Advocates for county aging programs got their way as Congress took time out from its election year maneuvers to pass the five-year overdue Older Americans Act.

The House of Representatives passed the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act (H.R. 782) Oct. 25 by a vote of 405–2. The Senate followed suit on Oct. 26 by a vote of 94–0.

The act, first passed 35 years ago, expired in 1995, and while its programs continued to receive funding through the appropriations process, reauthorization of the act became mired in disagreements over the formula for the Community Service Employment Program (Title V).

At issue: a formula that had nine national groups receiving 78 percent of the title’s appropriations, with states’ receiving the remaining 22 percent. The compromise could mean more money for County Area Agencies on Aging, since states would receive a bigger portion of Title V funds.

Title V compromise
Under the compromise, national advocacy groups would be guaranteed enough funding to provide the same number of jobs as they currently provide for senior citizens. But, any new funding above the FY2000 level would be distributed differently. (The FY2000 funding level is $440 million.)

States would receive 75 percent of the first $35 million above the 2000 level. Any funding above that first $35 million would be allocated evenly between the states and the national contractors.

The compromise also requires the establishment of new performance standards for all Title V grantees and requires the grantees to work with states to ensure that employment positions are distributed equitably within the state. The bill authorizes $475 million for FY2001 and lets future appropriators decide funding levels in the act’s succeeding years, or as legislative language would phrase it “such sums as may be necessary.”

Major Title III changes
Title III of the Older Americans Act makes grants to states and area agencies on aging to coordinate and provide services to the elderly. Roughly one-third of the nation’s area agencies on aging are operated by county governments.

Some of the programs that are funded through Title III include nutrition, supportive services, senior centers, disease prevention and health promotion services. Under the new bill, there will continue to be separate funding streams for the congregate meals program and the in-home meal programs, but transfer authority between the two programs is increased from 30 percent to 40 percent. This change was made to reflect the growing need for in-home meal services as the proportion of the population that is older than 85 continues to grow.

A new program, the National Caregiver Support Program, has been added to Title III. Family caregivers are defined as and adult family member of another individual providing in-home care to an older individual.

Grandparents or other family relatives older than 60 who are the primary caregivers of a minor child are also eligible for services, but may not receive more than 10 percent of the funding. Services that could be provided under this new program include respite care, counseling, assistance in gaining access to services, supplemental services and training. The program requires a 25 percent matching rate. Funds are allocated based on a state’s population aged 70 years or older.

The authorized funding levels for part B (supportive services), part C (congregate nutrition services) and part D (in-home nutrition services) are such sums as may be necessary. The FY2000 funding for these programs is $310 million for supportive services, $374 million for congregate nutrition services, and $147 million for in-home nutrition services.

The authorized funding level for the new caregiver program in FY2001 is $125 million, provided that the aggregate amount for the other three programs does not fall below the FY2000 funding level. In subsequent years the authorized level for the caregiver program changes to such sums as may be necessary. Supporters of the program are optimistic that they will be able to add $125 million to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill for FY2001.

Cost sharing
In addition to the debate over Title V, another issue that had prevented reauthorization was whether states would be allowed to require cost sharing. Under the compromise, states could require cost sharing but not for congregate and home delivered meals, outreach, benefits counseling, case management, abuse prevention, ombudsman services, legal aid, consumer protection, information, and any services delivered through tribal organizations.