Title III, Older Americans Act: Administration on Aging Funding Method
Underfunds High-Elderly-Growth States (Letter Report, 06/30/2000,
GAO/HEHS-00-107).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Administration on
Aging's (AOA) method for distributing Older Americans Act title III
grants, focusing on the: (1) extent to which AOA's distribution of
funding differs from the distribution that would take place if funds
were allocated according to the statute; and (2) effect of AOA's funding
distribution method on states with more rapidly growing elderly
populations.
GAO noted that: (1) the AOA procedure for distributing title III funds
results in unequal funding per elderly person across states to a much
greater degree than would be the result using the statutory formula; (2)
for example, using AOA's approach, Arizona's fiscal year (FY) 2000
funding per elderly person is 33 percent less than Iowa's, while strict
adherence to the statute would result in a 5-percent difference; (3)
moreover, under the AOA procedure, most states with above-average growth
in number of elderly residents received less funding than called for by
the statute; (4) for example, for FY 2000, Florida received $6.8 million
less, California, $3.8 million less, Texas, $3.7 million less, and
Arizona, $3.2 million less; (5) in total, using the statutory rather
than the AOA method would redirect $27 million of Older Americans Act
title III FY 2000 state allotment funds (3.3 percent) to states that
have experienced above-average growth in their elderly populations; and
(6) when GAO first reported on this issue in 1994, the amount that would
have been redirected using the statutory method in FY 1993 would have
been $17 million (2.2 percent of that year's title III allotments).
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-00-107
TITLE: Title III, Older Americans Act: Administration on Aging
Funding Method Underfunds High-Elderly-Growth States
DATE: 06/30/2000
SUBJECT: Aid for the elderly
Elderly persons
Appropriated funds
Formula grants
State-administered programs
Grant administration
Grants to states
IDENTIFIER: Title III Challenge Grant
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/HEHS-00-107
Appendix I: Comparison of the Funding Allotment Steps Described
in the Statute With Those of AOA's Method
14
Appendix II: Title III Funding per Elderly Person Using Statutory
and AOA Methods of Allocation, Fiscal Year 2000
15
Appendix III: In Fiscal Year 2000, AOA Method Underfunded Most
States With Above-Average Elderly Population
Growth
17
Appendix IV: Over- and Underfunding Resulting From Use of the
AOA Method, Fiscal Years 1993 and 2000
19
Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Health and
Human Services
21
Figure 1: States Under- and Overfunded by AOA's Method 8
Figure 2: Over- and Underfunding Under AOA's Method
in States With Fast- and Slow-Growing Elderly Populations, Fiscal Years 1993
and 2000 10
AOA Administration on Aging
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
Health, Education, and
Human Services Division
B-285994
June 30, 2000
The Honorable Mike DeWine
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aging
Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Title III of the Older Americans Act is intended to assist elderly Americans
by removing barriers to independent living and adding to a continuum of care
for vulnerable individuals. Administered by the Administration on Aging
(AOA) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), title III
authorizes support programs such as congregate, or group, and in-home meals;
transportation; and housekeeping services. In fiscal year 2000, a total of
$810 million in title III grants was distributed among states and U.S.
territories.1
Previously, we reported that the method used by AOA to distribute title III
funding was not consistent with statutory requirements because it failed to
provide grants that were proportional to the elderly populations of those
states not guaranteed a minimum level of funding.2 In commenting on that
report, AOA asserted that its distribution procedures were based on a valid
interpretation of the statute. Our analysis of the legislative history,
however, does not support AOA's interpretation.
In response to your January 10, 2000, request that we update the analysis in
our previous report, this report describes (1) the extent to which AOA's
distribution of funding differs from the distribution that would take place
if funds were allocated according to the statute and (2) the effect of AOA's
funding distribution method on states with more rapidly growing elderly
populations.
