U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–804 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–654

SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT:

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OLDER AMERICANS

ACT TITLE V

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT SECURITY AND 

AGING

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

EXAMINING THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT 

TITLE V, FOCUSING ON SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT

MARCH 28, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, Chairman 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

BILL FRIST, Tennessee 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

KATHERINE BRUNETT MCGUIRE, Staff Director 

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT SECURITY AND AGING

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio, Chairman 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex officio) 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

(ex officio) 

KARLA L. CARPENTER, Staff Director 

ELLEN-MARIE WHELAN, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006

Page 

DeWine, Hon. Mike, Chairman, Subcommittee on Retirement Security and 

Aging, opening statement .................................................................................... 1

Bishop, Mason M., deputy assistant secretary for Employment and Training, 

U.S. Department of Labor; accompanied by John Beverly III, administrator, 

Office of National Programs, Employment and Training Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor ................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Salazar, Ignacio, president and chief executive officer, SER-JOBS for Progress 

National, Inc.; Kent Kahn, regional communications specialist, Experience 

Works Ohio; and Anthony R. Sarmiento, executive director, Senior Service 

America, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statements of: 

Mr. Kahn .................................................................................................... 17

Mr. Sarmiento ............................................................................................ 24

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Prepared statements of: 

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ................................................................................................... 31

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ......................................................................................................... 32

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

New York ................................................................................................ 34

National Council On Aging ....................................................................... 36

Response to questions of Senator Kennedy by: 

Mason Bishop ............................................................................................ 38

Ignacio Salazar .......................................................................................... 46

Kent Kahn .................................................................................................. 46

Tony Sarmiento ......................................................................................... 50

Response to questions of Senator Mikulski by: 

Mason Bishop ............................................................................................ 40

Kent Kahn .................................................................................................. 46

Tony Sarmiento ......................................................................................... 50

Response to questions of Senator Murray by: 

Mason Bishop ............................................................................................ 45

Kent Kahn .................................................................................................. 48

Tony Sarmiento ......................................................................................... 52

(III) 

(1)

SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE V 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT SECURITY AND AGING, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators DeWine and Murray. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Good afternoon. We welcome all of you to the 

Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging’s hearing on the 

reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. Today, we will be focusing on Title V of the Older Americans Act—the Senior Community Service Employment Program. 

I want to thank Senator Mikulski, the subcommittee’s ranking 

member, for her interest in these issues. The Senator has asked 

that I let everyone know that she is not going to be able to attend 

today’s hearing. She is disappointed she cannot be here, but President Bush just asked her to attend a small meeting at the White 

House on America’s Agenda for Innovation and Competitiveness. 

Because this matter is so important to Senator Mikulski and our 

Nation, she feels she needs to be there. As all of you know, this 

issue is very important to her, and we will continue to work on reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. 

As many of you may remember, during the reauthorization process in 2000 Senator Mikulski and I worked on this bill, and I look 

forward to working with her again on the Older Americans Act. 

Just over a month ago, we had many of the same people who are 

here in this room give their remarks on reauthorization at a roundtable on the Older Americans Act. Since that time, we have received the recommendations for reauthorization from both the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. I look forward to working with all of you on your recommendations as we move forward and move toward reauthorization of this 

very important piece of legislation. 

As we know, older Americans are a vital and rapidly growing 

segment of our population. Over 36 million people living in the 

United States are over the age of 65, accounting for about 12 perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
2

cent of the population of this country. The Census Bureau projects 

that 45 years from now, people 65 and older will number nearly 90 

million in the United States and comprise 21 percent of our population. Further, we know that 4.6 million people aged 65 and older 

are still employed. 

The Older Americans Act is an important service provider for 

these Americans. The SCSEP program is the only one in the act 

administered by the Department of Labor. It is designed to employ 

older Americans and supplement their income, while providing 

their communities with needed services. 

This program is working well. However, that is not to say that 

it cannot be improved. We need to seriously consider the new generation of older Americans and what new and different job opportunities they may want in the future. 

This afternoon, we will hear from the Department of Labor on 

their recommendations for the reauthorization of title V. We also 

will hear from three organizations that provide title V services. Unfortunately, we were unable to find a State to testify, but I do want 

to note that States do have a large role in this program. 

In 1999, this subcommittee’s last hearing on title V, we were fortunate to have representatives from the States of both Florida and 

Arkansas. I hope that States will remain engaged in this reauthorization process as they have been in the past. 

I look forward to the testimony today. I expect that we will hear 

both what does and what does not work in title V. As the population continues to age in America, we must view this program 

through new eyes to ensure that it is providing the services necessary to support the demands of tomorrow. 

As I mentioned before, the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act is the top priority of this subcommittee. I welcome the opportunity to work with the witnesses here today and with my colleagues here in the Senate to reauthorize a program that meets the 

needs of today’s and tomorrow’s older Americans. 

We have two panels today. The first panelist will be Mason 

Bishop, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training at the Department of Labor. We welcome you, Mr. Bishop. In 

his position, he is responsible for overseeing key workforce investment programs, as well as developing and implementing workforce 

policies and priorities. 

Mr. Bishop is accompanied today by John Beverly, who is currently the administrator of the Office of National Programs. Mr. 

Beverly, we welcome you as well. In this role, Mr. Beverly provides 

direction to the program offices for Foreign Labor Certification, 

Seasonal Farm Works, Older Workers, Native Americans, and Disability and Workforce Programs. Mr. Bishop will be providing the 

timed testimony, and Mr. Beverly will be available for any technical questions that we have. Thank you both for being with us. 

Mr. Bishop, I look forward to your testimony and to working with 

you and assistant secretary DeRocco on the reauthorization of title 

V. You may begin. 

3

STATEMENT OF MASON M. BISHOP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BEVERLY III, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL PROGRAMS, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF LABOR 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this opportunity, and I do think actually it is relevant that Senator Mikulski 

is talking about the Innovation Agenda because it really is relevant 

to the discussion we are going to have today, which is all about 

how do we ensure that we have a competitive workforce in a global 

economy. 

I am pleased to be able to come before you today and talk about 

title V and the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. As you 

noted, in May 2005, Employment and Training Administration Assistant Secretary Emily Stover DeRocco did share reform principles 

during testimony before this subcommittee at a hearing on reauthorization of title V. The Administration’s proposal is based on 

those principles, and I do want to reiterate those as part of my oral 

comments today. 

First, we do believe that we should streamline the program 

structure, and the Department is proposing to eliminate the unnecessary bifurcated nature of this program whereby some funds go to 

States and others are administered nationally. We believe this is 

a very inefficient way to run a program. Instead, we propose allocating funds for the SCSEP program to States according to a statutory formula. Each State would then compete their funds among 

nonprofit entities, for-profit entities, and agencies of State government to operate the program in their State. 

Now, some grantees have expressed concern with having to compete on a state-by-state basis, so an alternative approach might be 

conducting a national competition on a state-by-state basis. We do 

maintain separate grant awards for Indian and Native Americans 

and Asian-Pacific Islander organizations under our proposal. 

Second, we do propose increasing the minimum age for eligibility. 

Our proposal increases this minimum age to those that are 65 and 

older. Because people ages 55 to 64 are still of working age, their 

employment and training needs are best met through the One-Stop 

Career Center system, of which SCSEP is a partner. Limited 

SCSEP resources should be targeted to older Americans. We also 

propose that 1.5 percent of appropriated SCSEP funds be reserved 

for outreach to businesses and older workers, demonstrations and 

pilots, training and technical assistance, and dissemination of best 

practices. 

In addition to changing the age requirement, our proposal would 

clarify the income eligibility standard and stipulate what participant income should count when the income eligibility test is applied. Because this particular issue has created confusion during 

the past couple of years, we are looking to Congress to provide clarity through reauthorization. 

Third, we do believe the program needs to be more focused on 

employment outcomes, and our proposal would enhance the employment focus as follows: 

4

First, we would increase the limit on the percentage of grant 

funds grantees may spend on training. 

Second, we would authorize occupational training before or concurrent with community service. 

Third, we would propose limiting the program to 2 years, as individuals transition from community service to unsubsidized employment. 

And, fourth, we would recommend eliminating fringe benefits, including pensions. 

Next, we would also strengthen performance accountability by 

using the common performance measures that most workforce programs currently are under, including SCSEP, which will hold all 

grantees accountable for entered employment, retention in employment, and earnings. Grantees will be authorized to track and report on additional outcomes, such as the provision of community 

services, if they so choose, though they would not be federally required to do so. 

In conclusion, this legislative proposal for reauthorization will 

streamline the SCSEP program, strengthen its ability to meet employer needs for skilled, experienced workers, and allow grantees 

to tailor services to meet the needs of older workers. Reauthorization as proposed will also better integrate SCSEP services with the 

Workforce Investment Act services to more effectively serve these 

participants. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, 

and I do submit for the record my extended written testimony. We 

look forward to working with you on reauthorizing the Older Americans Act, and we are hopeful that by working together this important legislation can be enacted later this year. And I would be 

happy to answer any questions you or the committee might have. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Bishop, thank you very much. 

Senator Murray has joined us. Senator Murray, thank you very 

much. Do you have any opening comments you would like to make? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. If I could, and unfortunately, it is a busy afternoon, as you well know, but I do want to thank both you and Ranking Member Mikulski for your efforts on reauthorization of the 

Older Americans Act. I think this is the third subcommittee hearing on this that is being held in preparation for authorization. I am 

really hopeful that we can work together in a bipartisan manner 

as we did back in 2000 to get a good, clean reauthorization bill this 

year. It simply cannot take us 5 years again to get this done, as 

it did the last time the authorization expired. 

I know the focus of today’s hearing is an important component 

of the Older Americans Act. Title V, of the Senior Community Service Employment Program, has been a success. It has served a dual 

purpose in providing part-time employment for older workers while 

staffing key community service programs. And many of these programs depend on volunteers and have a shoestring budget, but 

placing older workers at these job sites provides important community services and invaluable jobs for older workers. 

I do want to say that I am very troubled by the actions that were 

taken by the Department of Labor on March 2nd, which I worry 

5

can seriously undermine the success of this program. It appears to 

me that the Department is trying to do, through the regulatory 

process, what it could not do in Congress, which was turn this into 

a block grant program. And one of the reasons that reauthorization 

was delayed for 5 years was due to the efforts that many saw was 

a dismantling of this program and consolidating it into a block 

grant without Federal, State, and local job training programs. 

The Department of Labor I think is disregarding the intent of 

Congress and jeopardizing the reauthorization process, and I hope 

the Department will withdraw these regulations and give Congress 

time to reauthorize the Older Americans Act and do it in a way 

that we know our communities support. 

Senator DEWINE. Senator Murray, thank you very much. 

Mr. Bishop, let me kind of follow up on that. The focus of this 

hearing is, of course, the reauthorization of the title V program. 

However, I do want to begin by addressing and moving forward 

from the issue of the recent Solicitation for Grant Application, 

SGA, that the Department did announce on March 2nd. There have 

been a number of concerns raised with the timing and the content 

of this SGA, which I look forward to continuing to work on with 

your office. 

Let me just ask you why the Department feels it is necessary to 

compete this award now before title V is reauthorized. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Senator, and let me clarify real quickly 

that it is a Solicitation for Grant Applications. It is not a regulatory 

action that we are talking about. The regulations were finalized 

back in 2004, and so this is just a solicitation to recompete the program in terms of who would administer the program. 

First let me say that we fundamentally believe at the Department of Labor that competition is a good thing amongst grant programs and that it does spur innovation. And, in fact, in 2003, when 

we competed the program really for the first time in many, many 

years, we have four organizations in this room today that otherwise 

would not be here had we not competed the program. We had four 

organizations—Easter Seals, SER-Jobs for Progress, the National 

Able Network, and Mature Services—who each now have the opportunity to serve older workers and we believe are doing very well 

as a result because we competed the program 3 years ago. Prior to 

that, none of these four organizations were direct grant national organization grantees of us. 

With that said, we do believe in looking at the intent of the law 

and in looking at the court case that came as a result from the U.S. 

District Court of the District of Columbia in 2003, that clearly competition is allowed under this law and under this framework. In 

fact, if you look at Section 514 of the law, it talks about grants 

being for a 3-year period of time. We competed the program in 

2003, and now it is 2006, 3 years later, and, therefore, we believe 

the intent is there. 

One of the things a number of grantees raise or those who feel 

that our action is arbitrary and capricious is that they believe that 

the law creates a competitive environment only when a grantee is 

not performing, and that clearly is not the case. Again, I would 

harken to the court case from the U.S. District Court back in 2003 

that said that competition is something that is a tool of the SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
6

retary in terms of awarding grants and that an entitlement to any 

kind of grant program is not something that is available under this 

particular program. 

So, with that said, we do believe that, given the fact that it is 

3 years later, it was time to recompete the program. Now, we understand with that said that there are some concerns that have 

been raised as a result of competing the program. It is not our intent to withdraw the SGA; however, we are looking at ways that 

perhaps we can accommodate some of the concerns that have been 

raised by yourself, others, and those amongst the grantee community. But, again, we believe there are other organizations, including 

the organizations who are current grantees, that could provide a lot 

of innovation, really good services, and new techniques and service 

delivery to provide services to many older workers in our Nation. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Bishop, the Department of Labor proposes 

changing the age of eligibility for the program to 65, eliminating 

everyone in the 55 to 64 age bracket, with minor exceptions, which 

I guess have not yet been defined. Each year, about half of all people served by the program are in this age range. How do you feel 

this recommendation improves services to seniors? And what sort 

of evidence or data is there to show that one-stops are performing 

well and serving older workers 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I think given the fact that the framework of 

employment and training service delivery in the United States 

right now is this framework of One-Stop Career Centers, of which, 

Mr. Chairman, you had much work in terms of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, obviously, that this network of One-Stop Career Centers must be able to serve older workers. In fact, only 

about 1 percent of the eligible population can be served under 

SCSEP, so given that circumstance, we have to figure out ways 

that the One-Stop Career Center system can serve those age 55 to 

64, regardless of whether they are eligible under SCSEP or not. 

Now, what we tried to do is set a framework where we kind of 

looked at the big picture of all the employment and training services, and we do believe that given a program where there are finite 

dollars and there are needs, that we have to make some tough public policy decisions around who we target and who we serve. Our 

recommendation was, given the fact that we have this extensive 

network of One-Stop Career Centers, of which there are about 

3,500 in the country right now, they are able and positioned to be 

able to serve older workers. 

Now, under our WIA adult program, about 6 percent of the people served right now are in the 55 to 64 age range, about 12 percent in the dislocated worker program, and the trade adjustment 

assistance program also serves older workers. So sometimes there 

are blanket statements made that One-Stops can’t serve them or 

they are not serving them, and that just is not the case. There are 

individuals in that age range coming in for services. We believe we 

can work to enhance that. 

I would say one other thing. The General Accounting Office actually pointed out in a 2003 study that one reason they feel that OneStop Centers may not be serving older workers as much is because 

of performance measures, and we actually have worked very hard 

on our performance measures. On February 17th of this year, we 

7

actually issued this training employment guidance letter changing 

the earnings measure, so it is no longer a pre- and post-earnings 

that we are looking at, but it is an average earnings gain, and we 

have gotten tremendous positive support for that change, and we 

think actually that will, based on what the GAO and others have 

said, enhance that opportunity for older workers to be served 

through the One-Stop Career Centers. 

Senator DEWINE. Senator Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you saw from my opening remarks, I do have some very serious concerns about the Department’s proposed changes that were 

announced March 2nd. The outcome of these changes could be a 

major disruption for low-income older workers and community 

service networks that depend upon these workers. We know that 

the transition after the 2003 competition resulted in fewer people 

served, fewer people placed in jobs, higher participant unit costs for 

at least the first year after the competition. I believe the disruption 

will be far greater under your proposal, and I am concerned also 

about the impact on national groups that serve minority populations. 

Can you talk with us what kind of transition you envision if 

these regulations are to occur? July 1st is not that far away. 

Mr. BISHOP. Sure. Again, it is a grant competition that we have 

proposed, and it is very similar to the grant competition we had in 

2003. There are some fundamental changes that we made in that 

we are trying to eliminate some of the patchwork services that 

have gone on. We believe there are economies of scale that can be 

had when you have, on a geographic basis, a particular national organization serving older workers within that geography. 

In 2003, many of the same kinds of circumstances and many of 

the same kinds of concerns were raised that there would be a lot 

of older workers who wouldn’t be served, that we wouldn’t be able 

to accommodate the transition. In fact, what the evidence has 

shown is that it worked very, very well. 

Now, there are glitches along the way that happened, but we 

have what are called SCSEP recapture funds to assist with transition costs. We have technical assistance providers prepared to assist that. Mr. Beverly and his staff are on hand to provide on-theground technical assistance. 

Senator MURRAY. But you do agree that there could be some real 

challenges. Are you considering any kind of delay of implementation? 

Mr. BISHOP. As I said, Senator, we are looking at what kind of 

accommodations we could make in terms of the solicitation, given 

some of the grantee concerns. We do plan at this point on moving 

forward with the competition. We do believe that a lot of the concerns raised about transition are somewhat exaggerated. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, I think that many of us are very concerned that the 2000 reauthorization act had a very different feel 

to it. Can you explain to me how your proposed changes adhere to 

that act? 

Mr. BISHOP. In terms of our reauthorization changes rather than 

the solicitation? 

8

Senator MURRAY. Well, in terms of the rule changes that you 

have put out, how do you explain the differences between the reauthorization and what you are doing administratively? 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, the rule changes—they are not regulatory 

changes we have put out. It is a competition for who administers 

the program, just like we would do in any other grant program that 

is of a national basis that has a competitive feature. 

As I said, in 2003, we did a competition. We successfully implemented that competition. There was a court case out of the U.S. 

District Court here in the District of Columbia whereby the Department of Labor and Secretary Chao were sued over our ability 

to compete these funds, and the judge clearly stated and the court 

has clearly stated that competition is completely consistent with 

the Older Americans Act amendments of 2000. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, I do think you will hear from many members of our committee that we are very concerned about this. I 

think we need to have an ongoing conversation about, if you are 

going to implement this, how we make sure that we speak first in 

terms of reauthorization and make the wishes of Congress clear. So 

I would suggest you work closely with this committee. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. Your reauthorization proposal includes expanding the program to reach beyond community service. To what degree is that already allowed or happening? And how do you think 

this will improve employment outcomes for participants? 

Mr. BISHOP. That is a great question, Mr. Chairman. Again, one 

of the things that some have been concerned about is that our proposal eliminates community service, and it does not do that. 

We believe that there are many avenues by which individuals, 

including older Americans, can gain the kinds of skills they need 

in order to become successfully employed. And, in fact, when you 

look at this law, it is really kind of a balancing act, in fact. It is 

looking at the individual and what employment outcomes he or she 

may be able to utilize based on service, and it has this community 

service component. And I think a lot of what these discussions 

around reauthorization hinge on are the balance between that individual outcome and the community service desires and outcomes of 

the program. 

Currently, the law basically states that no less than 75 percent 

of funds could be spent on things other than wages and the community service component of the program. Our proposal would 

bump that down to 65 percent, really giving flexibility to grantees 

to be able to utilize that additional 10 percent for avenues other 

than just community service. 

