GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Aging, Committee on Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S.

Senate

June 2000 TITLE III, OLDER

AMERICANS ACT

Administration on

Aging Funding Method

Underfunds HighElderly-Growth States

GAO/HEHS-00-107

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Comparison of the Funding Allotment Steps Described

in the Statute With Those of AOA’s Method 14

Appendix II: Title III Funding per Elderly Person Using Statutory

and AOA Methods of Allocation, Fiscal Year 2000 15

Appendix III: In Fiscal Year 2000, AOA Method Underfunded Most

States With Above-Average Elderly Population

Growth 17

Appendix IV: Over- and Underfunding Resulting From Use of the

AOA Method, Fiscal Years 1993 and 2000 19

Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Health and

Human Services 21

Figures Figure 1: States Under- and Overfunded by AOA’s Method 8

Figure 2: Over- and Underfunding Under AOA’s Method

in States With Fast- and Slow-Growing Elderly Populations,

Fiscal Years 1993 and 2000 10

Abbreviations

AOA Administration on Aging

HHS Department of Health and Human Services
Page 2 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding
Page 3 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-285994 Letr

June 30, 2000

The Honorable Mike DeWine

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aging

Committee on Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Title III of the Older Americans Act is intended to assist elderly Americans

by removing barriers to independent living and adding to a continuum of

care for vulnerable individuals. Administered by the Administration on

Aging (AOA) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), title

III authorizes support programs such as congregate, or group, and in-home

meals; transportation; and housekeeping services. In fiscal year 2000, a

total of $810 million in title III grants was distributed among states and U.S.

territories.1

Previously, we reported that the method used by AOA to distribute title III

funding was not consistent with statutory requirements because it failed to

provide grants that were proportional to the elderly populations of those

states not guaranteed a minimum level of funding.2 In commenting on that

report, AOA asserted that its distribution procedures were based on a valid

interpretation of the statute. Our analysis of the legislative history,

however, does not support AOA’s interpretation.

In response to your January 10, 2000, request that we update the analysis in

our previous report, this report describes (1) the extent to which AOA’s

distribution of funding differs from the distribution that would take place if

funds were allocated according to the statute and (2) the effect of AOA’s

funding distribution method on states with more rapidly growing elderly

populations.

1

To simplify this discussion, we refer to all grant recipients as states.

2

Older Americans Act: Title III Funds Not Distributed According to Statute (GAO/HEHS-94-

37, Jan. 18, 1994).
B-285994

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

To estimate the effects of AOA’s method on the distribution of funds, we

computed title III grant amounts using the allocation method specified by

the statute and then compared the resulting distribution of funds with that

computed by AOA for fiscal year 2000. We then compared funding for those

states with above-average growth in their elderly populations3 under the

alternative allocation methods. We conducted our work from January

through June 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards, with the exception that we did not verify data obtained

in electronic format from AOA.

Results in Brief The AOA procedure for distributing title III funds results in unequal funding

per elderly person across states to a much greater degree than would be the

result using the statutory formula. For example, using AOA’s approach,

Arizona’s fiscal year 2000 funding per elderly person is 33 percent less than

Iowa’s, while strict adherence to the statute would result in a 5-percent

difference. Moreover, under the AOA procedure, most states with aboveaverage growth in number of elderly residents received less funding than

called for by the statute. For example, for fiscal year 2000, Florida received

$6.8 million less; California, $3.8 million less; Texas, $3.7 million less; and

Arizona, $3.2 million less. In total, using the statutory rather than the AOA

method would redirect $27 million of Older Americans Act title III fiscal

year 2000 state allotment funds (3.3 percent) to states that have

experienced above-average growth in their elderly populations. When we

first reported on this issue in 1994, the amount that would have been

redirected using the statutory method in fiscal year 1993 would have been

$17 million (2.2 percent of that year’s title III allotments).

We suggest that if the Congress wants to explicitly ensure that priority be

given to current data on states’ elderly populations in distributing title III

grant funds, it could amend the statute to require that funds be distributed

in that way. HHS concurs with this suggestion.

