Older Americans Act: 105th Congress Issues

Older Americans Act: 105th Congress Issues

96-976 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Older Americans Act: 105th Congress Issues
Updated October 28, 1997
Carol O’Shaughnessy
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Older Americans Act: 105 Congress Issues
th
SUMMARY
Authorization of appropriations for the Older Americans Act expired at the end
of FY1995. Legislation to reauthorize the Act was reported by House and Senate
authorizing committees in 1996, but was not acted upon by either chamber during the
104
th Congress. Action on reauthorization legislation has not yet taken place during
1997.
The 105th Congress may consider legislative proposals that build upon areas of
apparent consensus achieved during the 104 Congress. Although there were some
th
areas of bipartisan agreement on some aspects of the bills reported by authorizing
committees in 1996, bipartisan agreement to report the bills did not occur in either
committee. H.R. 2570 was reported by the Economic and Educational Opportunities
Committee (EEO) Committee by a vote of 19 to 16. S. 1643 was reported by the
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee by a vote of 9 to 7.
The 105th Congress is likely to revisit the issues that remained in controversy
at the time the House and Senate bills were reported by the respective committees.
These issues include proposals to (1) restructure the senior community service
employment program; (2) change the interstate formula for distribution of funds for
supportive and nutrition services; (3) revise elder rights protection services; and (4)
eliminate certain requirements to target supportive and nutrition services to low-
income minority older persons.
Themes addressed by H.R. 2570 and S. 1643 in the 104 Congress include
th
d
consolidating and restructuring certain Older Americans programs, and giving more
flexibility to states in the operation of aging service programs. Although there were
differences in specific approaches to restructuring the Act, both committee bills
moved in the direction of significantly reducing the number of separately authorized
Older Americans Act programs.
There appeared to be general bipartisan agreement in both bills around proposals
that would have consolidated some programs. This included proposals in both bills
to consolidate the authorization of appropriations for the congregate and home-
delivered nutrition programs. Agreement also was reached on proposals to allow
states to implement policies on cost-sharing by older persons for certain services they
receive through Older Americans Act funding.
Funding for the Act in FY1996, FY1997, and FY1998 was continued by
appropriations legislation. For further information on funding, see: CRS Report 95-
914, Older Americans Act: Programs and Funding.

CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Setting the Stage for the 105th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Areas of Some Consensus During the 104 Congress
th
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Areas of Disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Restructuring the Community Service Employment Program . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Changes in Funding Formula for Grants to States and Community Programs
on Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Changes in Programs for Elder Rights Protection Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Targeting of Services to Low-Income Minority Older Persons . . . . . . . . . . 7
Activity During the 105 Congress
th
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Older Americans Act: 105th Congress Issues
Introduction
Authorization of appropriations for the Older Americans Act expired at the end
of FY1995. Its programs continued to be funded in FY1996, FY1997, and FY1998
funding is continued through appropriations legislation for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.1 Although the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce held hearings on the Act in July 1997,
no action to reauthorize the Act has taken place in the House during the 105th
Congress. Similarly, no action has occurred in the Senate.
During the 104 Congress, legislation to reauthorize the Act was reported b
th
y
House and Senate authorizing committees in 1996, but was not acted upon by either
chamber. H.R. 2570 was reported by the House Economic and Educational
Opportunities (EEO) Committee on April 25, 1996; S.1643 was reported by the
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on July 31, 1996. Both bills would
have reauthorized the Act through FY2001. For a detailed discussion of the bills, see
CRS Report 95-32, Older Americans Act: 100th Congress Legislation.
Setting the Stage for the 105th Congress
It is expected that the 105th Congress will consider legislation to reauthorize the
Act. Although there were some areas of bipartisan agreement on some aspects of the
bills reported by the House and Senate Committees in 1996, bipartisan agreement to
report the bills did not occur in either committee. H.R. 2570 was reported by the
EEO Committee by a vote of 19 to 16. S. 1643 was reported by the Senate Labor and
Human Resources Committee by a vote of 9 to 7. The 105th Congress may buil
2
d
upon areas of apparent consensus that were achieved during the 104th Congress.
Nevertheless, the 105th Congress is likely to revisit the issues that remained in
controversy at the time the House and Senate bills were reported by the respective
committees.
Areas of Some Consensus During the 104 Congress
th
Themes addressed by H.R. 2570 and S. 1643 included consolidation and
restructuring of certain Older Americans programs, and giving more flexibility to
1 For further information, see: CRS Report 95-917 Older Americans Act: Programs and
Funding, by Carol O’Shaughnessy and Alice Butler.