The reason we believe in this particular approach is because, 

again, given the economic circumstances we are facing in our country right now, who is to say there are not other kinds of avenues 

by which individuals can gain employment success? For instance, 

maybe there is an employer that would be willing to have an internship opportunity where they would pay 50 percent of the wage 

and the grantee, the SCSEP grantee, could pay 50 percent of the 

wage, and at the end of 6 months, the employer hires the individual. There is on-the-job training kinds of avenues. We just beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
9

lieve there ought to be more flexibility in the law to still allow, obviously, for a vast majority of the funds to be used for community 

service, but also provide the kind of flexibility to grantees so that 

there may be other avenues of training to help individuals realize 

self-sufficiency and higher wages and opportunities. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Bishop, your recommendations propose allocating the title V funds to the States to sub-grant services. How 

are the placement rates of States compared to those of the national 

grantees? And are they doing a better job right now overall? 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, it depends. I mean, generally, some States 

have lower performance than grantees, but, again, I think that 

there is maybe a misperception of what our proposal is. We are not 

proposing to give the moneys to States and have them run the programs. Our proposal essentially takes the roughly $96 million that 

the States get, the $341 million we compete nationally, and say 

that that really is not an efficient way to run the program, it does 

not make a lot of sense. We believe there is more money going to 

administrative overhead as a result of, as I said in my testimony, 

the bifurcated nature of this program. 

We essentially are saying let’s bring those funds together. We 

would allocate them to the States to run a competition at the State 

level. Our assumption is many of the organizations that are currently national grantees would be the entities running programs 

under a competition at the State level. 

As I also mentioned in my oral remarks, as a result of some concerns about having to go to 50 States to bid, an alternative might 

be that we run a national competition but it be done on a stateby-state basis. We do this in our current Migrant and Seasonal 

Farm Worker Program right now, and it is another avenue by 

which we look at programs. But we do believe that there are economies of scale to be reached and better and enhanced performance 

to be reached by having a program that is not this dual nature 

and, rather, one where there is a responsible entity per State. And, 

again, as I said, many of them would be the nonprofits who are already running these programs to be able to do so. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, we appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE. We look forward to working with you. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MASON M. BISHOP

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act (OAA). For over 40 years, the Department of Labor has administered the 

Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), authorized by Title V of 

the Older Americans Act. 

Before discussing our efforts to employ older workers and our legislative proposal 

for reauthorizing title V, I would like to say a few words about America’s aging population and workforce, and provide context on where SCSEP fits in the broader 

workforce investment system. 

THE AGING POPULATION AND WORKFORCE

The U.S. economy is entering a period of dramatic demographic change as our 

population ages. According to the Census Bureau, in July 2003, 12 percent of the 

10

total population was aged 65 or over, and this percentage is set to expand rapidly 

in the coming decades. After the first Baby Boomers turn 65 in 2011, the older population will become twice as large by 2030 as it was in 2000. 

Further, as a result of lower birth rates in recent years, combined with the aging 

and retirement of the baby boom generation, the American workforce is growing at 

a slower rate. The changing demographics of the labor force, in combination with 

the ever-increasing skill demands of employers, have made it more critical that 

every available worker, including older Americans, be able to join or remain in the 

workforce to enable the continued competitiveness of American businesses in the 

21st century. 

BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT FACED BY OLDER WORKERS

The Baby Boomer cohort of older workers has different characteristics than in 

years past. Far more women have experience in the workforce than their counterparts a generation ago. More of this cohort are caring for grandchildren, and most 

envision a very different retirement than that of their parents—one that includes 

at least some work, whether for social engagement, intellectual stimulation, or because of financial necessity. However, despite a need for their skills and their desire 

to remain in or re-enter the workforce, many older Americans find themselves unable to find suitable work. Limited opportunities for flexible work schedules, outdated technology skills, pension plan disincentives, and a reluctance by some employers to hire older workers all limit the full potential of this productive, experienced cadre of workers. 

There is a resource available to help. The workforce investment system, which includes SCSEP, plays an important role in helping older workers gain the necessary 

skills and access the employment opportunities that will enable them to continue 

working. The workforce investment system also helps connect employers to the experienced and skilled workforce they need, including older workers, in order to compete in the 21st century global marketplace. 

RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO AN AGING POPULATION

Some employers already recognize the value that older workers bring to the workplace. They know that older workers are a human capital asset, serving as effective 

mentors to younger employees and bringing responsibility, loyalty, dedication, experience and skills to the workplace. 

Still, more needs to be done to provide older workers with job training opportunities and better connections to employers looking to hire them. At the Department 

of Labor, we are taking steps to enhance the effectiveness of our programs as well 

as brokering better relationships with partner Federal agencies and other organizations serving older American workers. 

PROTOCOL FOR SERVING OLDER WORKERS

In January 2005, ETA issued a national ‘‘Protocol for Serving Older Workers.’’ 

This important step in enhancing services to older workers was disseminated 

throughout the workforce investment system. The protocol seeks to enhance the 

services provided to older workers, and inspire the workforce investment system to 

pursue innovative strategies for tapping into this labor pool and connecting them 

with the job market. The protocol outlines a set of action steps that key stakeholders can take to achieve the goal of connecting employers with older workers. 

The stakeholder groups addressed in the protocol are: (1) the U.S. Department of 

Labor; (2) State and Local Workforce Investment Boards; (3) One-Stop Career Centers; (4) mature worker intermediaries and service providers; and (5) business and 

industry. 

OLDER WORKER PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES

Older Worker Task Force 

To build on the Protocol for Serving Older Workers, the Employment and Training 

Administration convened a DOL-wide Older Worker Task Force last year to explore 

the key issues related to the participation of older workers in the labor market. To 

continue the work of that task force, and in response to a GAO recommendation and 

a request from the Senate Special Committee on Aging, the Department of Labor 

is convening an inter-agency Federal task force to focus on the aging of the American workforce and the impact of this demographic change. The Task Force on the 

Aging of the American Workforce will bring together agencies from across the Federal Government to work collectively to address the workforce challenges posed by 

an aging population. The first meeting of the task force will be held in April. 

11

Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Emily Stover DeRocco will 

chair the task force, which will identify and assess ways to address the barriers that 

prevent older workers from remaining in, or re-entering, the labor market and the 

impediments that prevent businesses from taking full advantage of this skilled labor 

pool. The task force’s recommendations will be submitted to the Secretaries of all 

the participating Federal agencies, and may form the basis for future recommendations for the President and Members of Congress. 

Now I would like to turn to the Senior Community Service Employment Program 

(SCSEP), a workforce investment program targeted exclusively to low-income seniors. 

TITLE V: THE SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

SCSEP serves persons 55 years of age or older whose family incomes are no more 

than 125 percent of the Federal poverty level. Participants are placed in a part-time 

community service assignment in a local nonprofit agency so that they can gain onthe-job experience, and prepare for unsubsidized employment. 

The Fiscal Year 2006 appropriation for SCSEP is $432 million. This funding will 

result in approximately 92,300 people participating during Program Year 2006 (July 

1, 2006–June 30, 2007). There are currently 69 SCSEP grantees, including 13 national grantees, and 56 units of State and territorial governments. 

Program participants receive training and work experience in a wide variety of 

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

workers, and day care assistants at nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations and public 

agencies. Program participants also work in the health care industry, such as in 

hospitals, as well as in recreation parks and forests, education, housing and home 

rehabilitation, senior centers, and nutrition programs. They are paid the highest applicable minimum wage, be it Federal, State or local, or the prevailing wage for persons employed in similar public occupations by the same employer. 

Before I turn to the Administration’s SCSEP reauthorization proposal, I’d like to 

discuss two of the recent developments in our management of SCSEP: (1) the implementation of electronic performance reporting, and (2) the competition for SCSEP 

national grants. 

ELECTRONIC PERFORMANCE REPORTING

Electronic performance reporting has improved the accuracy and timeliness of our 

performance information, providing more immediate feedback on the outcomes of 

SCSEP participants. To accommodate the collection of data for the SCSEP statutory 

performance measures as well as the common measures for Federal job training programs, the Department provided grantees with a software program that has allowed 

them to collect performance data through their existing management information 

systems. Each quarter, grantees electronically submit performance data files, which 

are then consolidated into a single database. 

The final step in the evolution of SCSEP performance reporting is the Internetbased SCSEP Performance and Results Quarterly Performance Report system, 

which we call SPARQ, to be launched in May of this year. This system will store 

electronic records at the Department of Labor, and allow grantees to maintain their 

records via the Internet, reducing grantees’ reporting burden and enhancing report 

accuracy. 

SCSEP GRANT COMPETITION

In addition to electronic reporting, the other significant development in our management of SCSEP is the current grant competition. On March 2, 2006, the Department announced a grant competition for the SCSEP national grantees. This is the 

second time we have competed the SCSEP national grants; the first was 3 years 

ago. That competition opened the door for four new national grantees, and spurred 

innovations in service delivery and program administration among the other national grantees. Grants funded by this Solicitation for Grant Applications, or SGA, 

will be for Program Year (PY) 2006, which begins on July 1, 2006. This SGA is designed to strengthen program administration, including management systems, service delivery and performance of the program, and we have emphasized each of these 

important goals in the SGA’s evaluation criteria. 

The SGA is designed to encourage a move toward a regional service delivery architecture that will reduce fragmentation of service delivery areas by requiring that 

grantees apply to serve an entire county instead of a portion, except in very large 

counties. The SGA will also generally require grantees to apply to serve contiguous 

counties if multiple counties are served. Consolidated service areas better position 

12

a national grantee to effectively manage the program and to engage with the OneStop Career Center system. 

I’d like to now discuss the Administration’s proposal for SCSEP reauthorization. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR SCSEP REAUTHORIZATION

Last May, assistant secretary Emily Stover DeRocco testified before you on the 

reauthorization of Title V of the Older Americans Act, proposing five reform principles to strengthen and modernize the program within the larger framework of the 

workforce investment system. I am pleased to describe to you today the Department’s legislative proposal based on those principles. As an overview, the key reform 

principles would (1) streamline the program structure, (2) increase the minimum 

age for eligibility, (3) enhance the focus on employment outcomes and training for 

participants, (4) strengthen the capacity of the One-Stop Career Center system to 

serve older workers, and (5) strengthen performance accountability. 

STREAMLINE PROGRAM STRUCTURE

In order to streamline program structure, funds would be allocated exclusively to 

States according to a statutory formula. Each State would then competitively select 

one or more grantees to operate the program in their State. A competition would 

have to take place at least once during each 3-year period. This method of awarding 

grants would simplify administration, eliminate duplication, and create a more cohesive program. Eligible entities for State grants would include nonprofit entities, forprofit entities, agencies of State government, or consortia of agencies and/or organizations, including political subdivisions. 

National aging organizations would continue to play a major role in operating the 

SCSEP program in the States. However, the program would be streamlined by 

avoiding the current situation of having multiple national sponsors and the State 

program operating side-by-side in a State, sometimes administering programs with 

small numbers of positions. 

INCREASE THE MINIMUM AGE FOR ELIGIBILITY

Our reauthorization proposal also increases the minimum eligibility age from 55 

to 65. We believe the workforce investment system should be the primary deliverer 

of services for individuals age 55–64, and in fact, our One-Stop Career Centers are 

already serving this population. To facilitate a smooth transition to the new age 

minimums, we also propose exceptions to allow SCSEP programs to assist those individuals aged 55–64 who are hardest to serve, or have multiple barriers to employment. 

In order to effectively serve individuals age 55–64, we have already begun the 

process of ensuring that the One-Stop Career Center system has the capacity to 

serve these workers. Our reauthorization proposal would set aside 1.5 percent of 

funds for national activities that would support the One-Stop system to provide policy guidance, fund demonstrations and pilots, and disseminate best practices on 

serving older workers. 

The Department also proposes to clarify what the income eligibility standard for 

SCSEP should be. The Department’s proposal calls for stipulating what participant 

income should be considered when the income eligibility test is applied. Standardizing the income eligibility of SCSEP would clarify eligibility for applicants and the 

general public, and would increase public confidence that the program is administered in a consistent and equitable manner. 

FOCUS ON EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES

The Department’s legislative principles for SCSEP reauthorization also enhance 

the employment focus of the program. A time limit of 2 years for participants to 

obtain unsubsidized employment would encourage grantees to prepare their participants for work, to invest in skills development, and to work closely with local employers with a need for skilled, experienced workers. The proposed elimination of 

fringe benefits would reinforce the short-term and training aspects of the program. 

Many grantees have already eliminated fringe benefits, such as annual leave and 

cash outs of leave benefits. 

Grantees have raised concerns that, under current law, participants must be eligible for the grantees’ pension programs. The Department’s proposal would end the 

eligibility requirement and bring SCSEP in line with other short-term training and 

employment programs, allowing for a more cost-efficient administration of the program. 

13

The Department has proposed that the reauthorized program allow grantees to 

place individuals in appropriate training, and specifically authorize occupational 

training before or concurrent with community service training. Such training, which 

could include classroom training or individual training as well as on-the-job training, would provide participants with the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized employment. 

The Department has also proposed changing the current limit of ‘‘no less than’’ 

75 percent of grant funds on wages to 65 percent, to provide grantees with increased 

resources to prepare participants for unsubsidized employment, such as training 

and supportive services. 

STRENGTHEN PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY

In order to ensure effective services for SCSEP participants and quality program 

operations, the Department proposes that reauthorization include the use of common performance measures, which would hold all grantees accountable for entered 

employment, retention in employment, and earnings. Grantees would be authorized 

to track additional outcomes, such as the provision of community services. The common measures are currently being implemented under administrative authority. 

This change would ensure that the statutory requirements reflect current administrative practice. 

Last, the Department has proposed to retain separate grant awards for Indian 

and Asian-Pacific Islander organizations, and has set aside grant awards for these 

organizations in the current national grantees competition. 

This legislative proposal for reauthorization will better serve seniors by streamlining the SCSEP program, strengthening its ability to meet employers’ need for 

skilled experienced workers, and allowing grantees to tailor services to meet the 

needs of older workers. Reauthorization as proposed would also better integrate 

SCSEP services with WIA services, and target resources to those most in need while 

ensuring others receive services through the One-Stop Career Center system. 

CLOSING

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, I look forward to working with 

you and your House counterparts on reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. Working together, I am hopeful that this important legislation can be enacted later this 

year. I also look forward to working with you on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, and on moving forward the President’s ground-breaking proposal for Career Advancement Accounts. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. At this time I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you or other subcommittee members may 

have.

Senator DEWINE. I would ask our second panel to come up now 

as I am introducing everyone. 

For our second panel, we have three representatives from title V 

grantees. These are the people who implement the legislation that 

we write, and I appreciate that you all have joined us today. 

First, we have Ignacio Salazar, president and CEO of SER-Jobs 

for Progress National, Inc. Mr. Salazar has been with SER for a 

number of years. In 1975, he was selected to head SER MetroDetroit and in 2002 was selected to lead SER nationally. He also 

has served as an Assistant director of Admissions and Scholarship 

at the University of Michigan Graduate School of Social Work. 

Next, I would like to introduce Kent Kahn from Ohio. He is the 

regional communications specialist for Experience Works. He has 

been a great asset to older workers in Ohio. He worked with my 

office closely last reauthorization, and I look forward to working 

with him again. We welcome him as well. Under his leadership, the 

Experience Works program in Ohio has developed into one of the 

best in our Nation. 

Also joining us today is Tony Sarmiento, president and executive 

director for Senior Service America, Inc. For over 30 years, his career in workforce and community development has included senior 

14

positions with the national AFL-CIO, the District of Columbia Department of Labor, and local community-based organizations. He 

serves on the board of directors of the American Society on Aging, 

SeniorNet, and the American Youth Policy Forum, and chairs the 

American Council on Education’s GED Testing Service Advisory 

Committee. 

We thank all of you for joining us. Mr. Salazar, we will start 

with you. Thank you. We set the clock at 5 minutes, and if you can 

keep it to that, then we will have a chance for a few questions. 

STATEMENTS OF IGNACIO SALAZAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SER-JOBS FOR PROGRESS NATIONAL, 

INC.; KENT KAHN, REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST, EXPERIENCE WORKS OHIO; AND ANTHONY R. 

SARMIENTO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SENIOR SERVICE 

AMERICA, INC. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased 

to have the opportunity to testify before you today. For over 40 

years, SER-National Jobs for Progress has worked tirelessly to ensure that workforce development needs throughout the communities are met. It is our mission to provide a national network of 

employment and training organizations that formulates and advocates initiatives that result in the increased development and utilization of America’s human resources, with special emphasis on the 

needs of Hispanics, in the areas of education training, employment, 

business and economic opportunity. We remain steadfast in our 

continued efforts to cultivate America’s greatest resource—people. 

The SER Network consists of 42 affiliates operating in more than 

200 offices in 19 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. 

Since its founding in 1965, SER has served millions of low-income 

residents with a full spectrum of services in the general areas of 

education, employment, and housing. We presently manage over 61 

One-Stop Centers that serve approximately 800,000 individuals 

through these centers. Last year, the SER Network set a selfimposed benchmark of providing services to over 1 million people, 

and this year we are well on our way to improving on that benchmark. In addition, SER is most proud of the fact that we have increased the percentage of Hispanics wherever we serve. We have 

more than tripled our percentage of Hispanics served from 9 to 

over 30 percent in our SCSEP program, our premier preparation 

program for older Americans. In the last 2 years, SER has served 

a total of 3,500 individuals through the SCSEP program annually. 

In the 2003–2004 fiscal year, SER-National became a recipient of 

SCSEP, and since then has adopted the older workers’ initiative as 

an essential part of the SER success story. SCSEP plays a crucial 

role in helping mature workers obtain the necessary skills and access to opportunities that will enable them to continue working 

after the traditional retirement age. The SER-National SCSEP 

partnership is one of our most highly touted programs, and we look 

forward to expanding that partnership in the years to come. We at 

SER realize that with a constantly changing dynamic it is crucial 

that the SCSEP program be reauthorized in a manner that will 

allow us to best serve our communities. To that point, we would 

15

like to suggest several recommendations for this committee’s review. 

First, we respectfully recommend to change the community service component without completely eliminating the component. It 

would be responsible to reduce this component to serve those participants that are extremely elderly and not able to obtain unsubsidized employment but willing still to serve their respective communities. These valued services to local nonprofit and public entities bring an intergenerational cohesion to our communities that 

should not be lost. Obviously, it would be prudent to limit the number of participants served in this component. 

Second, we recommend establishing a bridge to the private sector. On-the-job training programs coupled with job internship programs should provide vital resources to further prepare mature 

workers for the workforce. These programs will also provide a conduit toward the local One-Stop Centers where participants can access other essential resources that will continue to prepare them 

for employment and allow eligible participants into WIA funding. 

Third, with regard to preparing participants for employment, additional funds should be set aside for the acquisition of basic skills 

which will improve their ability to compete in today’s job market. 

We understand that the lack of basic computer knowledge and language deficiencies for the rapidly increasing Hispanic population 

continue to hinder participants in obtaining employment. Funding 

should be set aside for these participants to ensure that these difficulties are overcome. 

The current system utilized not-for-profit and public agencies in 

hopes of providing transition into the job market. In summation, 

our recommendation is to work together with local agencies to 

quickly prepare and mobilize a mature workforce. 

The following is a list of additional recommendations: 

The first of these is to provide additional funds for support services in the form of transportation assistance to facilitate program 

participants in accessing their training or internship sites. 

In reference to the proposed changes as put forth by the Department of Labor, we welcome any changes that will enhance the delivery of services. We believe that changes that support our participants will also benefit the employer community. 

We recommend maintaining a mix of national and State grantees 

to operate the program. 

We agree that the age limit of the program participants should 

be raised above 55, but not necessarily to 65. We would recommend 

the age of 60. 

We are very much in favor of establishing new income guidelines 

for program eligibility to align with other Federal employment programs. 

We would support setting time limits for participation in the program to 24 months or perhaps even 18 months. 

