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

28–922 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–528

EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS: ARE WE GETTING

THE JOB DONE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC

APRIL 6, 2006

Serial No. 109–21

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

(

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Chairman 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

CATHERINE FINLEY, Staff Director 

JULIE COHEN, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Gordon Smith ....................................................... 1

Opening Statement of Senator Herb Kohl ............................................................. 3

PANEL I 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), Washington, DC ............................ 4

John R. Beverly, III, administrator, Office of National Programs, Employment 

and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC .. 44

PANEL II 

Shauna O’Neil, director, Salt Lake County Aging Services, Salt Lake City, 

UT .......................................................................................................................... 63

Carol Salter, National SCSEP director, Easter Seals, Washington, DC ............. 76

Melinda M. Adams, State-wide older worker coordinator, Idaho Commission 

on Aging, Boise, ID .............................................................................................. 89

(III) 

(1)

EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 

FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS: ARE WE GETTING THE JOB DONE? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Gordon H. 

Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Smith, Kohl, and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORDON SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We thank 

you all for coming. 

Today, we take the first step toward reauthorization of the Older 

Americans Act. The last reauthorization of this act was in the year 

2000, and it includes significant changes to Title V, the Senior 

Community Service Employment Program, otherwise known as 

SCSEP. 

The amendments to the Act sought to increase employment opportunities for seniors through greater integration with the country’s workforce training system. Changes also emphasized the 

placement of participants into unsubsidized employment and 

sought greater accountability through the creation of new performance measures. 

As part of the critical oversight responsibility of this Committee, 

I have been working with the Government Accountability Office to 

review the progress that the Labor Department and SCSEP grantees have made in implementing the program changes brought by 

the 2000 reauthorization. I hope the findings discussed at today’s 

hearing will be instructive to Congress as we move forward with 

reauthorization this year. 

As we have previously discussed in this Committee, our country 

is about to experience a dramatic demographic shift. In the coming 

years, baby boomers will begin retiring en masse, and by 2030, 

America’s population over age 65 will be twice as large as it was 

in the year 2000. 

To avoid future labor shortages and a ‘‘brain drain’’ of experienced talent, we must develop policies that encourage older Americans to stay in the workforce and remove barriers to working 

longer if they desire it. 

2

Senator Kohl and I have requested that the Labor Department 

convene an interagency task force to develop legislative and regulatory proposals addressing the issues raised by the aging of our 

workforce. Last year, this Committee examined some of these 

issues, particularly the challenges confronting older workers when 

deciding whether to retire. 

SCSEP serves some of our most vulnerable citizens, those that 

often don’t have the luxury of a choice when it comes to retirement. 

Therefore, we need to ensure the program is functioning properly. 

SCSEP is the sole remaining Federal job training initiative specifically designed to meet the needs of our aging workforce. For 40 

years, the program has provided part-time community service employment to low-income adults age 55 and over. Program participants help staff community and faith-based organizations that 

without this help might not be able to provide their valuable services to the community. 

Today, we will hear from the Labor Department regarding their 

administration of SCSEP. I am looking forward particularly with 

interest in learning why it took 4 years to implement the regulations mandated in the 2000 reauthorization, and I share the concern of many that the program may be restricting the participation 

of many seniors. 

We will also hear from individuals who are grantees and subgrantees of the program. These witnesses will provide valuable information about the impact of the Labor Department’s new eligibility criteria on grantees’ ability to meet performance standards. 

Congress must move forward in a timely fashion with reauthorization, and to provide better oversight of the reauthorization, this 

Committee will continue to work with GAO and SCSEP stakeholders to ensure the program best serves the needs of current participants and also is equipped to handle what will be an influx of 

potential participants from the burgeoning baby boomer population. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses who have joined us 

here this morning. I am eager to hear your thoughts as we engage 

in a meaningful and productive dialog that will shed light on the 

challenges and the successes of the Senior Community Service Employment Program. 

Before I turn to Senator Kohl for his remarks, I would like to 

share with the Committee excerpts from a letter that I received 

from Linda Rae Alvarado, a SCSEP participant who is raising her 

four grandchildren in Washington State. 

Said she, ‘‘I have not felt this good about a program since I 

served as an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer. I have helped other 

grandparents raising children get qualified and placed. Just like 

me, they cried when the placement was made. I have talked with 

host agency staff who were thrilled with the placements and the 

work they are doing. I have helped place Social Security recipients 

and others who fell through the cracks of our safety net.’’ 

‘‘I am only 57, but I have been looking for productive, full-time 

work for the past 4 years. It is as if there is a glowing sign over 

my head that blinks ’over 50’ whenever I have an interview. The 

SCSEP program has been a God-send. I am still able, willing, 

ready to work. My youngest grandson graduates from high school 

3

when I am 66 and college when I am 70, so I will be working for 

a while yet.’’ 

‘‘This program provides positions, experience, skill-building, references that are current and positive for many of us who are between 50 and 65, when there aren’t very many places to receive 

help. As we all know, work knows no age.’’ With that, I turn to 

Senator Kohl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL 

Senator KOHL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As older Americans live longer and remain healthy and active, 

many are choosing to work longer. Even more would like to continue contributing to our communities, businesses, and economy, 

yet many find it difficult to do so. That is why I introduced the 

Older Worker Opportunity Act, which expands opportunities for 

older Americans to work longer if they so choose. Chairman Smith 

and I also requested that the Department of Labor convene an 

Older Worker Task Force to identify barriers to working longer and 

find solutions. We are pleased that Labor is moving forward with 

this task force. 

Today’s hearing focuses on another effort to help seniors find 

work in their communities. For over 40 years, the Senior Community Service Employment Program has served as the only Federal 

workforce program targeted to low-income older adults, providing 

community service and job opportunities to those over age 55. As 

millions of baby boomers approach retirement age and look for 

ways to keep working or give back to their communities, we need 

to strengthen this important program. 

Of course, the most important way to strengthen SCSEP is to 

make sure that eligible seniors are enrolled. Yet today, the GAO 

will report that because the Department of Labor has restricted eligibility, grantees find it difficult to meet enrollment goals, leaving 

too many seniors without the opportunity to enroll. In addition, 

current funding is only sufficient to serve less than 1 percent of the 

eligible population. SCSEP funding has declined since 1998, and 

the Administration is proposing another cut of $44 million this 

year. To me, this makes no sense. The Census Bureau estimates 

that by 2008, there will be 6.7 million low-income Americans over 

age 55, many of whom will be eligible for SCSEP. Clearly, we need 

to boost funding, not cut it. 

We must also remember that SCSEP is designed to promote both 

community service and self-sufficient employment. One goal should 

not be sacrificed for the other. Yet the Administration’s proposal for 

reauthorizing SCSEP would significantly reduce community service 

opportunities. Some seniors may prefer community service to the 

private sector, while others may face barriers that make it difficult 

to obtain paying jobs. So we need to give seniors the flexibility to 

choose. 

Finally, we need to know what is broken before we fix it. After 

Congress made changes to the program in 2000, the Department 

of Labor did not issue final regulations until 2004. As a result of 

this delay, we only have 1 year of performance data to evaluate the 

program. In addition, 2005 will be the first year that grantees will 

4

be held accountable for performance since the 2000 changes were 

implemented. 

