United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Special Committee on Aging, 

U.S. Senate

SENIOR COMMUNITY 

SERVICE EMPLOYMENT 

PROGRAM 

Labor Has Made Progress 

Implementing Older 

Americans Act 

Amendments of 2000, but 

Challenges Remain 

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, April 6, 2006

 

GAO-06-549T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 6, 2006

SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE 

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 

Labor Has Made Progress Implementing 

Older Americans Act Amendments of 

2000, but Challenges Remain 

Highlights of GAO-06-549T, testimony 

before the Special Committee on Aging, 

U.S. Senate 

The aging of the baby boom

generation and increased life 

expectancy pose serious challenges

for our nation. Older adults often 

must re-enter the workforce in

order to remain self-sufficient. The 

Senior Community Service 

Employment Program (SCSEP) is 

the only federal program that is 

specifically designed to assist lowincome older adults by providing 

part-time community service jobs

and training to prepare for 

employment. Since passage of the 

2000 Older Americans Act 

Amendments (OAA), SCSEP has 

also increasingly focused on

promoting economic selfsufficiency through placement in

unsubsidized employment. In 2005, 

Congress appropriated about $439 

million to serve about 100,000 older 

workers. Administered by the 

Department of Labor (Labor),

SCSEP is implemented through 69 

grantees, including 13 national 

organizations and 56 state and 

territorial agencies. 

The Chairman of the Senate Special 

Committee on Aging asked GAO to

(1) determine what effect the OAA 

Amendments have had on the 

distribution of SCSEP funds to

national and state grantees, (2) 

describe the progress Labor has 

made in implementing the

enhanced performance

accountability system, and (3) 

identify the challenges faced by 

national and state grantees in 

managing the SCSEP program. 

The 2000 OAA Amendments have had little impact on the distribution of 

funds between national and state grantees, with national grantees continuing 

to receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and states about 22 

percent. However, the distribution of funding among national grantees has 

changed substantially as a result of Labor’s 2002 open competition for the 

national grants portion of SCSEP funding. 

Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance accountability 

system for SCSEP, but has yet to implement some features. For example, 

Labor introduced the new performance measures required by the OAA 

Amendments, but program year 2005—which ends on June 30, 2006—is the 

first year that grantees will be held accountable for meeting their goals. 

Labor has implemented an early version of a data collection system to track

grantee performance, but the final Internet-based version is not yet available. 

Changes to the SCSEP eligibility criteria and difficulties coordinating with 

the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) one-stop system have posed challenges 

to SCSEP grantees. Labor modified some eligibility criteria to target limited 

program funds to individuals it believes are most in need of SCSEP services. 

However, grantees expressed concern that these changes had made it more 

difficult for them to meet their enrollment goals. Finally, GAO found that 

despite provisions in the OAA Amendments to strengthen connections 

between SCSEP and WIA, problems persist in coordinating with WIA 

providers and obtaining intensive and training services for older workers at 

one-stop centers. 

Challenges to Managing SCSEP Cited by Grantees 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of grantees

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

Issue

100

52

69 75

62

56 54

75

 Meeting new 

 performance

 measures

 Coordinating

 SCSEP activities

 with WIA services

Implementing

 Labor’s new data 

 collection system

 Obtaining

 intensive services

 and training at the 

 one-stop centers

www.gao.go National grantees (13) State grantees (52) v/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-549T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd R. 

Nilsen, (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Older Americans Act (OAA) 

Amendments of 2000 as they relate to the Senior Community Service 

Employment Program (SCSEP). GAO has conducted several studies 

related to older worker issues,1

 and my testimony today is based on work 

that you requested concerning how the OAA Amendments have affected

SCSEP. 

The U.S. economy is experiencing a dramatic demographic change with 

the aging of the baby boom generation (people born between 1946 and 

1964), the oldest of whom are turning age 60 this year. Older Americans 

are expected to represent a growing share of the population and have a 

longer life expectancy than previous generations. Many older adults may 

choose to remain in the workforce or need to continue working for 

financial reasons. Furthermore, the number of older adults living in 

poverty is expected to increase significantly. By 2008, the U.S. Census 

Bureau estimates that 6.7 million persons aged 55 and older will be below 

the poverty level, a 22 percent increase over the number living in poverty 

in 2000. This number is expected to jump to 9 million by 2015. 

SCSEP is the only federal employment and training program targeted to 

low-income older adults. Originally authorized in 1965 by Title V of OAA, 

SCSEP is administered by the Department of Labor (Labor) to promote 

part-time community service activities for unemployed, low-income 

individuals 55 years and older who have poor employment prospects. 

Under the OAA Amendments, the program has evolved from being 

primarily focused on community service to a program that increasingly 

emphasizes economic self-sufficiency through unsubsidized employment. 

The amendments also made other changes to SCSEP including revising the 

funding distribution formula and establishing a performance 

accountability system. Furthermore, in anticipation of the upcoming 

 1

For further information on older worker issues please see the following reports and 

testimonies: GAO, Older Workers: Labor Can Help Employers and Employees Plan Better

for the Future, GAO-06-80 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2005); Older Workers: Policies of 

Other Nations to Increase Labor Force Participation, GAO-03-307 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb.13, 2003); Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and 

Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other Services, 

GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003); and Older Workers: Demographic Trends 

Pose Challenges for Employers and Workers, GAO-02-85 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.16, 2001).

Page 1 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
reauthorization of Title V of OAA, the administration has proposed 

additional changes to SCSEP. In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated 

approximately $439 million for SCSEP that Labor distributed to 69 

grantees: 13 national grantees (consisting of 12 national nonprofit 

organizations and 1 federal agency) and 56 state and territorial agencies.2

 

These funds support about 61,000 SCSEP positions, through which 

approximately 100,000 participants are served each year. The grantees 

typically place older workers in part-time community service positions, 

such as nurse’s aides, teacher aides, librarians, clerical workers, and day

care assistants, so that these older workers can gain on-the-job experience

and prepare for unsubsidized employment. 

My testimony today will address (1) changes in the distribution of SCSEP 

funds to national and state grantees as a result of the OAA Amendments, 

(2) the progress that Labor has made in implementing an enhanced 

performance accountability system, and (3) the challenges that national

and state grantees face in managing SCSEP. 

In summary, our work shows that the OAA Amendments have had little 

effect on the distribution of funds between national and state grantees, 

with the national grantees continuing to receive approximately 78 percent

of the funding and state grantees about 22 percent. Since the amendments 

took effect in 2000, SCSEP appropriations have experienced only minor 

fluctuations, and correspondingly, the total number of positions 

authorized for participants has remained generally constant. However, the 

distribution of funding and positions among national grantees has changed 

substantially as a result of an open competition that Labor held in 2002. 

Further, although the amendments were passed in 2000, Labor has yet to 

fully establish a performance accountability system. For example, 

program year 2005—which ends on June 30, 2006—is the first year for 

which grantees will be held accountable for their performance, and the 

final Internet-based version of Labor’s data collection system is not yet 

online. Labor modified several eligibility criteria to target SCSEP’s limited 

funds to individuals it believes are most in need of program services. 

However, most national and state grantees in our survey expressed 

concern that these changes had made it more difficult for them to meet 

their enrollment goals. Finally, we found that despite provisions in the 

OAA Amendments to strengthen connections between SCSEP and the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA), problems coordinating with WIA 

 2

Labor reserved $2 million for private employment projects. 