3

In this report, states with above-average elderly population growth are those whose

percentage change between 1985 and 1998 in the number of people aged 60 and older

exceeded the national average of such population growth. In the context of state and

national elderly population growth, “states” refers to only the 50 states and the District of

Columbia because Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the

Virgin Islands lack comparable population data for 1985 and 1998. The Bureau of the Census

is the source of the population data referred to in this report.
B-285994

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Background Under section 304 of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42

U.S.C. 3024), title III funds are to be distributed among states in proportion

to the most current data on the population aged 60 and older, which would

yield equal funding across states per person aged 60 and older. This

requirement, however, is subject to two conditions: first, no state is to

receive less than it received in fiscal year 1987 (a “hold-harmless”

provision), and second, no state is to receive less than 0.5 percent of funds

available for distribution (a small-state minimum provision).4 These

requirements could be satisfied by

• first, distributing available funding among states on the basis of the

current population aged 60 and older;

• next, increasing funding for those states that would otherwise receive

less than their fiscal year 1987 amount or whose share would fall below

the 0.5-percent minimum; and

• finally, proportionally reducing the funding of all other states to conform

with the total amount to be distributed.

Rather than distributing funding on the basis of current population data in

the first step, AOA gives priority to the hold-harmless provision. As a

consequence, each state first receives its 1987 grant amount, which was

determined partly on the basis of 1985 population estimates. This “base”

allotment represented 85 percent of AOA’s total fiscal year 2000 grants for

title III. The remaining 15 percent of funding is then allocated on the basis

of current population statistics (for fiscal year 2000, the 1998 elderly

population of states was the most current available). Then, the holdharmless base allotment and the allotment based on current population are

summed for each state. When that sum is less than 0.5 percent of overall

title III funding, additional funds are provided to raise the funding level to

the small-state minimum.5 These additional funds are obtained by

proportionally reducing the current population formula amounts allotted to

those states whose funding is above the 0.5-percent minimum. (The holdharmless amounts for each state are not proportionally reduced). Appendix

4

The hold-harmless and small-state minimums are applied separately for each of the five

Older Americans Act title III programs: (1) supportive services and centers, (2) congregate

nutrition services, (3) home-delivered nutrition services, (4) in-home services for frail older

individuals, and (5) disease prevention and health promotion services.

5

Instead of 0.5 percent, Guam and the Virgin Islands have a 0.25-percent minimum, and

American Samoa and the Northern Marianas have a 0.0625-percent minimum.
B-285994

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

I contains a more detailed comparison of AOA’s distribution process with

that of the statute.

AOA distributed title III funding in accordance with the statute until it

changed its method of calculating grant amounts in 1984. The present

formula, which subordinates the importance of the states’ proportions of

the elderly to the hold-harmless amounts, is based solely on a provision in

the 1984 amendment to the act that moved the hold-harmless requirement

from one paragraph to another. However, this change is designated in the

law as a “technical amendment,” and we believe the only purpose of the

change was to make the allotment provision in section 3024 consistent with

a change to another section dealing with administrative expenses.

Moreover, the absence of any discussion of a change to the allotment

formula in the history of the 1984 amendment suggests that the amendment

was not intended to have the effect that results from AOA’s method.

Intentionally reversing the practice in use since 1973 to de-emphasize the

role of the elderly population in allotting funds among the states would

have been an important change from the states’ viewpoint—one that would

have been expected to be the subject of debate and discussion and would

have been documented in the record. However, the 1984 change was made

without any debate or discussion.