To estimate the effects of AOA's method on the distribution of funds, we
computed title III grant amounts using the allocation method specified by
the statute and then compared the resulting distribution of funds with that
computed by AOA for fiscal year 2000. We then compared funding for those
states with above-average growth in their elderly populations3 under the
alternative allocation methods. We conducted our work from January through
June 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards, with the exception that we did not verify data obtained in
electronic format from AOA.
The AOA procedure for distributing title III funds results in unequal
funding per elderly person across states to a much greater degree than would
be the result using the statutory formula. For example, using AOA's
approach, Arizona's fiscal year 2000 funding per elderly person is 33
percent less than Iowa's, while strict adherence to the statute would result
in a 5-percent difference. Moreover, under the AOA procedure, most states
with above-average growth in number of elderly residents received less
funding than called for by the statute. For example, for fiscal year 2000,
Florida received $6.8 million less; California, $3.8 million less; Texas,
$3.7 million less; and Arizona, $3.2 million less. In total, using the
statutory rather than the AOA method would redirect $27 million of Older
Americans Act title III fiscal year 2000 state allotment funds (3.3 percent)
to states that have experienced above-average growth in their elderly
populations. When we first reported on this issue in 1994, the amount that
would have been redirected using the statutory method in fiscal year 1993
would have been $17 million (2.2 percent of that year's title III
allotments).
We suggest that if the Congress wants to explicitly ensure that priority be
given to current data on states' elderly populations in distributing title
III grant funds, it could amend the statute to require that funds be
distributed in that way. HHS concurs with this suggestion.
Under section 304 of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C.
3024), title III funds are to be distributed among states in proportion to
the most current data on the population aged 60 and older, which would yield
equal funding across states per person aged 60 and older. This requirement,
however, is subject to two conditions: first, no state is to receive less
than it received in fiscal year 1987 (a "hold-harmless" provision), and
second, no state is to receive less than 0.5 percent of funds available for
distribution (a small-state minimum provision).4 These requirements could be
satisfied by
� first, distributing available funding among states on the basis of the
current population aged 60 and older;
� next, increasing funding for those states that would otherwise receive
less than their fiscal year 1987 amount or whose share would fall below the
0.5-percent minimum; and
� finally, proportionally reducing the funding of all other states to
conform with the total amount to be distributed.
Rather than distributing funding on the basis of current population data in
the first step, AOA gives priority to the hold-harmless provision. As a
consequence, each state first receives its 1987 grant amount, which was
determined partly on the basis of 1985 population estimates. This "base"
allotment represented 85 percent of AOA's total fiscal year 2000 grants for
title III. The remaining 15 percent of funding is then allocated on the
basis of current population statistics (for fiscal year 2000, the 1998
elderly population of states was the most current available). Then, the
hold-harmless base allotment and the allotment based on current population
are summed for each state. When that sum is less than 0.5 percent of overall
title III funding, additional funds are provided to raise the funding level
to the small-state minimum.5 These additional funds are obtained by
proportionally reducing the current population formula amounts allotted to
those states whose funding is above the 0.5-percent minimum. (The
hold-harmless amounts for each state are not proportionally reduced).
Appendix
I contains a more detailed comparison of AOA's distribution process with
that of the statute.
AOA distributed title III funding in accordance with the statute until it
changed its method of calculating grant amounts in 1984. The present
formula, which subordinates the importance of the states' proportions of the
elderly to the hold-harmless amounts, is based solely on a provision in the
1984 amendment to the act that moved the hold-harmless requirement from one
paragraph to another. However, this change is designated in the law as a
"technical amendment," and we believe the only purpose of the change was to
make the allotment provision in section 3024 consistent with a change to
another section dealing with administrative expenses.
Moreover, the absence of any discussion of a change to the allotment formula
in the history of the 1984 amendment suggests that the amendment was not
intended to have the effect that results from AOA's method. Intentionally
reversing the practice in use since 1973 to de-emphasize the role of the
elderly population in allotting funds among the states would have been an
important change from the states' viewpoint--one that would have been
expected to be the subject of debate and discussion and would have been
documented in the record. However, the 1984 change was made without any
debate or discussion.
In commenting on our earlier report, agency officials asserted that AOA's
interpretation of section 304 and AOA's revised method of distributing title
III funds are consistent with the law. But these officials also acknowledged
that first distributing funds on the basis of current population data, as
specified in the statute, would in fact yield a distribution of funds more
proportional to each state's elderly population. Nevertheless, they stated
that AOA would continue its current distribution method unless the Congress
directed otherwise.
States Than the Statutory Method Would
Because the AOA method applies the hold-harmless provision first, rather
than distributing funding in proportion to current elderly population as a
first step, some states receive more funding and others receive less than if
the method in the statute was used. The gap in funding per elderly person
can be large. For example, Arizona's funding per elderly person is 33
percent less than Iowa's under the AOA method. Under this method, no two
states receive the same funding per elderly person, as would be expected if
grant funding were simply proportional to elderly population. Under the
statutory method, which calls for the use of current population data as the
first step in allocating title III funds, Arizona's grant would be just 5
percent less than Iowa's.6 Appendix II compares funding per elderly person
under the two methods for all states.
Figure 1 shows the funding effects on the states using AOA's allocation
method. AOA's distribution method underfunded 10 states by more than $1
million each in fiscal year 2000 (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia)
and overfunded 7 others by more than $1 million (Illinois, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). States underfunded
by AOA's method tend to be in the southern part of the country. (App. III
shows amounts by which individual states were under- and overfunded in
fiscal year 2000.)
on States With Above-Average Growth in Their Elderly Populations
AOA's method for distributing funding has the additional effect of making
states' allotments less sensitive to recent changes in the elderly
population. Among the 23 states whose elderly populations grew faster than
average from 1985 to 1998,7 15 received less funding under the AOA method in
fiscal year 2000 than they would have received under the statutory method.
Nationwide, the population aged 60 and older grew 14 percent between 1985
and 1998. These changes ranged from an increase of 100 percent (that is, a
doubling in size) in Nevada to a decline of 11 percent in the District of
Columbia. AOA's method, which applies the hold-harmless provision first,
lessens the effect of changes in states' elderly populations on fund
distribution. The result is that the AOA method underfunds most states with
above-average growth in their elderly populations, as compared with those
states with below-average growth.8 (See app. III.)
Moreover, the adverse effect of AOA's allocation method on states with
above-average growth in their elderly populations has increased over time.
Using the statutory method would have redirected $17 million in fiscal year
1993 (2.2 percent of the Older Americans Act's title III allotments for
states that year); that figure would have risen to $27 million in fiscal
year 2000 (3.3 percent of title III allotments that year). Similarly, the
states with less rapidly growing elderly populations have become
increasingly overfunded, as shown in figure 2. The state-by-state
differences in funding under the two methods in 1993 and 2000 are shown in
appendix IV.
Note: Fast-growing states are those with above-average growth from 1985 to
1998 in their populations aged 60 and older; slow-growing states are those
with below-average growth in that population over the same period.
AOA's method for distributing title III funds adversely affects states with
more rapidly growing elderly populations. Because it does not give priority
to current population data, these states receive smaller allotments than
they would receive if the agency used the statutory method for allocating
funds. The underfunding of states with above-average growth in their elderly
population has worsened since we first reported on the problem in 1994.
If the Congress wants to ensure that current population data on elderly
populations are the primary factor used in determining how grant funds under
title III of the Older Americans Act are to be distributed among states, it
should consider stipulating this by amending the statute. Such an amendment
could specify that title III allotments be computed first on the basis of
states' current shares of the elderly population. Then, any state allotments
that do not meet the hold-harmless or small-state minimum percentage share
would be increased, while allotments of all other states would be
proportionally reduced as necessary to fund the statutory minimums.
HHS officials agreed with our matters for congressional consideration. They
said that, if the Congress seeks to ensure that current population data on
the distribution of the elderly population are the primary factor used in
determining how grant funds under title III of the Older Americans Act are
to be distributed among states, it should consider stipulating this by
amending the statute. HHS officials also restated their view that AOA's
method of allocating funds is a valid interpretation of the statute and
should be given deference. Further, because AOA views its interpretation of
the provision at issue to be just as consistent with the statute as ours,
HHS officials objected to our application of the term "statutory method" to
our interpretation. We continue to believe that AOA's current practice of
applying the hold-harmless provision first is inconsistent with the statute.
As discussed in the report, we believe that first applying current
elderly-population data when allocating funds would be in accord with the
law. The full text of the agency comments appears in appendix V.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its content
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable
Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Honorable
Jeanette C. Takamura, Assistant Secretary of the Administration on Aging;
appropriate congressional committees and subcommittees; and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further
assistance, please call Jerry Fastrup at (202) 512-7211 or me at (202)
512-7114. Robert Dinkelmeyer and Richard Horte made major contributions to
this report.
Sincerely yours,
Kathryn G. Allen
Associate Director, Health Financing
and Public Health Issues
Comparison of the Funding Allotment Steps Described in the Statute With
Those of AOA's Method
Statute AOA method Remarks
The fiscal year 1987
allotments were
(1) Each state receives calculated on the basis
an amount equal to its of the 1985 population
1987 allotment, called aged 60 and older. Title
the "hold-harmless" III funding for 1987
amount. represents 85 percent of
the amount available in
fiscal year 2000.
(2) The remaining funds
are distributed among Only 15 percent of
states in proportion to current title III
the number of individuals funding is allotted on
aged 60 or older in each the basis of current
state, as derived from (1998) population data.
current population data.
(1) Each state's
initial allotment is
the result of (3) Each state's initial
distributing the amount allotment is the sum of In contrast to AOA's
available for state the 1987 allotment (step method, the statute
programs in proportion 1) plus the amount calls for all available
to the number of derived using a funds to be distributed
individuals aged 60 or population-based formula on the basis of current
older in each state, as (step 2). population data.
derived from current
population data.
(2) If a state's
initial allotment is
below its 1987 funding
level (the Under the statute,
hold-harmless (4) If a state's initial states receive the
provision) or if its allotment is below 0.5 largest of the
share of funding is percent of the title III following: their 1987
below 0.5 percent of total, the state's funding amount, 0.5
the title III total allotment is increased to percent of available
(the small-state 0.5 percent of the total. funds, or the amount
minimum), the state's calculated using the
allotment is increased formula.
to reflect the larger
of these two amounts.
(3) Allotments for (5) For states not
states not affected by affected by the
the hold-harmless 0.5-percent minimum, the Both methods ensure that
provision or the amount allotted on the a state's funding is not
0.5-percent minimum are basis of current proportionally reduced
proportionally reduced population is below either the
to pay the increased proportionally reduced to 0.5-percent minimum or
funding for states that pay for the increased the hold-harmless level.
benefit from these funding for states that
provisions. benefit from the
0.5-percent minimum.