Page 2 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
providers and obtaining intensive and training services for older workers 

at one-stop centers persist. 

We based our work, in part, on a survey of the 13 national organizations 

and 52 state grantees (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). 

We received responses from all national and state grantees. We also 

interviewed Labor officials and representatives from four national 

organizations that received nearly two-thirds of the SCSEP funds allocated 

to national organizations in program year 2005:3

 AARP, Experience Works, 

Mature Services, and Senior Service America. In addition, we visited five 

states—California, Florida, Idaho, Ohio, and Oregon—and interviewed 

officials responsible for administering SCSEP. We used several criteria in 

selecting site visit locations, including geographic dispersion within the 

United States, relative size of the state population, proportion of the state 

population that is both elderly and below the poverty level, proportion of 

the state population that is over the age of 55, and the amount of SCSEP 

funding allocated to each state during program year 2004 (July 1, 2004, to 

June 30, 2005). We performed our work between July 2005 and March 

2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

SCSEP, as authorized under the OAA Amendments, promotes part-time 

opportunities in community service for unemployed low-income persons 

who are at least 55 years old and have poor employment prospects. The 

program is also designed to foster economic self-sufficiency by assisting 

older workers in transitioning to unsubsidized employment. Administered 

by Labor for over 30 years, the program operates in every state, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, 

and the Northern Mariana Islands. The program is administered through 

grants awarded to national organizations as well as state and territorial 

agencies. (See app. I for a listing of national grantees and funds and 

positions awarded in program year 2005.) In program year 2005, 

approximately $439 million was appropriated to support about 61,000 

SCSEP positions, through which approximately 100,000 participants are 

Background 

 3

A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of the following year. A 

program year is designated by the year in which it begins. Thus program year 2005 began

on July 1, 2005, and ends on June 30, 2006. 

Page 3 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
served.4

 (See app. II for a listing of funds and positions awarded by state in 

program year 2005). 

SCSEP serves unemployed persons who are 55 years or older whose 

family incomes are no more than 125 percent of the federal poverty level. 

Participants are placed in part-time community service assignments in a 

local nonprofit organization or public-sector agency to gain on-the-job 

experience and prepare for unsubsidized employment. Program 

participants receive training and work experience in a wide variety of 

occupations, including nurse’s aides, teacher aides, librarians, clerical 

workers, and day care assistants. Program participants are paid the 

highest federal, state, or local applicable minimum wage, or the prevailing

rate of pay for persons employed in similar occupations by the same 

employer. The OAA Amendments require that at least 75 percent of 

SCSEP funds be used to subsidize participants’ wages and fringe benefits 

and no more than 13.5 percent of the funds may be used for administrative

expenses. The remaining funds may be used for other program costs such

as assessments, training, job placement assistance, and supportive 

services.5

 

The OAA Amendments were designed to make a number of changes to 

SCSEP. The amendments contained provisions to 

• establish unsubsidized employment as a program goal, while 

maintaining the community service aspect of the program; 

• establish a performance accountability system that held grantees 

accountable for meeting specific performance measures, including 

placement and retention of participants in unsubsidized 

employment, community services provided, customer satisfaction, 

and number of persons served—-particularly those with the greatest 

economic and social need or those with poor employment history or 

prospects, and those over age 60; 

• improve coordination between SCSEP and WIA; and 

 4

This figure does not include $2 million dollars for reserved for private employment 

projects. 

5

Supportive services assist participants to successfully participate in SCSEP. Such services

include payments for transportation; health care and medical services; incidentals such as

work shoes, uniforms, and tools; child and adult care; and temporary shelter. 

Page 4 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
• strengthen administrative procedures by defining administrative 

and program costs and applying uniform cost principles. 

In addition, the amendments revised the distribution formula by specifying 

that the first $35 million in funding above the amount to maintain current 

level of program year 2000 activities be allocated 75 percent to state 

grantees and 25 percent to national grantees. Any additional funds above 

$35 million will be allocated evenly between state and national grantees. 

The OAA Amendments have had little effect on the distribution of funds 

between national and state grantees, with the national grantees continuing 

to receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and state grantees 

about 22 percent. Since the amendments took effect in 2000, the SCSEP 

appropriation has experienced only minor fluctuations, and 

correspondingly, the total number of positions has remained largely 

constant. However, the distribution of funding and positions among 

national grantees has changed substantially. An open competition for 

national SCSEP positions held in 2002 increased the total number of 

national grantees from 10 to 13 (eliminating 1 incumbent grantee and 

introducing 4 new grantees) and reshuffled funding and positions among 

existing grantees. In program year 2005, national grantees operated in all 

states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) except Alaska, 

Delaware, and Hawaii. Approximately two-thirds of both national and

state grantee positions are located in metropolitan areas. However, the 

percentage of positions in metropolitan areas varied widely among 

national grantees. For example, three national grantees administered 

more than 90 percent of their SCSEP positions in metropolitan counties, 

while two have about 40 percent of their positions in metropolitan 

counties. 

OAA Amendments 

Have Had Minimal 

Impact on Funding 

Distribution between 

National and State 

Grantees 

OAA Amendments Have 

Had Little Effect on the 

Distribution of SCSEP 

Funds 

The revision of the funding formula outlined in the OAA Amendments has 

had little impact on the distribution of funds between national and state 

grantees. The formula takes effect only when SCSEP funding for national

and state grantees rises above program year 2000 levels of approximately 

$423 million.6

 Because the SCSEP appropriation has remained relatively 

 6

The formula for distributing SCSEP funding to national and state grantees applies to the

balance after Labor reserves funds for private employment projects, the territories, and

national grantees serving older Indians and Native Americans and Pacific Island and Asian 

Americans. 

Page 5 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
constant over the past 5 years, the distribution of funds between national

and state grantees has also experienced little change. In each program 

year since 2000, approximately 78 percent of the SCSEP funding for 

grantees was allocated to national grantees and 22 percent was allocated 

to state grantees (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Distribution of SCSEP Funding for Program Years 2000 to 2005 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

SCSEP funding (millions)

Program year (Annual allotment to grantees)

State grantees

National grantees

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.

22% 22% 22.6% 22.5% 22.1% 22%

78% 78% 78% 77.4% 77.5% 77.9%

($422.5) ($422.6) ($427.1) ($426.7) ($423.1) ($421.4)

Note: The allotments are less than the annual appropriations because the formula for

distributing SCSEP funding to national and state grantees excludes funds reserved for 

private employment projects, territorial grantees, and national grantees serving older 

Indians and Pacific Island and Asian Americans. For example, of the $439 million 

appropriated in program year 2005, Labor reserved $2 million for private employment 

projects, about $3.3 million for territorial grantees, and about$12 million for the two 

national grantees that serve minority communities. Thus, approximately $421 million was 

allotted by formula to national and state grantees. 

For program year 2005, SCSEP appropriations funded 61,047 positions—

160 fewer than were funded in program year 2000. Slight funding increases 

from program years 2002 to 2004 provided for as much as $4.6 million in 

additional annual funding for national and state grantees. Labor allotted 

approximately 75 percent of this amount to state grantees and 25 percent

Page 6 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
to national grantees in accordance with the revised distribution formula. 

However, these funding increases did not markedly alter the overall 

distribution between national and state grantees. 