In commenting on our earlier report, agency officials asserted that AOA’s

interpretation of section 304 and AOA’s revised method of distributing title

III funds are consistent with the law. But these officials also acknowledged

that first distributing funds on the basis of current population data, as

specified in the statute, would in fact yield a distribution of funds more

proportional to each state’s elderly population. Nevertheless, they stated

that AOA would continue its current distribution method unless the

Congress directed otherwise.
B-285994

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

AOA’s Method of

Distributing Funds

Yields Greater

Inequalities Among

States Than the

Statutory Method

Would

Because the AOA method applies the hold-harmless provision first, rather

than distributing funding in proportion to current elderly population as a

first step, some states receive more funding and others receive less than if

the method in the statute was used. The gap in funding per elderly person

can be large. For example, Arizona’s funding per elderly person is 33

percent less than Iowa’s under the AOA method. Under this method, no two

states receive the same funding per elderly person, as would be expected if

grant funding were simply proportional to elderly population. Under the

statutory method, which calls for the use of current population data as the

first step in allocating title III funds, Arizona’s grant would be just 5 percent

less than Iowa’s.6 Appendix II compares funding per elderly person under

the two methods for all states.

Figure 1 shows the funding effects on the states using AOA’s allocation

method. AOA’s distribution method underfunded 10 states by more than $1

million each in fiscal year 2000 (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,

Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia)

and overfunded 7 others by more than $1 million (Illinois, Massachusetts,

Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). States

underfunded by AOA’s method tend to be in the southern part of the

country. (App. III shows amounts by which individual states were underand overfunded in fiscal year 2000.)

6

Iowa’s grant would be slightly more than Arizona’s because Iowa would benefit from the

hold-harmless provision (in step 2), while Arizona would not.
B-285994

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Figure 1: States Under- and Overfunded by AOA’s Method
B-285994

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

AOA’s Method of

Distributing Funds Has

Particularly Adverse

Effects on States With

Above-Average Growth

in Their Elderly

Populations

AOA’s method for distributing funding has the additional effect of making

states’ allotments less sensitive to recent changes in the elderly population.

Among the 23 states whose elderly populations grew faster than average

from 1985 to 1998,7 15 received less funding under the AOA method in fiscal

year 2000 than they would have received under the statutory method.

Nationwide, the population aged 60 and older grew 14 percent between

1985 and 1998. These changes ranged from an increase of 100 percent (that

is, a doubling in size) in Nevada to a decline of 11 percent in the District of

Columbia. AOA’s method, which applies the hold-harmless provision first,

lessens the effect of changes in states’ elderly populations on fund

distribution. The result is that the AOA method underfunds most states

with above-average growth in their elderly populations, as compared with

those states with below-average growth.8 (See app. III.)

Moreover, the adverse effect of AOA’s allocation method on states with

above-average growth in their elderly populations has increased over time.

Using the statutory method would have redirected $17 million in fiscal year

1993 (2.2 percent of the Older Americans Act’s title III allotments for states

that year); that figure would have risen to $27 million in fiscal year 2000 (3.3

percent of title III allotments that year). Similarly, the states with less

rapidly growing elderly populations have become increasingly overfunded,

as shown in figure 2. The state-by-state differences in funding under the

two methods in 1993 and 2000 are shown in appendix IV.

7

This period was chosen because 1985 population data were used (in part) to calculate each

state’s fiscal year 1987 grant amount and, hence, its hold-harmless amount, and because

1998 population data were used to calculate fiscal year 2000 grant amounts.

8

The above-average-growth states that were not underfunded in fiscal year 2000 benefited

from the 0.5-percent minimum-funding guarantee (Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, New Hampshire, Utah, and Wyoming).
B-285994

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Figure 2: Over- and Underfunding Under AOA’s Method in States With Fast- and

Slow-Growing Elderly Populations, Fiscal Years 1993 and 2000

Note: Fast-growing states are those with above-average growth from 1985 to 1998 in their populations

aged 60 and older; slow-growing states are those with below-average growth in that population over

the same period.

Conclusions AOA’s method for distributing title III funds adversely affects states with

more rapidly growing elderly populations. Because it does not give priority

to current population data, these states receive smaller allotments than

they would receive if the agency used the statutory method for allocating

funds. The underfunding of states with above-average growth in their

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dollars in Millions

Fast-Growing Slow-Growing

Overfunded

Underfunded

FY 1993

FY 2000
B-285994

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

elderly population has worsened since we first reported on the problem in

1994.