We recommend reducing the amount of program funds spent on 

wages, currently at 75 percent, and utilizing these funds for training and/or employment incentives such as internships. 

We would support eliminating 502(e) projects in order to use 

these funds for additional participant training and pilot programs 

within the employer community. 

16

Finally, we favor having three primary program outcome measures: entered employment, retention in employment, and earnings 

gain, in addition to the significant segments. 

As one of the newest SCSEP grantees selected 3 years ago under 

a competitive bid process, we welcome the continued selection of 

program grantees via the competitive process. 

On behalf of SER-Jobs for Progress and the millions of participants we serve, I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to present these recommendations as we move forward in 

our joint mission of preparing America’s workforce for the future. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Salazar, thank you very much. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, sir. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Kahn. 

Mr. KAHN. Senator DeWine, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Experience Works. Thoroughly explained and understood, I have honestly never heard anyone criticize the intent of 

the SCSEP. 

Previously known as Green Thumb, Experience Works is now in 

its 40th year of providing community service employment and 

training to low-income seniors. The small demonstration program 

that initially launched Green Thumb in 1965 is now a major Federal workforce initiative success story. We remain strongly committed to services to rural America and to the mission of the 

SCSEP. It is the only thing we do. 

I am here today to talk about the SCSEP reauthorization. However, we also have another immediate concern: the Department of 

Labor’s recompetition. There is not enough time to effect a smooth 

transition. The transition will be costly. The last competition cost 

Experience Works more than $2.3 million. Those funds should be 

used for services to participants. 

The proposal is bad for rural counties. Services to older workers 

in rural counties, if provided at all, will suffer. We suggest the Department of Labor withdraw the SGA and extend the current 

grants for 1 year when the Older Americans Act should be reauthorized. 

Regarding the SCSEP reauthorization, the current dual purpose 

is the heart of the program. It gives many who live in small rural 

communities with very limited employment opportunities a great 

alternative: community service. 

During reauthorization, we ask that Congress adhere to four 

principles: 

No. 1, support best practice and avoid disruption in the program 

by continuing to fund national and State grantees. If national 

grantees are eliminated, the SCSEP loses more than 200 years of 

experience in successful program models. 

No. 2, target services to older persons with the greatest economic 

and social need by maintaining the current age requirements. In 

the heart of Appalachia, 59-year-old participant Cheryl Crooks 

lives in Woodsfield, Ohio, in Monroe County with a double-digit unemployment rate approaching 16 percent. Without transportation 

and having to compete against more skilled workers, Crooks is relieved she can earn some income in her community service assignment. 

17

No. 3, strengthen the emphasis on community service in addition 

to promoting economic self-sufficiency among participating seniors. 

When we look at disaster relief efforts, whether it be a Katrina or 

Rita, our participants have been critical to these efforts. Participants work on local Red Cross efforts to field and manage phone 

banks. Others work with FEMA to help victims complete applications for relief assistance, as well as complete DOL emergency employment applications. Community service must remain a core philosophy of this program. 

The SCSEP does more than train older workers. It directly supports and partners with thousands of local and faith-based organizations and public agencies. Seventy percent of these agencies report they will not be able to provide the current services without 

the SCSEP. 

No. 4, maximizing expenditures on participant wages and benefits and minimize administrative costs by retaining current policy 

on program budgets. With the increase in State minimum wages, 

there are not enough dollars to support the wages and benefits to 

participants at the same time the operational costs, such as medical insurance, workers’ compensation, and travel, especially in 

rural areas, continue to increase. 

Experience Works agrees that competition should be conducted 

only when grantees do not meet accountability and performance 

measures. Service delivery will always suffer if grantees are constantly forced to hire and maintain qualified staff, if recompetition 

occurs without comprehensive and independent evaluations. Experience Works believes the equitable distribution of SCSEP positions 

should continue to be distributed by county based on equity share. 

If funds are not distributed by equitable distribution, services will 

disappear in rural counties. It is much easier to provide those services and achieve goals in more populated communities. 

Many of the participants now being enrolled need long-term extensive training and support. Therefore, there should be no time 

limitations for purchase of an enrollment. Time limitations should 

be based on the individual service strategy. 

If an older worker is underemployed but has an income below 

125 percent of the poverty level, the regulations now say they are 

not eligible for the SCSEP. Such is the case for an Ohio applicant 

who lives by herself. Her only income was working 9 hours a week 

at a laundromat earning $6 an hour. I had to tell this woman she 

was not eligible. She should have been able to receive SCSEP services. 

I urge you and the Department of Labor to work with SCSEP 

grantees to ensure that the program maintains its high standards 

of quality and community service. The SCSEP must continue to 

reach rural as well as urban communities and be responsive to the 

needs of our aging population and partnering organizations. 

Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Kahn, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kahn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENT KAHN

Senators DeWine and Mikulski, thank you for the opportunity to testify. On behalf of Experience Works, Inc. I must get right to the point. We need your help and 

the help of your colleagues to reauthorize, improve, and increase the SCSEP as a 

18

part of the Older Americans Act. This is a great program that helps thousands of 

poor older Americans. Thoroughly explained and understood, I have honestly never 

heard anyone criticize the intent of the SCSEP. A success story is 61-year 

Coshocton, Ohio participant, Karen Shample, who designs and updates web pages 

for the county One-Stop. Shample says if Experience Works had not placed her at 

the Coshocton County One-Stop she would have never learned how to design web 

pages, write a newsletter or use Microsoft Excel. 

EXPERIENCE WORKS

Now in our 40th year, Experience Works helps seniors get the training they need 

to find good jobs in their local community. Originally named Green Thumb, and 

chartered in 1965 as a small, rural demonstration program, Experience Works operated the first older worker program. In 1965, the Nelson Amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act, funded the ‘‘green thumb’’ project and 10 days later, Green 

Thumb, Inc. (now Experience Works) was launched as the first nonprofit organization created to run a jobs program for disadvantaged rural Americans. The following 

spring, crews of 280 participant farmers went to work on beautification projects in 

Arkansas, New Jersey, Oregon, and Minnesota. That initial project in four States 

soon evolved into the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). 

The small demonstration program that initially launched Green Thumb in 1965 is 

now a major Federal workforce initiative success story. We remain strongly committed to services to rural America and to the mission of the SCSEP, it is the only 

thing we do. 

COMPETITION IS AN IMMEDIATE CONCERN

I am here today to talk about the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act 

however, there is a more immediate concern I want to talk about first and that is 

the Department of Labor’s competition of the SCSEP. The proposal (published 

March 2, 2006; 71 Fed. Reg. 10798–10820) will disrupt services to thousands of the 

current participants, diminish services, and weaken program effectiveness in rural 

counties. The programmatic confusion that will result from this nationwide turnover 

of participant positions, especially with new inexperienced sponsors, will increase 

substantially for at least the first 6 months after the competition as old and new 

sponsors grapple with the immense administrative requirements at the expense of 

working with the participants who need help. The transition after the 2003 competition resulted in fewer people served, fewer people placed in jobs and higher participant unit costs for at least the first year after the competition. The proposed recompetition will result in decreased participation in the program by poor older individuals and slow movement of many of the 47,000 program participants into unsubsidized employment as both old and new sponsors deal with the additional workload 

required to implement this massive movement of participants from sponsor to sponsor nationwide. If experience proves true from the first competition, as many as 

16,000 seniors that would otherwise be served by the SCSEP will be turned away 

because of the inability to move current participants into jobs. 

A major concern of ours is that the proposal will be bad for rural counties because 

grantees are required to bid on at least 224 positions or 10 percent of the positions 

in the State, whichever is higher. This means that grantees that have operated in 

urban areas will now have to operate the program in surrounding counties that will 

most likely be rural. Such grantees typically do not have a rural service delivery 

system; it is difficult to operate in rural counties and the cost is much higher. Services to older workers in rural counties, if provided at all, will suffer. 

The proposed transition timeframe requirements are illogical and will impose unreasonable cost burdens on the grantees. The Department unofficially estimates that 

30,000 of the 47,000 positions nationwide will be re-allocated from one grantee to 

another or given to brand new sponsors with little or no direct experience operating 

this program. In less than 30 days from grant notification to the start of the new 

grant period on July 1, 2006, all selected sponsors—old and new—will have to meet 

with every participant to collect required program data as well as payroll information. Each host agency where participants are assigned will also have to be met with 

to negotiate a new agreement. And most importantly, is the payroll information required from each participant before they can be paid by the new grantee at the end 

of the first payroll in the new grant year. Experience Works’ first pay period end 

date is July 8, 2006, only an 8-day turn around time. These low-income older workers won’t receive a paycheck if payroll information is not collected in time. Beside 

the disruption for the participants and host agencies, the proposed competition will 

result in substantial transition costs to grantees that will not be reimbursed and 

that could otherwise be used to pay for services that directly benefit the older workVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
19

ers. Based on the actual cost of transition in the 2003 competition, we project that 

in total, existing sponsors alone will spend over $10 million during this transition 

to displace old staff, hire and train new staff, terminate existing office leases, find 

new offices and execute the leases, ship furniture, purchase computers and other 

necessary close down and start up expenditures. This does not include the ‘‘ramp 

up’’ costs for new sponsors. 

We suggest that the Department of Labor withdraw the SGA, extend the current 

grants for 1 year and be prepared to release the SGA for the next year in a more 

timely manner so grantee selections are announced early enough to allow for a 

smooth transition. 

SCSEP REAUTHORIZATION

Now regarding the SCSEP and reauthorization, I can truly tell you the people 

who operate this program do it to improve the lives of older workers. How hard they 

work is evidence of their compassion and commitment. I know the staff would love 

for each and every participant we serve to find employment, but that is not always 

possible. However, the current dual purpose of the SCSEP gives many who have 

limited skills and live in small rural communities with very limited employment opportunities a great alternative, community service. 

During reauthorization, we ask that Congress adhere to four principles. 

1. Support best practice and avoid disruption in the program by continuing to fund 

both national and State territorial grants to operate the SCSEP. 

The thirteen national grantees (selected by USDOL through a national competition in 2003) add significant value to the total SCSEP program and delivery system. 

These national nonprofit organizations strengthen SCSEP at the State and local 

level by sharing best practices on serving hard-to-reach rural and urban communities, including minority and immigrant groups; collaborating with WIA One-Stops, 

area agencies on aging, and leveraging local resources to support SCSEP. They develop and replicate successful program models by partnering with national-level corporations, employer associations, social service agencies, and other providers. National SCSEP grantees represent unmatched expertise and experience that would be 

difficult to replace. 

2. Target services to older persons with the greatest economic and social need—including those from minority, rural, and urban hard-to-serve communities—by 

maintaining the current age requirements. 

SCSEP serves over 100,000 persons 55 and over each year, over twice as many 

as those served by WIA. Further, SCSEP serves a more needy population: over 70 

percent of all SCSEP participants are women; over 80 percent are 60 and older; over 

80 percent are at or below poverty, about one-third have less than a high school 

education; and over 40 percent are from a minority group. In contrast, WIA nationally serves less than 4,000 persons 65 and over of any income and education level 

(likely due to performance disincentives currently built into WIA, according to GAO 

Report 03-350). In PY 2004, national and State/territorial SCSEP grantees achieved 

ACSI customer satisfaction scores that were ‘‘substantially higher’’ than scores for 

WIA, and better than most organizations in the private sector. 

In the heart of Appalachia, 59-year-old Experience Works participant Cheryl 

Crooks lives in Woodsfield, Ohio in Monroe County with an unemployment rate approaching 16 percent. Ormet Corporation, a steel manufacturing plant, closed recently, resulting in the loss of more jobs for many of the local residents. Without 

transportation and having to compete against workers with more skills and experience for jobs in the small village, Crooks is relieved she can earn some income with 

her assignment at the Monroe Tri County Help Center. She is able to walk to her 

host agency where she is training in a clerical position learning new computer skills. 

Priority for SCSEP eligibility is now for older workers 60 years of age and older. 

Once these older workers reach 62, at the very least, most of them have the safety 

net of some Social Security; even if it is a small amount. At least it is some income. 

The SCSEP should continue to serve individuals 55 years of age and older. Individuals 55 to 61 are often much worse off because they do not get Social Security. They 

need the assistance from SCSEP. They don’t want to settle for a job at minimum 

wage. They still want to earn a respectable wage and need health care benefits, vacation time, sick leave and hopefully a retirement plan. Many times they are more 

desperate than older individuals. Since SCSEP grantees are partners with the 

WIBS, older workers who go to the one-stops for services are referred to SCSEP because grantees have the skills and knowledge of working successfully with older 

workers. And there are possible funding cuts in the WIA adult and dislocated workers programs and, at least in Ohio, many WIBs are going to be using 10 percent 

20

of their funding for incumbent worker training. So there may be limited WIA funds 

for training older workers. 

3. Maintain and enhance the community service employment aspect of the program 

in addition to promoting economic self-sufficiency among participating seniors. 

In the small town of Antwerp, Ohio, in rural Paulding County, in northwest Ohio, 

77-year-old Eleanor Perriello walks to her assignment each day at the Antwerp

elementary school. She spends her time helping kindergarten students. With deteriorating health, lack of transportation and limited employment opportunities her 

community service assignment allows her to lead a productive life without being dependent on her children or others. It provides her with dignity, builds her self-esteem and allows her to continue as a contributing member of society. And, in the 

upper shore of Maryland in Cecil County, 65-year-old Leon Flynn, with failing eyesight and no transportation, cannot get to an area where there are jobs he can do. 

He could not find employment in the small rural town of Elkton, Maryland. He 

draws less than $600 a month in social security. So his SCSEP assignment in maintenance at Elkton Housing is giving him an opportunity to learn new skills, provide 

services that might otherwise not get done and to supplement his income. 

SCSEP does more than help older job seekers find employment—it directly supports the day-to-day operation of thousands of community and faith-based organizations and public agencies. According to USDOL, 70 percent of these agencies reported that they would not have been able to provide the same level of services 

without SCSEP. Last year alone, SCSEP participants provided these agencies close 

to 46 million hours of paid community service. 

Community service helps participants productively transition to employment in a 

way that preserves their dignity and self-worth. Each community service assignment provides opportunities to learn, earn, and serve others. Community service assignments result in productive involvement for low-income individuals who are not 

looking for a ‘‘handout’’ but a ‘‘hand up’’ within their own communities. The servicelearning model is uniquely suited to older learners who can marry their lifetime of 

experience with the new skills they need to be competitive in the workplace of the 

future. Unlike persons out of the workforce who are searching for jobs who lose confidence during a job search, participants performing community service have a support system that boosts them up and coaches them toward success. There is no substitute for many services that local community service agencies provide to the program. And, likewise, there is no substitute for the many services SCSEP participants provide to all segments of their communities through working in and learning 

from social service agencies. The program also addresses barriers that community 

service agencies have in recruiting volunteers the agency needs to continue to provide quality services. As previously discussed at the subcommittee’s roundtable, held 

earlier this year, increased concern was expressed about the ability to deliver services funded through other OAA programs to older Americans. The SCSEP is a perfect resource for the aging network and many participants are already assigned to 

local aging services. The SCSEP provides a win-win outcome for both the participant and the agency. Policymakers need to take a strong look at the rich history 

of the SCSEP and continue to support an infrastructure that supports the civic engagement and social capitol aspects of this program. Also, there continues to be a 

need for older workers to have access to employment services that place an emphasis on part-time, paid work to maintain their self-sufficiency. The public feels good 

about a program that is not an entitlement program—but rather a program where 

people are not only working for what they get, but they are providing locally needed 

assistance that taxpayers can see for themselves. They feel good about knowing people, ‘‘like their grandmother or grandfather,’’ are contributing to their communities, 

feel useful, and have a reason for living. And, particularly in rural remote localities, 

these individuals help the communities stay alive. 

4. Maximize expenditures on participant wages and benefits and minimize administrative costs by retaining current policy on program budgets. 

Grantees have operated an efficient and effective program with administrative 

costs capped at 15 percent (most are 13.5 percent or less). Experience Works is 

around 8 percent. Requiring that 75 percent of all SCSEP funds be spent on participant wages and benefits has not deterred grantees from achieving all legislated 

SCSEP goals, including preparing SCSEP participants for unsubsidized jobs and 

providing community services in demand. To increase intensive training opportunities for SCSEP participants, the Department should consider revising the 502(e) 

program to compliment the mainstream SCSEP objectives to place participants in 

well paying jobs. Also, the Department should address existing disincentives in WIA 

21

that dissuade one-stops from providing intensive services to workers seeking parttime employment, which include many SCSEP participants and other older workers. 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Competition should only be conducted when grantees do not meet performance meas- ures. 

Experience Works concurs with Congress’s intent in the last reauthorization that 

competition should be conducted only when grantees do not meet performance goals. 

Competing every 3 years as proposed by the DOL will be very disruptive to local 

service delivery and participants. Based on experience from the last competition, the 

transition of thousands of participants was very traumatic for those individuals and 

the community organizations where they were assigned. Why compete when a 

grantee is performing? Performance and the services to participants are impaired 

significantly after competition. Operational territories change which results in losing 

the network of partners that help provide supportive services, counseling, training, 

and jobs to participants. And, grantees will always be challenged to be able to hire 

and maintain qualified staff if staffs jobs are in jeopardy every 3 years. 

STREAMLINE DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

The SCSEP data collection system, which has not yet been finalized, currently requires collecting data not directly related to either program performance or common 

measures. It is recommended that SCSEP grantees help modify the system that 

supports a broad range of users, including agencies with limited staff and limited 

capacity in information technology. 

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SCSEP POSITIONS

SCSEP funding should continue to be distributed by county based on equity share. 

Eliminating the equitable distribution of positions, which appears to be the DOL’s 

proposal since no slots were listed in the President’s 2007 budget, would be detrimental to both needy seniors and thousands of local social service agencies. If funds 

are not distributed by equitable distribution, services will disappear in rural counties since it is easier to provide those services and achieve goals in more populated 

communities. National grantees have worked with States to promote continuous improvement in the current distribution of positions. Collaboration has led to significantly improved equitable distribution of positions in every State. The equitable distribution of SCSEP positions ensures enrollment of nearly 100,000 participants each 

year and also guarantees equitable access to services for participants as well as 

local organizations such as Meals on Wheels, caregiver networks, etc. 

MINIMIZE DISRUPTION

All grantees seek to minimize potential disruption to the program participants 

through this reauthorization. The combined impact of a delayed issuance of the 

Final Rules for SCSEP until 2004, the PY 2003 SCSEP national grant competition, 

and the extended process to develop a new SCSEP data collection system (which is 

not yet completed) has resulted in constant change which ultimately effects service 

delivery to the participants, business partners, and local community-based organizations and program outcomes. 

OTHER SUGGESTIONS AND CONCERNS

Operating the SCSEP is now much more difficult. To use an analogy, the regulations lengthened the court by 50 feet, raised the baskets 10 feet and we’re not even 

allowed to dribble the ball. In the NCAA basketball tournament that would create 

some real ‘‘March Madness!’’ It’s done the same with us. These new regulations are 

making it more difficult to improve the lives of older workers who want help. 

Due to the change in eligibility guidelines many of the participants now being enrolled need long-term extensive training and support. Therefore, there should be no 

time limitations for participant enrollment. In fact, many participants will be unable 

to find jobs off the SCSEP. 

When determining an applicant’s eligibility we must now include income that was 

previously excluded. In addition, if an older worker is underemployed, but has an 

income below 125 percent of the poverty level, they are now not eligible for the 

SCSEP. Earlier this grant year, I received a call from an older worker who lived 

on her own. Her only income was working 9 hours a week at a Laundromat earning 

$6 an hour. I had to tell this woman she was not eligible for the SCSEP therefore, 

we would not be able to provide her with the job skill training she desperately need 

to get a better job. Is that what we really want? This woman needed SCSEP assistVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
22

ance. She could have learned new skills to get a job with a livable wage and benefits 

instead of living in poverty and possibly having to access government handout programs. 

Older workers who live in subsidized housing face an additional barrier to employment off the program. Their SCSEP wages do not count against their rent. However, they often refuse to take a job off the SCSEP because while that new private 

sector job may be paying them an additional $200 a month more their rent will go 

up $400 a month. I know I wouldn’t take a job if my expenses were going up significantly more than my income. The ‘‘catch 22’’ is the danger in SCSEP wages counting 

against their subsidized housing because those older workers would then not be interested in coming on the SCSEP. We must come up with an equitable solution that 

will allow participants to take jobs off the SCSEP and not result in their housing 

cost going up incrementally. 

Sufficient funds should be provided to respond to the projected increase in 

SCSEP-eligible persons. The Census Bureau projects an increase in the number of 

older persons who will be eligible for SCSEP over the next decade. The Department 

should support an increase in total SCSEP appropriations in order to respond to the 

growing numbers of the older poor and increase the SCSEP unit cost taking into 

consideration the growing number of States that have a higher State minimum 

wage than the Federal minimum wage. 

SCSEP COMMUNITY SERVICE SUPPORTS DISASTER RELIEF

SCSEP is a vital and consistent link in the disaster relief efforts—this year with 

Katrina and Rita, last year in Florida, and in previous years throughout the country. Participants still perform community service after all the volunteers go back to 

their regular lives. SCSEP participants are currently aiding in relief efforts in the 

Gulf Coast by providing a consistent presence, performing essential functions that 

volunteers can’t duplicate because of their transient presence. Participants are performing duties with the Red Cross like answering phones and ensuring followthrough, directing people who come to community action agencies to appropriate 

programs and providing information and referral, and at Workforce Investment Act 

one-stop centers helping them access employment services and other assistance. The 

SCSEP is a one-of-a-kind program that serves low-income, low-skilled older workers. 

No other government program is currently meeting this need while also providing 

efficient and effective community services. 

I urge you and the DOL to work with SCSEP grantees who understand the challenges of the day-to-day operations and working with the population served by the 

SCSEP to improve and streamline the SCSEP. We need to develop a world-class 

older worker program that gives grantees the flexibility to meet the needs of older 

workers. It needs to be user-friendly in order to meet the needs of aging baby 

boomers, the aging community, other public and private nonprofits and private employers. 

Together we can create that world-class older worker-training program. Community service agencies can then expand their services, many more disadvantaged 

older workers with multiple barriers will have the ability to gain the job skills to 

increase their income and become self-sufficient and business and industry will benefit. Senators, ability is truly ageless. Thank you.

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Sarmiento. 

Mr. SARMIENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity 

to share our views on the reauthorization of title V. Senior Service 

America is the third largest national SCSEP grantee funded by the 

Department of Labor. We operate SCSEP exclusively through subgrants to local community-based, faith-based, and publicly funded 

organizations. Currently, we have 108 local partners in 257 rural, 

urban, and suburban counties in 23 States and the District of Columbia. Today we have with us in the audience Sharon Minturn, 

who is president of the Senior Resource Connection in Dayton, who 

is one of our subgrantees; along with Kathy Damico of Family and 

Children Services of Baltimore—Central Maryland, rather; and 

Flora Daughtry of the Baltimore City Health Department. All three 

of these organizations run SCSEP with a subgrant from our organization. 

23

Each year since the 2000 reauthorization, our diverse network of 

subgrantees has surpassed the contractual goals of our grant with 

the Labor Department. We believe that the performance of Senior 

Service America’s subgrantee network demonstrates that Congress 

was on target when it significantly strengthened and modernized 

SCSEP during the last reauthorization in 2000. 

Under the current law and regulations, a wide range of organizations are able to accomplish SCSEP’s dual and complementary missions of employing our Nation’s most vulnerable seniors to, first, 

provide needed services in their community and, second, prepare 

themselves for unsubsidized employment. 

We support the vision for SCSEP that was developed by the 13 

national sponsors back earlier this January, but I would like to 

focus on two primary points. 

First, we think it is important to maintain the community service employment aspect of the program as a required activity for all 

SCSEP participants, and also urge Congress to keep the 75-percent 

minimum expenditure on paid community service employment. We 

agree that it is desirable, highly desirable to increase classroom 

training opportunities for SCSEP participants, but we believe that 

it is possible now to do that without taking away resources from 

community service. And today we have with us in the audience two 

SCSEP participants from Baltimore who are in GED classes while 

they are also working in paid community service employment: Ms. 

Carrie Morris with the Baltimore City Health Department, and Ms. 

Victoria Gill, who is with the Family and Children Services of Central Maryland. 

When we think about the community service employment, these 

are 46 million hours of not make-work but real work that is being 

done by these participants. The kinds of things that they do for 

senior nutrition programs, senior centers, elder care, libraries, and 

other kinds of agencies would go missing if it were not for the paid 

community service employment. 

The second point I would like to make is that we hope that the 

Federal Government will continue to invest in national organizations like ours to help improve SCSEP at all levels. A number of 

things that we do to add value to the SCSEP system are produce 

publications, such as a recent publication called ‘‘Engaging Immigrant Seniors in Community Service and Employment Programs: A 

Guide for Providers.’’ We did this in conjunction with the four minority aging organizations that currently run SCSEP and the Center for Applied Linguistics, because we believe that it was proper 

for SCSEP to focus on the most in need, those seniors who are isolated. And when we talk about isolation, language and culture as 

well as rural and urban geographies tend to create isolation. So 

this guide is our effort to try to build the capacity of the system 

for all grantees to serve immigrant seniors. 

But at the same time, poverty affects both Appalachia white—

there are white elderly poor as well as African-American elderly 

poor, and we hope another publication we produced called ‘‘Giving 

Back: How Older Ohioans Overcame Age and Poverty to Serve 

Their Communities,’’ the story of SCSEP in Ohio, will also remind 

all grantees what SCSEP ought to be doing. 

24

In conclusion, we believe that the latest research on older workers, adult learning, and civic engagement published since the last 

reauthorization only reinforces that SCSEP is both a valid and necessary program for another 5 years. If SCSEP had not been established over 40 years ago, experts on aging today most likely would 

be calling for creating a new program just like SCSEP as part of 

a larger, comprehensive national response to our aging society. We 

think that the 9 million seniors who will be poor or near-poor in 

the next decade and, therefore, eligible for SCSEP would be best 

served if Congress reaffirmed in 2006 the same purposes and delivery system for SCSEP as they did in 2000. 

Thank you, Senator DeWine. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sarmiento follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY R. SARMIENTO

Senators Enzi, Kennedy, DeWine, and Mikulski, and members of the committee, 

as the Executive Director of Senior Service America, I appreciate this opportunity 

to share our views on the reauthorization of the Senior Community Service Employment Program under Title V of the Older Americans Act. 

Senior Service America is the third largest national SCSEP grantee funded by the 

U.S. Department of Labor. Since 1968, we have operated SCSEP exclusively 

through subgrants to 108 local community-based, faith-based, and publicly funded 

organizations. Currently, our local partners operate SCSEP in 257 rural, urban, and 

suburban counties in 23 States and the District of Columbia. Among our partners 

are local affiliates of Catholic Charities, Jewish Vocational Services, and the National Urban League; community action agencies and other community-based organizations; rehabilitation agencies; institutions of higher education; local area agencies on aging; workforce development agencies; senior centers; and regional councils 

of government. Our subgrantees operate an array of programs in addition to SCSEP. 

Each year since the 2000 reauthorization, our network of local subgrantees has 

surpassed the contractual goals of our grant with the Labor Department. In Program Year 2004–2005, our diverse network of subgrantees exceeded their performance goals during the first full year of operation under the final SCSEP Rules 

(issued in April 2004) and the implementation of a new, far-reaching, and mandatory SCSEP data collection system. Last year, our program enrolled over 11,000 participants, who provided nearly 5.5 million hours of paid community service at over 

2,800 local nonprofit and public agencies. We accomplished these goals and expended 75 percent of our funds to pay the wages and fringe benefits of SCSEP participants. 

We believe that the performance of Senior Service America’s subgrantee network 

demonstrates that Congress was on target when it significantly strengthened and 

modernized SCSEP during the last reauthorization in 2000. Under the current law 

and regulations, a wide range of organizations are able to accomplish SCSEP’s dual 

missions of employing our Nation’s most vulnerable seniors to (1) provide needed 

services in their community and (2) secure unsubsidized employment. 

In our opinion, the latest research on older workers, adult learning, and civic engagement published since the last reauthorization only reinforces that SCSEP is 

both a valid and necessary program for another 5 years. If SCSEP had not been 

established over 40 years ago, experts on aging today most likely would be calling 

for creating a new program just like SCSEP as part of a larger, comprehensive national response to our aging society. We think that the 9 million seniors who will 

be poor or near poor in the next decade (and therefore eligible for SCSEP) would 

be best served if Congress reaffirmed in 2006 the same purposes and delivery system for SCSEP as in 2000. 

Using the latest ‘‘buzz’’ words in aging, we would argue that SCSEP is a proven 

civic engagement program for disadvantaged seniors. Too often unrecognized or 

overlooked as assets in their communities, tens of thousands of low-income seniors 

are doing real and valuable work that would be sorely missed. The structure and 

rewards of paid employment (even at the minimum wage) promote not only the acquisition of skills but also a boost in self-esteem and self-awareness. In short, 

SCSEP is transforming their lives and building their communities. 

For these reasons, we concur with the attached document which describes a vision 

and rationale for SCSEP that was adopted by the national SCSEP grantees last 

January, prior to the Labor Department’s release of its own Legislative Principles 

25

for reauthorizing SCSEP. Instead of reiterating the principles described in this joint 

document, I wish to provide additional information we received from our subgrantees and focus the rest of my testimony on several key points. 

In preparation for this hearing, we invited our subgrantees to submit their views 

on aspects of the Labor Department’s proposals. (If requested, we will provide a 

summary of all responses at a later date.) More than 50 of our subgrantees have 

responded to our invitation, along with a handful of State SCSEP directors. Based 

on their recommendations, there was unanimous support for the following:

• Maintaining SCSEP’s primary emphasis on community service employment • Keeping the minimum age of eligibility at 55

All of our subgrantees who submitted comments agreed that the capacity of their 

participating host agencies, large and small, would be greatly diminished if national 

SCSEP grantees either chose or were required to cut back their expenditures on 

paid community service employment for SCSEP participants. Currently, the Older 

Americans Act requires that 75 percent of all SCSEP funds must be spent on paying 

wages and benefits to SCSEP participants. This budget policy enhances the availability of SCSEP participants to work in various agencies, including many that are 

integral to the larger network of service providers to the elderly under the Older 

Americans Act, including:

• Meals on Wheels and other senior nutrition programs • Elder care and child care • Senior centers

For instance, the SCSEP project director of our subgrantee in Lisbon, Ohio, reminded us of a news story he sent us last summer from the ‘‘Salem News,’’ quoting 

Iris Marshalek, the director of the local office on aging, about her three SCSEP participants: ‘‘Without their assistance, we would not be able to have senior day care 

. . . they are life savers.’’

Other types of agencies that would be jeopardized by a cutback on paid community service employment include libraries, especially in rural areas, and One-Stop 

Career Centers, where SCSEP participants often serve as specialists for all older job 

seekers. 

A cutback in paid community service employment would also discourage innovative projects such as the cultural tourism and oral history initiative that we 

launched last summer in south central Louisiana, the heart of Acadiana. Before 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck, we supported two of our subgrantees, the 

Evangeline Council on Aging and Lafayette Council on Aging, to train SCSEP participants on conducting and transcribing interviews with older residents about local 

history and culture. In conjunction with the University of Louisiana in Lafayette, 

this project is part of an emerging economic development effort linked to local tourism. Despite the hurricanes, the SCSEP participants are completing oral histories, 

including several narratives of survival and recovery. While the project is unlikely 

to lead directly to unsubsidized employment opportunities in the immediate future, 

it has provided participants with the opportunity to contribute to documenting the 

history of their communities and enhance their communications and writing skills. 

A few of our subgrantees who submitted comments supported an increase in classroom training for SCSEP participants, primarily to supplement—not replace—paid 

community service employment as the primary activity that best fits the needs of 

the majority of their SCSEP-eligible population. It is our view that Congress could 

increase classroom opportunities for SCSEP participants without taking away resources for community service employment by revising or eliminating the current 

Section 502(e) and considering ‘‘National Activities’’ as proposed by the Labor Department. 

In addition, we support the Department’s aim to increase the capacity of the larger public workforce system to serve older workers and job-seekers. Based on population and labor market projections for many of the States where we operate 

SCSEP, workers 55 and over will comprise ALL of the net labor force growth in 

States such as Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. To meet the needs of employers as well as older job seekers, we will need a more robust public workforce 

system that knows how to assess, train, counsel, and assist older persons in addition 

to youth and displaced workers. We must find a way in which more of the resources 

of the public workforce system are spent on all older workers, including SCSEP participants. 

Taking into account the sheer numbers of the Baby Boomers and the latest research on pension coverage and attitudes toward retirement, we support stronger 

coordination and linkage between the existing public workforce system and other 

public systems such as State and local area agencies on aging, vocational rehabilitation, and the public library system. 

26

SCSEP must remain an essential part of this broader system. Those seniors with 

multiple barriers to employment will continue to need extra assistance if they are 

not to be passed over by employers. The current law establishes a specific program 

performance measure and defines those seniors who are considered ‘‘most-in-need.’’ 

It would be helpful if Congress would provide additional clarification to the income 

eligibility guidelines for SCSEP. 

We also urge Congress to recognize the value of funding national organizations 

to continue to be an integral part of the SCSEP delivery system. Working with our 

local subgrantees and other national SCSEP grantees, Senior Service America has 

been able to develop several products that are helping to improve SCSEP and other 

programs for older Americans. Our recent publications and video (‘‘The SCSEP 

Story: Transforming Lives, Building Communities’’) have been well-received by practitioners inside and outside of our subgrantee network. ‘‘Giving Back,’’ a publication 

about SCSEP in Ohio, and ‘‘Engaging Immigrant Seniors in Community Service and 

Employment Programs: A Guide for Providers,’’ complement each other, for together 

they challenge us to prepare all seniors in poverty (both native- and foreign-born) 

to be able to contribute to their community. 

We are especially grateful to the four oldest minority aging organizations for their 

assistance in producing our guide on immigrant seniors: the Asociacion Nacional Pro 

Personas Mayores, the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, the National Caucus 

and Center on Black Aged, and the National Indian Council on Aging. 

National grantees are also able to establish and maintain partnerships with national organizations to enhance SCSEP as a whole. For example, Senior Service 

America engaged the Center for Applied Linguistics to co-author the guide on immigrant seniors. We also have engaged the American Society on Aging to develop materials enabling our subgrantees to train SCSEP participants to train their peers 

on cognitive vitality, brain wellness, and older drivers. We also have worked with 

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Workforce Preparation to promote partnerships between our SCSEP subgrantees and their local chambers of commerce, as 

well as individual national corporations such as CVS. 

We also work closely with the State SCSEP directors and other national SCSEP 

grantees in the development of the annual SCSEP State plan and helping to meet 

equitable distribution goals at the county level. In our opinion, the stronger State 

SCSEP planning process, which began with the Final SCSEP Rules in April 2004, 

has improved the partnership and coordination between State and national grantees 

operating within a State. 

As a national grantee, we also provide ongoing training and technical assistance 

about SCSEP to our subgrantee network. They are thoroughly familiar and in compliance with final SCSEP regulations issued in April 2004 and are reporting all data 

required by the Labor Department. 

Finally, we also demonstrate the value we add as a national SCSEP grantee by 

bringing in organizations without prior SCSEP experience as subgrantees. For example, recently Jewish Vocational Services in Minneapolis joined our network because they recognized their need, as an agency, to increase their capacity to serve 

older workers. 

We urge Congress to continue to serve as wise stewards for this program as it 

has for the last 40 years. As you consider possible amendments to SCSEP, please 

take into consideration all the data available about the program since the 2000 reauthorization. For example, all SCSEP grantees have been collecting and reporting 

data about participants, host agencies, unsubsidized placements, and other performance measures mandated by the Older Americans Act. We urge a thorough analysis 

of this data prior to any major restructuring of this program of demonstrated effectiveness. 

Also, all grantees were encouraged to participate in the evaluation currently being 

conducted by the Government Accountability Office. Also, many grantees participated in an independent national evaluation of SCSEP commissioned by the Labor 

Department and conducted by DAH Consulting. Each of these separate evaluations 

should provide a framework for discussing how best to strengthen and improve 

SCSEP for the future. 

In conclusion, we urge Congress to continue its commitment to providing paid 

community service employment to low-income seniors as one of SCSEP’s dual complementary missions. We also ask Congress to continue to support national grantees 

as a proven strategy to promote improvement of SCSEP at the national, State, and 

local levels. Just as it invests in national organizations to operate a Job Corps program targeted to serve disadvantaged youth, the Labor Department should continue 

to invest in national organizations to operate the Senior Community Service Employment Program to serve disadvantaged older adults. 

27

1The following statement was adopted at a meeting held January 10, 2006, of the 13 national 

grantees funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to participate in this hearing. We will be 

providing additional testimony to the committee within the next 2 weeks. 

A VISION FOR AMERICA’S LOW-INCOME SENIOR WORKERS AND THEIR COMMUNITIES1

For 40 years, the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) has 

provided part-time employment in a wide range of nonprofit and public agencies to 

low-income adults 55 and over. Every year, more than 100,000 older adults with 

poor employment prospects and the greatest need are able to re-enter the labor 

force. As extra help, SCSEP participants enable thousands of community and faithbased organizations to provide vital public services that would not otherwise be 

available to other needy seniors, children, and the general public. 

The 2000 reauthorization of the Older Americans Act kept SCSEP intact while 

strengthening program accountability and the role of State governments. Congress 

concluded that SCSEP is an efficient and cost-effective program, serving practically 

every county in the Nation, including hard-to-serve rural and urban communities. 

The 2005 White House Conference on Aging recognized that SCSEP ensures that 

‘‘the oldest, poorest and least skilled older workers do not fall through the cracks.’’ 

Across the aging network, there is broad support for continuing SCSEP—with minor 

refinements—as our Nation’s most effective workforce program serving the most 

vulnerable older Americans. 

Principles to Guide SCSEP Reauthorization (Title V, Older Americans Act) 

1. Target services to older persons with the greatest economic and social need—

including those from minority, rural, and urban hard-to-serve communities—by 

keeping the current age and income eligibility requirements. 

2. Maintain and enhance the community service employment aspect of the program in addition to promoting economic self-sufficiency among participating seniors. 

3. Maximize expenditures on participant wages and benefits and minimize administrative costs by retaining current policy on program budgets. 

4. Support best practice and avoid disruption in the program by continuing to 

fund both national and State/territorial grants to operate SCSEP. 

5. Strengthen the role of the Administration on Aging in SCSEP. 

Possible Refinements to SCSEP 

1. Amend section 502(e) to remove disincentives for private business concerns, 

community colleges, and other training providers to participate in innovative training and placement activities for SCSEP participants. 

2. Fully implement a ‘‘balanced scorecard’’ to measuring SCSEP grantee performance that reflects Congressional intent, including service level to most-in-need, unsubsidized placement, and community service. 

3. Streamline performance data collection. 

4. Provide sufficient funds to respond to the projected increase in SCSEP-eligible 

persons.

This approach would respect Congressional intent in 2000 to update SCSEP without disrupting a proven program has evolved to meet changing needs since its inception. Adopting these principles and refinements will enable SCSEP to serve the 

most vulnerable and hardest-to-serve older adults in a cost-effective, researchvalidated, and high-quality manner for the remainder of this decade. 

RATIONALE

1. The number of older adults in poverty and at risk will increase significantly, 

according to the Census. By 2008 there will be 6.7 million persons aged 55 or over 

below poverty, a 22 percent increase from 5.5 million in 2000; by 2015, this number 

will increase to 9 million low-income older Americans. Clearly the need for SCSEP 

is growing. 

2. Current research about productive aging, employment, and civic engagement 

supports the validity of paid community service employment to assist older adults 

at risk. Working in bona fide part-time jobs provides not only needed financial aid 

but also contributes to participants’ physical and mental well being, helping them 

avoid becoming increasingly dependent on others. 

3. SCSEP does more than help older job seekers find employment—it directly supports the day-to-day operation of thousands of community and faith-based organizations and government agencies. According to USDOL, 70 percent of these agencies 

reported that they would not have been able to provide the same level of services 

28

without SCSEP. Last year alone, SCSEP participants provided these agencies close 

to 46 million hours of paid community service. For instance, SCSEP participants 

and staff work as the primary older worker specialists at many WIA One-Stops and 

have helped meet the increased demand for social services as a result of Hurricane 

Katrina. 

4. SCSEP serves over 100,000 persons 55 and over each year, over twice as many 

as those served by WIA. Further, SCSEP serves a more needy population: over 70 

percent of all SCSEP participants are women; over 80 percent are 60 and older; over 

80 percent are at or below poverty, about one-third have less than a high school 

education; and over 40 percent are from a minority group. In contrast, WIA nationally serves less than 4,000 persons 65 and over of any income and education level 

(likely due to performance disincentives currently built into WIA, according to GAO 

Report 03-350). In PY 2004, national and State/territorial SCSEP grantees achieved 

ACSI customer satisfaction scores that were ‘‘substantially higher’’ than scores for 

WIA, and better than most organizations in the private sector. 

5. The 13 national grantees (selected by USDOL through a national competition 

in 2003) add significant value to the total SCSEP program and delivery system. 

They develop and replicate successful program models by partnering with nationallevel corporations, employer associations, social service agencies, and other providers. These national nonprofit organizations strengthen SCSEP at the State and 

local level by sharing best practices on serving hard-to-reach rural and urban communities, including minority and immigrant groups; collaborating with WIA OneStops, area agencies on aging, etc.; and leveraging local resources to support 

SCSEP. National SCSEP grantees represent unmatched expertise and experience 

that would be difficult to replace. 

6. Since USDOL did not issue final regulations for SCSEP until 2004, many of 

the initiatives and improvements embodied in the 2000 reauthorization are only 

starting to take effect. For instance, the reauthorization requires stronger national 

and State grantee coordination, but the improved State planning process has been 

in place for only 1 year. At the request of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, 

GAO is conducting a review of SCSEP since the 2000 Amendments. It would be premature to make major changes without full implementation of Congressional intent 

from the last reauthorization in 2000.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I thank the panel very much. I just have 

a couple of questions. 

Let me ask all of you, do you agree that there is room for streamlining in the program? For instance, are there instances where you 

might be working in the same county and compete for the same 

community service employer? Anyone jump in here. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, Senator, let me——

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Obviously, in certain situations we are collocated 

in particular cities, obviously in the larger urban areas. We have 

had nothing but good cooperation, you know, in my experience. We 

are competing to some extent, but in some extent, you know, it is 

a question of where you are in a city. If it is across an entire city, 

perhaps like the city of Detroit, where we operate, and there are 

other contractors, we operate the One-Stops in that city, so in a 

sense they would be coming to us. But I suppose you could say that 

in certain situations it would be better if one entity provided that 

service. But it has worked. There has been a spirit of cooperation, 

and I do not see that it could not. But, obviously, it is something 

that could be looked at for the future in terms of efficiencies. 

Mr. KAHN. I think we have worked that out very well in Ohio. 

We currently operate in 39 counties out of Ohio’s 88, and only in 

three of those counties is there another SCSEP provider where we 

operate. So that has been done in the local level. 

Mr. SARMIENTO. I agree. The more diverse the county is, the 

more rational it is to have a number of national grantees operating. 

29

Senator DEWINE. Let me ask you this: How do your agencies’ 

community service placements support the Aging Network and 

other community institutions? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator, could you repeat the question, please? 

Senator DEWINE. How do your agencies’ community service 

placements support the Aging Network and other community institutions? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator, in the majority of situations where we operate, we have very extensive working relationships—we have been 

in business for over 40 years doing what we do, and we have very 

extensive working relationships with employers that assist us from 

all levels, and we are able to extend that across the board and provide assistance to other entities. Was there any specific area you 

wanted me to focus on? 

Senator DEWINE. No, just whatever—anybody else? 

Mr. KAHN. We work quite a bit with the Meals on Wheels program, senior citizen centers. Several of the participants across Ohio 

help deliver the Meals on Wheels, prepare meals, work in the 

kitchens, work in the senior centers. They are involved in various 

aspects of the Aging Network across Ohio. 

Mr. SARMIENTO. Our agencies, the host agencies that participate 

in our program, have about 2,800 host agencies that work through 

our subgrantees, and they range from everything from a rural library where the SCSEP participant is helping to staff the computer 

center that might have been bought by the Gates Foundation in 

Alabama, but they also can be working at a One-Stop Career Center where the SCSEP participant oftentimes is the only staff person 

who is there to work with other older job seekers. 

Mr. KAHN. And just to follow up, again, in Ohio, we have participants working in the One-Stops, and when older workers come into 

the One-Stops, they are referred to the other participants we have 

working in the One-Stops. 

Senator DEWINE. Based on your experience as a sponsor of 

SCSEP, what basic principles do you think should guide us here in 

Congress in reauthorizing the program? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator, I think you need to look at the credibility 

of organizations that obviously put forth the program. Are they 

producing? Is the program doing what it is intended to do? Are we 

training people to transition eventually into employment? Are we 

making a difference in the employer community? Are we making 

a difference in the lives of the individuals who are affected by our 

programs? 

Mr. KAHN. And I could agree with much of what Mr. Salazar has 

to say. I think there needs to continue to be a strong focus on community service, especially in the rural areas where we serve so 

many low-income older workers. There are just not alternatives in 

many communities where they work. A lot of the people that we 

serve just lack the skills and ability to move into jobs off the program. They have various barriers to employment that are healthrelated, transportation issues. And so I think Congress needs to 

keep that in mind as they formulate the SCSEP. 

Mr. SARMIENTO. Our subgrantees have told us that what is really 

at heart here in the future of SCSEP is for Congress to clarify its 

intent for what they think older people need at this time. I think 

30

what is being asked is whether paid community service employment continues to be the best program, the best type of activity 

that fits within the low-income disadvantaged seniors who face 

multiple barriers to unsubsidized employment. Also, I think the 

idea that the 46 million hours of paid community service employment that the participants provide now, the worry among some of 

the subgrantees we have worked with, as well as State Departments of Aging, is if that is reduced in any kind of significant way, 

where will the staffing, the volunteers come from to help run the 

Meals on Wheels programs and other critical programs that are 

part of the Aging Network? 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Salazar, in your testimony, you mentioned 

that there needs to be a bridge to the private sector established. 

What sort of cooperation do you currently see from the private sector? And how do you think this bridge can be established? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator, today the employer community needs individuals of all levels, and they are reaching out, and we need to be 

able to provide an individual to them that is ready to work and can 

produce for that individual corporation or company. More than ever 

before, because of the aging population and because we have a 

much more limited population coming up, the employer community 

needs these employees to be ready and able to work. So this is a 

resource that they need to maintain their viability as a corporation 

or as companies in local communities. And we provide a valuable 

service in making sure that is available to them. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Kahn, in your testimony, you mentioned 

that you would like the age requirement to remain the same. You 

also mentioned that more than 80 percent of your participants are 

60 years of age or older. What do you think of Mr. Salazar’s recommendation to raise the age to 60 instead of 65, as the administration is recommending? 

Mr. KAHN. I really think it is extremely important that we continue to serve people 55 and older. Those are the ones without the 

safety net of Social Security. Now those that are 65 and older have 

the Medicare Part D to help pay for prescriptions. Those people 55 

to 61, they still face age discrimination. We get calls all the time 

from people that are not eligible for the program. They say they 

cannot find work because of their age, and definitely those that do 

meet our income guidelines have various barriers to employment, 

like the example I gave of the woman in Woodsfield who could not 

find employment and is able to get some income through community service, and through community service we believe she will be 

able to upgrade her skills and eventually find employment off the 

program. 

So I think it is very important that we continue to serve that age 

group of those 55 to 64. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I want to thank you all. This panel has 

been very helpful, as was the first panel. We have worked with you 

before, and we look forward to continuing to work with the three 

of you in the future. And we will continue to work toward this legislation. 

Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Additional material follows.]

31

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

It’s a privilege to be part of this discussion today. As we work 

to reauthorize the Older Americans Act, it’s essential that the lines 

of communication remain open with the Administration and the 

many groups affected by the decisions we’ll make. 

Today’s hearing will focus on title V of the act, which provides 

job training for older Americans to enable them to work in the communities they love, and which love them too. 

All of us agree that those who want to work should be able to 

work. Last year, the Senior Community Service Employment Program under title V supported over 61,000 jobs and served 91,000 

people. The program is targeted to seniors with the greatest social 

and economic need. Eighty percent of its participants are at or 

below poverty. A third have less than a high school degree, and 40 

percent are minorities—real people receiving real opportunities to 

work and improve their communities. Older Americans benefit 

from the employment program, and are able to lead independent 

and productive lives. 

We’re talking about people like 60-year-old David Carey who was 

living in a homeless shelter before he joined the program. He’d 

been doing odd jobs, but had no transportation and no steady employment. Experience Works assigned him to the Salvation Army 

Thrift Store, where he refreshed his skills in maintenance and custodial work and later found a full-time job and a new chance at a 

better life. 

Stories like that are not unique. My staff recently met grantees 

in Massachusetts, including members from Senior Service America, 

who have similar success stories. The program meets financial 

needs, and it also contributes to the physical and mental well-being 

of seniors. 

According to the Department of Labor, the program directly supports the day-to-day activities of thousands of community and 

faith-based organizations and the Government. Seventy percent of 

these agencies reported that they could not have provided the same 

level of services without this important program. 

As we consider proposals to modify title V, we must keep in mind 

that the program affects not only seniors, but the community as a 

whole. According to the Census Bureau, 7 million persons aged 55 

or older will be living in poverty by 2008, up 22 percent from 2000, 

and the number keeps rising. This year, the first of the baby boom 

generation will be eligible for the act’s services. By the year 2030, 

one in five Americans will be over age 65. We obviously need to get 

our priorities right, and listen closely to those who administer the 

program and the seniors who participate in it. 

It’s essential to remember the impact on the disability community and minorities as well, because they’re vital parts of the program too. 

I look forward to working with all of you to strengthen the safety 

net for the Nation’s seniors. Thank you all for taking part in this 

hearing, and helping us chart the path ahead.

32

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKULSKI

OPENING

Chairman DeWine, thank you for calling this hearing today on 

the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)—

Title V of the Older Americans Act. 

Reauthorization of the OAA is an important responsibility that 

we have to give our Nation’s seniors. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses today about 

the title V SCSEP. 

During the last reauthorization of the OAA in 2000, Senator 

DeWine and I worked very hard to strengthen SCSEP. I look forward to hearing about: where we have been, where we are now, 

and where we should be going with this important senior community service and jobs program. 

I understand that the Department of Labor has proposed drastic 

changes to this important program. I am very concerned about 

these proposed changes since I have not been made aware of problems programs administrators or recipients have with the current 

program. Sometimes if it is not broken—don’t fix it. 

I question why the Department of Labor thinks that such drastic 

changes are needed for this program at this time. 

PRINCIPLES

As we move to reauthorize the Older Americans Act there are 

four principles that I believe must guide reauthorization. 

First, we must continue and improve the core services of this act 

to meet the vital needs of America’s seniors. We need a national 

program, with national standards that ensure consistency—but 

also allows for local flexibility and creativity. 

Second, we must modernize the act to meet the changing needs 

of America’s senior population, including the growing number of 

seniors over 85, the impending senior boom, and the growing number of seniors in minority groups. 

Next, we must look for ways to help seniors live more independent and active lives. 

Finally, we must give national, State, and local programs the resources they need to carry out these vital responsibilities. 

I believe that these are important guiding principles that we 

must keep in mind as we evaluate all of the Older Americans Act 

Programs. 

Let me expand on these principles. 

CORE SERVICES

It is vital to continue and improve the core services of this act. 

The Senior Community Service Employment program helps seniors to lead independent and active lives through community service jobs, skills training and a transition to unsubsidized employment. No other Federal program addresses the employment needs 

of people 55 and over. 

33

MODERNIZATION

Our senior population is not the same as it was in 1965. This 

will be the first time the baby boomers will be eligible for services 

under the Older Americans Act. 

That’s why we must modernize the OAA to meet the changing 

needs and diversity of our seniors. We must prepare for the upcoming senior boom. By 2050 there will be nearly 90 million seniors 

over age 65, more than twice their number in 2003. 

INDEPENDENCE

Seniors today are living longer, healthier lives. We must do what 

we can to help them be as independent and active as possible. The 

Senior Community Service Employment program provides seniors 

with a job and valuable work experience. 

The number of older adults in poverty is increasing. By 2008 

there will be 6.7 million persons aged 55 or over below poverty 

level; a 22 percent increase from 5.5 billion in 2000. The need for 

the SCSEP is definitely growing. 

We must ensure that we are doing what we can to help ALL seniors live healthy, independent lives for as long as possible. 

RESOURCES

Finally, we must provide the resources necessary to meet these 

challenges and support our seniors. 

Too many Older Americans Act programs have been flat funded, 

and decreased for too long. The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget 

cuts the SCSEP by $44 million below last year’s (fiscal year 2006) 

level. We should be increasing—not decreasing—funding for this 

important program. 

IMPORTANCE OF TITLE V PROGRAM

The title V program is extremely important for the thousands of 

unemployed, low-income Americans over the age of 55 who are 

seeking work. 

Every year, more than 100,000 older adults with poor employment prospects and the greatest need are able to re-enter the labor 

force because of the support and guidance they receive from SCSEP 

providers. 

The title V program helps seniors to lead independent and active 

lives through community service jobs, skills training, and a transition to other jobs. 

This program provides part-time community service jobs to lowincome seniors, providing a steady source of income that many of 

them need for rent, groceries, medical care and utilities. This program helps seniors help themselves. 

MARYLAND

The Senior Community Service Employment program is important to seniors in Maryland and benefits seniors in Maryland. 

Thousands of seniors benefit from the Senior Community Service 

Employment Program every year. 

All of these seniors are working in community service jobs. Fifty 

percent work in the senior service sector—working at senior cenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
34

ters, delivering meals to homebound seniors, and transporting seniors to doctors appointments; the other half work in other general 

community service positions at libraries, museums, the Red Cross 

and the Salvation Army. 

I look forward to hearing from two of the national grantee organizations that run programs in Maryland. That will be a part of 

our second panel of witnesses today—Senior Services America and 

Experience Works. 

I would also like to thank two SCSEP recipients who are joining 

us for today’s hearing: Ms. Carrie Morris, from Baltimore City who, 

at 72 years old, is working toward receiving her GED as part of the 

Baltimore City SCSEP; and Ms. Victoria Gill (66), also from Baltimore City, who is working toward receiving her GED as part of the 

Family and Children Services of Central Maryland SCSEP, while 

working at the Southwest Senior Center. 

CLOSING

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can 

make the most of our opportunity to improve the Senior Community Service Employment program as we reauthorize the OAA and 

continue to meet the day-to-day needs of America’s growing population of older Americans. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLINTON

I would like to thank Senators DeWine and Mikulski for holding 

this important hearing. As we prepare for the upcoming reauthorization of the Older Americans Act (OAA), it is critical that we address title V, the Senior Community Service Employment Program 

or SCSEP, which receives approximately 25 percent of OAA funding. 

SCSEP, the only OAA program administered by the Department 

of Labor (DOL), provides vital opportunities for part-time employment and income to individuals 55 years of age or older whose income does not exceed 125 percent of the Federal poverty level. This 

program serves about 100,000 seniors each year by placing them in 

subsidized community service assignments in local nonprofit agencies where they gain on-the-job training and experience and prepare for unsubsidized employment. 

SCSEP also provides an invaluable service to our communities: 

its participants perform many needed activities in our neighborhoods—from working in senior centers, housing programs, and nutrition services such as Meals on Wheels, to helping at hospitals, 

recreation centers, parks, and educational sites. 

In Westchester County, participants are working at congregate 

meal sites, mental health offices, low-income senior apartments, 

food stamp and entitlement programs, senior centers, and the local 

library, to name just a few places. In other New York areas, the 

majority of participants are working at nutrition sites that serve 

the elderly. 

Through SCSEP, low-income seniors are given the chance to help 

themselves while giving back to their communities. They are able 

to retain independence and dignity without having to turn to public 

assistance. 

35

Recently, DOL has proposed a number of changes to SCSEP that 

I believe we need to review very cautiously as we look toward reauthorizing Title V of the OAA. 

The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO), a consortium of over 50 aging groups, opposes any ‘‘burdensome administrative requirements or significant programmatic changes’’ to 

SCSEP. 

One of DOL’s proposed changes would increase the age of eligibility for the program from 55 to 65, with some limited exceptions. 

The DOL has suggested that the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

and its One-Stop system should be the primary program to deliver 

employment services to people age 55 to 64. 

However, these One-Stops, which serve individuals of all ages, 

are not equipped to handle many of our more disadvantaged seniors who need extra support—those with limited educational backgrounds, outmoded work skills or long-term detachment from the 

labor force, and those with very limited incomes. 

Another recommendation made by DOL would place a 2-year 

time limit on program participation. Under current law and regulation, there are no maximum time limits that individuals may be 

employed in SCSEP. Regulations state that a grantee may establish a maximum duration of enrollment as long as the grantee 

transitions participants to unsubsidized employment or other assistance before the maximum enrollment duration has expired. 

I am concerned that these proposed changes would detrimentally 

affect the lives of poor seniors in New York and across the country, 

as well as the community service agencies where these participants 

work. 

Low-income older Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 are 

a particularly vulnerable population because most are not yet eligible for Medicare or Social Security benefits. Often their earnings 

from SCSEP constitute their only stream of income. 

As the recent article in the New York Times reported (Life, and 

Work, After ‘‘Retirement,’’ 3/19/06), many older Americans enrolled 

in the program in New York City are in their mid-50’s and early 

60’s and are under financial pressure. They are older workers who 

were laid off when their companies closed, moved or downsized and 

who could not find new jobs. 

In 2004, approximately 56 percent of SCSEP participants in the 

country were between 55 and 64 years of age. Similarly, in New 

York, 3,182 seniors or 55 percent of the participants in the program 

fell in this age bracket. 

Changing the age of eligibility to 65 for participation in SCSEP 

could have dire consequences on vulnerable adults between the 

ages of 55 to 64 because they would face additional hardship. 

I am also concerned that the 2-year time limit recommended by 

DOL could hurt many seniors currently served by the program or 

those who would be served by it in the future. 

For example, in Westchester County, where over 100 seniors currently participate in SCSEP, over half would be disqualified from 

the program because they have passed this 2-year time limit. Two 

years is not always enough time to help seniors enrolled in this 

program who have limited educations and low work skills. 

36

Finally, as we move toward reauthorization of title V, we must 

pay close attention to any changes that would threaten SCSEP’s intent to support the community service aspect of the program. There 

is no substitute for many services SCSEP participants provide to 

their local communities as they work in all kinds of nonprofit agencies. Many of these agencies depend on these individuals to perform critical outreach activities that otherwise would not be done. 

At the subcommittee’s aging roundtable last month, much concern was expressed about the ability to deliver services like Meals 

on Wheels to older Americans because of growing problems that 

community service agencies face in recruiting volunteers. SCSEP 

helps fill that gap by partnering these participants with local aging 

services. 

Reauthorizing the OAA is critical to the aging services infrastructure. We must ensure that any changes we contemplate preserve the integrity of SCSEP—a crucial program for both our seniors and our communities. Again, I thank you for holding this important hearing today as we prepare for reauthorization of the 

OAA.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AGING

The National Council on Aging (NCOA) welcomes the opportunity to submit this 

statement for the published hearing record of the Senate Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging. 

NCOA began a partnership with the Department of Labor in 1968, providing services for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), and we have 

been a national sponsor for the program ever since then. Currently our SCSEP program is the fifth-largest of the 13 national contractors. We are pleased that this relationship with the Department of Labor (DOL) has enabled us to serve tens of 

thousands of low-income older workers over the years, thus providing delivery of 

vital community services while enhancing the work skills of program participants. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on SCSEP as it begins to move toward 

reauthorization. 

REAUTHORIZATION OF SCSEP

SCSEP is our Nation’s most effective workforce program for low-income older 

Americans, and NCOA strongly hopes that it is not a source of controversy in the 

next reauthorization of the Older Americans Act (OAA). The best course for Congress to pursue with title V—the portion of the OAA that authorizes SCSEP—is to 

continue it as it is, with minor improvements. The 2000 reauthorization of the OAA 

made significant changes in the SCSEP, and it took 4 more years—until late 2004—

for the Department of Labor to issue final regulations for those changes. Thus, the 

sponsoring agencies and the program participants are still adapting to the new rules 

and systems that were only recently made final. 

NCOA strongly opposes DOL’s proposed far-reaching structural changes to 

SCSEP, such as block-granting the program to the States, de-emphasizing community service (which benefits program participants, the aging network, and communities served), eliminating nearly all participants under age 65, and eliminating 

fringe benefits for participants. These changes would make the program far worse, 

not better. Such changes are unwarranted, and would be disruptive and harmful to 

older workers and their communities. 

SCSEP is a proven program that has a good track record of providing both training and transition to unsubsidized jobs for difficult-to-serve populations of older 

adults. It should be allowed to continue doing what it does well. During the last 

OAA reauthorization, one major reason for the 5-year delay was the controversial 

proposal to shift the funding formula from 78 percent for national sponsors and 22 

percent to States to a 50 percent–50 percent split. Any attempt now to overturn the 

current compromise (which national sponsors and States supported) and go, in effect, from a 78 percent–22 percent split to a 0–100 percent split would create great 

controversy, derail efforts to reauthorize the program this year, and deflect attention from important proposals in other OAA titles that would truly help seniors. 

37

There is broad consensus among all 13 national SCSEP sponsors, as well as other 

aging advocates, that the following principles should shape the reauthorization of 

title V:

• Continue the current system of funding both national and State grants, including the current percentage split of the funds. • Maintain the program’s historic dual emphasis on both community service 

placements and unsubsidized placements for participants. • Maintain the current age and eligibility requirements for participants, so that 

services can be targeted to persons with the greatest economic and social need. • Retain current policy on program budgets. • Strengthen the role of the Administration on Aging in SCSEP, because Section 

505(a) of the OAA does not appear to be working as intended.

NCOA strongly supports these five principles, and urges Congress to use them as 

the basis for reauthorizing SCSEP. 

In summary, NCOA’s recommendation for reauthorization of SCSEP is straightforward: reauthorize it essentially as it is, without significant change. Ignore the 

radical changes that have been recommended by the Department of Labor. 

RECENT SOLICITATION FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS

NCOA has expressed concerns about the current round of competitive bidding, 

which was announced on March 2, 2006. First, we believe that an open competition 

that is anchored in fairness and equity should include among the evaluation criteria 

strong consideration of past and current performance in serving SCSEP enrollees—

including such specifics as recruitment of difficult-to-place persons, placement rates, 

and addressing barriers faced by the most needy applicants. NCOA believes that if 

DOL gives significant weight to past performance in evaluating grant applications, 

than it will assure that the best possible services will be provided to low-income 

older workers and communities across the country. Conversely, by not considering 

past performance, DOL does not assure that low-income older workers get the best 

training and placement, which is what they need and deserve. 

Second, until early April, we were concerned that DOL’s new round of competitive 

bidding carried the risk for major disruption to the educational and training services 

that are provided to program participants, as well as for financial burdens to national sponsors. Without sufficient time for grant transition, there was a substantial 

risk that current enrollees would lose training, and potential enrollees would face 

delays getting into the program. It appears that DOL has found an appropriate remedy for this problem by lengthening the transition period, although that decision has 

not yet been officially announced. NCOA supports the decision by DOL to lengthen 

the transition period, and extends thanks to all those who helped to reach this compromise solution. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

SCSEP builds employment skills, renews each individual’s sense of self worth, 

and provides needed wages to low-income seniors. It also offers valuable social and 

economic benefits to communities, and extends the reach of community-based organizations. All across our Nation SCSEP enrollees perform valuable community services in senior centers, libraries, schools, and health and social service institutions. 

It is important for Congress to understand that SCSEP is about persons, not just 

numbers. It is a program with a long and positive history of improving life for thousands of individuals and thousands of communities. 

There are some modest ways that Congress and DOL can improve SCSEP without 

imposing radical changes on the core program. For example, NCOA suggests that 

SCSEP can be improved by: developing measures of grantee performance that more 

closely reflect Congressional intent, streamlining performance data collection and 

reporting, revising the income eligibility rules, and revising section 502(e) to remove 

disincentives for businesses to participate in training and placement. These are not 

major changes, but they would enable the program to run more smoothly and serve 

more low-income seniors. 

NCOA also suggests that it would be worthwhile for DOL to create a substantial 

set-aside of funds for all programs serving minority groups. In order to accomplish 

this, DOL could set a cap on the amount of funding or slots granted to any one national sponsor. 

One point that must be emphasized in any discussion of SCSEP legislation is this: 

the program is woefully underfunded. The appropriation has remained flat or taken 

a small dip every year for many years, and thus in fiscal year 2006 there are fewer 

dollars than in 2000, despite growing numbers of low-income older workers who 

need SCSEP, and despite the significant erosion of purchasing power due to inflaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
38

tion. And now the Bush administration is seeking a 10 percent cut in SCSEP spending for next year. Congress should reject this drastic cut, because it would be devastating to low-income older workers and to their communities.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR KENNEDY, SENATOR MIKULSKI,

AND SENATOR MURRAY BY MASON BISHOP

Response to Questions of Senator Kennedy 

DOL’S PROPOSAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Question 1. In 2000, we reauthorized the Older Americans Act and modified title 

V. In the committee report accompanying the bill we specifically stated, ‘‘The revised purpose statement of title V reflects the committee’s intent to maintain the 

community service nature of the program’’ along with providing additional opportunities for seniors to be placed in unsubsidized employment. We acknowledged the 

importance of community service assignments for both seniors and for the communities where they live. What assessments have been done by the Department of 

Labor to justify proposals to change the SCSEP program and eliminate its dual purpose of both community service, and job placement? 

Answer 1. The Department is not eliminating SCSEP’s dual purpose of community service and job placement. Community service work experience remains as a 

vital and important component of the program under the Department’s reauthorization proposal. However, we would like to offer more flexible training options in the 

reauthorized program. Training options may include: community service or other 

work experience, on-the-job training, and classroom instruction, lectures, seminars, 

individual instruction, or other arrangements, including but not limited to, arrangements with other workforce investment programs. We also propose to allow grantees 

to spend a greater portion of their funds for training. These proposals are in keeping 

with the greater training and employment focus clearly expressed in the Amendments to the Older Americans Act in 2000. 

COMMUNITY SERVICE PLACEMENTS

Question 2. When community service organizations are asking us to help increase 

civic engagement, why eliminate community service as a bona fide placement for 

seniors? 

Answer 2. The Department is not eliminating community service as a bona fide 

placement for seniors. Seniors may still be placed in community service organizations, and under the Department’s reauthorization proposal, could also be placed in 

positions with private organizations. By allowing a broader range of job placement 

options, increasing opportunities for training, and establishing a time limit appropriate for a short-term employment and training program, the Department’s reauthorization proposal emphasizes the training and employment aspect of the SCSEP 

program, as delineated in the Amendments to the Older Americans Act in 2000. 

Further, the Department’s reauthorization proposal would result in more participants moving out of the program and into the labor market as practiced staff with 

experience in providing community service. 

ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE

Question 3. Has the Department performed any analysis of the return on investment of community service placements? Has the Department assessed the impact 

of its proposals on community and faith based organizations and government agencies? 

Answer 3. Based on performance reports from Program Year 2004 (July 1, 2004–

June 30, 2005.), SCSEP participants have provided roughly 45.7 million hours of 

community service. 

The Department expects community and faith-based organizations and government agencies to benefit from its reauthorization proposal. By giving States responsibility for competing grants to provide service and ensuring that those competitions 

are held at least every 3 years, smaller organizations such as community-based and 

faith-based organizations are more likely to be able to compete for grants. State 

agencies also benefit from the Department’s reauthorization proposal as they will 

be able to administer the grant competition and manage services in their State in 

a manner that best suits the unique needs of their communities. 

39

AGE ELIGIBILITY

Question 4. The Department has proposed changing the age of eligibility for 

SCSEP from 55 to 65 years of age, yet almost half of those served by the program 

are aged 55 to 64. What is achieved by eliminating this population? 

Answer 4. Because only 1 percent of the eligible population can be served by 

SCSEP, the Department’s proposal targets finite resources to the older participants 

where those resources are most needed,. One-Stop Career Centers are already serving individuals 55–64 and have the capacity to serve those in this age category who 

previously were served by SCSEP. Under our reauthorization proposal, the OneStop Career Centers would serve individuals 55 to 64, letting SCSEP grantees concentrate on serving those 65 and older, as well as those 55–64 who are hardest to 

serve or have multiple barriers to employment. This arrangement lets each system 

do what it does best. SCSEP grantees have valuable experience in serving individuals with multiple barriers to employment, and their expertise is best tapped when 

serving those older individuals truly in need of their assistance. 

ONE-STOP CENTERS AND OLDER WORKERS

Question 5. One-Stop Centers are not geared to older workers, nor are they 

equipped to handle those older workers who may have special needs. In fact, I understand that currently when an older worker goes to a One-Stop Center they are 

typically referred to SCSEP. How will the Department of Labor ensure that people 

in the 55 to 64 year age range will receive appropriate employment training and 

placement services? What evidence or data is there to show that one-stops are effectively serving older workers? 

Answer 5. One-Stop Career Centers are currently serving older workers, and 

SCSEP is a required partner in the One-Stop Career Centers. Of individuals who 

exited the WIA Adult program in Program Year 2004, 13,544, or 6 percent, were 

55 and over. Of individuals who exited the WIA Dislocated Worker program, 21,626, 

or 12.1 percent, were 55 and over. Also, the Wagner-Peyser program served 

1,389,027 job seekers aged 55 and over, representing 9.8 percent of total WagnerPeyser program job seekers. 

Because only 1 percent of the eligible population can be served by SCSEP, OneStop Career Centers are by necessity places for older workers to obtain services. 

This is why the administration has proposed a number of reforms to the One-Stop 

Center system through Workforce Investment Act reauthorization. 

In the interim, the Department has issued a Protocol for Serving Older Workers 

in the workforce investment system. The goal of this protocol is to enhance the services provided to older workers and to infuse the One-Stop Career Center system 

with innovative strategies for tapping into this labor pool. Proposed action steps 

were identified for six major stakeholders, including One-Stop Career Centers. 

The Department also plans to issue additional policy guidance, fund demonstrations, and disseminate best practices to encourage better services for older workers 

at One-Stop Career Centers. 

Finally, the newly-formed Inter-Agency Task Force on the Aging of the American 

Workforce will examine how an array of Federal programs, including those available 

in the One-Stop Career Centers, can better serve older workers. 

FRINGE BENEFITS

Question 6. The Department also proposes eliminating fringe benefits for seniors 

participating in the SCSEP program. This means that seniors will not be given paid 

holidays, they will be given no paid sick leave, no paid vacation, no paid health insurance and no Social Security coverage. What is the rationale for this change? Is 

the Department suggesting that if a low-income senior gets sick he or she should 

be forced to choose between a days pay that will keep food on the table or staying 

home to recover properly? Is it the Department’s intent to increase the number of 

older Americans without health insurance? 

Answer 6. Fringe benefits are not provided in any other training program that 

ETA administers and we do not feel they are appropriate for a training program. 

Therefore, the Administration’s reauthorization proposal eliminates most fringe benefits, but retains those required by law. We have heard from several grantees who 

support the elimination of fringe benefits as these benefits draw resources away 

from training and employment-related services to participants. Fringe benefits may 

also act as a disincentive for participants to leave the program and move into unsubsidized positions, which lead to better wages and benefits. 

40

With regard to health care specifically, there are currently no grantees that offer 

health insurance. Eliminating fringe benefits will not affect the health care of older 

workers. 

REASON FOR COMPETITION

Question 7. It was the intent of Congress that re-competition only be conducted 

for those national grantees that performed inadequately after a warning period of 

3 years. I understand that the Department is competing SCSEP again, but that it 

is not based on performance measures. Why is the Department competing this program again? If the competition is not based on performance measures how does that 

reflect fair competition? Shouldn’t grantees be held accountable for their performance? 

Answer 7. The Department is competing SCSEP because competition is the stimulus for new ideas and high-quality service, and a cornerstone of Federal procurement policy. As a result of the 2003 competition, four organizations became new national grantees, including two with no prior SCSEP experience, such as SER. All 

four grantees are now performing well and continue to improve their performance. 

Regular competition also helps ensure that programs are being administered in an 

efficient and cost-effective manner. 

According to the Title V of the Older Americans Act, competition is not limited 

to when grantees fail performance measures. Section 514(a) limits the award of 

SCSEP grants to no more than 3 years, thus requiring a selection of grantees within 

3 years of the first competition. The issue of whether the Department can compete 

grants has also been addressed by the Federal courts. As the U.S. District Court 

of the District of Columbia opined in Experience Works v. Chao:

‘‘[t]he use of competitive procedures is a time-honored method for obtaining the 

most highly qualified awardees of government funds, for allowing new and innovative ideas and organizations to receive those funds, and for assuring public 

confidence in the integrity of the process to distribute government funds.’’

Recently, the Congressional Research Service also stated,

‘‘[t]he court’s analysis is also applicable to the current SGA, which again requires a national competition for awarding new grant funds for Program Year 

2006 under the Older Americans Act. The current SGA is issued in accordance 

with applicable regulations and the statutory authorities for the SCSEP program under title V.’’

COMPETITION TIMING

Question 8. I understand that many of the seniors served through SCSEP have 

multiple barriers to employment and are difficult to place in jobs. The Department 

is proposing that national grantees re-compete for grants every 3 years. This would 

create a disruption for both grantees and for the individuals served by those grantees. Why does the Department want to require that grantees re-compete every 3 

years? If an organization is effectively serving their participants why should they 

be forced to focus time and resources on competition as opposed to their program 

participants? 

Answer 8. Competition is the stimulus for new ideas and high-quality service, and 

a cornerstone of Federal procurement policy. Competition invites new ideas and new 

service delivery strategies. As a result of the 2003 competition, four organizations 

became new national grantees, including two with no prior SCSEP experience such 

as SER. All four grantees are now performing well and continue to improve their 

performance. Regular competition also helps ensure that programs are being administered in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

Response to Questions of Senator Mikulski 

COMMUNITY SERVICE FOCUS

Question 1. Has DOL assessed the impact of changing the current dual focus of 

SCSEP away from community service and employment to only employment would 

have on the aging network and other community institutions that have long made 

constructive use of SCSEP community service placements, such as senior centers, 

nutrition programs, schools, and health and social service providers? 

Answer 1. The Department is not changing the focus of the SCSEP program to 

employment only. Community service work experience remains a vital and important component of the program under the Department’s reauthorization proposal. 

Seniors may still be placed in community service organizations, and under the Department’s reauthorization proposal, could also be placed in positions with private 

41

organizations. However, we would like to offer more flexible employment and training options in the reauthorized program, consistent with the employment focus 

given to the program by the amendments in 2000. Training options may include: 

community service or other work experience, on-the-job training, and classroom instruction, lectures, seminars, individual instruction, or other arrangements, including but not limited to, arrangements with other workforce investment programs. We 

also propose to allow grantees to spend a greater portion of their funds for training. 

COMMUNITY SERVICE EFFECTS

Question 2. Has there been any analysis of the contributions seniors have made 

to their community through their placements? 

Answer 2. In Program Year 2004 (July 1, 2004–June 30, 2005), SCSEP participants provided 45.7 million hours of community service. Of those hours, 13 million 

hours were in service to the elderly community. An ongoing evaluation, by DAH 

Consulting, will also examine the types of assignments participants receive under 

the reauthorized program. The purpose of these community service placements is 

two-pronged: to provide service to the community, and to gain the work experience 

and skills necessary to move into an unsubsidized position, either in a community 

service organization or in a private, for-profit, organization. 

DOL ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE EFFECTS

Question 3. If DOL has made such an assessment, what has been learned? 

Answer 3. Based on the performance reports from Program Year 2004 (July 1, 

2004–June 30, 2005), SCSEP participants provided roughly 45.7 million hours of 

community service The ongoing evaluation by DAH Consulting will provide more information on community services. 

AGE ELIGIBILITY

Question 4. What is achieved by excluding seniors between the 55–64 age brackets, who may be most in need of the program, because they are not eligible for Medicare, or for full Social Security (and most in that range are not eligible for any Social Security)? 

Answer 4. Because only 1 percent of the eligible population can be served by 

SCSEP, the Department’s proposal targets finite resources to the older participants 

where those resources are most needed. One-Stop Career Centers are already serving individuals 55–64 and have the capacity to serve those in this age range who 

previously were served by SCSEP. As Americans live longer, they will remain in the 

workforce longer and the public workforce system should be utilized to help them 

prepare for and obtain new jobs and make career transitions. 

Under our reauthorization proposal, the One-Stop Career Centers would continue 

to serve individuals 55 to 64, letting SCSEP grantees concentrate on serving those 

65 and older, as well as limited exceptions for those 55–64 who are hardest to serve 

or have multiple barriers to employment. This arrangement lets each system do 

what it does best. SCSEP grantees have valuable experience in serving individuals 

with multiple barriers to employment, and their expertise is best tapped when serving those older individuals truly in need of their assistance. 

ONE-STOP CENTER SERVICES

Question 5. DOL has said that under their proposal WIA One-Stops would serve 

seniors between the ages of 55–64. However, WIA services were developed for people 

who are likely to have a long working lifetime ahead, and One-Stops are not geared 

to older workers with multiple barriers to employment. How will DOL assure that 

people in this age range receive appropriate employment training and placement 

services? 

Answer 5. WIA services were developed to provide universal access to all workers 

and job seekers. One-Stop Career Centers serve a wide variety of individuals, including older workers and those with multiple barriers to employment. The Department has taken several steps to ensure that One-Stop Career Centers remain a robust source of assistance for all older workers. 

SCSEP is a required partner in the One-Stop Career Centers. It is important to 

note that SCSEP serves only approximately 1 percent of the eligible population. 

Therefore, One-Stop Career Centers already need to serve the older worker population; in Program Year 2004, 13,544 participants exited the WIA Adult program, 

and 21,626 participants exited the WIA Dislocated Worker program. The Department has undertaken several activities to improve services to this population. The 

Department has issued a Protocol for Serving Older Workers in the workforce inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Nov 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26804.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
42

vestment system. The goal of this protocol is to enhance the services provided to 

older workers and to infuse the One-Stop Career Center system with innovative 

strategies for tapping into this labor pool. Proposed action steps were identified for 

six major stakeholders, including One-Stop Career Centers. 

The Department also plans to issue additional policy guidance, fund demonstrations, and disseminate best practices to encourage better services for older workers 

at One-Stop Career Centers. In addition, a newly-formed Inter-Agency Task Force 

on the Aging of the American Workforce will examine how an array of Federal programs, including but not limited to those available in the One-Stop Career Centers, 

can better serve older workers. 

OLDER WORKER PARTICIPANTS IN WIA SERVICES

Question 6. What is the extent of older worker participation in all services authorized under the Workforce Investment Act? 

Answer 6. The tracking and reporting system for our program is based on exiters, 

and of individuals who exited the WIA Adult program in Program Year 2004, 

13,544, or 6 percent, were 55 and over. Of individuals who exited the WIA Dislocated Worker program, 21,626, or 12.1 percent, were 55 and over. The chart below 

provides details on services received by these WIA participants. Also, the WagnerPeyser program served 1,389,027 job seekers aged 55 and over, representing 9.8 percent of total Wagner-Peyser program job seekers.

WIA Services Received by Participants 55 Years and Older 

WIA Adult Program WIA Dislocated 

Workers Program 

All Exiters ............................................................................................................................ 13,544 21,626

Core Services Only .............................................................................................................. 2,844 (21%) 3,460 (16%) 

Core and Intensive Services, No Training .......................................................................... 5,418 (40% 8,434 (39%) 

Training Services ................................................................................................................ 5,418 (40%) 9,731 (45%) 

ONE-STOP CENTER PERFORMANCE AND OLDER WORKERS

Question 7. What evidence or data is there to show that One-Stops are performing 

well in serving older workers? 

Answer 7. SCSEP is a required partner in the One-Stop Career Centers. In some 

cases, One-Stop Centers and SCSEP have found innovative ways to serve older 

workers. For instance, the One-Stop Center in Akron, Ohio has established a job 

club for mature workers that serves SCSEP participants as well as WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker participants. SCSEP and WIA staff work together to link SCSEP 

participants to the services available through the One-Stop Center, such as job 

search assistance and specialized transportation. 

Bridgeport, Connecticut’s One-Stop Center has established a Mature Worker committee to examine One-Stop services to older workers and has piloted an awareness 

and advocacy campaign called ‘‘Are You Ready?’’ designed to raise awareness among 

area employers of demographic changes and of the opportunity older workers 

present to fill skill gaps. 

To ensure that all One-Stop Career Centers are as successful as the two mentioned here, the Department has issued a Protocol for Serving Older Workers in the 

workforce investment system. The goal of this protocol is to enhance the services 

provided to older workers and to infuse the One-Stop Career Center system with 

innovative strategies for tapping into this labor pool. Proposed action steps were 

identified for six major stakeholders, including One-Stop Career Centers. 

The Department also plans to issue additional policy guidance, fund demonstrations, and disseminate best practices to encourage better services for older workers 

at One-Stop Career Centers. 

Finally, the newly-formed Inter-Agency Task Force on the Aging of the American 

Workforce will examine how an array of Federal programs, including those available 

in the One-Stop Career Centers, can better serve older workers. 

DOL’S REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSAL AND PERFORMANCE OF NATIONAL GRANTEES

Question 8. [Regarding DOL’s proposal to provide all SCSEP money to States.] 

How does this proposal acknowledge the successful training and placement record 

of national grantees, a record that in many cases has been compiled over several 

decades? 

43

Answer 8. The Department of Labor proposes that States conduct a competition 

for funds to run the SCSEP program in each State. Based on guidelines and priorities provided by the Department, States would select one or more grantees to operate the program, thereby simplifying administration, eliminating duplication, and 

creating a more cohesive program. The competition would have to be conducted at 

least once during each 3-year period. Eligible entities would include non-profit agencies and organizations, for-profit agencies and organizations, agencies of a State government (under terms and conditions to assure their designation through full and 

open competition), or a consortium of agencies and/or organizations, including political subdivisions. 

Under our proposal, we would expect the successful national aging organizations 

to continue to play a major role in operating the SCSEP program in the States. 

However, the program would be streamlined by avoiding the current situation of 

having multiple national sponsors and the State program operating side-by-side in 

a State, sometimes administering programs with small numbers of positions. Many 

of the national organizations are currently sub-grantees for State programs, and 

would continue to be eligible for State sub-grants, where State competition rules 

allow. For successful national grantees, past performance records should allow them 

to be quite competitive for State requests for proposal competitions. 

TRANSITION FROM NATIONAL TO STATE GRANTEES

Question 9. [Regarding DOL’s proposal to provide all SCSEP money to States.] 

Since most of the program funds now go to national sponsors, how will implementation of this proposal avoid creating massive dislocation in the enrollment, training 

and placement of low-income older workers who have multiple barriers to employment? 

Answer 9. DOL has experience in grantee transition, and we are confident that 

a transition from national to State grantees would not dislocate any current participants. Using lessons learned from the 2003 competition, DOL is prepared to assist 

grantees with additional costs associated with the transition; recaptured funds are 

available for this purpose. Grantees are allowed to use grant funds for transition 

costs, and all current grantees have transition plans as part of their current grant; 

applicants must identify plans in their application. DOL is also prepared to provide 

technical assistance through written guidance, regular conference calls, a national 

call center, and onsite technical assistance, when and where necessary. 

FRINGE BENEFITS AND DOL’S REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSAL

Question 10. What is the rationale for eliminating all fringe benefits for SCSEP 

participants? 

Answer 10. Fringe benefits are not provided in any other training program that 

ETA administers and we do not feel they are appropriate for a training program 

such as SCSEP. Therefore, the administration’s reauthorization proposal eliminates 

most fringe benefits, but retains those required by law. We have heard from several 

grantees who support the elimination of fringe benefits, as these benefits draw resources away from training and employment-related services to participants. Fringe 

benefits may also act as a disincentive for participants to leave the program and 

move into unsubsidized positions, which leads to better wages and benefits. 

2006 COMPETITION AND PERFORMANCE

Question 11. We still do not even have results of the performance measures that 

were required in the 2000 reauthorization. Why does DOL want to do this new competition now? 

Answer 11. Although the Department is eager to analyze the results from the last 

few years’ performance data, past performance is not the sole reason for regular 

competition. Competition is the stimulus for new ideas and high-quality service, and 

a cornerstone of Federal procurement policy. Regular competition also helps ensure 

that programs are being administered in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

2006 COMPETITION AND REAUTHORIZATION

Question 12. How is this new re-competition on the eve of OAA and SCSEP reauthorization an efficient expenditure of time for DOL officials, Department resources 

and the program management efforts of thousands of SCSEP project sites? 

Answer 12. By competing national grants now, the Department can encourage efficiency in grantee operations, and in the solicitation, emphasize the workforce development and training focus given to the program by the 2000 Amendments to the 

Older Americans Act. 

44

2006 COMPETITION EFFECT ON PARTICIPANTS

Question 13. What consideration did the Department give to the lives of 46,000+ 

low-income, older enrollees who may find themselves being shifted again (as they 

were in 2003) among various reporting bureaucracies? 

Answer 13. At the time of the 2003 competition, many participants and grantees 

were concerned about the effects of the transition on participants. The Department 

can say with authority that every single participant was transitioned successfully. 

Competition does not need to cause any disruption among services participants receive, and the Department is committed again to ensure the 2006 competition is 

equally as successful. 

DOL is prepared to assist grantees with additional costs associated with the transition, as it did following the transition after the 2003 competition. Program Year 

2004 recaptured funds are available for this purpose. Grantees are allowed to use 

grant funds for transition costs, and all current grantees have transition plans as 

part of their current grant. Applicants were required to include contingency plans 

for tracking participants in their 2003 application, and in the ongoing competition. 

DOL has identified specific responsibilities for itself, national grantees and State 

grantees to ensure a smooth transition. DOL will provide orientation to all national 

grantees to provide information on program administration and management. After 

the competition, as part of the transition, DOL will begin regular conference calls 

between Federal and regional DOL staff and national grantees to quickly address 

any transition issues. DOL will also provide assistance through a national call center, and provide on-site technical assistance, when and where necessary. 

2006 COMPETITION AND CONTIGUOUS STATES

Question 14. What is the rationale to require that each national grantee serve 

only contiguous counties within a given State? 

Answer 14. In order to distribute resources more equitably, the new SGA ensures 

a fair distribution of positions, or ‘‘slots,’’ among counties in a State, and requires 

that national grantees serve contiguous counties. This will ensure that services to 

older workers are effectively managed, and it brings order to the current fragmented 

service delivery structure. Please note that organizations applying for Pacific Islander and Asian American grant funds or Indian grant funds do not have to apply 

for contiguous counties. 

2006 COMPETITION AND TARGETED POPULATIONS

Question 15. How will DOL assure that this requirement does not create major 

problems for sponsors proposing to serve targeted populations, which may be concentrated in certain non-contiguous areas within a State, e.g., Hispanic or AfricanAmerican elderly? 

Answer 15. The Department’s purpose is not to stovepipe employment programs 

by focusing on specific groups, but to ensure that all programs are able to serve the 

full range of eligible participants. All SCSEP grantees, including Asian Pacific Islander and Indian organizations specifically mentioned in Title V of the Older Americans Act, are required to serve the eligible populations that live within their service 

area. Organizations which have been successful in serving Hispanic or AfricanAmerican elderly now have the opportunity to apply their expertise to a broader 

community, benefiting the entire eligible population in their service area. The Department’s proposal to reduce duplicative administrative expenses and to focus more 

program resources on eligible individuals will improve services to minority and nonminority elderly alike. 

2006 COMPETITION AND MARYLAND

Question 16. What does this do to Maryland? It is my understanding that one national sponsor can bid for the whole State. Where does this leave the State SCSEP 

program? 

Answer 16. Applicants must submit a request for at least 10 percent of the State 

national grant allocation or $1.6 million, whichever is greater. In Maryland, which 

has 655 positions for bid in the national grantee competition, the $1.6 million 

threshold (224 positions) applies. For the State of Maryland, national grantees may 

bid for all or part of the State, but each bid must meet the minimum funding requirement. In all States, national grantees are bidding on national grantee positions 

only. State SCSEP programs and allocations are not affected by the competition. 

45

2006 COMPETITION AWARDS AND PERFORMANCE

Question 17. How does DOL consider an applicant’s past performance with employment training for older workers in evaluating applications and awarding a new 

round of SCSEP grants? 

Answer 17. When evaluating proposals under the current national competition, 

the Department will examine every grant applicant’s capability, including the organization’s experience with serving older workers. All applicants will be rated using 

a ranking criteria based on points, established by the SGA in accordance with current law. This SGA requires that responses be thoughtful and reflect a strategic vision. 

The SGA evaluation criteria are as follows: 

1. Design and Governance—15 points 

2. Program and Grant Management Systems—10 points 

3. Financial Management System—10 points 

4. Program Service Delivery—40 points 

5. Performance Accountability—25 points

Response to Questions of Senator Murray 

COMPETITION AND TRANSITION

Question 1. Can you please explain the kind of transition envisioned by DOL if 

these regulations are implemented on July 1, 2006 as scheduled? Is DOL considering any delay in implementation? Can you also explain how these proposed 

changes adhere to the 2000 Reauthorization Act? 

Answer 1. DOL has not offered new regulations; the regulations for the SCSEP 

program were issued in April 2004. The Department has issued a Solicitation for 

Grant Applications (SGA) for national SCSEP grantees, which is consistent with 

Title V of the Older Americans Act, and which neither changes nor implements any 

requirements not authorized under Title V of the Older Americans Act. 

That said, the Department envisions a smooth transition after the national grantee competition. DOL is prepared to assist grantees with additional costs associated 

with the transition, as it did following the transition after the 2003 competition. 

Program Year 2004 recaptured funds are available for this purpose. Grantees are 

allowed to use grant funds for transition costs, and all current grantees have transition plans as part of their current grant; applicants must identify plans in their application. 

DOL has identified specific responsibilities for itself, national grantees and State 

grantees to ensure a smooth transition. DOL will provide orientation to all national 

grantees to provide information on program administration and management. After 

the competition, as part of the transition, DOL will begin regular conference calls 

between Federal and regional DOL staff and national grantees to quickly address 

any transition issues. DOL will also provide assistance through a national call center, and provide onsite technical assistance, when and where necessary. 

In response to concerns expressed by Senators DeWine and Enzi, on April 4, 2006, 

the Department extended the timeframe for all applicants to respond to the SGA 

from April 17, 2006, to May 26, 2006, giving applicants an additional 39 days to 

respond. In addition, we recently modified the transition period and will extend current grantees until July 31, 2006, to begin funding new grantees on August 1, 2006. 

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Question 2. Why would the Administration propose increasing the focus on private 

sector employment at a time when demand for social and community services will 

only increase? 

Answer 2. The 2000 Amendments to the Older Americans Act emphasized 

SCSEP’s focus as a training program. This focus is further strengthened through 

the Department’s reauthorization proposal, although community service work experience remains as a vital and important component of the program. 

The aging and retirement of the baby boom generation, combined with lower birth 

rates, will likely result in labor shortages in some industries and geographic areas. 

Employers are losing their most experienced workers to retirement just as labor 

force growth is slowing, with the result that shortages of workers with the right 

skills needed by employers could become common. Older Americans are a valuable 

resource for filling these shortages, provided that they are equipped with the right 

skills. Also, as Americans live longer and healthier lives, many will want to, and 

expect to, remain in the labor market longer, and the vast majority of job opportunities are in the private sector. 

46

To better take advantage of employment opportunities in the private sector, we 

propose to offer more flexible training options in the reauthorized program. Training 

options may include: community service or other work experience, on-the-job training, customized training, and classroom instruction, lectures, seminars, individual 

instruction, or other arrangements, including but not limited to, arrangements with 

other workforce investment programs. We also propose to allow grantees to spend 

a greater portion of their funds for training. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION OF SENATOR KENNEDY BY IGNACIO SALAZAR

Question 1. One of the purposes of SCSEP is to work with and assist hard-toserve, low-income seniors, with a special focus on minorities and those seniors in 

rural areas. 

How does your organization address the needs of the hard-to-serve population? 

What services are provided for individuals with special needs? 

Answer 1. SER Jobs for Progress National for the past 41 years, focused on the 

hard-to-serve American populations. SER works with both youth and elderly 

through such programs as: after school programs, head start programs, GED and 

ESL programs, seniors programs, migrant farm worker programs, etc. Special needs 

individuals are also served through our programs.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR KENNEDY, SENATOR MIKULSKI,

AND SENATOR MURRAY BY KENT KAHN

Response to Questions of Senator Kennedy 

Question 1. The Department has suggested that WIA One-Stop Centers will be 

able to assist those individuals who are between the ages of 55 and 64 to obtain 

job training and employment. They also suggest that if a SCSEP participant can’t 

find unsubsidized employment after 2 years in the program they should be referred 

to One-Stops. 

In your opinion, do One-Stops have the ability to effectively serve those individuals? Do the One-Stops pay for intensive training services, and provide extensive 

counseling services for SCSEP participants? 

Answer 1. The One-Stops are not accessible to many of the participants served 

by Experience Works in Ohio and other States. One-Stop Service Centers are moving more toward automated self-service and this is a barrier for many older workers 

even those 55 to 64. If we want to modernize the SCSEP and prepare for the baby 

boom generation, we need to have the ability to continue serving those individuals 

who are 55 to 64 and evaluate the ability of the larger workforce system to effectively serve older workers. Reconsider the age change option after WIA has a proven 

record in serving older workers and don’t let those individuals fall through the 

cracks. This next 5 years might prove that due to the growth of the aging population, both WIA and SCSEP should have the ability to help individuals who are 

55 and older. 

Currently, intensive and training services are not available to SCSEP participants 

either because funds are limited or one-stop operators don’t want to serve older 

workers because of the performance measures disincentives.

Question 2. The 13 national grantees came together with a list of 5 principles that 

you felt should be considered for reauthorization of title V. One of the principles was 

to increase interaction and communication with the Administration on Aging. 

How can Congress strengthen the role of the Administration on Aging in SCSEP? 

Answer 2. The Administration on Aging should have input on the purpose and 

design of the SCSEP program. The aging network infrastructure struggles to deliver 

aging services adequately. Service providers depend on volunteers in many cases. 

SCSEP used to be more valuable in the delivery of aging services when community 

service was a higher priority. DOL should also consult with AOA on projects such 

as designing the demonstration and experimental training programs to get a better 

understanding on how seniors learn best, etc. 

Response to Questions of Senator Mikulski 

NATIONAL SCSEP/STATE SCSEP PROVIDERS’ REACTIONS TO DOL’S

REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSAL

DOL’s Employment vs. Community Service Focus Proposal 

Question 1. How would changing the current dual focus of SCSEP away from community service and employment to only employment change in focus impact the 

aging network and other community institutions that have long made constructive 

47

use of SCSEP community service placements, such as senior centers, nutrition programs, schools, and health and social service providers? 

Answer 1. It is our opinion that the program is in need of constructive changes. 

One major focus is for the program to concentrate on employer/business needs sooner. By placing more emphasis on funding employer/business activities, participants 

can emerge themselves in these activities reducing those individuals that spend too 

much time in the community service component. The current system utilizes not for 

profit and public entities to serve as host agencies where program participants conduct their training; while the intent of the program is to place participants into unsubsidized employment within the for-profit sector, a disconnect occurs in the transition between the training component and the job placement component. The ideal 

mixture should be a heavier concentration on employer/business activities while 

leaving the community service component in place. This will allow participants to 

continue making contributions to their communities, via this vehicle, but limit the 

extent of community service time.

Question 2. Has there been any analysis of the contributions seniors have made 

to their community through their placements? 

Answer 2. At midyear of Program Year 2005/2006, Experience Works placed 18 

percent of the SCSEP participants into services supporting the elderly community. 

Last year, Program Year 2004/2005, Experience Works placed 20 percent into services supporting the elderly. In Program Year 2003/2004, Experience Works placed 

21 percent into services for the elderly. During Program Year 2002/2003, Experience 

Works placed 23 percent into services supporting the elderly. And during Program 

Year 2001/2002, Experience Works placed 27 percent into services supporting the 

elderly. During the years mentioned above, the SCSEP was pushed more towards 

an employment program and each year services to the elderly diminished. If community service is de-emphasized even more in this reauthorization, services to the elderly will continue to go away. 

DOL’s Age Eligibility Proposal 

Question 3. If the DOL age proposal was adopted, how many seniors currently enrolled in your programs would no longer be eligible? 

Answer 3. One-half of our current participants would be affected. In our opinion, 

the change should be 60 and above, and not 65 or above. In this instance we must 

proceed conservatively in order to minimize the risk of individuals not being served.

Question 4. How would this new age requirement impact the seniors in your programs? 

Answer 4. The impact is dependent upon whether or not the participants are 

grandfathered. If the age requirement would only affect new enrollee’s, there would 

be no effect on current participants. If current enrollee’s are grandfathered, approximately one-half of our current participants would have to leave the program.

Question 5. DOL has stated that under their proposal WIA One-Stops would serve 

seniors between the ages of 55–64. Do you believe that WIA is currently serving 

seniors in this age bracket appropriately? 

Answer 5. Serving them, yes; however, ‘‘are they being served adequately?’’ Due 

to a variety of reasons many needs are not being met; one reason being that seniors 

typically do not access the one-stops for services. 

One-Stop funding is limited and access is a problem for many SCSEP participants, especially those who live in rural communities or who have transportation 

problems. According to feedback from Experience Works Regional Directors last Friday, many one-stops across the Nation are being shut down and services are being 

automated, access via computer. The majority of the older workers served by the 

SCSEP do not know how to use a computer. Eliminating or limiting services to the 

55 to 64 would leave a big gap in services available to this age group. Experience 

Works’ last quarterly report to DOL indicates that 57 percent of the participants 

are between the ages of 55 to 64. Many times these individuals are more desperate 

than those who have the safety net of Social Security. The little income that they 

earn helps take care of necessities. When the basics are not taken care of, the ability to focus on upgrading skills or obtaining new skills is difficult because, how to 

pay the rent, utilities, pay for medication, and buy food is foremost in the minds 

of the participants. 

According to GAO, over half of the grantees expressed concern about getting intensive and training services at the One-Stop centers. As you already know, SCSEP 

is a partner at the One-Stops and when older workers go to the One-Stops, those 

individuals are referred to the SCSEP grantee(s) for services. And, WIA has disincentives that discourage providing intensive or training services, those services 

that currently require performance measure tracking. 

48

NATIONAL SCSEP/STATE SCSEP PROVIDERS’ REACTIONS TO DOL’S PROPOSAL

FOR RE-COMPETITION OF SCSEP GRANTS THIS YEAR

DOL’s Contiguous Counties and Large Grant Proposal 

Question 6. How would this new contiguous county requirement affect your 

SCSEP program? 

Answer 6. Dramatically, we would have to adjust to: new locations, project startups, and transferring of some current projects to new providers.

Question 7. How would a national grantee or a State assure that this requirement 

does not create major problems for sponsors proposing to serve targeted populations, 

which may be concentrated in certain non-contiguous areas within a State, e.g., Hispanic or African-American elderly? 

Answer 7. Structuring the competition this way takes away choice for older workers. Now in many counties, the older workers have a choice about who provides him/

her with services. Grantees provide services differently and not every individual 

who is eligible and needs SCSEP services will benefit with only one grantee-operating model to choose from. The concept is the same as not every learner learns 

alike. Different learning methods give all learners the opportunity to gain knowledge and excel. Also, not requiring every applicant to compete using the same rules 

is unfair. However, minority populations, especially those with language barriers, 

will not be served well if the contiguous county is required for the grantees that 

primarily service those older workers. 

Special consideration should be given to these grantees; the key is to continue to 

build on what has been achieved in the past few years. In which, such grantees 

have increased services to the Hispanic and African-American communities. 

SCSEP PROVIDER NETWORK

How SCSEP Provider Network Could be Used During a Public Health Emergency 

Question 8. Can you give examples of how the infrastructure you have created 

with the senior community on the local level could be helpful during a public health 

emergency? 

Answer 8. The SCSEP grantee network has been able to effectively support disaster relief efforts for many years due to its vast infrastructure. Recently after Hurricane Katrina and Rita hit, staff and participants were involved in many States, 

not just the States that were directly affected by the hurricanes, in many ways. Participants still perform community service after all the volunteers go back to their 

regular lives. SCSEP participants staffed phone banks, shelters, triage centers, information and referral centers, helped individuals fill out applications for FEMA 

and emergency work assignments through DOL emergency funding. The SCSEP is 

a one-of-a-kind program that serves low-income, low-skilled older workers and at 

the same time provides valuable services to the community. A public health emergency could be supported and staffed in many of the same ways staff and participants helped during the recent hurricanes. No other government program is currently meeting this need while also providing efficient and effective community services. 

Affective communication is essential during any emergency. Our network, can be 

utilized to transmit communications at the local level. 

Response to Questions of Senator Murray 

Question 1. I assume you all have seen the Administration’s proposal to re-compete the contracts for grantees participating in the title V program. Do you have 

any concerns about these proposals and the impact they could have on current and 

future program participants? 

Answer 1. We believe that when the performance measures were established, performance would trigger the competition. We are not opposed to competition and 

think competition is good to maintain and add grantees that are doing a good job. 

Grantees should be held accountable for performance. Strengthen the program by 

keeping grantees that are doing a good job and compete the funding when grantees 

are not achieving performance measures. 

The effective delivery of services is based on building an infrastructure or network 

of partners and relationships with local businesses, organizations that help with 

supportive services and provide a safety net when needed as well as training partners and faith-based and community organizations. This infrastructure is not built 

over night; it takes a long time to establish the relationships and trust. Participants’ 

successes are also based on the relationship and trust that is developed and nurtured over time with the local grantee staff. Uprooting or abolishing these infrastructures, relationships and trust every 3 years will not be in support of continuous 

49

improvement and assuring that the SCSEP has the best grantees delivering services. This method of competition will also have a negative impact on the ability of 

grantees to provide older workers with community services, supportive services, 

training, and placement services when grantees’ territories are moved around every 

3 years and these relational infrastructures have to be rebuilt. Experience Works 

is a good example of that happening after the competition for PY 2003/2004. Prior 

to the competition, placement achievement was almost 40 percent and service level 

was almost 200 percent. The second year after the competition, the placement 

achievement was approximately 22 percent and the service level was only 153 percent. We believe that the current SGA will again disrupt the services to the participants and have the impact described above.

Question 2. I heard a great deal in 1995 about how we need to streamline the 

job training process. Job training programs were spread over several agencies and 

were often fragmented at the State and local level. As Ranking Member of the Employment and Workforce Subcommittee of this committee, I have learned a great 

deal about job training and Workforce Investment Act programs. But, I do think 

that older workers are a different challenge and traditional job training or retraining programs are ill equipped to meet the challenges of this population, especially 

for minorities. 

The vision or intent of the original Older Americans Act was to fill gaps in safety 

net programs but also allow older Americans to live with dignity and purpose. Employment training was an important part of this original mission. 

Can you explain to this committee why title V is unique and why it should remain 

a strong component of the Older Americans Act? 

Answer 2. Title V should definitely remain a part of the Older Americans Act and 

continue to have a dual purpose of community service and employment. The program addresses not only the individual barriers the older workers bring with them 

to the work environment that have not allowed them to get a job, but also the barriers that community services agencies have in recruiting volunteers the agencies 

need to continue to provide quality services. The SCSEP provides a win-win outcome 

for both the participant and the agency. Policymakers need to take a strong look 

at the rich history of the SCSEP and continue to develop an infrastructure that supports the civic engagement and social capitol aspects of this program. There continues to be a need for older workers to have access to employment services that 

place an emphasis on part-time paid work to maintain their self-sufficiency. The 

public feels good about a program that is not an entitlement program—but rather 

a program where people are not only working for what they get, but they are providing locally needed assistance that taxpayers can see for themselves. They feel 

good about knowing people ‘‘like their grandmother’’ are being made to feel useful 

and given a reason for going on. And, particularly in rural remote localities, these 

individuals help the communities stay alive. 

The community service component of the SCSEP is a unique, effective, and efficient method for serving low-income older individuals, with multiple barriers to employment, who are desperate for work. Particularly in rural locations where jobs are 

scarce for even the most qualified workers, the SCSEP provides value-added services, leverages limited funding, and meets the unique training and employment 

needs of older workers while at the same time building capacity of local community 

and faith-based organizations. Particularly in many rural communities, SCSEP is 

a vital resource for agencies struggling to serve growing needs. With the demographic trends of an aging population, now more than ever, the SCSEP provides a 

proven solution that should be expanded to meet these growing needs. 

Community service opportunities help participants productively transition from 

unemployment in a way that preserves their dignity and self-worth. Each community service assignment provides opportunities to learn, earn, and serve others. The 

service-learning model is uniquely suited to older learners who can marry their lifetime of experience with the new skills they need to be competitive in the workplace 

of the future. Community services prepares participants to perform demand and 

market-driven skills needed by local employers, builds confidence, workplace savvy, 

references, and a reputation for getting the job done right. Unlike persons out of 

the workforce who are searching for jobs who lose confidence during a job search, 

participants performing community service have a support system that boosts them 

up and coaches them toward success. This is truly a winning partnership. 

50

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR KENNEDY, SENATOR MIKULSKI, AND SENATOR MURRAY BY TONY SARMIENTO

Response to Questions of Senator Kennedy 

Question 1. I’m concerned about the Department’s proposals surrounding the community service aspect of SCSEP. The Department says it’s not eliminating community service. 

Do you feel that the Department’s proposals will lead to the elimination of community service in SCSEP? 

Answer 1. The 2000 Amendments to the Older Americans Act (and current regulations) require all SCSEP participants to be assigned to a host agency and employed in community service. Our subgrantees, State SCSEP coordinators, and others have expressed great concern that community service could eventually disappear 

if: • it is no longer a required activity of all SCSEP participants, and instead becomes optional and just one of several allowable activities for SCSEP participants, • ‘‘community services provided’’ becomes a secondary program performance indicator of less consequence than unsubsidized placement and its related indicators. 

In addition. H.R. 5293’s proposal ‘‘that not less than 50 percent of hours worked 

(in the aggregate) shall be in community service employment-based training’’ could 

also drastically cut back community service if 50 percent becomes a ceiling rather 

than a floor for community service. According to the DOL Web site (http://

www.doleta.gov/Seniors/other–docs/04Highlights.pdf), in PY 2004 SCSEP participants worked a total of 46,816,315 hours, of which 45,766,196 hours (or 97 percent) 

were spent in community service and 1,050,119 hours in other training. If 50 percent of the hours worked by SCSEP participants were reassigned to on-the-job training with private, for-profit employers or classroom training activities, the aging network and other social service agencies would lose over 23 million hours of paid staff.

Question 2. The last competition for National grantees was in 2003, and the regulations for SCSEP weren’t published until 2004. 

In your opinion, has the Department spent an adequate amount of time evaluating current national grantees to constitute a re-competition? How will the re-competition affect the services you provide to your SCSEP participants? 

Answer 2. We agree with the comments of the GAO in their testimony to the Senate Special Committee on Aging on April 6th. It should be noted that during PY 

2003 and PY 2004, the two largest national grantees added during the 2003 grant 

competition did not achieve the minimum unsubsidized placement goal of 20 percent 

currently required by the Older Americans Act. The other two national grantees 

added in 2003 achieved 20 percent or more placement rate in PY 2004, probably because each had prior experience operating SCSEP as a subgrantee before becoming 

a national grantee. 

In SSAI’s work with new subgrantees, we know that organizations without prior 

experience operating SCSEP face many challenges and a steep learning curve before 

they are able to operate SCSEP at an acceptable level. 

We are concerned that major changes in national grantees’ service areas (which 

we expect as a result of the new contiguous county requirement) will result in fewer 

eligible persons being served by the total SCSEP network (including State and national grantees) and significant disruption of services by participating host agencies. 

Response to Questions of Senator Mikulski 

NATIONAL SCSEP/STATE SCSEP PROVIDERS’ REACTIONS TO DOL’S

REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSAL

DOL’s Employment vs. Community Service Focus Proposal 

Question 1. How would changing the current dual focus of SCSEP away from community service and employment to only employment change in focus impact the 

aging network and other community institutions that have long made constructive 

use of SCSEP community service placements, such as senior centers, nutrition programs, schools, and health and social service providers? 

Answer 1. The proposed change in program focus would greatly reduce the capacity of many nonprofit and public agencies that provide essential services to older 

persons and the general community. Combined with cutbacks in funding from local 

United Ways, foundations, and Government, cutbacks in the availability of SCSEP 

participants may cause some agencies to close down operations. 

Since 2003, DOL’s increased emphasis on unsubsidized employment and deemphasis on community service may have already led to fewer SCSEP participants 

being assigned to the host agencies in the aging network by several SCSEP grantees 

51

and subgrantees. This may be due to host agencies such as Meals on Wheels, senior 

nutrition centers, etc., may provide appropriate on-the-job training to SCSEP participants, they rarely have sufficient funding to hire SCSEP participants on their 

own payrolls. As a result, SCSEP providers may be assigning more participants to 

agencies that are more likely to hire participants as unsubsidized placements.

Question 2. Has there been any analysis of the contributions seniors have made 

to their community through their placements? 

Answer 2. All SCSEP grantees, both national and State, have been required to 

report on a quarterly basis to DOL not only the total number of hours of community 

service employment performed by all SCSEP participants, but a breakdown on the 

hours in service to the elderly and hours in service to the general community. This 

data is available from DOL for the current Program Year 2005 and prior Program 

Year 2004. 

For example, from July 2005 through March 2006, Senior Service America’s 

SCSEP participants contributed over 3.8 million hours of community service, with 

over 1 million in service to the elderly through nutrition programs, senior centers, 

and other caregiving assistance. 

DOL’s Age Eligibility Proposal 

Question 3. If the DOL age proposal was adopted, how many seniors currently enrolled in your programs would no longer be eligible? 

Answer 3. Over half.

Question 4. How would this new age requirement impact the seniors in your programs? 

Answer 4. Many would be left without any alternative source of assistance.

Question 5. DOL has stated that under their proposal WIA One-Stops would serve 

seniors between the ages of 55–64. Do you believe that WIA is currently serving 

seniors in this age bracket appropriately? 

Answer 5. No. As GAO has pointed out in their testimony about SCSEP to the 

Senate Special Committee on Aging on April 6th, the existing WIA performance 

measures represent significant structural disincentives that discourage One-Stops 

from providing WIA intensive services to SCSEP participants and other older workers seeking part-time employment. These disincentives were also documented by 

GAO study 03–350. As a result, in one recent year the entire national One-Stop system served less than 40,000 job seekers 55 and over, from all income and education 

levels, of which less than 4,000 were 65 and over. WIA performance measures must 

be revised before WIA will begin to serve seniors appropriately. 

NATIONAL SCSEP/STATE SCSEP PROVIDERS REACTIONS TO DOL’S PROPOSAL

FOR RE-COMPETITION OF SCSEP GRANTS THIS YEAR

DOL’s Contiguous Counties and Large Grant Proposal 

Question 6. How would this new contiguous county requirement affect your 

SCSEP program? 

Answer 6. This new requirement poses great challenges for many of our current 

subgrantees operating SCSEP. For some, the contiguous county requirement will effectively terminate their SCSEP program despite 30 or more years of high performance because legal restrictions or organizational capacity preclude them from expanding their service area to meet the requirement. 

Although the grant application submitted by SSAI on May 26, 2006 is for nearly 

$89 million for an 11-month period, due to the contiguous county requirement we 

were not able to include nine longstanding subgrantees in our application, including 

the city of Austin (TX); Project NOW in Rock Island (IL); Dr. Piper Center for Social 

Services in Fort Meyers (FL); and the Marion County Commission (WV). Starting 

next Program Year, we will no longer be operating any SCSEP program in Florida 

and West Virginia. 

Other subgrantees have been forced to expand their program significantly in order 

to be eligible to continue their program. For example, the Amarillo Senior Citizens 

Association has proposed to expand their SCSEP program from serving 2 counties 

with 51 positions to serving 49 counties with 279 positions in the Texas Panhandle. 

Another subgrantee, Community Options, now serving 40 authorized slots in San 

Bernardino (CA), is now committed to serve not only 186 positions in San 

Bernardino County but also 150 more positions in Riverside County.

Question 7. How would a national grantee/or a State assure that this requirement 

does not create major problems for sponsors proposing to serve targeted populations, 

52

which may be concentrated in certain non-contiguous areas within a State, e.g., Hispanic or African-American elderly? 

Answer 7. The contiguous county requirement places all smaller organizations at 

a great disadvantage in this grant competition. Since the sponsors that specialize 

in serving targeted populations tend to be smaller organizations, major problems are 

unavoidable. 

SCSEP PROVIDER NETWORK

How SCSEP Provider Network Could Be Used During a Public Health Emergency 

Question 8. Can you give examples of how the infrastructure you have created 

with the senior community on the local level could be helpful during a public health 

emergency? 

Answer 8. Service America operates SCSEP through a network of local networks. 

Currently, our subgrantees are 108 local government, community-based, and faithbased organizations in 23 States and the District of Columbia. In turn, each of our 

subgrantees maintains its own network of diverse government, community-based, 

and faith-based organizations that serve as the ‘‘host’’ agencies where SCSEP participants are working to provide services to their community. Together, Senior Service America and its subgrantees can tap over 2,800 local host agencies and their 

staffs to assist in a public health emergency. 

Response to Questions of Senator Murray 

Question 1. I assume you all have seen the Administration’s proposal to re-compete the contracts for grantees participating in the title V program. Do you have 

any concerns about these proposals and the impact they could have on current and 

future program participants? 

Answer 1. Implementation of the new contiguous county requirement in the short 

period of time allowed by the SGA will make disruption of participants and host 

agencies extremely difficult to avoid. In 2003, the entire SCSEP delivery system 

(both national and State grantees) served fewer participants than in PY 2002. It’s 

very likely that if new grantees without prior SCSEP program experience are funded starting August 1, 2006, fewer participants will be served in PY 2006. 

We recommend that future grant competitions be designed so that past performance is a major factor in the selection process and that the grants last for 5 years 

(assuming satisfactory performance). This approach would support increased accountability and innovation among grantees, but also establish a stable program delivery structure to minimize disruption to participants and host agencies.

Question 2. I heard a great deal in 1995 about how we need to streamline the 

job training process. Job training programs were spread over several agencies and 

were often fragmented at the State and local level. As Ranking Member of the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee of this committee, I have learned a 

great deal about job training and Workforce Investment Act programs. But, I do 

think that older workers are a different challenge and traditional job training or retraining programs are ill equipped to meet the challenges of this population, especially for minorities. The vision or intent of the original Older Americans Act was 

to fill gaps in safety net programs but also allow older Americans to live with dignity and purpose. Employment training was an important part of this original mission. Can you explain to this committee why title V is unique and why it should 

remain a strong component of the Older Americans Act? 

Answer 2. In 2006, our Nation is largely underprepared for the aging of the baby 

boomers. Like most of our major institutions, the public workforce system has focused primarily on youth and the core working-age population, especially since the 

funding set-aside for older workers ended with JTPA in 1998. 

SCSEP is unique and should be continued because it:

1. has a legislated mission of providing community services, which is not shared 

by WIA. Meals on Wheels, senior centers, and others in the aging network and other 

social services depend on SCSEP participants to help them staff their agencies; 

2. is targeted to serve disadvantaged older adults, including those whom WIA was 

unable to assist; 

3. provides income to participants while they are receiving training; and 

4. has funded the largest network of diverse organizations experienced in serving 

the needs of the older worker and job-seeker. 

Finally, the job placement rates of our subgrantees demonstrate that paid work 

experience in public and nonprofit agencies (i.e., community service employment or 

work-based training) is an effective training mode for low-income seniors with multiple barriers to employment. We have found that many of these vulnerable seniors 

53

are extremely reluctant to participate in traditional classroom training programs 

(especially with younger workers) or on-the-job training with private, for-profit employers (which tend to be more demanding). Other types of training can be supplements but are not effective replacements or substitutes for community service employment with SCSEP-eligible persons.

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