animation and not implement any of the new regulations until that time and then determine whether we want to do some fundamental legislative changing.

It is our hope but it will not be easy, considering the workload of the Congress and the difficulty of getting the House and Senate and the President to agree on a single bill.

MS. BARG. Well, that is a task that you have considerable experience with and I would bank on the success of your efforts should you choose to employ them in that direction.

I think that statement from you is probably as much as I could probably hope to achieve here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CORMAN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF SYLVIA K. BARG, Old KensingtON REDEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Sylvia K. Barg, Executive Director of the Senior Wheels East program in North Central Philadelphia. Since 1970 we have been delivering a wide range of supportive services to a low-income, multi-ethnic population desirous of remaining in the community and enlarging their options and participation.

In behalf of my colleagues and constituency, I would like to thank the Chairman for providing a forum for consideration of the impact of Title XX eligibility certification requirements as they relate to persons over 60. That these concerns should again have to be presented in an emergency context is indeed puzzling, if not suspect.

As you well know, the Title XX eligibility requirements due to have become effective October 1, 1975 were postponed for certain categories until April 1, 1976 to allow time for legislative action by the Congress to remedy the unintentional burden and stigmatization residing in the present legislation. Since such action has not been initiated early enough to meet this deadline, we have no recourse but to urge another extension to allow time for appropriate action by the Congress. We can give assurance that we will be a constant presence available to provide documentation where needed and support where our concerns so indicate.

All of us who deal with the needs of older people are constantly reminded that these needs far outdistance our resources to meet them. In the Southeastern Region of Pennsylvania, at authorized levels for fiscal year 1976, it is unlikely that more than 7 percent of the 20 percent of the population over 60 estimated to need one or more services will receive them. There is clearly a need for increased services but the reality is that inflation will, in fact, decrease even the present level of service delivery. Now we are asked to further reduce service delivery capability in order to pay for an elaborate eligibility certification and re-certification system. A survey done in Philadelphia indicates that it will cost $35.00 semi-annually for each participant who agrees to apply.

There are additional costs, less obvious. From which budget will the State Agency deduct the amount necessary to maintain the required data file on each individual? Who will replace those service participants who render far more service to their peers as volunteers than they themselves receive? This punitive, restrictive, dehumanizing approach will have an adverse effect on the community and its institutions which many older person have once again begun to serve.

The services and opportunities provided to Older Americans since The Older Americans Act of 1965 have truly begun to make an impact on the quality of life for this ever-growing segment of the population. It is doubtful that this flow can be reversed. Who among us would even want to try?

STATEMENT OF MARIANNE SANNER

Mrs. SANNER. Those of us at the grassroots level who have had actual experience with the "means test" of title XX of the Social Security Act are concerned not only with how offensive and demeaning this "prying" into their affairs is to the elderly, but also how costly it is in tax dollars. I propose today to address my comments to the administrative costs involved in implementing the title XX eligibility regulations.

I represent an area agency on aging in a rural county in southeastern Pennsylvania. We used title VI funds from August 1974 until October of 1975 when we started using title XX funds. We, therefore, have had experience in applying the means test for over a year and a half. Those of us in the rural areas have not had the advantage of having established senior service centers whose participants are now exempt from the means test. Therefore, we had to ask every participant of every title XX funded service to sign a means test form. This form had to be copied so the original could be sent to the department of public welfare for certification. In other words, we were telling them we didn't really believe their signed statements. We also could not tell them that this was confidential information.

One of the greatest problems was determining eligibility for those who used our transportation program. The van drivers taking the elderly to doctors, clinics, laboratories, et cetera, had all they could do to pick up and escort our elderly clients to health centers and couldn't take time to explain the need for the means test. This could not have been arranged before the trips because these trips were often made on an emergency basis. It didn't take long for us to realize we had to have staff to determine eligibility so we hired two part-time qualified senior citizens as caseworkers.

In October of 1975 when title XX replaced title VI, all participants with an income under $5,500 were eligible. We found that a very small percentage of those who use our services are not eligible. Eligibility determination, however, requires that we interview all program participants. Those who need and use our services are by and large those with incomes under $5,500.

We found that it cost more to apply the means test to all participants than it would have cost to serve the very few ineligibles. Therefore, we find the determination of eligibility an extravagance in wasted paperwork and wasted time that we cannot afford. It is my hope that title XX eligibility can be the same as eligibility for Older American Act funds.

I would like now to read a letter written by Miss Mildred V. Corey, one of the caseworkers on our staff who determines eligibility for our participants:

This letter is being written in protest of the means test for eligibility to receive services under Title XX of the Social Security Act. It should be doubly significant because I am one of those who interview the Senior Citizens to obtain the necessary information for compliance with the means test.

In this capacity I have witnessed the cringing and the reluctance to tell personal business to a stranger. The less knowledgeable, who are not able to fully comprehend the explanation preceding the questionnaire, are convinced that answering the questions will, in some way, reduce their social security payments or stop their supplemental income if they are receiving it. This fear haunts them to the extent that they call our office, often more than once, and any amount of reassurance never removed the doubt raised.

I do not feel comfortable or happy in causing people who have a low income the added worry that the means test inflicts. After ten months of these interviews, the number of those over the indicated income has never come near the allowable percentage.

The cost of administering this test is high. Would it not be less costly to the taxpayer to eliminate the test entirely? It surely would be more humane and allow individuals to keep a certain shred of dignity while participating in the social service programs which are so worthwhile.

Please give consideration to the elimination of this means test for those participating in social services under Title XX of the Social Security Act.

STATEMENT OF SISTER M. GABRIEL KOCH

Sister GABRIEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Sister Gabriel from Erie, Pa., from the other end of the State, and even though I may be repetitious, I feel I have to give my testimony for our part of the State.

I come from a center which is called a multiservice center; we provide educational programs, recreation, social programs, and a host of informational services.

Daily I see senior citizens who have been isolated, lonely, depressed, come to life as it were as they become part of our center-as they socialize with others as they take part in a current events discussion group, as they do something creative in the crafts or woodworking shop.

I see someone who has been partially paralyzed by a stroke develop the urge to take part in something with others. Yes, and even regain the use of his hands or voice, because people who care are at his side.

How can I tell these people the center is not for them if we do not meet the quota of low-income elderly? The low-income do not "have a corner on the market" for loneliness. Are these other elderly to be denied human companionship because they are not at the poverty level? Can we not let them participate in meaningful activity and offer them the services of the center, and thus prevent premature institutionalization?

There's no where else they can obtain these services. You can't buy them in the open market.

A means test suggest, especially to the older person, a welfare system. The seniors of today have struggled long and hard to avoid being part of it, from depression times of the 1930's until now. There's a certain fear, a personal pride, a sense of dignity that makes any attempt at income determination suspicious. The center does enable us to identify specific needs of those who come to us. It brings them into a service system which is so important to them in these later years. Our members-and I am sure other centers are the same-come to look on the center as a second home. Through our interaction with them, a trust factor is established that is often lacking elsewhere a feeling of security-and so they do turn to us when they have needs, be they financial, legal, medical, or social services.

There's another aspect of this test which is rather mundane, but important, and that's the cost of administering a means test to such large groups. Our budget at the Mercy Center this year is an austerity budget, but we can and do scrape along. We have been in the process of having a means test administered at our center in the past three weeks. We have a team of caseworkers, mounds of paperwork, postage, and I keep saying what services I could be offering the senior citizens with this money, or what services these caseworkers could be offering them to say nothing of the frustration among the members of the center. We beg you to allow us to serve the elderly regardless of income.