[Senate Hearing 109-654]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-804 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
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
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, Chairman
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
BILL FRIST, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
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 BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
officio) (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)
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
percent 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.
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:
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 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 Secretary 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 One-Stop 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 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-the-ground 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?
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 believe 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
state-by-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 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.
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 on-the-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 Internet-based 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 a national grantee to effectively manage the program
and to engage with the One-Stop 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, for-profit 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.
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
Metro-
Detroit 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 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 self-
imposed 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
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.
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.
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 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 re-competition 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 workers. 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 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
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. 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 that dissuade
one-stops from providing intensive services to workers seeking part-
time employment, which include many SCSEP participants and other older
workers.
additional recommendations
Competition should only be conducted when grantees do not meet
performance measures.
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 assistance. 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 follow-through, 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
communities\1\
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 faith-based
organizations to provide vital public services that would not otherwise
be available to other needy seniors, children, and the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following statement was adopted at a meeting held January
10, 2006, of the 13 national grantees funded by the U.S. Department of
Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, research-
validated, 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 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 national-level 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 One-Stops, 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.
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 health-related, 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 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.]
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.
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.
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
low-income 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 centers, 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.
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.
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.
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
inflation. 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.
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 One-Stop 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 Wagner-
Peyser program job seekers.
Because only 1 percent of the eligible population can be served by
SCSEP, One-Stop 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.
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 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 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. 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 Wagner-Peyser
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 WIA Dislocated
Program Workers Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Exiters........................... 13,544 21,626
Core Services Only.................... 2,844 (21%) 3,460 (16%)
Core and Intensive Services, No 5,418 (40% 8,434 (39%)
Training.............................
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?
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.
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 African-American 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 African-American 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 non-
minority 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.
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.
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-to-serve, 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 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.
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 start-ups, 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 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.
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 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, 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 faith-based 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 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.]