2002 Competition 

Reshuffled Funds and 

Positions among National 

Grantees

Labor’s 2002 open competition for the national grants portion of SCSEP 

funding increased the number of national grantees administering SCSEP 

and substantially reshuffled positions and funding among existing 

grantees. Labor decided to conduct the competition in order to ensure 

that the most qualified organizations were awarded grants, to open the 

grantee community to new organizations, and to provide better services to

SCSEP participants. The competition—the first of its kind in SCSEP’s 

history—yielded 68 applications. A three-member Labor review panel 

evaluated each application and scored it according to the applicant’s plan

for program design and services, coordination and oversight, and 

management structure and fiscal integrity. Based on these scores, Labor

ranked each applicant, deemed that 13 applicants scored in a competitive

range making them eligible to receive grant awards, and allotted positions 

by county to grantees on a winner-takes-all basis. Specifically, the highest 

ranked applicant received all the positions it requested, and each 

subsequent applicant received all positions not previously claimed by a 

higher-ranked applicant. All 13 competitive applicants were eventually

awarded positions. The competition produced 4 new national grantees, 

increasing the total number from 10 to 13. One incumbent grantee, the 

National Urban League, was not awarded a grant to continue 

administering SCSEP. The competition also resulted in a significant 

reshuffling of funds and positions among incumbent grantees. Of the nine

incumbent national grantees that were awarded continuing grants, two 

gained positions, and seven lost positions (see table 1). 

Page 7 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Table 1: National Grantee Positions Before and After 2002 Competition

National Grantee 

Program year 2002 

positions

(precompetition)

Program year 2003

positions

(postcompetition) Change

Incumbent grantees that gained positions

AARP Foundation 7,097 10,487 + 3,390

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. 1,831 2,140 + 309

Incumbent grantees that lost positions

Experience Works, Inc. 14,915 12,051 - 2,864

National Council on the Aging, Inc. 5,334 3,069 - 2,265

National Urban League 2,163 (not selected) - 2,163

Senior Service America, Inc. 9,015 7,017 - 1,998

USDA Forest Service 3,998 2,863 - 1,135

Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores 1,864 1,090 - 774

National Indian Council on Aging 867 862 - 5

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging 857 856 - 1

New grantees

SER —Jobs for Progress National, Inc. (new grantee) 3,681 + 3,681

Easter Seals, Inc. (new grantee) 2,267 + 2,267

Mature Services, Inc. (new grantee) 774 + 774

National Able Network (new grantee) 764 + 764

TOTAL 47,941 47,921 - 20

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Labor. 

Labor determines the amount of funding to be allocated to grantees based 

on a “cost per authorized position” outlined in the OAA Amendments. As a 

result, following the 2002 competition, each of the 13 successful grantees 

received funding approximately equal to the number of positions it was 

awarded times $7,153—the pre-determined cost per authorized position. 

Among incumbent grantees, two gained additional funding and seven lost

funding. AARP Foundation gained more than $24 million in additional 

funds, while Experience Works, Inc. lost $20.5 million in funding. 

Altogether, the four new grantees received approximately $54 million in 

SCSEP funding (see table 2). 

Page 8 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Table 2: National Grantee Funding Before and After 2002 Competition

National grantee

Program year 2002 

funding

(precompetition)

Program year 2003

funding

(postcompetition) Change

Incumbent grantees that gained funding

AARP Foundation $50,764,841 $75,018,059 $24,253,218

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. $13,097,143 $15,310,083 $2,212,940

Incumbent grantees that lost funding

Experience Works, Inc. $106,686,995 $86,202150 -$20,484,845

National Council on the Aging, Inc. $38,154,102 $21,952,313 -$16,201,789

National Urban League $15,471,939 (not selected) -$15,471,939

Senior Service America, Inc. $64,484,295 $50,190,834 -$14,293,461

USDA Forest Service $28,597,694 $20,483,709 -$8,113,985

Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores $13,333,192 $7,793,500 -$5,539,692

National Indian Council on Aging $6,201,651 $6,165,886 -$35,765

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging $6,130,121 $6,120,400 -$9,721

New grantees

SER – Jobs for Progress National, Inc. (new grantee) $26,319,150 $26,319,150

Easter Seals, Inc. (new grantee) $16,219,388 $16,219,388

Mature Services, Inc. (new grantee) $5,536,422 $5,536,422

National Able Network (new grantee) $5,462,600 $5,462,600

TOTAL $342,921,973 $342,774,494 -$147,479

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Labor. 

On March 2, 2006, Labor announced an open competition for program year 

2006 national grantee funding. This announcement is consistent with 

Labor’s current proposal for the reauthorization of SCSEP, which 

recommends eliminating performance sanctions in favor of holding a 

competition for grants every 3 years. Using similar criteria to those used 

in the 2002 competition, Labor plans to award no more than 20 grants to 

national grantees, including at least 1 grant to an Indian and Native 

American organization and at least 1 grant to an Asian Pacific Islander 

organization. Labor is specifically seeking organizations that are able to

foster partnerships with one-stop career centers and community colleges

and that promote private employment through high-growth job 

opportunities. In order to increase program effectiveness and achieve 

economies of scale, Labor has consolidated the geographic areas over 

which grantees will administer SCSEP for the upcoming program year. 

When requesting positions, potential grantees must apply for at least 

10 percent of a state’s allocation, or $1.6 million, whichever is greater. 

Page 9 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Furthermore, applicants that apply for more than one county in a state 

must request contiguous counties, and except in the cases of very large 

counties, they must apply for all the positions in a county. 

Equal Share of National 

and State Positions 

Located in Metropolitan 

Areas 

For program year 2005, slightly more than two-thirds of both national and

state grantee positions are located in metropolitan areas. National 

grantees administer SCSEP in every state except Alaska, Delaware, and 

Hawaii, while state grantees operate SCSEP in all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico.7

 Individual national grantees operate in as 

many as 39 states (Experience Works, Inc.) and as few as 2 states (Mature 

Services, Inc.). The share of positions in metropolitan areas varies widely 

among national grantees. Three grantees administer more than 90 percent

of their SCSEP positions in metropolitan counties, while two grantees 

have fewer than half of their positions in metropolitan counties (see 

table 3). 

 7

0.75 percent of the total SCSEP appropriation is also used to fund positions in American

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each territory operates 

its own SCSEP program—national grantees do not serve these areas. 

Page 10 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Table 3: Summary of SCSEP Positions for Program Year 2005 

Grantees 

Number of SCSEP 

positions

Number of states 

serveda

Percent of positions

in metropolitan

counties

TOTAL 60,590b52 71

State grantees 12,982 52 69

Nationals grantees 47,608 49 72

AARP Foundation 10,362 29 96

Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores 1,075 6 100

Easter Seals, Inc. 2,248 9 85

Experience Works, Inc. 12,029 39 41

Mature Services, Inc. 771 2 89

National Able Network 760 4 58

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging 836 8 100

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. 2,129 11 82

National Council on the Aging, Inc. 3,020 12 80

National Indian Council on Aging 842 15 62

Senior Service America, Inc. 7,030 24 84

SER – Jobs for Progress National, Inc. 3,658 16 79

USDA Forest Service 2,848 38 39

Source: GAO analysis of Labor and USDA Economic Research Service data. 

a

 Includes all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

b

 Excludes the 457 positions allotted to the territories. 

Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance 

accountability system for SCSEP, but has yet to implement some features 

fully. While Labor has introduced the new performance measures that the 

OAA amendments required, program year 2005—which ends on June 30,

2006—is the first year for which grantees will be held accountable for their 

performance. Labor has also implemented an early version of a data 

collection system to capture performance information, but the final 

version is not yet available to grantees in its intended online format. In 

addition, Labor has recently undertaken a broad assessment of SCSEP on 

such issues as participant outcomes, program costs, and grantee 

challenges, but has not yet issued a report. 

Labor Has Yet to Fully 

Implement an 

Enhanced 

Performance 

Accountability System 

Page 11 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Labor has implemented new performance measures, as required by the 

OAA Amendments, and will begin sanctioning grantees that demonstrate 

poor performance for the current program year —2005 —which ends on

June 30, 2006. After Labor issued final regulations for SCSEP in April 

2004, it instituted practice measures for program year 2004, as grantees 

transitioned to the new data collection and reporting requirements. Labor 

used the resulting performance data to help set baseline goals for grantees

to meet during program year 2005. 

New Performance 

Measures Were Recently 

Implemented 

For program year 2005, according to Labor, four SCSEP measures will 

contribute to a grantee’s overall performance assessment: 

• Placement: the number of participants attaining unsubsidized 

employment, either full-time or part-time, for at least 30 days of the 

first 90 days after exiting the program, divided by the number of 

authorized SCSEP positions. 

• Employment Retention: the rate of retention in unsubsidized 

employment 6 months after placement. 

• Service Level: the number of a grantee’s participants divided by the 

number of the grantee’s authorized positions. 

• Service to Most-in-Need: the percentage of participants who are at 

least 60 years old and who have at least one of several additional 

barriers to employment, such as language barriers, poor 

employment history, or a physical or mental disability. 

Labor officials told us they plan to assess grantees on their aggregate 

performance across these four SCSEP performance measures. A grantee 

satisfies its overall performance goal if it attains an average score across 

the four measures of at least 80 percent of the target goals. Thus, a 

grantee could meet its performance requirements by attaining less than 80

percent of some goals but more than 80 percent of the others. For 

example, Labor’s data show that one state achieved 47 percent of its 

placement goal but performed well enough on the other measures to 

receive an average score well above the 80 percent threshold for 

satisfactory performance. According to Labor, grantees varied in their 

ability to meet goals for individual measures during the transitional period 

of program year 2004. (See app. III for a listing of the program year 2004 

results compared to the performance goals for each grantee.) However, 

Labor officials said that most grantees managed to meet the 80 percent 

threshold for their overall performance goal. (See appendix IV for results 

Page 12 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
for each of the grantees.) They also stated that, based on Labor’s 

assessment of data from the first 2 quarters of the current year, most 

grantees appear to be on track for meeting their performance goals for 

program year 2005. 

Sanctions for poor performance are similar for state and national grantees 

and will begin after the first year of not meeting the 80 percent threshold 

for overall performance. If performance does not improve, sanctions will 

increase in severity after the second and third consecutive years. After the 

first year of poor performance, a grantee must submit a corrective action 

plan within 160 days of the end of the program year. In addition, Labor 

will provide the grantee with technical assistance to help correct the 

problem. A second consecutive year of failing to meet performance goals

will generate a competition for 25 percent of the grantee’s funds for the 

following program year. If a grantee continues to perform poorly for a 

third year, another competition will result for the remaining amount of the 

grantee’s funding. Furthermore, in addition to meeting their own goals, 

national grantees must meet the performance goals of each state in which 

they administer the program. If they fail to meet the state’s goals, Labor 

will require a corrective action plan after the first year of poor 

performance and may take other appropriate actions, including 

transferring responsibility for the project to other grantees. National or 

state grantees that fall short of one performance target but otherwise meet 

their aggregate goals will not be subject to sanction; Labor will instead 

provide them with technical assistance related to that performance issue. 

In addition, Labor requires grantees to report on the customer satisfaction 

of participants, host agencies, and employers by surveying each group. 

While poor performance on this measure will result in technical assistance 

rather than sanctions, Labor officials told us that to date customer 

satisfaction has been very high. Grantees must also report the number of 

community service hours participants contribute, but Labor officials told 

us that they have struggled to create a measurable indicator for 

community service and do not plan to sanction performance in this area.

SCSEP grantees must also collect data to support several common 

measures as part of a governmentwide initiative to provide comparable 

performance information across federal programs with similar goals and

Page 13 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
operations.8

 For job training and employment programs serving adults, the 

three common measures include entered employment, retention, and 

average earnings. Thus, between the SCSEP measures and the common 

measures, grantees must collect and report on data for nine different 

performance measures. The SCSEP placement and retention measures 

overlap somewhat with the common measures for entered employment 

and retention, although the SCSEP measures, as defined by the OAA 

Amendments, are computed differently. (See table 4.) Specifically, the 

SCSEP placement measure is calculated relative to each grantee’s number 

of authorized positions, while the common measure for entered 

employment is based on the number of participants who exit the program. 

Likewise, the SCSEP retention measure evaluates employment 6 months 

after placement, while the common measure for retention assesses a 

participant’s employment in both the second and third quarters after exit. 

Table 4: Comparison of SCSEP Placement and Retention Measures with Common Measures for Entered Employment and 

Retention 

SCSEP performance measure Common measure 

Placement: the number of participants whose placement 

into unsubsidized employment became final during the

quarter, divided by the total number of authorized

community service positions. 

Entered employment: the number of participants employed 

in the first quarter after exiting the program, divided by the 

total number of participants who exit the program during 

the quarter. 

Retention: the number of participants placed into 

unsubsidized employment and who are still employed 6 

months after the date of placement, divided by the number 

of participants placed into unsubsidized employment. 

Retention: of those participants who are employed in the 

first quarter after exiting the program, the number 

employed in both the second and third quarters after exit, 

divided by the number of participants employed in the first 

quarter after the quarter of exit. 

Source: GAO analysis data of provided by Labor. 

Grantees are not subject to sanction for performance on the common 

measures, which the Office of Management and Budget will use to 

evaluate the overall effectiveness of SCSEP. However, the

administration’s legislative proposal for reauthorizing SCSEP supports 

using the common measures. Additional measures, such as community 

services provided, could be tracked as secondary outcomes. 

 8

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduced common performance measures

as part of efforts to link program performance to the budget. Common measures apply to

job training and employment programs administered by the U.S. Departments of Labor,

Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and 

Veterans Affairs. 

Page 14 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Labor has designed a data collection system to capture performance 

information, but has not yet implemented the Internet-based version. The 

agency is in the process of moving to an Internet-based system that 

incorporates the new performance data required under the OAA 

Amendments. In order to capture baseline performance data in program 

year 2004, Labor rolled out an early, non-Internet version of its data 

collection system in time to receive data from the first quarter of that 

program year. Although it collects the required performance data, this 

interim system is limited in its usefulness for helping to manage the 

program. For example, grantees are unable to access their quarterly 

progress reports directly and must wait for Labor to process and send the 

data to them. Likewise, grantees receive reports that notify them of errors 

in their data submissions, but the reports do not identify which records are 

problematic. Moreover, since the initial roll-out, Labor has incorporated 

several modifications to the system and required data reporting elements. 

Currently, grantees either use the early version of Labor’s new system or 

continue to use their own databases while they wait for the new Internetbased data collection system to undergo testing and be rolled out. If 

procurement and technical processes go as planned, Labor hopes to fully 

implement the Internet-based data collection system by mid-May 2006. 