2 See: U.S. Congress. House Economic and Educational Opportunities. Older Americans Act
Amendments of 1996. Report No. 104-539. 104th Congress, 2nd Session. April 25, 1996;
and, U.S. Congress. Senate Labor and Human Resources. Older Americans Act Amendments
of 1996. Report No. 104-344. 100th Congress, 2nd Session. July 31, 1996.

CRS-2
states in the operation of aging service programs. Although there were differences
in specific approaches to streamlining the Act, both committee bills moved in the
direction of significantly reducing the number of separately authorized Older
Americans Act programs. Current law authorizes 20 separate programs under the
Act. H.R. 2570 would have reduced the number of programs to seven; S. 1643
would have reduced the number to nine.
While the bills proposed major changes in the structure of the Act, both bills
would have preserved core functions of the state and area agency on aging programs.
These include responsibilities of these agencies to plan and coordinate services
programs on behalf of older persons, and to advocate for programs and services on
their behalf. Current law requirements that state and area agencies develop state and
area plans on aging, taking into consideration the needs of older persons, would have
remained intact. Both bills would have eliminated a number of specific plan
requirements that were viewed as burdensome to state and area agencies.
There appeared to be general bipartisan agreement in both bills around proposals
that would have consolidated certain programs. This included proposals in both bills
to consolidate the authorization of appropriations for the congregate and home-
delivered nutrition programs. Under this approach, states would receive one
allotment of funds for nutrition services, but would be expected to assess the need for
both types of nutrition services. Agreement also was reached on proposals to allow
states to implement policies on cost-sharing by older persons for services they receive
through Older Americans Act funding. Proposals to give states more flexibility
regarding cost sharing had been discussed for a number of years prior to
consideration by the 104 Congress, but had never been approved by authorizin
th
g
committees.
Areas of Disagreement
Despite general agreement on some issues, certain proposals were the subject
of controversy during the 104 Congress, and will likely continue to be debate
th
d
during the 105th Congress. These include proposals to (1) restructure the senior
community service program; (2) change the interstate formula for distribution of
funds for supportive and nutrition services; (3) revise elder rights protection services;
and (4) eliminate certain specific requirements to target supportive and nutrition
services to low-income minority older persons, while retaining an overall
requirement to target services to these persons.
Restructuring the Community Service Employment Program
The senior community service employment program provides part-time
subsidized jobs to low-income persons aged 55 and older. The program is funded at
$463 million in FY1997, representing about one-third of Older Americans Act funds.
Both H.R. 2570 and S. 1643 would have made substantial changes in how the
program operates. These changes would have transferred administration of a
substantial portion of the program from national organizations to states and
introduced competition for funds among prospective grantee organizations.