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

If the Congress wants to ensure that current population data on elderly

populations are the primary factor used in determining how grant funds

under title III of the Older Americans Act are to be distributed among

states, it should consider stipulating this by amending the statute. Such an

amendment could specify that title III allotments be computed first on the

basis of states’ current shares of the elderly population. Then, any state

allotments that do not meet the hold-harmless or small-state minimum

percentage share would be increased, while allotments of all other states

would be proportionally reduced as necessary to fund the statutory

minimums.

Agency Comments HHS officials agreed with our matters for congressional consideration.

They said that, if the Congress seeks to ensure that current population data

on the distribution of the elderly population are the primary factor used in

determining how grant funds under title III of the Older Americans Act are

to be distributed among states, it should consider stipulating this by

amending the statute. HHS officials also restated their view that AOA’s

method of allocating funds is a valid interpretation of the statute and

should be given deference. Further, because AOA views its interpretation

of the provision at issue to be just as consistent with the statute as ours,

HHS officials objected to our application of the term “statutory method” to

our interpretation. We continue to believe that AOA’s current practice of

applying the hold-harmless provision first is inconsistent with the statute.

As discussed in the report, we believe that first applying current elderlypopulation data when allocating funds would be in accord with the law. The

full text of the agency comments appears in appendix V.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its content

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable Donna

E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Honorable

Jeanette C. Takamura, Assistant Secretary of the Administration on Aging;

appropriate congressional committees and subcommittees; and other

interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.
B-285994

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further

assistance, please call Jerry Fastrup at (202) 512-7211 or me at (202) 512-

7114. Robert Dinkelmeyer and Richard Horte made major contributions to

this report.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn G. Allen

Associate Director, Health Financing

and Public Health Issues
Page 13 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding
Page 14 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Appendix I

Comparison of the Funding Allotment Steps Apendxies

Described in the Statute With Those of AOA’s

Method ApendxiI

Statute AOA method Remarks

(1) Each state receives an

amount equal to its 1987

allotment, called the “holdharmless” amount.

The fiscal year 1987

allotments were calculated

on the basis of the 1985

population aged 60 and

older. Title III funding for

1987 represents 85 percent

of the amount available in

fiscal year 2000.

(2) The remaining funds are

distributed among states in

proportion to the number of

individuals aged 60 or older

in each state, as derived

from current population data.

Only 15 percent of current

title III funding is allotted on

the basis of current (1998)

population data.

(1) Each state’s initial

allotment is the result of

distributing the amount

available for state programs

in proportion to the number

of individuals aged 60 or

older in each state, as

derived from current

population data.

(3) Each state’s initial

allotment is the sum of the

1987 allotment (step 1) plus

the amount derived using a

population-based formula

(step 2).

In contrast to AOA’s method,

the statute calls for all

available funds to be

distributed on the basis of

current population data.

(2) If a state’s initial

allotment is below its 1987

funding level (the holdharmless provision) or if its

share of funding is below 0.5

percent of the title III total

(the small-state minimum),

the state’s allotment is

increased to reflect the

larger of these two amounts.

(4) If a state’s initial

allotment is below 0.5

percent of the title III total,

the state’s allotment is

increased to 0.5 percent of

the total.

Under the statute, states

receive the largest of the

following: their 1987 funding

amount, 0.5 percent of

available funds, or the

amount calculated using the

formula.

(3) Allotments for states not

affected by the holdharmless provision or the

0.5-percent minimum are

proportionally reduced to

pay the increased funding

for states that benefit from

these provisions.

(5) For states not affected by

the 0.5-percent minimum,

the amount allotted on the

basis of current population is

proportionally reduced to

pay for the increased

funding for states that

benefit from the 0.5-percent

minimum.