Labor has provided grantees with guidance and technical assistance on

implementing the new data collection system. In addition to issuing 

written guidance, Labor and its contractors have conducted 

demonstrations and offer ongoing direct assistance, including an Internetbased forum for grantee questions on implementing the new system. 

New Data Collection 

System Is in Interim Stage 

Labor Has Initiated an 

Assessment of SCSEP 

Labor recently undertook an assessment of SCSEP, which it has yet to 

complete. In 2004, Labor contracted with DAH Consulting, Inc., and Social 

Policy Research to conduct an assessment of SCSEP. According to Labor, 

in addition to assessing the ability of grantees to find useful community 

service assignments and increase placements in unsubsidized 

employment, the assessment was supposed to gather information on 

participant training, the level of coordination with the one-stop system, 

program costs, outcomes, and other challenges faced by grantees. 

However, this study was not intended to be a true impact evaluation, but 

rather a more general review of SCSEP program operations. As of March 

2006, Labor officials had received a draft of the study but sent it back to

DAH Consulting with requested changes. However, because Labor had 

not provided us with preliminary results from the review, as of the date of

this testimony we are unable to describe what the assessment found, and 

Page 15 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
cannot provide an evaluation of the methodology used to generate the 

report. 

Changes to SCSEP eligibility criteria and coordination difficulties with 

WIA and the one-stop system pose major challenges to SCSEP grantees in

managing the program. Although the OAA Amendments did not contain 

provisions changing the eligibility criteria for SCSEP, Labor modified 

some eligibility criteria to target SCSEP’s limited funds to individuals it 

believes are most in need of SCSEP’s intensive services. For example, 

Labor modified the types of income it uses to determine an individual’s 

eligibility for the program to include Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI) and unemployment compensation, so that only those with the 

lowest incomes are targeted. In addition, Labor changed its previous 

policy of allowing low-income older adults who work part-time to enroll in 

SCSEP, and revised the time period for which income is calculated. Most 

national and state grantees told us that these changes decreased the pool

of eligible individuals, and were concerned that enrollments would decline 

as a result. Furthermore, the majority of the 13 national and 52 state 

grantees surveyed also identified coordinating with WIA providers, 

obtaining intensive and training services at one-stop centers, implementing 

Labor’s new data collection system, and meeting new performance 

measures as being major challenges to managing the SCSEP program. 

SCSEP Eligibility and 

Coordination with 

WIA Are among the 

Major Challenges 

Grantees Face 

Labor Changed Eligibility 

Criteria to More Closely 

Target Program 

Labor estimated that SCSEP’s funding is only sufficient to serve less than

one percent of the eligible population and, as a result, changed the 

eligibility criteria for SCSEP participation to target the program to those 

older adults it believes are most in need of program services. Labor issued 

guidance in April 2004 and again in January 2005 to reflect and clarify 

policy changes to SCSEP eligibility criteria that were previously 

established in guidance issued in December 1995. Major eligibility policy 

changes include what is to be counted as income, employment status at 

time of application, and the time period to be used for the purposes of 

calculating income. (See table 5.) 

Page 16 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Table 5: Changes to Eligibility Criteria 

Changes to eligibility criteria 

Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June

1995 

Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, 

issued January 2005 

Social security income 25 percent of social security income 

excluded from income calculations

No exclusion, all social security income counted in 

income calculations

Social security disability 

insurance (SSDI) 

Excluded from income calculations Included in income calculations (other disability benefits

excluded) 

Unemployment compensation Excluded from income calculations Included in income calculations

Veterans’ payments Excluded from income calculations Included in income calculations

Interest/dividends $3,000 excluded from income calculations Included in income calculations

Exclusion for enrollee 

recertification 

$500 of includable income was not counted

for enrollee recertification 

No such exclusion 

Time period for income 

calculations

Option of using either previous 12 months

or 6 months annualized

No option, calculations based on 6 months annualized 

Employment status Not mentioned. Labor allowed applicants to 

be either under-employed or unemployed

Applicants must be unemployed 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor guidance. 

While, the OAA Amendments do not define what constitutes income, 

Labor decided to use the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey 

(CPS) as the standard for determining income eligibility for SCSEP. In the 

preamble to its April 2004 regulations, Labor set forth its intent to use the 

income categories collected in the CPS as the SCSEP definition of income 

for determining program eligibility. After receiving feedback from 

grantees, Labor decided to exclude certain forms of income. For example, 

Labor excluded disability benefits—except SSDI— as well as 

supplementary security income, workers’ compensation, public assistance, 

child support, and several other sources of income. Most national and 

state grantees we surveyed expressed concern with the revised income 

criteria. For example, one national grantee told us that including SSDI is 

especially onerous because individuals receiving SSDI are among the 

hardest to serve. A state grantee stated that SSDI should not be included 

in determining program eligibility because other disability benefits were 

not included in calculating income eligibility. Another state grantee noted 

that social security is the only source of income for many older adults and 

including it provides a misleading picture of an individual’s actual income. 

The administration’s proposal for the upcoming reauthorization of Title V

of OAA contains provisions for standardizing the income threshold. Labor 

believes that reauthorization provides an opportunity for Congress to align 

SCSEP income eligibility criteria with those used by Labor and other 

federal programs that are means-tested. Labor noted that more uniformity 

Page 17 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
with respect to the types of income used to determine program eligibility, 

such as Social Security benefits versus earned income, would increase 

public confidence that these programs were being administered in a 

consistent and equitable manner. 

Most national and state grantees surveyed were also concerned with 

Labor’s policy change requiring applicants to be unemployed at time of 

application. Labor officials stated that the Office of the Solicitor took a 

strict interpretation of the OAA Amendments and determined that 

applicants must be unemployed at the time of application to be eligible for 

SCSEP. Labor officials noted that this interpretation was consistent with 

the department’s philosophy that SCSEP should be targeted to those most 

in need of the program’s intensive services. Prior to the OAA 

Amendments, Labor permitted applicants who held part-time jobs and met 

other eligibility criteria to be eligible for SCSEP services. The OAA 

amendments retained the language contained in the statement of purpose 

from the authorizing legislation that the program was to provide services 

to unemployed low income adults 55 years and older. The amendments 

further defined eligible individuals as those individuals who are 55 years 

and older and have income not more than 125 percent of the poverty 

guidelines, but did not refer to employment status. Grantees told us that 

the requirement that applicants be unemployed prevented some lowincome older workers from receiving SCSEP services. For example, a 

state grantee noted that older workers who may work only 4 hours per 

week have very low incomes but are not eligible for program services 

because they are not unemployed. Another state grantee noted that many

older workers who are not eligible for social security benefits often work 

part-time, and thus would not be eligible under the employment test, but 

would otherwise still meet the income eligibility criteria. 

Many grantees were also concerned that Labor revised the period on 

which income is calculated. Prior to Labor’s regulations issued in 2004,

grantees had the option of calculating income using either the includable 

income for the 12 months preceding application or annualizing the 

includable income for the 6 months preceding application, that is doubling 

the 6-month income to calculate an annual income. Labor now requires 

grantees to annualize an applicant’s income using the 6 months prior to 

application. Labor officials told us that changing the period on which 

income is calculated was intended to simplify the process and to reflect 

the most current income information. However, a national grantee and

two state grantees noted in their survey responses that annualizing 6 

months of income could distort income for those who only had earnings 

during that 6-month period. For example, a state grantee noted that many

Page 18 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
older individuals in their state work during the planting and harvesting 

seasons but are unemployed for the remainder of the year. They noted

that doubling the individual’s 6-month income made many of these 

seasonal workers ineligible for SCSEP. Conversely, doubling 6-month 

earnings to calculate annual income can have the unintended consequence 

of including some individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for the 

program if a 12-month period was applied. 