Before we consider a major restructuring of the program, as the 

Administration proposes, I believe we should carefully study what 

has worked and what hasn’t worked, and wait until the results are 

in. To that end, this hearing is a step in the right direction, and 

we look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

We have two panels today. We are informed that there will be 

a 10:30 vote, and Senator Kohl and I have agreed that one of us 

will go first, and the other will keep the hearing going. Then the 

other will go when there is a return. 

So we shouldn’t be interrupted because we want this hearing to 

be timely and not take any more time of your day than is necessary. But it is a very important topic, and as the letter I just 

read indicates, it means so much to so many people in our senior 

population. 

We will call forward our first panel. We have representatives 

from the Government Accountability Office and the Department of 

Labor. Our first witness is Sigurd Nilsen. He is the director of education, workforce, and income security issues for GAO. 

I certainly appreciate the resources that, Sigurd, you and your 

colleagues have taken to be here today and testify. I look forward 

to hearing GAO’s preliminary findings on the impact of the 2000 

Older Americans Act amendments on the Senior Community Service Employment Program. 

We will call up also John Beverly. He is the administrator of the 

Office of National Programs at the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor. We also look forward to 

discussing the progress that that department has made in implementing the 2000 reauthorization changes to SCSEP. 

Sigurd, take it away. 

STATEMENT OF SIGURD R. NILSEN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO), WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. NILSEN. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Senator Kohl. 

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

amendments of 2000 as they relate to the Senior Community Service Employment Program, known as SCSEP. 

My testimony today will focus on three areas. First, changes in 

the distribution of SCSEP funds to national and State grantees as 

a result of the amendments. Second, the progress that Labor has 

made in implementing an enhanced performance accountability 

system. Third, the challenges that national and State grantees face 

in managing SCSEP. 

First, the 2000 amendments have had little effect on the distribution of funds between national and State grantees, with the 

national grantees continuing to receive about 78 percent of the 

funds and the States about 22 percent. However, the distribution 

of funding and positions among national grantees has changed substantially. 

5

An open competition for national SCSEP positions held in 2002 

increased the total number of national grantees from 10 to 13, 

eliminating 1 incumbent grantee and introducing 4 new grantees, 

and reshuffled funding and positions among existing grantees. Of 

the 9 incumbent national grantees that were awarded continuing 

grants, 2 gained positions, and 7 lost positions. 

Second, Labor has implemented new performance measures as 

required by the amendments, for program year 2005 which ends 

this coming June 30, will begin sanctioning grantees that demonstrate poor performance for the first time. For program year 

2005, four SCSEP measures will be used to assess a grantee’s overall performance. The four measures are placement, employment retention, service level, and services to the most in need. 

A grantee must meet 80 percent of its goal, averaged across the 

4 measures or be subject to sanctions. A grantee then could meet 

its overall average performance goal, but not individual performance goals and thus avoid sanctions. 

For example, one State that met its overall performance goal for 

2004, achieved less than half of its placement goal. Sanctions for 

poor performance begin with a corrective action plan and end with 

the grantee losing all funds if it fails to meet its goals for three 

consecutive years. 

Grantees also report on the customer satisfaction of participants, 

host agencies, and employers, but this measure is not used for 

sanctions. Grantees must also report the number of community 

service hours participants contribute, but Labor has not developed 

a performance measure for this, as required by the amendments. 

SCSEP grantees must also collect data on three common measures as part of a Government-wide initiative to provide comparable 

performance information across Federal programs with similar 

goals and operations—requiring SCSEP grantees to collect and report on nine different performance measures—some of which overlap, but which are measured differently. 

Labor has designed a data collection system to capture performance information, but has not yet implemented the Internet-based 

version. In order to capture baseline information data in program 

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

data collection system. 

However, this interim system is limited in its usefulness for helping to manage the program. For example, grantees are unable to 

access their quarterly progress reports directly and must wait for 

Labor to process and send the data back to them. 

Likewise, grantees receive reports that notify them of errors in 

their data submissions, but the reports do not identify which 

records are problematic. Currently, Labor hopes to fully implement 

the Internet-based system by mid May of this year. 

Third, changes to SCSEP eligibility criteria and coordination difficulties with WIA and the one-stop system pose major challenges 

to SCSEP grantees in managing the program. Although the amendments did not contain provisions changing the eligibility criteria, 

Labor modified some eligibility criteria to target SCSEP’s limited 

funds to individuals it believes are most in need of SCSEP’s intensive services. 

6

For example, Labor modified the types of income it uses to determine the individual’s eligibility for the program to include Social 

Security Disability Insurance and unemployment compensation, so 

that only those with the lowest incomes are targeted. In addition, 

Labor changed its previous policy of allowing low-income older 

adults who hold part-time jobs to enroll in SCSEP. 

Grantees told us that the requirement that applicants be unemployed prevented some low-income older workers from receiving 

SCSEP services. For example, a state grantee noted that older 

workers who may work only 4 hours per week, have very low incomes but are not eligible for the program because they are not unemployed. 

Another State grantee noted that many older workers who are 

not eligible for Social Security benefits often work part-time, and 

thus would be not eligible under the employment test, but would 

otherwise still meet the income eligibility criteria. 

Many grantees were also concerned that Labor revised the period 

on which income is calculated. Labor requires grantees to annualize an applicant’s income, using the most recent 6-months income 

prior to application and then multiplying by 2. Grantees noted that 

annualizing 6 months of income could distort the income for those 

who only had earnings during that 6-month period. 

For example, one grantee noted that many older individuals in 

their State work during the planting and harvesting seasons, but 

are unemployed for the remainder of the year. Doubling the individual’s 6-month income made many of these seasonal workers ineligible for SCSEP. 

Conversely, certain other workers maybe erroneously included if 

they didn’t have income in the most recent 6-month period, but 

may have had much higher income prior to that 6-month period. 

They would have been included, while those with more recent income were excluded. 

All of the national grantees and most of the State grantees told 

us that they were concerned about their ability to meet the performance measures, saying that the program eligibility changes 

was making it harder for them to meet their service-level goals. 

The 2004 performance data show that 7 of the 13 national grantees and 21 of the 52 State grantees did not meet their service-level 

goals. National and State grantees said that coordinating SCSEP 

activities with WIA services and obtaining intensive services and 

training at One-Stop centers presented major challenges for them. 

While coordination with One-Stops for core services is very good, 

access to training or intensive services is very difficult. For example, many WIA providers are hesitant to provide intensive services 

or training to SCSEP participants because WIA providers are concerned that enrolling older adults would negatively affect their performance measures, particularly the earnings measure that is used 

in the WIA program. This is something we reported on in a 2003 

report as well. 

In conclusion, while Labor has made progress implementing the 

2000 amendments, particularly in terms of increasing the programs 

focused on unsubsidized employment, challenges remain. While 

Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Aug 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\28922.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
7

countability system, as of March of this year, the system was still 

not fully implemented. 

The delay in implementing this system means that program year 

2005 is the first year that grantees will be held accountable for 

poor performance. In addition, Labor’s changes to the eligibility criteria appear to target SCSEP funds for the most in need, yet how 

this targeting was operationalized excludes certain low-income 

workers. 

