September 24, 2008

Thomas M. Dowd, Administrator

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N--5641

Washington, D.C. 20210

SUBJECT: RIN 1205--AB48 -- Proposed SCSEP Regulations

Dear Mr. Dowd,

Since 1968, Senior Service America Inc. has operated SCSEP as one of the
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) national SCSEP grantees. We have
completed our initial analysis of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) of August 14, 2008, and conclude that these proposed regulations
will have a detrimental impact on serving older persons with barriers to
employment. We are deeply concerned that these regulations, if approved,
will reduce SCSEP's capacity to serve communities and older persons most
in need, especially from minority and rural communities. Below is a
description of our concerns.

**The proposed regulations do not conform with the 2006 Older Americans
Act (OAA).** We disagree with the interpretation that the Older
Americans Act of 2006 elevated placement into unsubsidized jobs above
all other purposes for SCSEP. In our view, Section 516 ("Sense of
Congress") of the 2006 OAA establishes community service as SCSEP's
primary purpose, followed by job placement:

> "It is the sense of Congress that--- (1) the older American community
> service employment program described in this title was established
> with the intent of placing older individuals in community service
> positions and providing job training; and (2) placing older
> individuals in community service positions strengthens the ability of
> the individuals to become self sufficient, provides much-needed
> support to organizations that benefit from increased civic engagement,
> and strengthens the communities that are served by such
> organizations."

This section of the 2006 OAA describes community service employment not
only as a job training activity but also as a way to strengthen
"self-sufficiency"---not limited specifically to economic
self-sufficiency, but including their emotional and social well-being as
well.

Also, the second part of section 516 describes that Congress intends for
SCSEP participants to be placed in subsidized community service jobs
which provides "much-needed support to organizations" (such as Meals on
Wheels, senior centers, and libraries) and "strengthens the communities
that are served by such organizations." Thus, Congress envisions
community service employment as an explicit, legitimate purpose of
SCSEP, not just as a vehicle for preparing individuals for unsubsidized
jobs.

Furthermore, for the first time in the history of the Act, Congress
included the following definition of "community service employment" in
section 518(a)(2) of the 2006 OAA:

> "part-time, temporary employment paid with grant funds ... through
> which eligible individuals are engaged in community service and
> receive work experience and job skills that can lead to unsubsidized
> employment."

We recommend that DOL insert this definition in proposed regulation
641.140, which already adds five new definitions from the 2006 OAA.

We urge DOL to develop a comprehensive body of regulations that would
preserve SCSEP as an aging program governed by the Older Americans Act.
It may be helpful to compare SCSEP and senior nutrition programs. By
inserting new language in the 2006 OAA, Congress reaffirmed that senior
nutrition programs are intended to promote socialization of older
individuals as well as reduce hunger. In a similar way, Congress also
reaffirmed through new language that SCSEP is intended to provide
community service employment as well as placement into unsubsidized jobs
in order to promote the well-being of vulnerable, low-income seniors.

**Limiting SCSEP participation to a maximum of 60 months for all
participants is both contrary to Congressional intent and
counterproductive to assisting the most vulnerable older adults.** We
are deeply concerned about the impact of proposed regulation 641.570,
which establishes (for approved individuals) a 12-month,
once-in-a-lifetime extension to the 48-month limit on SCSEP
participation. Such a policy would disregard the specific
characteristics of SCSEP participants, their barriers to employment, or
the conditions of their job market. There are several arguments against
imposing such an arbitrary, across-the-board limit applicable to all
SCSEP participants without exception.

First, in the 2006 OAA Congress did not place an absolute time limit for
all participants in the SCSEP program---on the contrary, Congress
outlined the conditions to be met for extending participation and left
the participation open-ended. Second, this proposed regulation is
unnecessary if its primary purpose is to reduce the number of long-term
SCSEP participants---the SCSEP performance measures and other sections
of the 2006 OAA will effectively achieve this goal without imposing a
time limit on all participants. Third, this proposed regulation will
harm the ability of SCSEP staff to assist the hardest-to-serve
individuals based on a participant's Individual Employment Plan---it
will undermine SCSEP's person-centered approach, demonstrated to be
effective especially with "most-in-need" older adults.

Fourth, the proposed regulation will result in involuntary terminations
of older adults who are continuing to benefit from SCSEP
participation---these terminations will jeopardize the self-sufficiency
and damage the sense of well-being of many vulnerable, most-in-need
individuals.In summary, we are concerned that proposed regulation
641.570 will have a disparate impact on individuals from racial and
language minorities as well as rural communities.

Furthermore, we are concerned that if participants who are continuing to
benefit from SCSEP participation are terminated involuntarily, the vast
majority will not find any other employment and training program
available to assist them in their community. According to DOL's Federal
Research and Evaluation Database, less than 5,000 low-income adults 55
and over exited from all Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs in
PY2006 across the country.

**The proposed regulation 641.577, which limits participants to 1300
hours of community service employment, is another example of an
unnecessary restriction on a SCSEP grantee's capacity to meet the needs
of individual participants and to respond to local conditions.**  The
2006 OAA requires that community service employment positions be
part-time, a policy reinforced by other regulations that establish
service level goals for grantees and require grantees to expend at least
75% of their grant on Participant Wages and Fringe Benefits. The
proposed 1300 hour limitation sets an arbitrary cap on participation
that disregards the characteristics of a specific participant, the
particular needs of a community (such as responding to a natural
disaster), and the conditions of that participant's labor market.  DOL
should allow SCSEP grantees the discretion and flexibility to manage
their funding and implement training for each participant based on the
Individual Employment Plan and the local labor market. We recommend that
DOL drop the 1300 hour limitation on community service employment in
proposed regulation 641.577.

**The proposed regulations fail to address the main reasons why WIA
serves very few older persons.** We support DOL's goal to strengthen
coordination between SCSEP and WIA programs, but we think that the
proposed regulations fail to address the main reasons for the small
numbers of low-income older adults served by WIA. According to recent
GAO reports (GAO-03-350 and GAO-08-548), the current WIA performance
measures serve as disincentives for One-Stops to serve significant
numbers of older persons. We recommend that DOL postpone all proposed
new and revised SCSEP regulations related to WIA coordination, pending
the reauthorization of WIA as mentioned in the NPRM.

**The proposed regulations fail to strengthen the coordination that is
required between SCSEP and other federal programs, including other OAA
programs**. We recommend that DOL develop additional regulations that
will enforce and reflect section 503(b) of the 2006 OAA, requiring
coordination of SCSEP with other programs under the Older Americans Act,
such as state units and area agencies on aging, and with other federal
programs such as Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and Vocational
Rehabilitation. We think that the proposed regulations 641.315 and
641.335 (regarding the State SCSEP Plan) and 641.640 (regarding pilot,
demonstration, and evaluation projects) are inadequate as written.

**More time is needed to study the proposed regulations and determine
their potential impact on various stakeholders.** The comments in this
letter are based on our initial analysis of the proposed regulations. As
a national grantee, we operate SCSEP exclusively through a diverse
network of 81 community-based, faith-based, and government agencies in
16 states.

These organizations assign SCSEP participants to work in over 5,000
public and private nonprofit agencies. Sixty days is insufficient time
for us to inform and seek input about the proposed regulations from the
diverse and complex network of agencies that comprises our SCSEP
delivery system. For this reason, we request that DOL extend the public
comment period for at least an additional 60 days or longer to allow for
a full and inclusive discussion of the impact of these proposed
regulations on participants and communities.

Sincerely yours,

![](media/image2.png){width="1.75in" height="0.5347222222222222in"}

Anthony R. Sarmiento