Other Challenges That 

Grantees Face 

National and state grantees surveyed also identified other issues that 

presented major challenges to managing the SCSEP program. The 

majority of both national and state grantees identified several issues in the 

survey as being great or very great challenges, in particular coordinating 

SCSEP activities with WIA services, obtaining intensive services and 

training at one-stop centers, implementing Labor’s new data collection 

system, and meeting performance measures (see fig. 2). 

Page 19 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Figure 2: Issues Cited by Majority of National and State Grantees as Great or Very

Great Challenges 

Although the OAA amendments sought to strengthen coordination 

between SCSEP and WIA, national and state grantees surveyed identified

the coordination of SCSEP activities with WIA services and obtaining 

intensive services and training at one-stops as major challenges. For 

example, several national and state grantees responded that many WIA 

providers are hesitant to provide intensive services or training to SCSEP 

participants because WIA providers are concerned that enrolling older 

adults would negatively affect their performance measures. Older adults

who receive intensive services or training from WIA providers are 

included in the computation of WIA performance measures. Another state 

grantee stated that while coordination with one-stops for core services is 

very good, access to training is very difficult. We heard a similar theme 

Page 20 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
among states we visited. For example, one state grantee we visited said 

that WIA is so performance-driven that few SCSEP participants are able to

access intensive and training services under WIA. 

The reported lack of coordination between SCSEP and WIA is especially 

relevant in light of the administration’s proposal to increase the age of 

SCSEP eligibility from 55 to 65, with limited exceptions for those between 

the ages of 55 and 64. Labor believes that WIA, not SCSEP, should be the 

primary program for older adults age 55 to 64. However, we have 

previously reported that WIA has built in disincentives that discourage the 

providing of in-depth services, such as training, to older adults.

 9 We noted 

that the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau data suggest 

that older workers are 50 percent more likely to work part-time and less 

likely to become re-employed after being laid off than younger workers. 

These characteristics may negatively affect outcomes on certain WIA 

performance measures, and, as a result, create a barrier to enrolling older

workers into WIA intensive services and training. 

While most of the 13 national and 52 state grantees surveyed also reported 

challenges with Labor’s new data collection system, they noted that the

agency provided helpful assistance with system implementation. Several 

national and state grantees stated that implementation of the data system 

was both time and labor-intensive. In particular, one state grantee told us 

that Labor rolled out the data collection system prematurely, resulting in a 

loss of productivity at the grantee and subgrantee level. Despite these 

concerns, most grantees indicated that they received training or technical

assistance for the system from Labor or its contractors. Moreover, while 

several national and state grantees provided positive comments about 

Labor’s assistance, with respect to staff responsiveness, others were less 

than satisfied and indicated the need for more assistance. 

All of the national grantees and most of the state grantees that cited 

meeting performance measures as a great or very great challenge in the 

survey indicated that the program eligibility changes had the greatest 

effect on the ability to meet the performance measure dealing with SCSEP 

 9

GAO, Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job 

Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other Services, 

GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003).

Page 21 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
service level.

10 A number of state grantees mentioned that the greater 

difficulty in recruiting SCSEP participants translated into difficulty 

meeting the service level performance measure. Another of the state 

grantees that we visited said that the service level measure would present 

the greatest challenge because the income guidelines were too restrictive. 

According to Labor data, 7 of the 13 national grantees and 21 of the 52 

state grantees did not meet their service level goals for program year 2004. 

Labor officials noted that some of the grantees who were concerned with 

low enrollments may not perform sufficient outreach or marketing. 

The aging of the baby boom generation presents serious challenges for the 

nation’s workforce investment system. The expected increase in the 

number of low-income older adults means that, more and more, older 

Americans will have to continue working in order to have sufficient 

income. Older adults often have difficulty re-entering the labor force and 

may rely on federal employment and training programs to help them find 

employment, with SCSEP being the only federal employment and training 

program targeted exclusively to low-income older adults. While Labor has

made progress implementing the OAA Amendments—particularly in terms 

of increasing the program’s focus on unsubsidized employment—

challenges remain. More specifically, while Labor has taken steps to 

establish an enhanced performance accountability system, as of March 

2006 the system has still not been fully implemented. The delay in 

implementing this system means that program year 2005 is the first year 

that grantees will be held accountable for poor performance. In this 

respect, given the upcoming reauthorization of the OAA, only limited data 

will be available to assess SCSEP performance. In addition, while Labor’s

changes to the eligibility criteria seem to have resulted in SCSEP funds 

being more targeted to those it believes are most in need of program 

services, one aspect of how this targeting was operationalized may have

produced mixed outcomes. In particular, the requirement for grantees to 

double an applicant’s income from the most recent 6-month period could

have the unintended result of excluding some individuals with very low 

incomes from the program while including others with much higher 

incomes, depending on when the work was performed. Those who are 

excluded from participation in SCSEP may turn to other employment and 

Concluding 

Observations 

 10This measure is defined as the total number of participants served to a grantee’s 

authorized number of positions adjusted for the difference in wages required paid in a state 

or area. 

Page 22 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
training programs such as WIA. However, given the problems older adults

often experience in obtaining in-depth services such as training, it is 

unclear whether the existing workforce system is able to provide the type

and level of services this population may need. Thus, while the OAA 

amendments were designed to enhance employment and training 

opportunities for older adults, we believe that Labor has not done enough 

to address unresolved issues concerning coordination between SCSEP and 

WIA, and helping older adults obtain intensive and training services at onestop centers. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have at this time. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7215. Jeremy Cox, Wayne Sylvia, Rebecca Woiwode, Drew 

Lindsey, and Stuart Kaufman were key contributors to this testimony. 

GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 23 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Appendix I 

Table 6: National Grantee Funds and Positions for Program Year 2005

National grantee Funds ($) Positions

TOTAL 340,542,384 47,608

AARP Foundation 74,119,938 10,362

Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores 7,697,076 1,075 

Easter Seals, Inc. 16,077,169 2,248 

Experience Works, Inc. 86,033,517 12,029 

Mature Services, Inc. 5,514,963 771 

National Able Network 5,435,364 760 

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging 5,978,047 836 

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. 15,228,375 2,129 

National Council on the Aging, Inc. 21,602,605 3,020 

National Indian Council on Aging 6,027,252 842 

Senior Service America, Inc. 50,290,679 7,030 

SER – Jobs for Progress National, Inc. 26,168,160 3,658 

USDA Forest Service 20,369,239 2,848

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Labor. 