Finally, while the amendments were designed to enhance employment and training opportunities for older adults, we believe 

that Labor has not done enough to address unresolved issues concerning coordination between SCSEP and WIA and helping older 

adults obtain intensive services and training at one-Stop centers. 

This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions members of the Committee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nilsen follows:]

8


28922.001
9


28922.002
10


28922.003
11


28922.004
12


28922.005
13


28922.006
14


28922.007
15


28922.008
16


28922.009
17


28922.010
18


28922.011
19


28922.012
20


28922.013
21


28922.014
22


28922.015
23


28922.016
24


28922.017
25


28922.018
26


28922.019
27


28922.020
28


28922.021
29


28922.022
30


28922.023
31


28922.024
32


28922.025
33


28922.026
34


28922.027
35


28922.028
36


28922.029
37


28922.030
38


28922.031
39


28922.032
40


28922.033
41


28922.034
42


28922.035
43


28922.036
44

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will get to those. 

Now, John Beverly. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BEVERLY, III, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL PROGRAMS, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BEVERLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today 

to discuss the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and the 

Senior Community Service Employment Program, or SCSEP, as 

authorized by Title V of the act. 

ETA has initiated activities in an effort to integrate services to 

older Americans with other ETA programs. I would like to first 

provide you with some context on where SCSEP fits in the broader 

workforce investment system. 

In January 2005, ETA issued a national protocol for older workers. The protocol seeks to enhance the services provided to older 

workers through our broader public workforce investment system 

and inspire the system to pursue innovative strategies for tapping 

into this labor pool and connecting them with the job market. 

In response to a GAO recommendation and at the request of this 

Committee, the department has convened a Federal interagency 

task force to focus on the aging of the American workforce and to 

examine the impact of this demographic change on the labor market. The task force on aging of the American workforce will bring 

together agencies from across the Federal Government to address 

workforce challenges posed by an aging population. 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Emily Stover 

DeRocco will chair this task force. The task force 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. That committee should be convened and meeting 

sometime this month. 

I would now like to turn to SCSEP. Based on our experience with 

administering SCSEP, the department has formed a legislative proposal to reauthorize the program on the principles that we shared 

with the Congress in May 2005. Those principles are, first, streamline the program structure. The department is proposing to allocate 

funds for the SCSEP program to States according to a statutory 

formula. 

Each State would then hold competitions to award those funds 

to grantees, which would operate the program in their State. This 

step would establish one responsible entity per State rather than 

the current overlapping system of national and State grantees, 

some of which operate in the same locality. 

Second, increase the minimum age for eligibility. The proposal 

targets limited SCSEP resources to older, harder to serve Americans by increasing the minimum eligibility age from 55 to 65. 

Next, focus on employment outcomes. Our proposal enhances the 

employment focus of the program in the following ways. No. 1, increasing the limit on the percentage of grant funds grantees may 

45

spend on training. Second, authorizing occupational training. 

Third, limiting to 2 years the transition from community service to 

subsidized employment. Finally, limiting fringe benefits, including 

pension benefits. 

The last principle would strengthen performance accountability. 

We are proposing to use the common measures for SCSEP. That 

is entered employment, retention in employment, and earnings. 

The use of these measures will simplify performance reporting and 

hold grantees accountable for employment outcomes, though they 

can track and report additional outcomes such as community services as well. These reauthorization proposals will streamline the 

SCSEP program, target resources to those most in need. 

Before I conclude, I would like to respond to some of the points 

made by the GAO testimony. We are aware that grantees are concerned about One-Stop’s ability to provide a consistent level of service to older workers throughout the system. We are confident that 

the One-Stop system is not only serving older workers and can 

serve more, but is building the capacity to improve these services 

over time. 

With guidance such as the protocol for serving older workers that 

I referred to earlier, the department continues to set standards for 

the workforce investment system’s services to older workers. Governors also are required in their State plans to identify how they 

will serve workers with barriers to employment, including older 

workers. 

Notably, the department’s reauthorization proposal sets aside 

funding for technical assistance and the distribution of best practices to the workforce development system. We will continue to 

share with the One-Stop system those best practices in serving this 

important segment of the labor force. 

We are also aware that grantees are concerned about the system 

used to report performance outcomes. The current system, called 

SPARQ 1, has, in fact, markedly improved the error rates, and all 

of our grantees continue to become more proficient in its use 

through the assistance that we are providing and that we will continue to provide. 

SPARQ 2, or the Internet version of the system, will be launched 

this May, with increased functionality and ease of use. With continued technical assistance, we believe that grantees will master the 

new system and come to appreciate the improvement it represents. 

We are grateful to the GAO for carefully evaluating SCSEP, and 

we thank them for their insights into the operation of the program. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you 

to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. We are hopeful that, working together, this important legislation can be enacted later this 

year. 

At this time, I would be pleased to answer any questions that 

you or members of the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beverly follows:]

46


28922.037
47


28922.038
48


28922.039
49


28922.040
50


28922.041
51


28922.042
52


28922.043
53


28922.044
54


28922.045
55


28922.046
56


28922.047
57

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, John. 

I hear you making a number of recommendations for changes to 

the program, yet I don’t believe what was required in 2000 has 

even been fully implemented. So I am wondering if it is the right 

time to do that, and have the changes that have been made on the 

basis of 2000’s reauthorization, has the program been fully implemented? Is it benefiting folks it is supposed to serve? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, we believe that we have made sufficient 

progress in implementing the amendments. Certainly, it is a start. 

We have put in place the performance accountability framework 

called for by the amendments and have instituted the reporting 

system needed to report on those performance outcomes. We have 

taken steps, such as the older workers protocol and organizing the 

task force that this Committee asked for, to bring together the 

services of the One-Stop system and better integrate services provided to older workers through SCSEP into the One-Stop system. 

In addition to that, we have provided technical assistance to the 

grantees as they work through the implementation process. We are 

pleased with the progress that the grantees have made both in performing under the performance accountability framework and in 

delivering services to older workers through the program that was 

called for in the amendment. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the program called for and the 

amendment also called for targeting services, at least in terms of 

giving priority of service, to workers who are 60 and older, and in 

particular those who have significant workforce disadvantages, that 

is. Second, it calls for increasing our efforts to place older workers 

in unsubsidized employment. 

I think we have made progress in doing all of those things, and 

I believe we have plans that will help us continue that progress. 

The CHAIRMAN. John, why negotiate performance standards and 

then require grantees to meet only 80 percent of the goal? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, we want to provide some flexibility. As we 

move forward with this new performance accountability framework, 

we want to have high performance, but at the same time, we want 

to leave a little bit of flexibility to make sure that we are prepared 

to make adjustments as we move forward. 

We believe that we have set our benchmarks for performance 

high enough so that 80 percent achievement represents good outcomes for seniors with respect to the measures and indicators represented by those performance benchmarks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sigurd, can you elaborate a little further on why 

problems persist and how the lack of coordination impacts SCSEP 

grantees and participants? 