Title III Funding per Elderly Person Using Statutory and AOA Methods of
Allocation, Fiscal Year 2000
State Statutory method AOA method
Alabama $17.10 $17.40
Alaska 78.20a 78.20a
Arizona 17.23 13.25
Arkansas 17.43b 18.77
California 17.10 16.29
Colorado 17.10 14.74
Connecticut 17.58b 18.98
Delaware 32.55a 32.55a
District of Columbia 43.10a 43.10a
Florida 17.10 15.11
Georgia 17.10 15.88
Hawaii 19.92a 20.44c
Idaho 21.63a 22.09c
Illinois 17.60b 18.99
Indiana 17.10 17.98
Iowa 18.18b 19.65
Kansas 17.89b 19.32
Kentucky 17.15b 18.20
Louisiana 17.10 17.95
Maine 18.10a 19.12c
Maryland 17.10 16.56
Massachusetts 17.89b 19.33
Michigan 17.10 17.54
Minnesota 17.16b 18.24
Mississippi 17.39b 18.69
Missouri 17.46b 18.82
Montana 25.87a 26.12c
Nebraska 18.39b 19.88
Nevada 17.10 15.77
New Hampshire 22.36a 22.85c
New Jersey 17.25b 18.41
New Mexico 16.79 16.02
New York 18.22b 19.69
North Carolina 17.10 15.42
North Dakota 34.19a 34.20c
Ohio 17.10 18.10
Oklahoma 17.22b 18.35
Oregon 17.10 16.62
Pennsylvania 17.60b 19.00
Rhode Island 21.45a 22.09c
South Carolina 17.10 15.32
South Dakota 30.02a 30.15c
Tennessee 17.10 17.06
Texas 17.10 15.75
Utah 17.04 17.27
Vermont 42.97a 42.97a
Virginia 17.10 15.97
Washington 17.10 15.94
West Virginia 18.03b 19.48
Wisconsin 17.18b 18.28
Wyoming 53.80a 53.80a
American Samoa 469.78b,c 471.79c
Guam 231.16a 231.16a
Northern Marianas 414.34b,c 414.91c
Puerto Rico 17.10 14.75
Virgin Islands 209.58a 209.58a
National average 17.90 17.90
aThis state is subject to a small-state minimum for all component programs.
bThis state is subject to a hold-harmless minimum for one or more component
programs.
cThis state is subject to a small-state minimum for some component programs.
In Fiscal Year 2000, AOA Method Underfunded Most States With Above-Average
Elderly Population Growth
Change in
population Allotment Overfunding/underfunding
Allotment
State aged 60 and using using AOA
older, 1985 statutory
to 1998 method method Amount Percentage
(percentage)
States with above-average elderly population growth
Nevada 100.1 $4,663,791 $4,300,150 -$363,641 -7.8
Alaskaa 75.8 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0
Arizona 48.5 13,757,194 10,577,987 -3,179,207 -23.1
Hawaiia 39.6 4,048,585 4,154,953 106,368 2.6
Colorado 35.5 9,466,691 8,155,465 -1,311,226 -13.9
Utahb 35.3 4,192,590 4,248,979 56,389 1.3
New Mexico 34.9 4,455,159 4,250,466 -204,693 -4.6
South Carolina28.0 10,647,870 9,535,061 -1,112,809 -10.5
Florida 27.4 58,109,935 51,334,691 -6,775,244 -11.7
North Carolina26.7 21,400,865 19,295,387 -2,105,478 -9.8
Delawarea 25.6 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0
Idahoa 25.5 4,048,585 4,134,706 86,121 2.1
Texas 24.9 46,298,862 42,627,208 -3,671,654 -7.9
Georgia 24.4 17,440,732 16,191,749 -1,248,983 -7.2
Washington 22.7 14,566,063 13,576,287 -989,776 -6.8
Virginia 22.1 17,356,015 16,200,305 -1,155,710 -6.7
Wyominga 20.6 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0
California 19.6 79,517,589 75,749,046 -3,768,543 -4.7
Oregon 19.0 9,586,987 9,314,214 -272,773 -2.8
Montanaa 17.8 4,048,585 4,087,033 38,448 0.9
Maryland 17.3 13,181,102 12,765,236 -415,866 -3.2
Tennessee 15.4 15,497,517 15,453,478 -44,039 -0.3
New Hampshirea15.2 4,048,585 4,136,901 88,316 2.2
States with below-average elderly population growth
Alabama 13.5 12,865,115 13,084,901 219,786 1.7
Vermonta 11.9 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0
Michigan 11.1 27,153,675 27,852,605 698,930 2.6
Louisiana 10.5 11,565,880 12,140,815 574,935 5.0
Minnesota 9.0 12,931,265 13,740,777 809,512 6.3
Kentucky 8.8 11,268,665 11,964,039 695,374 6.2
Indiana 8.6 16,580,363 17,428,748 848,385 5.1
Mainea 8.6 4,048,585 4,275,885 227,300 5.6
Wisconsin 8.2 15,314,422 16,290,204 975,782 6.4
Mississippi 8.0 7,758,023 8,338,888 580,865 7.5
Oklahoma 7.9 10,232,430 10,904,983 672,553 6.6
Ohio 7.5 33,284,956 35,228,933 1,943,977 5.8
Arkansas 6.8 8,283,533 8,920,040 636,507 7.7
New Jersey 5.5 24,507,207 26,159,402 1,652,195 6.7
Missouri 4.9 16,820,575 18,136,246 1,315,671 7.8
South Dakotaa 4.7 4,048,585 4,065,136 16,551 0.4
Kansas 3.8 8,093,456 8,741,836 648,380 8.0
Illinois 3.7 34,276,664 37,000,570 2,723,906 7.9
Nebraska 3.1 5,402,193 5,840,857 438,664 8.1
Connecticut 3.1 10,394,132 11,219,859 825,727 7.9
North Dakotaa 2.9 4,048,585 4,050,034 1,449 0
West Virginia 2.5 6,536,037 7,061,681 525,644 8.0
Pennsylvania 2.4 42,193,866 45,547,641 3,353,775 7.9
Massachusetts 1.7 19,353,657 20,905,177 1,551,520 8.0
Iowa 1.7 10,036,189 10,846,991 810,802 8.1
New York 0.3 57,191,446 61,818,656 4,627,210 8.1
Rhode Islanda -1.1 4,048,585 4,169,230 120,645 3.0
District of
Columbiaa -11.3 4,048,585 4,048,585 0 0
Recipients without comparable population data for 1985 and 1998
American
Samoaa c 1,190,885 1,195,975 5,090 0.4
Guama c 2,024,294 2,024,294 0 0
Northern
Marianasa c 511,292 511,999 707 0.1
Puerto Rico c 9,151,919 7,894,077 -1,257,842 -13.7
Virgin
Islandsa c 2,024,294 2,024,294 0 0
National
average/total 13.6c $809,717,000 $809,717,000
aAllotments of states subject to the 0.5-percent minimum are not determined
by their population aged 60 years and older. Hence, the use of the AOA
method instead of the statutory method generally does not change their
funding.
bAlthough Utah is a high-growth state, it is currently overfunded because it
benefited from the 0.5-percent minimum in 1987, which resulted in a high
hold-harmless amount.
c1985 data for the population aged 60 and older are unavailable for the
outlying areas and therefore are not included in the national average.
Over- and Underfunding Resulting From Use of the AOA Method, Fiscal Years
1993 and 2000
Amount over- or
underfundeda
State Population change
(percentage)b Fiscal year Fiscal year
1993 2000
Not affected by the
0.5-percent minimum in
fiscal year 2000
Nevada 100.1 $91,785 -$363,641
Arizona 48.5 -1,708,750 -3,179,207
Colorado 35.5 -494,843 -1,311,226
Utah 35.3 151,567 56,389
New Mexico 34.9 87,399 -204,693
South Carolina 28.0 -646,067 -1,112,809
Florida 27.4 -5,936,778 -6,775,244
North Carolina 26.7 -1,316,535 -2,105,478
Texas 24.9 -1,454,608 -3,671,654
Georgia 24.4 -596,290 -1,248,983
Washington 22.7 -748,581 -989,776
Virginia 22.1 -866,452 -1,155,710
California 19.6 -2,771,562 -3,768,543
Oregon 19.0 -227,875 -272,773
Maryland 17.3 -503,563 -415,866
Tennessee 15.4 -12,274 -44,039
Alabama 13.5 113,389 219,786
Michigan 11.1 3,626 698,930
Louisiana 10.5 397,567 574,935
Minnesota 9.0 491,592 809,512
Kentucky 8.8 450,115 695,374
Indiana 8.6 149,612 848,385
Wisconsin 8.2 449,589 975,782
Mississippi 8.0 515,945 580,865
Oklahoma 7.9 577,481 672,553
Ohio 7.5 270,740 1,943,977
Arkansas 6.8 549,550 636,507
New Jersey 5.5 709,603 1,652,195
Missouri 4.9 835,502 1,315,671
Kansas 3.8 573,691 648,380
Illinois 3.7 1,892,426 2,723,906
Nebraska 3.1 528,245 438,664
Connecticut 3.1 398,186 825,727
West Virginia 2.5 509,975 525,644
Pennsylvania 2.4 1,218,074 3,353,775
Massachusetts 1.7 1,325,937 1,551,520
Iowa 1.7 773,505 810,802
New York 0.3 4,374,177 4,627,210
Puerto Rico c -727,245 -1,257,842
Affected by the 0.5-percent minimum in fiscal year 2000d
Alaska 75.8 0 0
Hawaii 39.6 73,919 106,368
Delaware 25.6 0 0
Idaho 25.5 45,650 86,121
Wyoming 20.6 0 0
Montana 17.8 0 38,448
New Hampshire 15.2 69,496 88,316
Vermont 11.9 0 0
Maine 8.6 234,988 227,300
South Dakota 4.7 0 16,551
North Dakota 2.9 0 1,449
Rhode Island -1.1 143,495 120,645
District of Columbia -11.3 0 0
American Samoa c 4,595 5,090
Guam c 0 0
Northern Marianas c 0 0
Virgin Islands c 0 0
National average 13.6c
aPositive numbers signify that the AOA method yields a larger grant amount
than the statutory method. Conversely, negative numbers signify that the AOA
method yields a smaller grant amount than the statutory method.
bPercentage change in the population aged 60 and older between 1985 and
1998.
c1985 data for the population aged 60 and older are unavailable for the
outlying areas and therefore are not included in the national average.
dAllotments of states subject to the 0.5-percent minimum are not determined
by their population aged 60 and older. Hence, the use of the AOA method
instead of the statutory method generally changes their funding relatively
little.
Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services
(201022)
Figure 1: States Under- and Overfunded by AOA's Method 8
Figure 2: Over- and Underfunding Under AOA's Method
in States With Fast- and Slow-Growing Elderly Populations, Fiscal Years 1993
and 2000 10
1. To simplify this discussion, we refer to all grant recipients as states.
2. Older Americans Act: Title III Funds Not Distributed According to Statute
(GAO/HEHS-94-37, Jan. 18, 1994 ).
3. In this report, states with above-average elderly population growth are
those whose percentage change between 1985 and 1998 in the number of people
aged 60 and older exceeded the national average of such population growth.
In the context of state and national elderly population growth, "states"
refers to only the 50 states and the District of Columbia because Puerto
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Islands
lack comparable population data for 1985 and 1998. The Bureau of the Census
is the source of the population data referred to in this report.
4. The hold-harmless and small-state minimums are applied separately for
each of the five Older Americans Act title III programs: (1) supportive
services and centers, (2) congregate nutrition services, (3) home-delivered
nutrition services, (4) in-home services for frail older individuals, and
(5) disease prevention and health promotion services.
5. Instead of 0.5 percent, Guam and the Virgin Islands have a 0.25-percent
minimum, and American Samoa and the Northern Marianas have a 0.0625-percent
minimum.
6. Iowa's grant would be slightly more than Arizona's because Iowa would
benefit from the hold-harmless provision (in step 2), while Arizona would
not.
7. This period was chosen because 1985 population data were used (in part)
to calculate each state's fiscal year 1987 grant amount and, hence, its
hold-harmless amount, and because 1998 population data were used to
calculate fiscal year 2000 grant amounts.
8. The above-average-growth states that were not underfunded in fiscal year
2000 benefited from the 0.5-percent minimum-funding guarantee (Alaska,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Utah, and Wyoming).
*** End of document. ***