Both methods ensure that a

state’s funding is not

proportionally reduced

below either the 0.5-percent

minimum or the holdharmless level.
Page 15 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Appendix II

Title III Funding per Elderly Person Using

Statutory and AOA Methods of Allocation,

Fiscal Year 2000 ApendxiI

State Statutory method AOA method

Alabama $17.10 $17.40

Alaska 78.20a 78.20a

Arizona 17.23 13.25

Arkansas 17.43b 18.77

California 17.10 16.29

Colorado 17.10 14.74

Connecticut 17.58b 18.98

Delaware 32.55a 32.55a

District of Columbia 43.10a 43.10a

Florida 17.10 15.11

Georgia 17.10 15.88

Hawaii 19.92a 20.44c

Idaho 21.63a 22.09c

Illinois 17.60b 18.99

Indiana 17.10 17.98

Iowa 18.18b 19.65

Kansas 17.89b 19.32

Kentucky 17.15b 18.20

Louisiana 17.10 17.95

Maine 18.10a 19.12c

Maryland 17.10 16.56

Massachusetts 17.89b 19.33

Michigan 17.10 17.54

Minnesota 17.16b 18.24

Mississippi 17.39b 18.69

Missouri 17.46b 18.82

Montana 25.87a 26.12c

Nebraska 18.39b 19.88

Nevada 17.10 15.77

New Hampshire 22.36a 22.85c

New Jersey 17.25b 18.41

New Mexico 16.79 16.02

New York 18.22b 19.69

North Carolina 17.10 15.42

North Dakota 34.19a 34.20c

Ohio 17.10 18.10
Appendix II

Title III Funding per Elderly Person Using

Statutory and AOA Methods of Allocation,

Fiscal Year 2000

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

a

This state is subject to a small-state minimum for all component programs.

b

This state is subject to a hold-harmless minimum for one or more component programs.

c

This state is subject to a small-state minimum for some component programs.

Oklahoma 17.22b 18.35

Oregon 17.10 16.62

Pennsylvania 17.60b 19.00

Rhode Island 21.45a 22.09c

South Carolina 17.10 15.32

South Dakota 30.02a 30.15c

Tennessee 17.10 17.06

Texas 17.10 15.75

Utah 17.04 17.27

Vermont 42.97a 42.97a

Virginia 17.10 15.97

Washington 17.10 15.94

West Virginia 18.03b 19.48

Wisconsin 17.18b 18.28

Wyoming 53.80a 53.80a

American Samoa 469.78b,c 471.79c

Guam 231.16a 231.16a

Northern Marianas 414.34b,c 414.91c

Puerto Rico 17.10 14.75

Virgin Islands 209.58a 209.58a

National average 17.90 17.90

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Statutory method AOA method
Page 17 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Appendix III

In Fiscal Year 2000, AOA Method Underfunded

Most States With Above-Average Elderly

Population Growth ApendxiI

State

Change in population

aged 60 and older, 1985

to 1998 (percentage)