Mr. NILSEN. The main factor associated with how the WIA program serves the range of populations that come in for service are 

driven by WIA’s performance measures. This affects not only the 

SCSEP program, but other programs as well, including dislocated 

workers and incumbent workers. That is workers who come in, are 

looking for better jobs. 

Those performance measures provide disincentives for serving 

particular populations because, notably, there was in the past the 

earnings increase or earnings replacement goal. That is looking at 

people’s prior earnings and then their subsequent earnings. 

58

Problems for older workers are that if they were dislocated or 

came in and were only looking for part-time work or if they had 

a very high-wage job before they came in and then were going to 

have to change occupations, maybe start all over again, they were 

going to be coming in and starting off at a much lower wage. 

So there was a disincentive. They would rather—the programs 

would rather, in order to meet their performance goals, would rather provide services to someone who was easier to place than an 

older worker, so they would get the placement rates, and also 

where they were most likely to get the earnings gain. 

What we have recommended in the past is that they look at 

these measures and that they also collect data on everybody coming in the system. Right now, the WIA program only requires that 

people who get intensive services and training are reported on. We 

have estimated that this is less than 10 percent of the people coming in for services. 

So what they do is, basically, they assess people for their likely 

success. If you are not likely to be successful or if they have questions, if you meet whatever profile they decide is putting you at 

risk, they will provide you with general services, placement assistance, maybe some help with resumes, but they are not going to sit 

down and provide the intensive services for you or recommend you 

for training, which would require that you be enrolled, and then 

they would be tracked for performance. 

If you start having information on everybody, you can see how 

the programs are sorting people. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Mr. Beverly, GAO reports that grantees found it hard to meet enrollment goals because Labor made it more difficult for seniors to 

qualify for the program. In fact, 7 of the 13 national grantees and 

21 of the 52 state grantees did not meet their service-level goals 

in 2004. 

Do you see this as a problem? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, Senator, we certainly are familiar with those 

data, and we are certainly working to provide technical assistance 

to make sure that performance meets the benchmarks set. 

With respect to not meeting those and the connection between 

that and the income eligibility guidelines, I guess we were confronted with the need to develop income eligibility standards 

against a reference that was widely accepted, given the fact that 

in the rulemaking we received only two comments about what 

standards should guide income eligibility. 

We chose the current population survey standards and definitions for what was considered income and how those sources of income were defined. Basically, that was our starting point. We used 

that starting point because it is, indeed, the CPS—the Current 

Population Survey—data that is used by OMB and the Department 

of Health and Human Services to determine the poverty level. 

As you know, Senator, the current program calls for an income 

threshold of 125 percent of the poverty level as the income threshold for participation in the program. So, basically, we use the defiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Aug 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\28922.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
59

nitions that the Current Population Survey use in order to come up 

with the standard for income eligibility. 

We did exclude some income based on those sources that sort of 

spoke to dependency, such as public assistance and other sources 

of that kind. We also worked with the grantees to exclude some 

other sources of income based on exactly what you are indicating, 

Senator, their indication to us that they were having enrollment 

difficulties. 

So we tried to use a standard that seemed to us to be the appropriate one. Given the fact that the threshold itself derived from the 

CPS, why not use the definitions and income standards in the CPS 

to at least have a starting point for eligibility? Then when we 

heard that there were still problems, we did meet with the national 

sponsors and made some further exclusions from that, hopefully, to 

get to the point where we have the right standards. 

I think the issue of what should be the income standards that 

determine eligibility I think is an issue that we have addressed in 

all legislative proposals, suggesting that we need to look at other 

workforce programs and other programs that serve older workers, 

at least as a starting point, to determine what are the appropriate 

sources of income that should be included. 

But again, I think this is an issue where reauthorization can provide a forum for working out that issue. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Nilsen, as you know, Labor is conducting a 

second national grant competition to choose SCSEP grantees. I 

would think that in choosing grantees, Labor would want to consider how well a grantee performed in the past. Yet it appears from 

your testimony that Labor does not formally consider past performance when awarding grants. 

If we really want to choose the best grantees, don’t you believe 

that past performance should be a major factor? 

Mr. NILSEN. Certainly, Senator, I think now that the current 

grantees have had a track record to look at, and I think originally 

we heard from the Department of Labor that when they did the 

2002 competition, they wanted to open it up to get some new blood 

in, if you will. They didn’t have the performance measures prior to 

that, not the ones focused on employment. 

But certainly, it is our experience that if you are recompeting 

grants, it is logical to include the performance of the grantees you 

already have in place as a factor as you are looking forward to see 

whether or not you want to give those grants back to them, renew 

their grant for the future. That certainly should be a factor to be 

considered in any competition. 

Senator KOHL. I thank you. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

The Senator from Delaware? 

Senator CARPER. Hey, thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

To my colleagues, good morning. 

To our witnesses, good morning and thank you for joining us 

today. 

Just two issues that I would like to explore with you and probably more directly with Mr. Beverly. So if I could start there, and 

60

Mr. Nilsen, if you want to jump in and offer some comments, you 

know, don’t hold back. 

First, on the age of eligibility, do I understand that the Department of Labor has proposed to raise the minimum age for participation for eligibility for the SCSEP program from 55 to 65? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Yes, Senator. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. Do I understand that there are some exceptions? There would be some exceptions to those age eligibility requirements? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Yes, Senator. We would certainly look to see 

whether or not in individual cases denying eligibility because the 

age threshold was not met would be a poor decision, given that individual’s circumstances. So we would look to see circumstances 

under which an exception to that new age eligibility threshold 

might be made. 

Senator CARPER. How would you go about making that determination? In a practical sense, how would it work? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, we certainly look to work with the Congress 

in making that determination. But, for example, there may be older 

workers under the age of 65 who have multiple barriers to employment and then, in fact, could, in fact, benefit from the services of 

the SCSEP program because it does provide intensive and longterm services to older workers. 

Persons with multiple barriers to employment perhaps can benefit from that, and certainly it seems to be a circumstance where 

one might consider making an exception to the overall threshold 

that is recommended in the proposal. 

Senator CARPER. But again, in a practical sense, how would you 

view the decisionmaking process to make, or how would you recommend that it occur for a person in whether in Delaware or Wisconsin or Oregon or any other State? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, I think that process would certainly have to 

be worked out by developing criteria to guide decisions in that connection, and certainly we would be looking to have a rational basis 

for decisionmaking with respect to offering those exceptions. 

Senator CARPER. Within our States, who would make the decision? Within our respective States? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, again, I think we would like to work with the 

Congress in determining who makes that decision. I guess perhaps 

that is the best way to do it. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Nilsen, any thoughts there? 

Mr. NILSEN. I think it is a policy decision of how to target the 

program. Right now, I know the data show that about half of the 

people participating in SCSEP are between 55 and 64 years old. So 

this would radically redirect the focus of half the program. 

I would leave it to the department, the States, and also the 

grantees to comment on how difficult would that be to do, to 

change the program that dramatically. 

Senator CARPER. You may have said this earlier and I missed it, 

but do you have any views as to the merit of this recommendation? 

Mr. NILSEN. No, I didn’t comment on it. Like I said, for the most 

part, it is a policy issue. But implementing it would be a major 

change to the program, given that half the population that they are 

serving currently would be eliminated from eligibility. 

61

Senator CARPER. OK. I also understand that the Department of 

Labor has proposed to limit SCSEP enrollment to 2 years and to 

eliminate fringe benefit like Social Security, and if we could just 

dwell on that for a moment. 

Could you just tell us, Mr. Beverly, what is the current limit on 

enrollment? I presume it is more than 2 years, but what is it now? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Senator, I may have to provide that for the record. 

But my recollection at this point is that there may be no hard and 

fast limit on enrollment. But I would like to offer for the record any 

amendment to that——

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. BEVERLY [continuing]. My sense of that. 

Senator CARPER. I am looking at the audience to see if anybody 

is nodding their head yes or no. I see some yeses from the audience. So we will see. OK. If you could provide that for the record, 

we would appreciate it. 

In my own State, some concerns have been raised about limiting 

the eligibility to 2 years. I am not sure whether those concerns are 

well-founded or not. I just don’t know. Two years sounds like a reasonable amount of time. It may not be for some folks. 

The issue of Social Security eligibility. You know, some of the 

folks who participate, the problem is, as we all know, have very, 

very low income and, frankly, not much prospect for Social Security. In my own State, some folks have said that they believe that 

the SCSEP should—the program, if modified, should allow these 

folks to continue to enhance their prospects for Social Security income. 

Would you just react to that? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, Senator, my understanding is, is that the 

program really doesn’t limit Social Security. What the program 

does do with respect to the income eligibility guidelines is to indicate that Social Security income will be counted as income that 

counts against 125 percent threshold. Except for those older workers 65 and older, we would exclude that Social Security income net 

of Medicare deductions. That is one way Social Security, I believe, 

comes into the picture, if you will. 

The second way Social Security comes into the picture is with Social Security Disability Insurance, where we said that income from 

that source would count against the 125 percent threshold. The 

reasoning being is that SSDI is not—to receive it, you don’t have 

to pass an income test. You do have to be totally disabled, but you 

do have to also have a work history in order to receive it. 

It is my understanding that the program also helps the disabled 

person, when that total disability passes, to transition back into 

the workforce. So those receiving SSDI have some support, it 

seems, re-entering the labor force. It is not an income-tested receipt 

of benefits. Therefore, we thought that it was appropriate to exclude that. 

Hopefully, Senator, that is responsive to your question? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Responsive, and then some. 

What I would like to do is we may want to come back and explore this with you a bit further as we go forward. Thanks. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Carper. 

62

I just have one follow-up question that really gets to the heart 

of my concern in this hearing. I am going to ask the question of 

Sigurd, and John, you can respond to it. 

But, Sigurd, Mr. Beverly has said that the agency has adequate 

information to set a new course for the program and with this justifies their request for significant changes for this year’s reauthorization. Based on your review of the system, did you find that adequate information exists to evaluate the impact that the 2000 

changes have had on the program? 

Mr. NILSEN. Given the fact that the first full year of data that 

the grantees will be held accountable for performance won’t be 

available. The year ends this June 30. They won’t be available for 

several months after that. The fact that, well, so far, the Labor Department has commissioned a study of the SCSEP program. It has 

not been issued or made public yet. It would seem to me we don’t 

really have enough information to make radical changes at this 

point. 

We just did our first, initial look at your request into this program about how well is it working. Given the fact that many of the 

changes have just been recently implemented—the new data system, performance measures, eligibility targeting—and we haven’t 

really seen the impact of that yet, it seems like we would want to 

know, have more information on how well that is working first. 

Mr. BEVERLY. Mr. Chairman, if I may? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, John? 

Mr. BEVERLY. I guess I have confidence in the ability of the system to move forward. Based on the information that we do have 

so far in the program year 2005, it certainly appears that the vast 

majority, with perhaps one or two exceptions—and all the data is 

not in—but the vast majority of the national grantees will, as well 

as the State grantees, will meet their performance goals if the last 

three quarters are any indication of that. 

So I have confidence in the system. I think the system has proven its ability to move forward and to adjust to efforts to bring better services to older workers. 

The CHAIRMAN. John, the study that Sigurd just referenced is 

from DAH Consulting, and we have asked Labor for the report, and 

they won’t provide it. Can you provide it? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Well, Senator, the report is not quite finished yet. 

It is in its draft stages. As soon as it is, in fact, finished and out 

of its draft stage, I am quite sure that it will be provided to the 

Committee and to you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. So my understanding that they won’t provide it 

is not accurate. It is just that it is not completed to be provided? 

Mr. BEVERLY. Your understanding is correct, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kohl, do you have anything further? 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. It has been very helpful. 

With that, we will call up our second panel. 

Our witnesses on the second panel are Ms. Shauna O’Neil. She 

is the director of the Salt Lake County Aging Services. The Salt 

Lake County Division of Aging Services is responsible for providing 

programs and services on behalf of 97,000 residents in Salt Lake 

County who are age 60 and over. In her position as director, 

63

Shauna administers the county Senior Community Service Employment Program. 

She will be followed by Ms. Carol Salter, the national director of 

the Senior Community Service Employment Program for Easter 

Seals. Ms. Salter administers the Senior Community Service Employment Program in 9 States with 11 Easter Seals affiliate organizations as subcontractors. 

Finally, we will hear from Ms. Melinda Adams, who is the Statewide older worker coordinator for the Idaho Commission on Aging. 

Ms. Adams has administered workforce programs for older Idahoans for 21 years, and she is also the aunt of one of my best staffers. 

We welcome you all here. 

Shauna, let us start with you. 

STATEMENT OF SHAUNA O’NEIL, DIRECTOR, SALT LAKE 

COUNTY AGING SERVICES, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 

Ms. O’NEIL. Thank you. 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Kohl, it is a pleasure to be 

here today to talk about the SCSEP program. 

I was struck listening to the report from the General Accounting 

Office because our experience of the last 2 years has really very 

markedly followed every one of their points. So, to some extent, I 

am just here re-emphasizing the points that Mr. Nilsen made. 

I am proud to say that Salt Lake County, which has 68 of Utah’s 

82 SCSEP slots, is the reason that Utah has ranked in the top 5 

States nationally for 4 of the last 6 years in the percent of participants placed in unsubsidized jobs. In recent years, our placement 

rate is down with the new rules, but we are still 18.5 percent above 

the national standard. 

Serving people with employment barriers is one of SCSEP’s most 

important goals. We have enrolled widows in their late 50’s who 

have not worked for 30 years because they were raising families, 

who found themselves with no income, little savings, not eligible 

for Social Security, Medicare, or welfare benefits. 

We have found jobs for ex-convicts immediately after their release from prison, for long-term alcoholics and drug addicts, as well 

as Vietnam and Korean War veterans still suffering from PTSD. 

Many older work seekers face barriers, have few marketable 

skills, and little or no recent job-hunting experience, and we are 

proud of our experience in working with all of them. 

The 2000 reauthorization of SCSEP did not truly start until the 

rules took effect 4 years later. These rules substantially changed 

the focus of the program and, largely because they continue to 

evolve and change, have created real challenges for agencies like 

ours that are struggling to implement them. 