Page 24 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Table 7: Total Funds and Positions by State for Program Year 2005

National State Total

State grantee Funds ($) Positions Funds ($) Positions Funds ($) Positions

TOTAL 340,542,384 47,608 92,860,928 12,982 433,403,312 60,590

Alabama 6,320,471 884 1,615,788 226 7,936,259 1,110

Alaska 0 0 1,864,917 261 1,864,917 261

Arizona 4,508,899 630 1,160,235 162 5,669,134 792

Arkansas 6,213,586 869 1,587,316 222 7,800,902 1,091

California 29,193,091 4,079 7,481,025 1,045 36,674,116 5,124

Colorado 3,448,825 482 882,633 123 4,331,458 605

Connecticut 3,748,103 524 953,812 133 4,701,915 657

Delaware 0 0 1,864,917 261 1,864,917 261

District of Columbia 1,959,560 274 505,378 71 2,464,938 345

Florida 20,122,897 2,813 5,146,318 718 25,269,215 3,531

Georgia 7,560,338 1,057 1,936,098 271 9,496,436 1,328

Hawaii 0 0 1,864,917 261 1,864,917 261

Idaho 1,936,240 271 464,305 65 2,400,545 336

Illinois 13,248,612 1,852 3,395,289 475 16,643,901 2,327

Indiana 8,928,466 1,248 2,284,880 319 11,213,346 1,567

Iowa 4,368,036 611 1,117,527 156 5,485,563 767

Kansas 3,510,095 491 889,751 124 4,399,846 615

Kentucky 6,462,984 904 1,658,495 232 8,121,479 1,136

Louisiana 5,691,272 795 1,473,427 206 7,164,699 1,001

Maine 2,102,073 294 540,969 76 2,643,042 370

Maryland 4,688,692 655 1,202,943 168 5,891,635 823

Massachusetts 7,416,501 1,037 1,900,508 266 9,317,009 1,303

Michigan 11,355,634 1,587 2,911,264 407 14,266,898 1,994

Minnesota 8,126,440 1,136 2,071,340 290 10,197,780 1,426

Mississippi 4,204,146 588 1,081,937 151 5,826,083 739

Missouri 8,201,648 1,147 2,156,756 302 10,358,404 1,449

Montana 2,263,238 317 548,087 77 2,811,325 394

Nebraska 2,606,361 365 669,093 94 3,275,454 459

Nevada 1,723,459 241 464,305 65 2,187,764 306

New Hampshire 1,642,685 230 464,305 65 2,106,990 295

New Jersey 9,641,033 1,348 2,462,830 344 12,103,863 1,692

New Mexico 1,992,155 279 491,143 69 2,483,298 348

New York 22,540,759 3,151 5,765,585 805 28,306,344 3,956

Appendix II 

Page 25 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
National State Total

State grantee Funds ($) Positions Funds ($) Positions Funds ($) Positions

North Carolina 8,921,341 1,247 2,284,880 319 11,206,221 1,566

North Dakota 2,045,068 286 526,732 74 2,571,800 360

Ohio 14,871,277 2,079 3,808,133 532 18,679,410 2,611

Oklahoma 5,467,186 765 1,402,248 196 6,869,434 961

Oregon 5,016,473 701 1,281,241 179 6,297,714 880

Pennsylvania 18,297,675 2,558 4,669,412 653 22,967,087 3,211

Puerto Rico 4,688,692 655 1,195,825 167 5,884,517 822

Rhode Island 1,809,921 253 469,788 66 2,279,709 319

South Carolina 4,645,938 650 1,188,707 166 5,834,645 816

South Dakota 2,360,955 330 605,030 85 2,965,985 415

Tennessee 6,968,906 974 1,779,502 249 8,748,408 1,223

Texas 18,928,589 2,646 4,840,245 677 23,768,834 3,323

Utah 2,273,090 318 583,676 82 2,856,766 400

Vermont 1,866,926 261 484,024 68 2,350,950 329

Virginia 7,392,768 1,033 1,893,389 265 9,286,157 1,298

Washington 5,047,100 706 1,288,359 180 6,335,459 886

West Virginia 3,833,611 536 982,285 137 4,815,896 673

Wisconsin 8,737,884 1,221 2,235,285 312 10,972,938 1,533

Wyoming 1,642,685 230 464,305 65 2,106,990 295

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Labor. 

Page 26 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Page 27 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Appendix III: Summary of SCSEP Grantee 

Performance Data for Benchmark Year, 

Program Year 2004 

The following baseline performance data for SCSEP grantees are from 

benchmark program year 2004 (July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005). According 

to the Department of Labor, four SCSEP measures will contribute to a 

grantee’s overall performance in program year 2005, the first year for 

which grantees will be held accountable for their performance. 

The following measures are used: 

• Placement: the number of participants attaining unsubsidized 

employment, either full- or part-time, for at least 30 days of the first 

90 days after exiting the program, divided by the number of 

authorized SCSEP positions. 

• Employment Retention: the rate of retention in unsubsidized 

employment 6 months after placement. 

• Service Level: the number of a grantee’s participants divided by the 

number of the grantee’s authorized positions. 

• Service to Most-in-Need: the percentage of participants who are at 

least 60 years old and who have at least one of several additional 

barriers to employment, such as language barriers, poor 

employment history, or a physical or mental disability. 

These figures were provided by the Department of Labor and are included

in this testimony for contextual purposes only. GAO has not verified the 

accuracy or reliability of these data. 
Table 8: SCSEP National Grantee Performance, Program Year 2004

Placement rate Retention rate Service level 

Service to 

most-in-need

Grantee name Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual

AARP Foundation 35.0% 47.7% 50.0% 53.2% 150.0% 214.6% 50.0% 54.3%

Asociacion Nacional pro Personas Mayores 22.0 22.5 50.0 42.0 140.0 133.2 70.0 62.7

Easter Seals 27.0 17.0 50.0 69.8 147.0 145.3 80.0 72.4

Experience Works 29.0 21.6 50.0 64.4 142.0 153.3 65.0 66.5

Mature Services 30.0 24.2 50.0 74.5 150.0 145.9 80.0 70.3

National ABLE Network 30.0 20.2 50.0 44.8 140.0 162.0 80.0 57.5

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging 26.0 20.5 50.0 58.7 145.0 170.0 70.0 69.7

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 24.0 17.8 50.0 59.8 145.0 142.7 70.0 72.7

National Council on the Aging, Inc. 26.0 30.7 55.0 68.5 140.0 154.7 78.0 65.5

National Indian Council on Aging 20.0 8.6 80.0 79.5 155.0 137.0 75.0 60.7

Senior Service America, Inc. 28.0 31.3 20.0 80.0 145.0 171.6 60.0 59.0

SER - Jobs for Progress National 20.0 17.1 40.0 69.7 140.0 132.9 70.0 70.0

USDA Forest Service 33.0 17.0 50.0 64.9 150.0 129.1 70.0 62.6

Source: Labor. 