Allotment using

statutory method

Allotment using

AOA method

Overfunding/underfunding

Amount Percentage

States with above-average elderly population growth

Nevada 100.1 $4,663,791 $4,300,150 -$363,641 -7.8

Alaskaa 75.8 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0

Arizona 48.5 13,757,194 10,577,987 -3,179,207 -23.1

Hawaiia 39.6 4,048,585 4,154,953 106,368 2.6

Colorado 35.5 9,466,691 8,155,465 -1,311,226 -13.9

Utahb 35.3 4,192,590 4,248,979 56,389 1.3

New Mexico 34.9 4,455,159 4,250,466 -204,693 -4.6

South Carolina 28.0 10,647,870 9,535,061 -1,112,809 -10.5

Florida 27.4 58,109,935 51,334,691 -6,775,244 -11.7

North Carolina 26.7 21,400,865 19,295,387 -2,105,478 -9.8

Delawarea 25.6 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0

Idahoa 25.5 4,048,585 4,134,706 86,121 2.1

Texas 24.9 46,298,862 42,627,208 -3,671,654 -7.9

Georgia 24.4 17,440,732 16,191,749 -1,248,983 -7.2

Washington 22.7 14,566,063 13,576,287 -989,776 -6.8

Virginia 22.1 17,356,015 16,200,305 -1,155,710 -6.7

Wyominga 20.6 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0

California 19.6 79,517,589 75,749,046 -3,768,543 -4.7

Oregon 19.0 9,586,987 9,314,214 -272,773 -2.8

Montanaa 17.8 4,048,585 4,087,033 38,448 0.9

Maryland 17.3 13,181,102 12,765,236 -415,866 -3.2

Tennessee 15.4 15,497,517 15,453,478 -44,039 -0.3

New Hampshirea 15.2 4,048,585 4,136,901 88,316 2.2

States with below-average elderly population growth

Alabama 13.5 12,865,115 13,084,901 219,786 1.7

Vermonta 11.9 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0

Michigan 11.1 27,153,675 27,852,605 698,930 2.6

Louisiana 10.5 11,565,880 12,140,815 574,935 5.0

Minnesota 9.0 12,931,265 13,740,777 809,512 6.3

Kentucky 8.8 11,268,665 11,964,039 695,374 6.2

Indiana 8.6 16,580,363 17,428,748 848,385 5.1

Mainea 8.6 4,048,585 4,275,885 227,300 5.6

Wisconsin 8.2 15,314,422 16,290,204 975,782 6.4
Appendix III

In Fiscal Year 2000, AOA Method

Underfunded Most States With AboveAverage Elderly Population Growth

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

a

Allotments of states subject to the 0.5-percent minimum are not determined by their population aged

60 years and older. Hence, the use of the AOA method instead of the statutory method generally does

not change their funding.

b

Although Utah is a high-growth state, it is currently overfunded because it benefited from the 0.5-

percent minimum in 1987, which resulted in a high hold-harmless amount.

c

1985 data for the population aged 60 and older are unavailable for the outlying areas and therefore

are not included in the national average.

Mississippi 8.0 7,758,023 8,338,888 580,865 7.5

Oklahoma 7.9 10,232,430 10,904,983 672,553 6.6

Ohio 7.5 33,284,956 35,228,933 1,943,977 5.8

Arkansas 6.8 8,283,533 8,920,040 636,507 7.7

New Jersey 5.5 24,507,207 26,159,402 1,652,195 6.7

Missouri 4.9 16,820,575 18,136,246 1,315,671 7.8

South Dakotaa 4.7 4,048,585 4,065,136 16,551 0.4

Kansas 3.8 8,093,456 8,741,836 648,380 8.0

Illinois 3.7 34,276,664 37,000,570 2,723,906 7.9

Nebraska 3.1 5,402,193 5,840,857 438,664 8.1

Connecticut 3.1 10,394,132 11,219,859 825,727 7.9

North Dakotaa 2.9 4,048,585 4,050,034 1,449 0

West Virginia 2.5 6,536,037 7,061,681 525,644 8.0

Pennsylvania 2.4 42,193,866 45,547,641 3,353,775 7.9

Massachusetts 1.7 19,353,657 20,905,177 1,551,520 8.0

Iowa 1.7 10,036,189 10,846,991 810,802 8.1

New York 0.3 57,191,446 61,818,656 4,627,210 8.1

Rhode Islanda -1.1 4,048,585 4,169,230 120,645 3.0

District of Columbiaa -11.3 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0

Recipients without comparable population data for 1985 and 1998

American Samoaa c 1,190,885 1,195,975 5,090 0.4

Guama c 2,024,294 2,024,294 0 0

Northern Marianasa c 511,292 511,999 707 0.1

Puerto Rico c 9,151,919 7,894,077 -1,257,842 -13.7

Virgin Islandsa c 2,024,294 2,024,294 0 0

National

average/total 13.6c $809,717,000 $809,717,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Change in population

aged 60 and older, 1985

to 1998 (percentage)

