Изображения страниц


1975 RANK





New York, NY
Chicago, IL
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Detroit, MI
Houston, TX
Baltimore, MD
Dallas, TX
San Diego, CA
San Antonio, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Washington, DC
Honolulu, HI
Milwaukee, WI
Phoenix, AZ
San Francisco
Memphis, IN
Cleveland, OH
Boston, MA
New Orleans, LA
San Jose, CA
Columbus, OH
Jacksonville, FL
St. Louis, MO
Seattle, WA
Denver, CO
Kansas City, MO
Pittsburgh, PA
Atlanta, GA
Nashville-Da'idson, TN
Cincinnati, OH
Buffalo, NY
El Paso, TX
Minneapolis, MN
Omaha, NE
Toledo, Olli
Oklahoma City, OK
Miami, FL
Fort Worth, TX
Portland, OR

955, 277 356,459 284,427 228,150 174,117 80,106 96,010 66,691 61,298 54,960 65,522 71,112 48,671 78,884 50,599 100,194 56,212 79,611 82,055 63,501 31,120 45,526 37,820 91,469 69,539 59,188 60,362 70,212 45,726 37,261 58,832 61,550 23,141 56,716 36,204 42,520 35,859 52,436 34,402 56,900

7,481,613 3,099,391 2,727,399 1,815,808 1,335,085 1,326,804

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

851,648 812,797 773,996 773,248 714,878 711,518 705,381 665,796 664,721 664,520 661,319 638,793 636,725 559,770 555,707 535,610 535,030 524,964 487,091 484,531 472,529 458,651 436,057 423,426 412,564 407,160 385,691 378,112 371,455 367,650 365,916 365,082 358,364 356,732

U.S. Cities of 250,000 or More
Page Two

41 42 43


45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Newark, NJ
Louisville, KY
Long Beach, CA
Tulsa, OK
Oakland, CA
Austin, TX
Tucson, AZ
Baton Rouge, LA
Norfolk, VA
Charlotte, NC
Tampa, FL
St. Paul, MN
Albuquerque, NM
Birmingham, AL
Rochester, NY
witchita, KS
Sacramento, CA
Akron, OH

30,590 41,658 50,961 30,187 43,976 17,879 27,812 12,614 19,495 20, 262 34,762 37, 178

339,568 335,954 335,602 331,726 330,651 301,147 296,457 294,394 286,694 281,417 280,340 279,535 279,401 276,273 267, 173 264,901 260,822 251,747


5,269 18,604 28,951 31,674


[blocks in formation]

to have you.

Senator CHAFEE. Why don't we have Mrs. Dealaman from New Jersey come next?

Señator EAGLETON. We are delighted to have Senator Williams with us. He is the chairman of the Senate Human Resources Committee and past chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, long a leader in legislation of programs pertaining to America's senior citizens. He is here to introduce a witness. Senator, we are delighted

Senator WILLIAMs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to introduce a good friend of mine. We live in the same county in New Jersey and have worked together on many, many matters of service to people. Doris Dealaman, who is a most distinguished leader in government and in the National Association of Counties.

She is a chosen freeholder from Somerset County, N.J., Mr. Chairman. I think we are the only State that still designates county officials as freeholders. We are very proud of the work of our county organization in New Jersey. Ms. Dealaman is a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Counties as well as chairperson of the association's Welfare and Social Services Steering Committee and of its Subcommittee on Aging.

You have been long involved in meeting the needs of older people through Government programs. I know that this subject matter has no party division and that might indicate that we are politically divided. This is, fortunately, however, one of those areas of human concern and an opportunity where we share goals and efforts.

Just one further thing. I noticed that Ms. Dealaman was moderator and chairperson for all three National Conferences on County Resource Development for Aging Citizens, so she comes with the highest qualifications to contribute to your work, Mr. Chairman and our committee's work in programing for older Americans.

It is a pleasure to be in the capacity of introducing Ms. Dealaman.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, Senator Willams. That is a very gracious and appropriate introduction and, Mrs. Dealaman we are delighted to have you. You may proceed.

Ms. DEALAMAN. Thank you very much, Senator.

I am indeed Doris Dealaman and I am a Chosen Freeholder in Somerset County, New Jersey.

Senator EAGLETON. Ms. Dealaman, since you have just been about 15 seconds into your remarks, could I ask you to stay where you are and defer your remarks for a moment? Senator Clark, of Iowa, has joined us. He is, I think, working on a Foreign Relations Committee meeting and we try to accommodate schedules as best as we can, so if it is all right, we will yield to Senator Clark for his remarks and then come back to you.



Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. We are holding a hearing over in Foreign Relations and I appreciate the time to make a few comments.

Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to express some thoughts on the Older Americans Act.

In just the past few years, we have watched the aging programs grow both in terms of funding and in their impact on elderly Americans. The expiration of the Older Americans Act programs this year obviously allows Congress to do some fine tuning, I think, with twin objectives: First, to better address the social, economic, and health needs of senior citizens, and second, to reach an even greater proportion of this elderly population.

I really come today as an advocate for one large segment of our older population which I believe continues to lack sufficient access to the Older Americans Act program; the rural elderly. My concern is particularly for the needs of the rural elderly and stems both from the fact that I represent a State with one of the largest proportions of senior citizens, I think normally considered either second or third in the country, and as a former member of the Special Committee on Aging.

A year ago I chaired a series of hearings for the Aging Committee in which we explored the problems of the elderly persons in rural America. I learned about the value of the multipurpose senior centers for small communities. At one of the hearings witnesses remarked, “One of the greatest needs for some of the older citizens is companionship. All of the other services are supplemental to that one thing. These senior centers given people an opportunity to meet together, to have friendship and to have congregate meals.”

At that time, title V of the Older Americans Act, which authorizes Federal funding for the development of senior centers, had just received its first appropriation. Although the program was just beginning, one of the hearing witnesses predicted that rural areas would encounter special problems because of the high cost of renovation in small communities.

Today, which now is a couple of years later, I believe that this prediction has unfortunately become a reality. The restriction in the Federal senior centers program limiting funding to "acquisition, alteration, or renovation"_just to acquire and renovate -in my judgment tends to discriminate against rural America and the rural elderly who reside there. The reason for this is that communities do not have available structures that are suitable for conversion into multipurpose senior centers at reasonable cost. Obviously, this isn't always true, but all too often, I think it is true.

I have recently learned of communities, for example, in my own State that have been forced to choose between equally undesirable alternatives; they can either spend huge sums of moneymuch of it locally raised-renovate basically unsuitable buildings that will eventually be plagued with heating, plumbing, and other kinds of problems, or they can abandon their plans. I think rural Americans need and deserve another alternative from this.

Therefore, I would urge the committee to modify title V of the Older Americans Act to permit, under certain circumstances, Federal funds for the construction of multipurpose senior centers. State aging agencies should be responsible, in my judgment, for setting criteria for construction funds and for final approval of individual sites. These decisions, I think, should occur in consultation with area agencies on aging and their advisory councils.

Other modifications of the Older Americans Act, I might just add in closing, are needed to make it more responsive to residents of small towns and rural areas. I might say that I chair

the Rural Development Subcommittee of the Senate Agriculture Committee, so we feel a special responsibility to look at the effect of all programs on rural areas.

Several of these changes were cited in a letter that I received from Iowa's aging directors, who I asked to generally advise me on this testimony and matters related to it, and they really made three basic suggestions, and I close by offering those suggestions for improvement.

First, transportation services should become a higher priority in the act, as these services can be directly translated into greater access for the rural elderly to nutrition programs, health screening, and other activities.

Senator EAGLETON. May I ask you a question there, Senator? Would you mandate this as part of the Federal Act, or would you leave it to the discretion of the States, as it now is, in the first group up there-State and area plans; $172 million, is the current appropriation.

Senator CLARK. You are talking about Federal money?

Senator EAGLETON. Federal money, but the States make the choice. And here is how the States are seeing fit to do it now; transportation, it so happens, is their highest-$43 million. The lowest is home repairs—$6.8 million. Would you still leave it up to the States and maybe put in some encouraging words about transportation or would you make it a Federal mandate for a percent of this?

Senator Clark. No; I think you are probably better off doing it the way you are in terms of giving the States the choice and try to emphasize transportation because the other thing that we constantly hear is that we need more flexibility at the local level and more opportunity to do that.

Second, the time has come to establish a Federal program that would encourage meals-on-wheels services throughout the country. Small town people would especially benefit from an expansion of home delivered meals services, since the only viable alternative for them is often nursing home care in larger communities, far from their homes. I know that that can run into some additional money but, again, I think the Meals-on-Wheels program has proved to be so successful, if there is any way we can continue to expand that down into the smaller community it would be valuable.

And, third, the title VII nutrition program for the elderly should be restructured so that the rural communities are better able to participate. Current policies and funding patterns lead to a centralization of nutrition sites in larger communities, again, very often leaving rural people behind.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to quote again from the August 1976 rural elderly hearings that we held. During a session held in northern Iowa, a senior center administra

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »