Asian, 87 percent live in our urban areas with 55 percent in our central cities; while 73 percent of the white people 65 and over live in the urban areas with 55 percent in the central cities.

The Urban Elderly Coalition is a young organization. Even if we are counting only the member cities of 100,000 or more population, we already represent more than 9 million of these 16 million people aged 60 and over who live in the urban areas. That representation includes the offices or departments on aging of the Nation's largest cities-New York, Chicago, Los Angeles-who are also designated as area agencies on aging. It includes the area agencies from Seattle-King County, Wash., Pima County-Tucson, Ariz., Broward County-Fort Lauderdale, Fla., designated by their mayors respectively to represent their cities, and it includes such cities as, Long Beach, Calif., Jackson, Miss., and Jacksonvill, Fla., who are seeking to be designated as area agencies on aging.

Dr. Flemming, the present U.S. Commissioner on Aging, has been attuned to the needs of the low-income and minority group elderly who are concentrated in our urban centers. The yearlong delay of the administration in proposing its nominee for Commissioner has been mitigated only by Dr. Flemming's willingness to continue to serve until a successor has taken over. We have been promised a new urban policy. Yet, we note that the proposed fiscal 1979 budget does not provide additional funds to administer aging programs, nor take into consideration the factors of inflation and the increasing numbers of older persons to be served.

We hope that the new administration will deal forth-rightly with the needs of the urban elderly and the cities that serve them, and will reflect this in the experience, concerns, and programs of the next Commissioner on Aging.

The next Commissioner should be concerned that the allocation of Older Americans Act funds, made by the States to the area agencies on aging should reflect the intent of the Congress to emphasize service to both low-income elderly and those who are minority group members.

Last August, the Commissioner designate stated:

The second tier of the national policy structure must address itself to the very special needs of those older people who are alone, disabled, or functionally dependent, very old, isolated, and on low income. This group of persons must receive the very highest priority in the target population of our service delivery system.

We agree. The Administration on Aging, unfortunately, is unable to supply data about funding formulas in State plans that it approves, but I can assure you that in my own State of Illinois we achieved per capita funding of area agencies with title III and title VII moneys only this year for the one-third of the State's elderly who live in Chicago, and no dollars have been added by the State for program emphasis on the one-third of the State's low-income elderly or the three-fourths of the State's minority group elderly who also live in my city. I would expect that my State's action or inaction is indicative of the other States' lack of commitment to emphasize the special needs of low-income and minority group elderly.

I earlier mentioned the delay of the administration in proposing a new Commissioner. There has been a similar neglect in acting upon

the many vacancies in the Federal Council on Aging. These delays, the standpat budget proposed for the Older Americans Act in which services for the elderly will be diminished because of inflation as well as the additional elderly to be served, the actual cut proposed for RSVP funds, and any number of other signals people feel they have received over a period of months have led many to lose confidence in the concern of this administration for older people, a concern they had hoped to see reflected in action rather than delays, and in leadership that to date has not been evident.

Older Americans Act title I sets forth a series of worthy objectives. I won't name them, but these goals clearly establish a framework for addressing the needs of the elderly. However, given the existing level of appropriations and program structure, the Administration on Aging cannot begin to achieve this mission. These goals require that title I make clear the responsibility of the Administration on Aging, and the State and the area agencies on aging to provide advocacy and leadership to achieve them. It is presently silent on the advocacy point.

To achieve the goals of title I we must restructure the existing service delivery system. This process, while it should begin at the Federal level must encompass State and local levels. The structure should be built upon a coordinated service delivery system provid ing a continuum of care. Inherent in this approach is administrative coordination of the full range of aging-related services. We cannot realistically continue to charge the aging network with responsi bility to coordinate all aging services, which title III presently does, without providing it with both the resources and adminis trative authority to achieve this.

The current system requires an elderly person with compounded problems of poor health, limited mobility, and meager financial resources to apply for services from a number of agencies with varied eligibility requirements. Thus, because of the Administration on Aging's responsibility as the Federal focal point for programs on aging, any effective evaluation of it must deal with programs that also impact upon the elderly.

Chief among those which should be coordinated with Older Americans Act programs are titles XVIII, XIX, and XX of the Social Security Act. This coordination requires a mandate and initiation at the Federal level, but must be implemented also at the State and area agency level. Consistent with this responsibility, we recommend that the Administration on Aging be made an inde pendent office in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, headed by an Assistant Secretary for Aging. We also support transfer of certain programs to the Administration on Aging: namely, the Senior Volunteer programs currently operated by ACTION and the Senior Community Services Employment pro gram, now administered by the Department of Labor.

We further recommend that the Administration on Aging have review and signoff authority on programs of all Federal agencies and departments that are related to the purposes of the Older Americans Act. We must similarly strengthen the State and arra agencies on aging by channeling all Older Americans Act funds through the Administration on Aging to the State and area agencies

on aging, and by insuring not only review and comment on other federally funded programs for the elderly going into their jurisdictions, but by mandating their coordination through the State and area agencies.

We urge the extension of the funding and planning cycle from a 1- to 3-year cycle. The Administration on Aging and State and area agencies should be required to prepare and publish a 3-year policy plan in coordination with the 3-year funding cycle. Annual State and area plans should be limited in focus to program objectives and budget summaries.

All Older Americans Act funds allocated to area agencies on aging for development and administration of area plans as well as social services, should have a straight 90-10 matching requirement of cash or in-kind contributions. Also, it seems fair that a State should be required to come up with at least a share of its match rather than to place the total burden for the match on the area agencies on aging.

When an area agency on aging is delegated authority to administer and monitor programs for which the State unit on aging is receiving administrative funds, the funding formula which is used to calculate the State's allowable administrative funds should also be applied for administrative funds for the area agency.

Finally, State and area agencies on aging should receive Older Americans Act resources according to a specified allocation formula weighted by general population, numbers of elderly, elderly minority group population, and the incidence of both poverty and isolation. We would also support an amendment to the Social Security Act to raise the Federal ceiling on expenditures under title XX of that act and to earmark funding for services to the elderly commensurate at the very least with their numbers in the total population of a State. Title XX is a much more appropriate long-term service and funds source for the elderly than either general revenue sharing, which is most often needed and used to balance local government budgets for basic services, or the community development block grant, which is too restrictive in the area of social services.

Unless appropriations for the Older Americans Act are going to grow significantly, the lid on title XX expenditures must come off. The Urban Elderly Coalition strongly advocates inclusion of a provision in title III of the Older Americans Act to permit that any unit of general purpose local government which has a population of 250,000 or more, or which contains 15 percentum of the State's population aged 60 and over, and which has established an office on aging, to be designated at its option as an area agency on aging.

Of the Nation's 162 cities of more than 100,000 population58 of whom have a population of a quarter of a million and more serving over four and a half million elderly over the age of 65only 14 have been designated area agencies on aging. It would be a serious mistake not to expand their number.

Designation of cities of at least a quarter of a million and more will allow for a significant increase in political power, public accountability, skilled staff and resource base in the Nation's area agencies on aging and will increase their potential for success.

We believe certain principles should serve as guidelines in the operation of these agencies, namely, well staffed and authoritative State and area agencies on aging should be the preferred instruments for developing and implementing a coherent national policy on aging.

This, of course, argues for and seems to us to mandate inclusion of major cities and urban areas as area agencies on aging. Develop ment and implementation of a national policy on anything is impossible without the significant involvement of the cities and the urban areas.

The mandate should continue for State and area agencies to plan and develop comprehensive and coordinated service delivery systems as their primary mission. Area agencies should be responsible for insuring the development of critical access services. Area agencies should be encouraged to use Older Americans Act and other pooled resources to fill locally identified service priority gaps. We propose several modifications in the existing Older Americans Act.

We recommend that title III be used to provide grants for administration of State and community programs. These funds are now used primarily for services. Administrative funds for program operations are subsumed in service funds. The specific appropriation and allocation formula for administrative costs in the planning and operation of State and area agencies would greatly simplify matters, and potential abuse of Older Americans Act funds would be avoided.

Title IV and new sections of title II should encompass all programs reserved for direct administration by the administration on aging. Under title V we would like to see the additional option to that of the mortgage insurance and annual interest grants for senior centers, of direct loans to provide limited construction for centers where the cost of acquisition, alteration, or renovation of existing facilities is prohibitive or otherwise not feasible, and the reauthorization of part B, which would be the staffing of multipurpose senior centers.

Currently, there is legislation before the Congress, or soon will be, to provide home-delivered meals to the elderly and handicapped. We would recommend that when this legislation is passed, if it is passed, that it be made a separate section of title VII with a separate authorization to be administered by the Administration on Aging and distributed on a formula grant basis to the State and area agencies.

We suggest that title IX be renamed Community Service Roles for Older Americans, part A providing community service employ ment for all older people with emphasis on low-income elderly, the jurisdiction for this to be transferred from the Secretary of Labor to the proposed Assistant Secretary for Aging; part B. taking those programs that are now under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 in ACTION, and transferring them to the Adminis tration on Aging.

We propose two new titles: One for in-home services, another for special services for the elderly. In-home services would emphasize the intent of Congress that programs for older American should assist them to remain in their own homes and communities

for as long as it is wise and possible. Special services for the elderly would enable the development of services that are local priorities.

Another approach to the services and programs we have proposed as new titles of the act would be to include them as separate sections under title III with specific appropriations authorized for each section.

The Urban Elderly Coalition supports the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as stated in its age discrimination study for amendment of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. We believe that a strengthened Age Discrimination Act can do much toward resolving the present failures of Federal programs to apportion a fair share of services for the elderly, so significant in title XX, in CETA, in legal services. We would look forward to implementation of the amended act in 1979.

Resolutions have been introduced by Senator Church, and Congressman Pepper and Congressman Brademas in support of the 1981 White House Conference on Aging. We support these resolutions.

We further support the proposed World Conference on Aging.

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on issues that we believe are critical to the national policy on aging we want to see developed. I also want to take this opportunity to thank you and your whole committee for the leadership and commitment which you have evidenced for so long to the well-being of our senior

citizens.

Thank you very much.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, Mr. Ahrens.

I think we should have for the record what is the Urban Coalition, and how is it financed? Is it a purely private organization, or is it a recipient of some governmental moneys, or what?

Mr. AHRENS. We are presently a recipient of a grant from the Administration on Aging. but we were born in 1972 at a meeting called, in New York City, of cities of 100,000 or more population. We have been functioning prior to this grant out of the offices of the President, initially the Commissioner on Aging in New York City, and since last year, out of my office in Chicago.

Senator EAGLETON. Have you been a recipient of funds since 1972 ? Mr. AHRENS. No, a recipient of Federal funds only since last February or March.

Senator EAGLETON. Is it contemplated that your funding will continue from the Administration on Aging?

Mr. AHRENS. We are applying for a second-year grant but whether or not it comes we are committed to insuring that the Urban Elderly Coalition will survive. Chicago is committed to that. I am sure that is true for the city of New York, the city of Los Angeles, the 12 cities that are on our board and many others we have been able to enlist in membership.

Senator EAGLETON. As I hear your testimony of the various organizations, and we are delighted to have them, you would fold into the Administration on Aging and you would elevate that to an Assistant Secretary level, you would take all the title IX away from the Labor Department and you would take away the pro

31-8130-79-26