CRS-3
Restructuring of the program was proposed, in part, to respond to a 1995 General
Accounting Office (GAO) report that reviewed certain administrative issues related
to the program, including the Department of Labor (DoL) method of awarding funds,
formula allocation of funds, and grantee use of funds.3
Proposals included in the committee-reported bills included changes in (1) the
distribution of funds by the federal government, (2) formula allocations to grantees,
and (3) requirements regarding use of funds by grantees for enrollee wages and fringe
benefits, administration, and other enrollee costs.
!
Distribution of Funds by the Federal Government. Currently, funds are
awarded to 10 national organizations and all states, with 78% of funds
allocated to national organizations4 and 22% to states. Despite
requirements in the authorizing statute that states are to receive a larger
portion of funds, appropriations law for many years has stipulated this
78%/22% split. In addition, GAO pointed out in its report that DoL does
not use a competitive process in awarding funds resulting in the same
national organizations receiving funds every year.
Both H.R. 2570 and S. 1643 would have stipulated that all funds be allocated
to states. National organizations no longer would have received funds directly
from the federal government. This proposal was, in part, based on a goal of to
reducing the number of national organizations that operate in each state.
National organizations receive funds to administer the program in all but three
states; in many states, multiple national organizations administer programs in
addition to a designated state agency. Both bills would have required states to
use a competitive process when awarding funds.
!
Formula Allocations to Grantees. Under current law, funding is
distributed to national organizations and states using a combination of
factors, including a “hold harmless” for employment positions held by
national organizations in each state in 1978, and a formula based on
states’ relative share of persons aged 55 and over and per capita income.5
Because the hold harmless provision is based on a 1978 state-by-state
distribution of positions held by national organizations, it does not ensure
equitable distribution across all states based on relative measures of age
and per capita income of states.
3 U.S. General Accounting Office. Senior Community Service Employment Program
Delivery Could Be Improved Through Legislative and Administrative Actions. GAO/HEHS-
96-4. November 1995.
4 The 10 national organizations are American Association of Retired Persons; Asociacion
Nacional Pro Personas Mayores; Green Thumb; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
National Center and Caucus on the Black Aged; National Council on Aging; National
Council of Senior Citizens; National Indian Council on Aging; National Urban League; and
the U.S. Forest Service.
5 In FY1996, about 63% of funds are allocated according to the hold harmless provision
($252 million out of $401 million in program year (PY) 1996 (July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997)),
with the balance distributed according to age and per capita income.

CRS-4
In its report on the program, GAO recommended that if Congress wishes to
ensure equitable distribution of funds, it should consider eliminating or
amending the hold harmless provision. Both H.R. 2570 and S. 1643 would
have altered the method for distribution of funds and the hold harmless
provision. Under H.R. 2570, the formula would have been changed to require
that states receive no less than they received in FY1996; any funds appropriated
in excess of the FY1996 level would have been distributed on the basis of
states’ relative share of persons age 55 and over and per capita income. S. 1643
would have gradually eliminated the 1978 hold harmless funding provisions,
and made the transition to a formula that is totally based on states’ relative
population of persons aged 55 and over and per capita income.
!
Use of Funds for Enrollee Wages/Fringe Benefits, Administration, and
Other Enrollee Costs. Currently, funds are used for (1) enrollee wages
and fringe benefits; (2) administration; and (3) other enrollee costs. DoL
regulations require that at least 75% of funds be used for enrollee wages
and fringe benefits. The law specifies that grantees are allowed to use up
to 13.5% of federal funds for administration (and up to 15% in certain
circumstances). Any remaining funds may be used for “other enrollee
costs” that, under current DoL regulations, may include such things as
recruitment and orientation of enrollees and supportive services for
enrollees, among other things.
Both bills would have required that a higher proportion of funding be used for
enrollee wages and fringe benefits than is required by current DoL regulations.
H.R. 2570 would have required that at least 85% of funds be used for enrollee
wages and fringe benefits. S. 1643 would have required that, in general, at least
90% of funds be used for enrollee wages and fringe benefits, and, in small
states, at least 85% of funds.
In its review, GAO found that most national organizations and some state
sponsors had budgeted administrative costs in excess of the statutory limit by
classifying them as other enrollee costs. Both bills would have addressed this
issue by reducing amounts available for administration, although they differed
in approach. H.R. 2570 would have consolidated administrative expenses for
its three Title III programs — community service employment, supportive
services, and nutrition services — and allowed up to 7% of these funds (or
$800,000 whichever is greater) to be used for administration across these three
programs.6 S. 1643 would have specified that a maximum of 10% would be
available for administration, and in small states, 15%.
The restructuring of the senior community service employment program
generated substantial controversy during the 104 Congress. Some existing national
th
grantees expressed concern that their continued existence would be threatened if the
program were to be shifted to states and if states, rather than the federal government,

6 Under current law, states may use up to 5% of funds, or $500,000 whichever is greater, for
administration of their supportive service, and congregate and home-delivered nutrition
services programs.

CRS-5
were to make decisions about which organizations would be grantees. They were
also concerned about the reduction in administrative cost limits proposed by the
legislation. National organizations also were concerned that the restructuring would
result in disruption of jobs for some existing enrollees.
The modifications to the program were debated during markup of the bills by
the House EEO Committee and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee,
with certain members of the Committees voicing objections to the proposed
restructuring. Some Members were concerned about the bills’ approach to
completely turn over the program to the states and that such a transition could be
disruptive to enrollees. There was also concern that there would be a loss of the
national organizations’ expertise in administering the program. An amendment to
S. 1643 to maintain direct award of funding to national organizations by the federal
government offered by Senator Mikulski during the Labor and Human Resources
Committee markup was not approved. Senator Mikulski stated that the restructuring
of the Title V program would be revisited when S. 1643 reached the Senate floor.
A similar amendment was proposed by Representative Kildee during the markup of
H.R. 2570, but was also rejected by the EEO Committee.
If proposals similar to those contained in H.R. 2570 and S. 1643 are included
in reauthorization proposals introduced in the 105 Congress, it is likely that th
th
e
issues surrounding these proposals will continue to be debated.
Changes in Funding Formula for Grants to States and Community
Programs on Aging
Changes in formula distribution provisions were included in both H.R. 2570 and
S. 1643. These proposals generated concern among some Members due to funding
shifts that would have occurred among states, compared to the current way funds are
distributed.
Current law requires the Administration on Aging (AoA) to distribute Title III
funds for supportive and nutrition services to states based on their relative share of
the population aged 60 and older. In addition to specifying certain minimum funding
amounts,
7 the law contains a “hold harmless” provision requiring that no state receive
less than it received in FY1987.
AoA distributes funds for supportive and nutrition services in the following
way: first, states are allotted funds in an amount equal to their FY1987 allocations,
which were based on estimates of states’ relative share of the total U.S. population
in 1985; second, the
8
balance of the appropriation is allotted to states based on their
7 The law requires that states receive no less than one-half of 1% of the total amount
appropriated; and that territories receive no less than 1/4 of 1% (Guam and the Virgin
Islands) or 1/16 of 1% (American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands) of the total
appropriation.

8 Estimates of the state population of persons aged 60 and over are updated annually by the
Bureau of the Census in the Current Population Survey. There is generally a 2-year lag time
(continued...)

CRS-6
relative share of the population aged 60 and over as derived from the most recently
available estimates of state population; and third, state allotments are adjusted to
assure that the minimum grant requirements are met. The effect of this methodology
is that the majority of funds are distributed according to population estimates in 1985
that do not reflect the most recent population trends.
The method that AoA uses to meet the 1987 “hold harmless” provision has
received some scrutiny. In connection with a report on possible alternative
methodologies for distribution of Title III funds,9 GAO reviewed AoA’s current
methodology. The report concluded that Title III funds are not distributed according
to the requirements of the statute.10 GAO concluded that the method employed by
AoA does not distribute funds proportionately according to states’ current relative
share of the older population and negatively affects states whose older population is
growing faster than others. The report recommended that AoA revise its method to
allot funds to states, first, on the basis of the most current population estimates, and
then alter the allotments to meet the hold harmless and statutory minimum
requirements.
11
Both H.R. 2570 and S. 1643 would have made changes in how supportive and
nutrition services funds would be distributed to states. H.R. 2570 would have phased
in over a 4-year period, a requirement that AoA distribute funds according to states’
relative shares of the population aged 60 and over using the most recently available
population data, gradually eliminating the FY1987 hold harmless provision.
S. 1643 would have based allotments for supportive and nutrition services on
two factors: a composite measure that attempts to capture the relative size of a
state’s relative “elderly in-need” (EIN) percentage; and, a measure of a state’s
relative total taxable resources compared to the state’s relative EIN.12
Each of these proposals would have shifted funds among states in a way that is
different than the current distribution, and therefore generated concern from
representatives from the “loser” states. On the other hand, some states that have been
experiencing a gain in the older population have been concerned that the current
8 (...continued)
in the availability of these estimates.
9 U.S. General Accounting Office. Older Americans Act. Funding Formula Could Better
Reflect State Needs. GAO/HEHS-94-41. May 1994.
10 U.S. General Accounting Office. Older Americans Act. Title III Funds Not Distributed
According to Statute. GAO/HEHS-94-37. January 1994.
1 1 At the time of the 1992 amendments, Congress created a separate authorization of
appropriations for Title VII vulnerable elder rights protection activities. In creating this
title, Congress approved a provision that required AoA to first allot Title VII funds
according to the most recent population estimates, and then allot the balance of funds to
meet a specified hold harmless requirement.
1 2 For a detailed discussion of the formula contained in S. 1643, see: CRS Report 95-32
Older Americans Act: 104th Congress Proposals, by Carol O’Shaughnessy.

CRS-7
distribution does not take into account the population shifts that have occurred over
the last decade.
Other ideas that were discussed, but were not ultimately incorporated into the
104th Congress bills, included the consideration of other formula factors such as
relative low-income of the elderly population across the states.
Changes in Programs for Elder Rights Protection Services
Current law includes a number of programs to protect the rights of older
persons. These are a separate Title VII for vulnerable elder rights protection
activities, including programs for long-term care ombudsman services and elde
13
r
abuse prevention services, and a requirement that area agencies on aging spend some
of their Title III supportive services funds on legal assistance services.
Although the bills took different approaches, both would have modified these
provisions. Both bills would have eliminated Title VII as a separate title for
vulnerable elder rights protection activities; however. S. 1643, but not H.R. 2570,
would have continued to authorize a separate stream of funds for the ombudsman
program. H.R. 2570 would have continued to require that states carry out
ombudsman services. In addition, H.R. 2570 would have eliminated the requirement
for funding of legal assistance services.
When the bills were considered by the respective committees, various
amendments were offered to assure that states continue to spend a specific amounts
of funds various elder rights services. Congress may revisit discussions regarding
elder rights programs if proposals to eliminate or lessen the Older Americans Act role
are made.
Targeting of Services to Low-Income Minority Older Persons
Targeting of services to low-income minority older persons continued to be a
subject of review during the 104th Congress, as it has during past reauthorizations
of the Act. Current law contains numerous requirements that state and area agencies
on aging target services to persons in greatest social and economic need, with
particular attention on low-income minority older persons. It also requires that the
agencies set specific objectives for serving low-income minority older persons and
that program development, advocacy, and outreach efforts be focused on these
groups. Service providers are required to meet specific objectives set by area
agencies for providing services to low-income minority older persons, and area
agencies are required to describe in their area plans how they have met these
objectives.
Both H.R. 2570 and S. 1643, as approved by the respective committees, would
have required that in providing services, preference be given to older persons in

13 Most Older Americans Act funding for the long-term care ombudsman program is through
Title III of the Act. For further information, see: CRS Report 96-399, Older Americans Act:
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, by Carol O’Shaughnessy.

CRS-8
greatest social and economic need, with particular attention to low-income minority
older persons, and that in conducting outreach to persons eligible for services,
particular emphasis be given to low-income minority older persons. In the mark-up
of H.R. 2570, an amendment that would have restored to the bill some other
references to serving low-income minority older persons that are in current law was
rejected. The 105th Congress may again review the current law targeting provisions
to assess what provisions might be included in reauthorization proposals.
Activity During the 105 Congress
th
The House Education and the Workforce Committee, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth and Families held reauthorization hearings on the Act on July 9
and 16, 1997. The Subcommittee received testimony from Administration officials
and representatives of state and area agencies on aging, services providers, and Indian
tribal organizations.
In addition, various bills to amend the Act have been introduced. These include
S. 390, Older Americans Act Amendments of 1997 (Mikulski), and H.R. 1671, Older
Americans Act Amendments of 1997 (Martinez). These bills are similar to the
reauthorization proposals suggested by the Administration during the 104 Congress.
th
They differ from bills reported by the House and Senate Committees during the 104th
Congress in a number of ways. For example, they would not consolidate
authorizations of appropriations for the Act’s programs, nor would these bills
reallocate funds for the community service employment program from national
organizations to states.
Other 105t Congress bills include S. 948 (Grassley)/H.R. 2167 (Schumer), the
h
Pension Assistance and Counseling Act of 1997. These bills would amend the
research, training, and demonstration program authorized under title IV of the Act
to create a toll-free telephone number for individuals who are seeking information
and assistance regarding pension and other retirement benefits, among other things.