My written testimony goes into some detail. I would like to give 

you just some examples today. We used to be able to enroll underemployed participants. We now can only serve those who are unemployed. Thus, an older worker who is paid for baby-sitting on weekends isn’t eligible. 

The stricter income guidelines have radically changed the type of 

older worker. We couldn’t enroll a 66-year-old divorced woman who 

had multiple age-related barriers because we had to count all of 

64

her Social Security income. Without a job, she lost her home and 

is now in subsidized employment. 

The performance measure reporting has changed numerous 

times, and it has caused us real problems. Also, other reporting requirements have become far more complex and have added significantly to our administrative expenses. 

For example, we are required to gather wage information for 1 

year after somebody moves to an unsubsidized job. An employer 

will give us that information once, frequently won’t give it to us 

after that. But two of our performance measures require us to have 

that information. 

In short, the program has significantly changed its focus, and we 

are still undergoing major transition. The ground continues to 

shift, and we really have not reached the point where we are operating smoothly under the 2004 rules. 

I have three policy recommendations for you today. First is to 

maintain the independence of the SCSEP program. This is a specialized program serving a population with different needs. The 

needs of low-income older people with multiple employment barriers should remain the focus of an independent program. 

Continue to serve those under 65. Of all of the people we serve, 

those under 62 years of age, who often have little or no income, little job history, and are ineligible for any other kind of assistance, 

are often in particularly desperate straits. 

Three, retain the dual emphasis on community service and employment. Our program’s 68 participants give 70,000 hours of important service annually, while gaining critical skills to help them 

find permanent unsubsidized employment, and they do find employment. 

In closing, it is far too early to make an accurate assessment of 

the success or failure of the 2000 reauthorization. The system itself 

is still in flux. The reporting system that we are all relying upon 

to give the Federal Government data as to the program’s success 

is not yet error free or operating at a fully functioning level. 

SCSEP’s significance through the years is that it has successfully 

blended two important policy goals for older Americans. It has bolstered their ability to return to and remain productive members of 

the labor force, while permitting them, as they have developed 

marketable skills, to serve the community in important ways. 

Thank for you holding today’s hearing. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Neil follows:]

65


28922.048
66


28922.049
67


28922.050
68


28922.051
69


28922.052
70


28922.053
71


28922.054
72


28922.055
73


28922.056
74


28922.057
75


28922.058
76

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Shauna, very much. Those are good 

recommendations. 

Carol Salter. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL SALTER, NATIONAL SCSEP DIRECTOR, 

EASTER SEALS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. SALTER. Thank you, Senator Smith and Senator Kohl. 

On behalf of Easter Seals and as their national director of the 

SCSEP program, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today and to discuss the implementation of the 2000 

Title V amendments. 

I am pleased to tell you, through SCSEP, seniors are engaging 

in valuable community service across this Nation, as well as using 

SCSEP as a bridge to employment. 

As one of the new grantees in 2003, Easter Seals faced several 

challenges—developing SCSEP policies and procedures, finding and 

transitioning participants to our payroll system and into our program, establishing a brand-new data collection system, and enhancing our partnerships. All this had to happen before we could 

actually get to our primary task of recruiting and training participants and helping them find sustainable employment opportunities. 

In our second year, changes to the program regulations, coupled 

with learning the new DOL data collection and reporting system, 

presented new challenges to administrative operations. 

Now, in our third year, we are finally starting to see some positive outcomes resulting from those changes made in 2004. We still 

face significant challenges in providing some Title V services. While 

our written testimony explains a number of these, I would like to 

address two specific areas, and I would like to provide some suggestions for consideration. 

First, Department of Labor’s modified eligibility rules now require inclusion of Social Security Disability Insurance payments as 

a countable source of income. Because SSDI eligibility requires that 

all other possible employment opportunities are exhausted, recipients are, by definition, in need of training in a new vocation. 

This and other inclusions in countable income has significantly 

cut the number of seniors found eligible for services. In many locations, and especially in rural areas, these changes have made it extremely difficult to maintain a full enrollment level. We believe, at 

a minimum, SSDI income should not count against applicants’ eligibility determination. 

Second, a co-enrollment of SCSEP participants in the WIA programs. Easter Seals advocates for co-enrollment of SCSEP participants in WIA programs. However, WIA providers have a disincentive to enroll our participants. Often, seniors only want part-time 

employment, and WIA only receives credits for placements in fulltime jobs. We believe that allowing WIA providers to receive performance credit for placement of seniors into part-time employment 

would create incentives for serving older adults. 

While there have been some challenges in operating the program, 

there are a number of facets of SCSEP that have proven to work 

well since the 2000 amendments. First, Title V authorizes two disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Aug 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\28922.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
77

tinct, yet connected service delivery partners—national and State 

grantees. 

National grantees are able to identify and disseminate best practices across States and local regions. We are able to partner with 

national corporations and employer associations, national social 

service agencies, and training providers. 

Our State agency partners coordinate all Title V services in their 

respective States. That enables SCSEP as a whole, to achieve 

Congress’s vision of equitable distribution. 

Second, Easter Seals also supports the concept of building relationships with One-Stops. Although initially One-Stops were hesitant to work with us, we have found that by educating managers 

on the benefits of collaboration, they have become valuable training 

sites. Many One-Stops have even hired our participants as core 

service providers in permanent jobs. 

When SCSEP participants are co-located in One-Stops, they become onsite advocates for other older job seekers, using their expertise as peers in guiding seniors through the system. 

Third, allowing us to continue providing services to those 55 and 

above remains essential. Over half of SCSEP participants this past 

program year were between the ages of 55 and 64. 

In addition to being low income, many have poor work histories, 

undiagnosed disabilities, and limited education, and they are not 

eligible for programs such as Social Security or Medicare. SCSEP 

is designed and intended to meet these individual needs in unique 

and effective ways. 

Last, Section 502(a)(1) of Title V establishes two unique, yet 

interrelated purposes for SCSEP—community service and unsubsidized employment. Department of Labor reports that in the program year 2004, SCSEP participants provided in excess of 46 million hours of community service. Those hours translate to over 

$230 million of wages earned for real work, supporting our Nation’s 

public and private nonprofit sectors. 

Community service supports the Act’s overall principles of independence, socialization, and community engagement for seniors. 

Unsubsidized employment offers better wages and possible fringe 

benefits, enabling participants to find meaningful jobs and become 

self-sufficient. We believe that the current structure allows us to 

achieve both of these goals, meeting the original intent of Congress. 

In conclusion, I would like to tell you the story of Ms. Gloria 

Mabry. She is a current SCSEP participant from Mobile, AL. Ms. 

Mabry, who is visually impaired, was referred to us by the State 

vocational rehabilitation agency this past December. 

Although she earned her degree in gerontology as a young adult, 

she never had the opportunity to work in her field. The only jobs 

ever offered to her consisted of low-skill tasks, like assembling 

brooms. 

Ms. Mabry’s unique background was recognized, and she was 

placed at a local senior center. She now works in the Grandfriends 

Program, training as an activity aide, a role that has rekindled the 

energy and desire Ms. Mabry felt so many years ago when she received her degree. 

Her confidence has been boosted, and her colleagues describe her 

as ‘‘blossoming.’’ I am happy to tell you that the prospect looks very 

78

good for Ms. Mabry to be hired this summer as a full-time activities director in the same host agency. 

Ms. Mabry is just one of thousands of seniors whose lives are 

better because of SCSEP. We are honored to be a part of her story, 

as well as many other participants who have come through our 

doors. 

On behalf of Easter Seals, I again would like to thank you for 

inviting us to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Salter follows:]

79


28922.059
80


28922.060
81


28922.061
82


28922.062
83


28922.063
84


28922.064
85


28922.065
86


28922.066
87


28922.067
88


28922.068
89

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Carol. Thanks for all the great work 

of Easter Seals. You have got some very valuable insights for us. 

Just so the witnesses and the audience know, there is a vote 

going on. Senator Kohl will come back, and then I will go vote. 

But in the event that we don’t want you to feel short-circuited 

if we don’t get all our questions asked, we may submit questions 

for written responses because we need to hear what you are seeing 

on the ground and how we can better improve this important program. 

Melinda, I am happy to tell you on the record that Betsy is terrific, and you can be proud of her. But we look forward now to your 

testimony. 

Ms. ADAMS. Betsy is a terrific niece. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, she is. I am sure. 

STATEMENT OF MELINDA M. ADAMS, STATE–WIDE OLDER 

WORKER COORDINATOR, IDAHO COMMISSION ON AGING, 

BOISE, ID 

Ms. ADAMS. Chairman Smith and members of the Special Committee on Aging, good morning. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

I represent the Idaho Commission on Aging, which is our State 

unit on aging. We are responsible for all Older Americans Act and 

State-funded services for older Idahoans. 

I serve as staff to Governor Kempthorne’s State Workforce Council, am on the One-Stop Career System Leadership Team, and have 

administered Idaho’s Title V program for the past 21 years. 

We hold the Title V program in high regard for the unique population it serves, for the economic opportunities it affords, and for 

the vital community service it provides. 

In the past, our State Title V program, which serves the rural 

stretches of the State, has been very effective. To illustrate, the 

U.S. Department of Labor ranked Idaho’s program first in the Nation 7 of the past 15 years for success in placing seniors in jobs. 

However, since the U.S. Department of Labor initiated policy and 

eligibility revisions, our placement rate has decreased from 58 percent to 26 percent. Enrollments have decreased by 28 percent, and 

the number of community service hours has declined by 46 percent 

from 52,000 to 28,000 hours. 

The negative impact of the policy changes appears significantly 

greater in rural areas. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the predicament of having to return unspent funds to the Department of 

Labor while, at the same time, turning away low-income seniors in 

dire need of work experience and training. 

Why is that? In large part, our agricultural base and seasonal 

economy, coupled with the frontier spirit of taking any short-term 

job just to put food on the table, make many older people ineligible 

because any part-time or short-term employment is prohibited. 

A case in point. Our Title V participants were unable to take a 

1-weekend job delivering telephone books to rural communities because the short-term job would render them ineligible for the program. 

Moreover, the cost structure of the program does not acknowledge the higher costs of providing services where towns are far 

90

from each other, and the lack of public transportation severely limits options available to participants. 

For these reasons, we propose the creation of a ‘‘Frontier Section’’ 

within Title V of the Older Americans Act. The ‘‘Frontier Section’’ 

would allow each Governor to designate as ‘‘Frontier’’ planning and 

service areas where there is a majority of frontier counties. 

For States having 80 percent or more of planning and service 

areas designated as frontier, the entire State could be deemed frontier. Each State could amend income eligibility inclusions and exclusions based on the characteristics of ‘‘Frontier’’ economies. 

Individuals in ‘‘Frontier’’ areas could take occasional short-term 

jobs and remain eligible for Title V, as long as their income at application and recertification remains at or below 125 percent of poverty. The existing cap on enrollee wages and fringe benefits would 

be reduced to 50 percent. This would allow greater use of existing 

grant funds for transportation assistance, distance learning, skill 

training, and front-line staff. 

This proposal is budget neutral. It does not take any money away 

from anyone. What it does is provide both national and State 

grantees the flexibility we need to better serve frontier participants. 

With regard to the U.S. Department of Labor’s reauthorization 

proposal, we oppose raising the age at eligibility from 55 to 65 because that neglects a significant population who are underserved 

by other programs, who are largely ineligible for Social Security, 

and discouraged about their employment future. 

We support formula funding to the Governor and State Unit on 

Aging. We oppose national-level procurement in favor of Statebased open competition. We support the 65 percent cost structure 

revision, but with 50 percent designated for frontier planning and 

service areas. 

We endorse inclusion of underemployment as an eligibility factor, 

as well as the proposal to change income requirements to make 

them uniform with other similar Federal programs. We heartily 

support inclusion of Community Service as a performance measure 

against which program success is judged. 

With reauthorization impending, it is critical to make the right 

changes for the people this program is intended to serve. The Title 

V program is too great to lose. 

With that, I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Adams follows:]

91


28922.069
92


28922.070
93


28922.071
94


28922.072
95

The CHAIRMAN. Melinda, I thank you for what you do in Idaho 

and for your service to this program in that great neighboring 

State of Oregon. 

On an unrelated matter, has Dirk Kempthorne been a good Governor? [Laughter.] 

Ms. ADAMS. Senator Smith, we are very sorry to see him come 

to Washington. Yes, we will miss him. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, he was a great U.S. Senator. Just want 

your opinion, should I vote to confirm him as Secretary of the Interior? 

Ms. ADAMS. I would say yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Well, now onto the matter at hand. Any of 

you can answer this. How has limiting the eligibility for SCSEP affected your ability to run other Older Americans Act programs? 

Anyone have a comment on that? 

Ms. O’NEIL. I think in one way, we are enrolling far more troubled, far more difficult clients in a much higher percentage of our 

enrollees. Wherever possible, we are assuming them and providing 

other Older American Act services to them and to their families. 

I am really pleased that we are serving them in those ways. 

Administratively, the difficulties with the data system, the 

changes in the reporting structure, the whole problems with the 

performance measures has been a real burden. So, we are diverting 

what limited administrative costs, staff, monies we have not only 

from the program, but from other resources within the agency in 

order to support that part of the system. 

We have spent a lot of time, our information technology staff has 

spent a lot of time trying to work with the data system. So it is 

in that regard that the pressure has been most difficult. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else have a comment different than 

that? 

Ms. SALTER. Well, we don’t run any other programs. But I can 

tell you some of the things that we have heard and some of the 

things that we experience at the local level. 

One of those is, because of the added pressure to get people into 

unsubsidized employment which is not bad; but at the cost of less 

community service, one of the things that we have to do is use 

their individual employment plans and maybe rotate them out of 

a position so that they can go somewhere else to get new experiences. 

Often, it is other aging programs where the people are going out 

of, and those programs are hurting when we take the individuals 

away from them. They let us know that. 

Ms. O’NEIL. Senator Smith, might I follow up with that? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please do follow up with that. I apologize. I am 

going to go vote and turn the gavel over to my colleague. 