Allotment using

statutory method

Allotment using

AOA method

Overfunding/underfunding

Amount Percentage
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Appendix IV

Over- and Underfunding Resulting From Use

of the AOA Method, Fiscal Years 1993 and

2000 ApendxiIV

State

Population

change

(percentage)b

Amount over- or underfundeda

Fiscal year 1993

Fiscal year

2000

Not affected by the 0.5-

percent minimum in fiscal

year 2000

Nevada 100.1 $91,785 -$363,641

Arizona 48.5 -1,708,750 -3,179,207

Colorado 35.5 -494,843 -1,311,226

Utah 35.3 151,567 56,389

New Mexico 34.9 87,399 -204,693

South Carolina 28.0 -646,067 -1,112,809

Florida 27.4 -5,936,778 -6,775,244

North Carolina 26.7 -1,316,535 -2,105,478

Texas 24.9 -1,454,608 -3,671,654

Georgia 24.4 -596,290 -1,248,983

Washington 22.7 -748,581 -989,776

Virginia 22.1 -866,452 -1,155,710

California 19.6 -2,771,562 -3,768,543

Oregon 19.0 -227,875 -272,773

Maryland 17.3 -503,563 -415,866

Tennessee 15.4 -12,274 -44,039

Alabama 13.5 113,389 219,786

Michigan 11.1 3,626 698,930

Louisiana 10.5 397,567 574,935

Minnesota 9.0 491,592 809,512

Kentucky 8.8 450,115 695,374

Indiana 8.6 149,612 848,385

Wisconsin 8.2 449,589 975,782

Mississippi 8.0 515,945 580,865

Oklahoma 7.9 577,481 672,553

Ohio 7.5 270,740 1,943,977

Arkansas 6.8 549,550 636,507

New Jersey 5.5 709,603 1,652,195

Missouri 4.9 835,502 1,315,671

Kansas 3.8 573,691 648,380

Illinois 3.7 1,892,426 2,723,906

Nebraska 3.1 528,245 438,664
Appendix IV

Over- and Underfunding Resulting From Use

of the AOA Method, Fiscal Years 1993 and

2000

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

a

Positive numbers signify that the AOA method yields a larger grant amount than the statutory method.

Conversely, negative numbers signify that the AOA method yields a smaller grant amount than the

statutory method.

b

Percentage change in the population aged 60 and older between 1985 and 1998.

c

1985 data for the population aged 60 and older are unavailable for the outlying areas and therefore

are not included in the national average.

d

Allotments of states subject to the 0.5-percent minimum are not determined by their population aged

60 and older. Hence, the use of the AOA method instead of the statutory method generally changes

their funding relatively little.

Connecticut 3.1 398,186 825,727

West Virginia 2.5 509,975 525,644

Pennsylvania 2.4 1,218,074 3,353,775

Massachusetts 1.7 1,325,937 1,551,520

Iowa 1.7 773,505 810,802

New York 0.3 4,374,177 4,627,210

Puerto Rico c -727,245 -1,257,842

Affected by the 0.5-percent minimum in fiscal year 2000d

Alaska 75.8 0 0

Hawaii 39.6 73,919 106,368

Delaware 25.6 0 0

Idaho 25.5 45,650 86,121

Wyoming 20.6 0 0

Montana 17.8 0 38,448

New Hampshire 15.2 69,496 88,316

Vermont 11.9 0 0

Maine 8.6 234,988 227,300

South Dakota 4.7 0 16,551

North Dakota 2.9 0 1,449

Rhode Island -1.1 143,495 120,645

District of Columbia -11.3 0 0

American Samoa c 4,595 5,090

Guam c 0 0

Northern Marianas c 0 0

Virgin Islands c 0 0

National average 13.6c

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Population

change

(percentage)b

Amount over- or underfundeda

Fiscal year 1993

Fiscal year

2000
Page 21 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding

Appendix V

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding
Appendix V

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

(201022) Letr Page 23 GAO/HEHS-00-107 Older Americans Act Title III Funding
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00