Page 28 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Table 9: SCSEP State Grantee Performance, Program Year 2004 

Placement 

rate 

Retention 

rate 

Service

level 

Service to

most-in-need

Grantee name Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual

Alabama 22.0% 23.8% 50.0% 64.0% 140.0% 156.8% 70.0% 67.4%

Alaska 25.0 36.0 50.0 82.5 140.0 205.3 40.0 49.7

Arizona 25.0 14.9 75.0 92.3 140.0 154.6 69.0 70.3

Arkansas 23.0 19.3 50.0 89.7 148.0 157.0 70.0 64.0

California 25.0 21.0 70.0 74.6 140.0 177.0 68.0 69.0

Colorado 23.0 27.4 50.0 66.7 155.0 175.0 80.0 64.1

Connecticut 34.0 36.7 50.0 66.7 150.0 189.8 75.0 61.3

Delaware 28.0 28.3 50.0 82.6 140.0 160.3 75.0 57.0

District of Columbia 23.0 29.6 50.0 100.0 147.0 147.9 75.0 79.0

Florida 30.0 31.5 50.0 86.5 140.0 194.1 60.0 71.4

Georgia 26.0 35.7 50.0 82.5 175.0 183.8 70.0 67.2

Hawaii 22.0 26.0 40.0 85.0 140.0 174.0 70.0 65.8

Idaho 30.0 30.8 50.0 83.3 140.0 144.6 50.0 58.5

Illinois 22.0 17.7 70.0 87.9 140.0 154.2 60.0 59.5

Indiana 25.0 19.3 50.0 68.3 140.0 142.7 50.0 61.6

Iowa 25.0 24.2 50.0 83.3 140.0 144.6 65.0 53.3

Kansas 21.0 11.2 22.0 90.9 150.0 137.6 70.0 72.1

Kentucky 25.0 15.0 50.0 88.9 140.0 127.5 70.0 66.0

Louisiana 25.0 13.0 50.0 100.0 155.0 143.5 80.0 66.0

Maine 20.0 21.0 50.0 44.4 120.0 135.5 70.0 64.3

Maryland 25.0 11.8 50.0 86.7 150.0 134.9 70.0 63.6

Massachusetts 22.0 18.7 50.0 81.3 140.0 137.9 75.0 69.3

Michigan 23.0 18.8 50.0 80.6 148.0 133.9 70.0 59.9

Minnesota 23.0 14.8 50.0 57.9 120.0 132.6 65.0 65.0

Mississippi 20.0 7.9 50.0 50.0 140.0 136.2 65.0 71.0

Missouri 20.0 5.9 49.0 45.5 140.0 130.0 55.0 69.8

Montana 23.0 28.6 40.0 84.6 145.0 151.9 70.0 63.2

Nebraska 22.0 17.0 55.0 66.7 145.0 134.0 60.0 67.5

Nevada 23.0 70.8 20.0 90.3 140.0 236.9 75.0 79.2

New Hampshire 20.0 12.3 50.0 57.1 150.0 93.8 70.0 47.5

New Jersey 32.0 7.5 50.0 86.7 160.0 137.6 75.0 81.1

New Mexico 25.0 8.7 50.0 50.0 155.0 100.0 70.0 63.8

New York 26.0 23.5 50.0 73.8 150.0 151.4 70.0 63.9

North Carolina 22.0 15.0 50.0 69.7 160.0 134.0 65.0 60.7

Page 29 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Placement 

rate 

Retention 

rate 

Service

level 

Service to

most-in-need

Grantee name Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual

North Dakota 23.0 1.4 45.0 0.0 142.0 104.1 75.0 75.3

Ohio 27.0 22.4 50.0 55.4 140.0 157.1 75.0 63.1

Oklahoma 25.0 21.3 50.0 81.8 145.0 149.7 80.0 72.9

Oregon 29.0 27.3 25.0 72.7 140.0 182.8 50.0 53.0

Pennsylvania 27.0 16.4 50.0 60.0 170.0 137.4 75.0 66.9

Puerto Rico 20.0 9.5 50.0 100.0 145.0 125.6 75.0 52.1

Rhode Island 35.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 155.0 162.0 75.0 75.3

South Carolina 25.0 7.2 40.0 25.0 140.0 118.0 70.0 67.5

South Dakota 25.0 24.7 50.0 60.0 145.0 148.2 80.0 64.3

Tennessee 23.0 18.0 50.0 78.9 142.0 143.6 70.0 70.5

Texas 35.0 31.4 40.0 58.3 165.0 155.2 80.0 56.6

Utah 35.0 45.1 40.0 92.3 145.0 159.8 80.0 55.0

Vermont 30.0 30.0 50.0 83.3 140.0 170.0 70.0 37.6

Virginia 33.0 22.6 50.0 75.0 150.0 146.2 70.0 69.7

Washington 20.0 46.5 50.0 82.1 125.0 200.8 80.0 56.9

West Virginia 25.0 13.8 50.0 37.5 140.0 113.8 75.0 66.9

Wisconsin 30.0 20.6 50.0 85.0 160.0 157.9 65.0 55.4

Wyoming 45.0 33.8 50.0 76.9 175.0 183.1 70.0 58.0

Source: Labor. 

Page 30 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Page 31 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Appendix IV: Aggregate SCSEP Grantee 

Performance for Benchmark Year, Program 

Year 2004 

These figures were provided by the Department of Labor and are included

in this testimony for contextual purposes only. GAO has not verified the 

accuracy or reliability of these data. 

Table 10: Aggregate National Grantee Performance for Program Year 2004 

National grantee 

Percent of aggregate

goal achieved

Met or exceeded 80% threshold for satisfactory performance 

Senior Service America, Inc. 182.1%

AARP Foundation 123.6

SER - Jobs for Progress National 113.8

National Council on the Aging, Inc. 109.2

Mature Services 103.7

Experience Works 103.4

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging 103.3

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged 99.0

Easter Seals 98.0

Asociacion Nacional pro Personas Mayores 92.7

USDA Forest Service 89.2

National ABLE Network 86.1

Did not meet 80% threshold for satisfactory performance 

National Indian Council on Aging 77.9

Source: Labor. 
Table 11: Aggregate State Grantee Performance for Program Year 2004 

State grantee

Percent of

aggregate goal 

achieved

Met or exceeded 80% threshold for satisfactory performance 

Nevada 258.5

Kansas 165.3

Washington 157.1

Oregon 155.4

Alaska 145.0

Hawaii 137.3

Utah 134.6

Florida 133.9

District of Columbia 133.6

Montana 132.7

Georgia 125.8

Idaho 122.4

Arkansas 115.2

Delaware 114.2

Connecticut 112.4

Iowa 112.2

Colorado 111.4

Alabama 111.1

Oklahoma 110.8

Vermont 110.5

Indiana 109.7

Massachusetts 109.6

Tennessee 109.5

New York 107.6

Louisiana 106.8

Kentucky 105.8

Wisconsin 105.6

Michigan 104.8

California 104.7

Wyoming 104.1

Illinois 103.9

Virginia 103.8

Puerto Rico 100.9

Page 32 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
State grantee

Percent of

aggregate goal 

achieved

Nebraska 100.9

Maryland 100.4

South Dakota 100.4

Texas 100.1

Maine 99.6

Arizona 98.8

New Jersey 97.7

Rhode Island 97.7

Minnesota 97.7

Ohio 97.5

North Carolina 96.1

Pennsylvania 87.7

Mississippi 86.5

Missouri 85.6

Did not meet 80% threshold for satisfactory performance 

New Hampshire 76.6

West Virginia 75.1

New Mexico 72.6

South Carolina 68.0

North Dakota 44.9

Source: Labor. 

Page 33 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 
Page 34 GAO-06-549T Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Related GAO Products 

Older Workers: Labor Can Help Employers and Employees Plan Better 

for the Future. GAO-06-80. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. 

Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005. 

Redefining Retirement: Options for Older Americans. GAO-05-620T. 

Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2005. 

Older Workers: Policies of Other Nations to Increase Labor Force 

Participation. GAO-03-307. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2003. 

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and 

Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to 

Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003. 

Older Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and 

Workers. GAO-02-85. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2001. 

130505 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER