the needs of older persons, but to coordinate existing services, to stimulate the expansion of such services, and to introduce new services by other providers.

If State units on aging and area agencies on aging are to fulfill their function of becoming "focal points" on aging, they must engage in activities that will assure a system of coordinated services for senior citizens. They must act as brokers and catalysts to stimu late, encourage and expand services for the elderly.

Several issues related to coordination have surfaced in our 4 years of experience in implementing the Older Americans Act. At this time we need to consider whether coordination as a major focus of the program is getting the job done, or whether some different direction needs to be taken to accomplish the goal of the Older Americans Act, with coordination taking a secondary role.

When a State unit on aging administers a program, the funds for that program flow through the State agency, which assumes responsibility for implementing the program and of being accountable for the proper use of the funds. Administering a program also involves coordinating it with other programs in order to avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts.

It would be a difficult task to administer a program without also engaging in coordination. However, State units on aging and area agencies on aging frequently find themselves in the opposite position; that of being mandated to coordinate programs they do not administer at all, or which they only partially administer.

This type of situation presents several problems, especially if the agency which administers the funds does not coordinate with the State unit on aging, or if the funds are administered by two or more agencies. A good example of this is the current situation with the title IX program in Louisiana.

The Bureau of Aging Services receives enough title IX funds to provide 130 job slots in 3 of the State's 8 planning and service areas. In addition, five national contractors receive funds for slots in the remaining five planning and service areas. The Bureau of Aging Services is mandated to coordinate this program for the entire State and has attempted to so do, although many problems have been encountered. For example, some of the national contractors are not sending quarterly reports to the Bureau as required by Federal regulations.

Furthermore, the program of one of the national contractors is also operating in one of the parishes in which the Bureau has slots; there is statewide coverage, there is overlapping of programs. The number of agencies involved in operating the title IX program is confusing to the elderly and to the general public, as well as, to the State legislature and public officials.

The Bureau is in favor of implementing the title IX program in Louisiana, but this splintering of the program makes coordination efforts very difficult. It would be preferable for the Bureau to administer the program completely and coordinate it with other programs that we are already administering.

A similar problem exists with the model projects program funded under title III of the Older Americans Act. In 1974-75 model proj ects funds flowed through the State agency. We were able to deter

mine priority areas for model project implementation and to contract the funds for those projects. Coordination efforts were made easier because we were able to employ a model projects coordinator on our staff and to oversee the day to day operations of the projects and to tie them in with title III and title VII projects at the area and local level.

In succeeding years we have received funds to administer two model projects, the Nursing Home Ombudsman and Legal Services, which were determined as priorities by the Administration on Aging. These two programs are important areas of concern and meet definite needs of senior citizens. On the other hand, we strongly recommend that in the future the identification and setting of program priorities be left to the States.

In addition, both model project grants and training grants which have been awarded by the Administration on Aging to other agencies and/or universities have yielded spotty results. It has been our experience that when other agencies receive direct funding they are generally willing to coordinate only when they need us, such as at grant renewal time.

Still other issues that arise when the State unit on aging has no program administrative responsibilities but is held responsible for coordination. Examples of this are programs funded through ACTION and the concerted push from Administration on Aging to develop interagency agreements with other State agencies.

In Louisiana we have a good working relationship with ACTION at the State level. At the local level, however, coordination with RSVP and Foster Grandparent programs is more difficult because, again, a number of different agencies are involved in operating the programs. The result is that people have to deal with several different agencies in order to get services.

It might be better, for example, to have the ACTION programs reinstated under the Older Americans Act and administered by State units on aging. Similar agreements could be made for funds for other programs providing services to the elderly going to the State unit on aging rather than to other State agencies.

The coordination strategy involving the development of interagency agreements has largely been a one way effort on the part of the Bureau of Aging Services. Other agencies are willing to sign agreements provided that Bureau staff do the major part of the work involved in developing them. Because of the time and effort involved in developing agreements, decisions must be made as to whether or not the results of the agreements are worth the expenditure of time and effort by staff in view of all the other work that must be done. It would be preferable for State units on aging to become responsible for administering all Older Americans Act programs, and other programs providing services to the elderly. To do this, two other things must also occur.

First, the State unit on aging would need more administrative funds with which to recruit and train staff to handle this increased workload. Second, there needs to be a coordination and combining of the funding process from the national level. Just as programs are presently splintered among many agencies, the funds currently ad

31-813 079 16

ministered by State units on aging are coming from various sources with varying regulations.

For instance, training funds are from one funding source, nursing home ombudsman and legal services from another, and title VII from still another. This method of granting funds unnecessarily compounds and complicates bookkeeping and budgeting procedures. From the standpoint of efficient administration, it would be much simpler for the Administration on Aging to allocate to each State one lump sum of money with which to operate all the programs and one set of regulations and guidelines by which to operate them.

Furthermore, the States should be given the authority to determine program and spending priorities as long as they are in keeping with the intent of the Older Americans Act and fiscally accountable under Federal cost procedures.

While the Administration on Aging programs are far from perfect and still have a long way to go, they have accomplished a great deal. We are certainly nearer our goal of providing comprehensive and coordinated services for the elderly than we were in 1973. Many of our accomplishments thus far are the result of coordination activities engaged in by many concerned people and agencies.

In this presentation I have raised some issues concerning coordina tion and have presented some options and alternatives. I trust that these ideas will stimulate your thinking so that we can continue working together to better serve America's senior citizens. [Applause.]

Senator EAGLETON. On page 1, Mr. McKenzie, of your prepared statement you refer to the State funded senior center program. Mr. MCKENZIE. That's right.

Senator EAGLETON. As you know, there is a federally funded senior center program under title V. Now, how do those two mesh here? Mr. MCKENZIE. The title V provides for acquisition, renovation of the senior centers, whereas the State senior center services program, which is totally State funded, is provided to the localities for establishment of social services, primarily.

Senator EAGLETON. You mean title V is the feds, that's us guys up here. We either build the building, acquire the property, renovate it, et cetera, and then under your State program you commence ongoing operation?

Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes.

Senator EAGLETON. Do you have some in operation?

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. Right. There were 10 senior center programs operating prior to title V funds coming into the State, so we did have 10 senior centers inside the State operating prior to title V. Senator EAGLETON. You have 10 of them in operation?

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. Ten of them in operation.

Senator EAGLETON. Tell me, then, there are only one or two here in New Orleans, I take it.

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. Yes.

Senator EAGLETON. How are they operating? What is being done! How are they being utilized? Are they being well received? Just give me a little on what is happening.

Mr. MCKENZIE. You might want to speak toward that, Janet.

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. I think the senior center concept is an excellent idea in terms of serving as a focal point for the senior center programs for the elderly. I think they are being well received.

I think one of the main problems is the funding level and the need for increased funding level to start these types of programs. In Louisiana, even though it is a State operated program, at this point we still have very limited resources. The concept is good in terms of bringing together different services into one place where the elderly person can come into the senior center and receive a variety of services rather than having to go to five different places to receive, for example, five different services.

I think this is something that we are looking forward to, developing more of in the future, more senior center programs. In the rural areas it is a greater problem because there the resources are not available, and, also, you have the other problems in terms of getting the people to the services once the services are established.

Senator EAGLETON. I have a note here under title V, again talking about these multipurpose senior centers. On November 8, 1977, just a month or so ago, notice was issued from the Administration on Aging in Washington announcing a major initiative of developing new and strengthening existing multipurpose senior centers. The notice urges State and area agencies to use their increased resources toward that end.

What are your increased resources, if any, and what are you going to do pursuant to that directive?

Mr. MCKENZIE. Would you like to address that?

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. I think they are speaking about increased resources, in that particular memorandum they are referring to title V moneys which have become available to the States. As you are probably aware, this is the second time the State has received money under title V. The first time was the interim quarter funding which was July through September of last year and then this time is the first full year that the State has received funding for title V pro

grams.

Senator EAGLETON. Quarterly or on an annual basis? Do you have a lump sum on an annual basis?

MS. SLAYBAUGH. The first time it was for a quarter because of the change in the Federal fiscal year. This time it is for a full year. Senator EAGLETON. How much is Louisiana going to get?

MS. SLAYBAUGH. Approximately $290,000, I believe, is the figure at this point.

Senator EAGLETON. That is an increment over what it was heretofore or that is the total

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. That is the total State allocation.

Senator EAGLETON. That is to build, acquire, rehabilitate, et cetera, senior centers!

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. Right.

Senator EAGLETON. $290,000; that sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't when you are talking about construction costs and repairs. It is rather a tiny amount for the real world.

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. Right.

Senator EAGLETON. I have some other questions, but I am going to yield to my colleague.

Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you very much, Senator Eagleton. I want to thank Mr. McKenzie and Ms. Slaybaugh for excellent testimony. I think you have made a very strong case on this need to coordinate and I think it is irrefutable. I would like to ask another question, if I may, dealing with the substance of the programs on older Americans.

As we go into the next Congress or in the next year and the next. Congress and the next few years, I would like to hear your views on what our priorities ought to be with respect to substantive areas on helping the aged. What are the biggest substantive areas? Is it health? Is it nutrition? Is it recreation? Is it transportation? Is it housing? What is it, in your view, in order of priorities the things that we ought to be doing?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Senator, in my view of this thing, Senator Johnston would be transportation. That is bad and needed very bad. Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you for that comment. I appreciate that.

Mr. MCKENZIE. I think one of the main areas of concern, and this is something that we have just recently brought up in one of our meetings with the area agencies on aging, is hoping that we will be able to have a task force to meet and also to meet with legislators after these needs have been defined, but at the first point is to deter mine really where our priorities are in the State in terms of Louisiana's elderly citizens to find out what the needs are and to present those to our legislators and see what can be done.

At this time, I really don't think we have any specific top four or top five. Transportation, of course, is one with medical care. You might want to respond to any others.

Ms. SLAYBAUGH. I will try to respond in part to the question. I think when we start talking about the needs of the elderly, we may need to look outside the Older Americans Act per se because some of the greater needs are like for, say, income. The health needs which we need to look at, possibly title XIX, and how we could better coordinate title XIX with the Older Americans Act.

We also need to look at, like you mentioned, housing in Louisiana in terms of programs outside of the Older Americans Act. Title XX, where we have had a very good relationship with the State agency operating title XX. The four priorities for title XX, No. 1 priority being transportation; No. 2 being homemakers; No. 3 being nutrition services and No. 4 being day care.

Senator JOHNSTON. No. 1 priority is transportation?

MS. SLAYBAUGH. No. 1 priority, in terms of the Older Americans Act and title XX services. This is when you cannot, for example, provide income, when you start talking about the Older Americans Act or title XX, but income could be considered the No. 1 priority need of the older people.

Health services is another very real need of older people. This is something that we are looking outside of the Older Americans Act or title XX per se.

Also, housing is a very real need of older people. Here again we are looking at resources outside of the Older Americans Act for outside of title XX. When we start looking at title XX and the Older