Senator, you can conclude the hearing, if you would like, after 

your questions. I will likely have some written follow-up questions. 

Thank you so very much, all of you. You have contributed measurably to our hearing today. 

Ms. O’NEIL. A critical point in terms of the impact on other programs. One of the areas that we have liked to place appropriate enrollees has been working in our system, and we have hired many 

of them. 

96

Because we are now enrolling a much higher percentage of people who have criminal backgrounds and very difficult backgrounds, 

we are not able to place—just in terms of the protection necessary, 

we are not able to place them in situations in which the enrollees 

would be working with vulnerable adults. We are not able to place 

them with the sheriff’s office because they will not accept people 

who have criminal backgrounds. 

It really has shifted our ability, both in terms of community service, but it has required us to work very hard to find a whole new 

set of community placements. 

Ms. ADAMS. If I might add, the Title V program provides valuable infrastructure support to our aging network in Idaho, to the 

area agencies on aging, and all the services they provide, especially 

to frail homebound. 

As I indicated earlier, in Idaho, with these new eligibility requirements, the number of community service hours has dropped 

from 52,000 to 28,000 hours in just 1 year. That has a serious impact on the support this program provides via Title V enrollees 

doing data entry for the Adult Protective Service Program, seniors 

delivering meals to frail homebound, seniors working as educational aides in Head Start and in our schools, and seniors working at the Red Cross. 

You can see the dramatic effect that these eligibility policies are 

having on our communities and aging services. 

Senator KOHL [presiding]. Ms. Salter, according to the AARP, in 

2004, the national sponsors provided over 40 million hours of community service with an estimated value of more than $680 million. 

That value far exceeds the program’s cost of $432 million. 

How would Labor’s proposal affect the community service opportunities of participants, and why should that be of concern? 

Ms. SALTER. I think it affects it in a couple of different ways. One 

is lowering the requirement for tracking community service hours. 

Right now, DOL is not even measuring how many community service hours that we provide. They do collect that information, but it 

is with the emphasis on employment and making the employment 

goals. It de-emphasizes the community service. 

What we do is move those individuals out of those situations 

where they are providing those services. About half of our host 

agencies are in the sector supporting the other types of older worker programs. Once we start moving people out, we want to find appropriate people to move back in. Sometimes that leaves large 

gaps. 

I think that the Department of Labor’s proposal would significantly de-emphasize the good work that people are doing in community service. 

Senator KOHL. Ms. O’Neil, in your written testimony, you say 

that implementing changes to your program has been costly in 

terms of both productivity and employee and participant morale. 

You also noted that you are still struggling to operate smoothly in 

the face of ongoing changes in the program. 

Would you tell us what effect further changes would have on 

your program? 

Ms. O’NEIL. Well, it would exacerbate it. I think that with the 

changes—when the program is required to make a change, there is 

97

a learning curve. The staff, we must develop new forms. We have 

to develop new data entry systems. We have to develop new strategies for recruitment for training because the nature of the trainee 

has changed. 

The changes have—it wasn’t that they just changed in 2004. It 

was that they changed in 2004 and then have been modified kind 

of on an unexpected ongoing basis since then. So, we are constantly 

kind of rethinking what we are doing. 

We need a chance to figure out how to really work with the existing system and settle into it and refine and modify and sharpen recruitment, training, follow-up strategies. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, one of the things we are having 

to do is figure out ways to work with unsubsidized employers to get 

them to do post hiring reporting. They don’t want to do that. You 

know, they have never been involved in a Government program. 

They just hired somebody. 

We need to figure out how to create those relationships and how 

to improve to do that. There is a myriad of those kinds of situations. We need to have a chance to settle in and operate a program. 

Staff actually get confused about what is the rule today. It was 

‘‘I know it was something yesterday. It is something today. What 

is it?’’ So if we can settle in and operate smoothly, then staff morale is improved, and our effectiveness increases. 

But from your perspective, I would think, more importantly, you 

can see the impact of the system you have designed and that you 

have legislated. Where it is continually in a flux and we are not 

quite sure where we are functioning, you know, you can’t get good 

data from us because we are not performing at our most effective. 

Senator KOHL. Good answer. 

Ms. Adams, you stated that because Labor has restricted who is 

eligible for SCSEP, your agency is in the position of having to return unspent funds at the same time that you are turning away 

low-income seniors who need help, but don’t fit the restrictive criteria. 

Wouldn’t Labor’s proposal for reauthorization make this problem 

even worse? How can we make sure that the money we appropriate 

for this program truly does find its way to the people whom it is 

designed to help? 

Ms. ADAMS. The eligibility criteria must be revised, or we will 

continue to be unable to serve seniors who, as I said earlier, desperately need this program. At the very least, I know our Idaho 

Commission on Aging requested that the previous eligibility criteria, those that were in place before the 2000 amendments, be reinstated. 

We have to look at exclusion of a portion of Social Security. 

Underemployment must be restored as an eligibility factor. We are 

losing so many people, turning them away because of a 4-hour a 

week job or as my colleague mentioned, because of a baby-sitting 

job on a Saturday. 

Unemployment Benefits is another issue. I think it is very important that we exclude Unemployment Insurance Benefits when we 

determine eligibility for this program. There are huge disparities 

between how income is counted for the purpose of the Title V proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:01 Aug 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\28922.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
98

gram and how it is counted for the purposes of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program. 

For example, in WIA, 100 percent of Social Security is excluded. 

In Title V, 100 percent is included. In WIA, 100 percent of UI—

unemployment insurance—payments are excluded. In Title V, 100 

percent of unemployment insurance payments are included. 

WIA excludes SSDI. Title V includes it. In WIA, underemployed 

individuals are eligible. In Title V, underemployed individuals are 

not eligible. In WIA, the eligibility threshold—this varies State by 

State—is 200 percent of poverty. In Title V, it is 125 percent of 

poverty. WIA includes Workers’ Compensation payments. Title V 

excludes it. 

I urge the Department of Labor and Congress and all grantees 

and States to take a hard look at what eligibility criteria makes 

sense for the people this program should be serving. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Any other comments members of the panel would like to make? 

Ms. SALTER. I would like to give one example of a participant 

that we have up in Arizona in Yavapai County, a very rural part 

of Arizona. 

She has been diagnosed as morbidly obese. She is a diabetic. She 

uses a walker. She has to carry her oxygen tank around with her. 

There are no job openings in her town, and there are actually no 

other host agencies in her town either. 

With the implementation of the suggested changes from the Department of Labor, this person would have to be sent home. She 

would have to be put out of the program because she won’t ever 

become employed. Well, chances are very slight that she would ever 

become employed. 

Because of that and because of her lack of the little bit of income 

that she gets from the stipend from her training, she would probably have to go into assisted living and couldn’t continue living on 

her own. 

So I think that keeping the emphasis on community service as 

well as unsubsidized employment is very important. 

Senator KOHL. That is a good comment. 

Ms. O’Neil. 

Ms. O’NEIL. I just want to say thank you very much for your interest in this issue. It is an important one. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you so much. 

It is very important, and your testimony has been very helpful 

in trying to figure out what works and doesn’t work and what 

needs to be done. 

So we thank you all for coming, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