Testimony before the House of Representatives Education and the Workforce
Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning
regarding the
Senior Community Service Employment Program authorized in
Title V of the Older Americans Act.

Clayton Fong
Executive Director, National Asian Pacific Center on Aging
Seattle, Washington

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Clayton Fong and I serve as executive director of the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA) headquartered in Seattle, Washington. I am honored and pleased to have an opportunity to share NAPCA’s view on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). Thank you for this opportunity.

NAPCA is the only national organization dedicated to the needs and concerns of Asian and Pacific Island seniors in the U.S. As an organization, we are committed to improving access of our constituents to existing community health and social services for the aged. We serve as one of the ten national SCSEP sponsors. The SCSEP is critically important for our seniors and we would like to see it continue to serve this growing and diverse segment of senior Americans.

During my testimony, I wish to make the following four points. First, the Asian and Pacific Island senior community is among the fastest growing segments of the U.S. population. Second, without a dedicated effort, this segment of the U.S. senior population will continue to be underserved relative to other population segments. Third, cost effective program delivery on a national level can only occur if there is a sufficient number of enrollee positions allocated the national sponsor. And, fourth, performance criteria while essential should be administratively not legislatively determined in order to stand the test of time. Moreover, the criteria needs to be sufficiently flexible to reflect locational differences and macroeconomic trends.

API elders represent a culturally diverse population of at least 26 census-defined Asian and Pacific Islander sub-ethnic groups, some of which have been in the U.S. since the 1850’s, while others have arrived more recently over the past 20 years. Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos and Koreans constitute the largest subgroups. In addition to steady immigration of API’s since the mid 1960’s, the past twenty years saw growth in refugee populations from Southeast Asia -- Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in particular. Each subgroup has distinct language(s) and/or dialects, culture, and social structure. This diversity makes it very difficult for an individual state or county to replicate the infrastructure necessary to reach and serve this rapidly growing group of elders.

API elders are the fastest growing racial group over the age of 60 in the U.S. API elders will have nearly tripled by the year 2010 (from 652,000 in 1990 to 1,889,000) and nearly triple again by 2040 (to 5,263,000). Projections indicate that API elders will account for 6.5% of all U.S. elderly by the year 2050 (6,425,000). From 1990 to 2050, API elders are expected to increase at a rate of nearly 1,000% -- a rate that is even more astonishing when compared to White non-Hispanic elders who are expected to increase during that same time period at a rate of 80%. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993).

While API elders throughout the nation accounted for about 2% of the 31 million adults age 65 and older in 1990, they account for much higher percentages of senior populations in major urban centers. According to 1990 estimates, API elders in San Francisco comprise 36% of the senior population age 65 and older; in Los Angeles County, 8%; in Seattle/King County, 7%; and in New York City, 5%. Even considering the limitations of 1990 figures, the presence of large and diverse populations of API elders in major urban areas have far-reaching implications for service providers within these planning and service areas.

While popular emphasis has focused on the aging of unprecedented numbers of "baby boom generation" adults, little attention has been paid to the "changing face" of our nation’s elders. Policy makers and providers are urged to prepare not only for growth in numbers, but for the increasing ethnic diversity of senior populations.

Given the relatively fixed magnitude of funds allocated to SCSEP in recent years, one would logically expect the rapidly growing API senior population to be underserved. While this is true, the level of underserving is further exacerbated by language and cultural barriers, which tend to further restrict API senior access to SCSEP and other relevant programs.

The language barrier for API seniors is real. Most (80%) API elders speak a language other than English. Census data (1990) indicate that over half of API elders do not speak English well. While an asset in API communities, the language skills needed to interface with other U.S. populations presents challenges for the aging services network and public sector programs.

Further, since over 70% of API elders over 65 legally immigrated to the U.S., it is not surprising that over 30% of API seniors live in households where no adult speaks English. This limits their ability to access, no less obtain, many vital public services.

While we do not have data on the extent API elders are underserved within SCSEP, a recent U.S. Administration on Aging evaluation of the OAA Title III nutrition programs provides a hint as to the magnitude of this underserving. This evaluation shows that API seniors are woefully underserved by both the Congregate and Home Delivered Meals programs authorized by the Older Americans Act. While APA elderly make up 1.56 percent of the eligible elderly population, they make up only .99 percent of the congregate meal participants. API elderly represent the only target group whose program participation is lower than their percentage of the eligible population. Participation by APA elders in home delivered meals is even worse. While APA elderly make up 1.68 percent of the eligible population, they make up only .01 percent of the program participants.

While it is always questionable to extrapolate participation rates across different programs, I submit that without a national sponsor focusing on the API seniors, this segment of the elder population would be underserved. This is not because states and other sponsors do not want to serve our constituents, it is simply because the prominent language and cultural diversity of API seniors make them a difficult group to serve.

NAPCA along with the National Indian Council on Aging (NICOA) are the two smallest national sponsors in terms of allocation of enrollees. Because both programs have a national focus and literally operate in locations across the United States, these programs can only be cost effective if there are a sufficient number of enrollees over which to spread fixed costs of administration and management. If the number of enrollees allocated to these smaller programs fall below this ‘critical mass’ level, program costs per enrollee would make the program impractical.

In any program, publicly or privately funded, it is essential to have standards against which performance is measured. Without such standards, efficient allocation of resources is not likely to occur. SCSEP is no exception. In this context we welcome performance standards but would prefer that they be administratively determined in order to allow necessary flexibility to reflect conditions in different parts of the country or those that serve a certain constituency. For example, a placement rate of 20 percent my be reasonable for an area enjoying strong economic growth but may be unrealistic in other areas with high unemployment. Similarly, seniors face high barriers to employment to begin with, but for some API seniors not fluent in English, job prospects are even more limited until we can provide ESL training.

Performance criteria that only reflects placement rates encourages serving those with the best employment prospects often leaving out those with the greatest need. Performance criteria based on placement alone fails to account for barriers to employment such as language and job opportunities in the local economy. Any balanced performance criteria must also measure how well those with the poorest employment prospects are served. Indeed, we should have accountability to ensure all segments of the senior population continue to be served; particularly minority elders who are best served by national sponsors.

Given the above comments, I respectfully request your consideration of the following ideas as you deliberate the fate of the SCSEP in the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act.

Enable the SCSEP to accommodate both the increasing number of seniors as well as the growing diversity of the senior population. This can best be accomplished by increasing funds for National sponsors (particularly those who serve hard to reach populations such as minorities, low income and rural elders).

Retain language to ensure that the two national sponsors dedicated to serving Native American and Asian Pacific elders will be allocated sufficient funds to support a number of enrollees at least equal to that needed to operate cost-effective community service employment programs.

Include provisions for administratively determined placement goals that reflect regional and/or community employment conditions.

I cannot over emphasize the difference this program has made in helping Asian Pacific elders, help themselves through job training and placement. Additionally, this program is unique in the community service component of its mission. The program has been instrumental in helping the aging network prepare for the graying of our population as well as the changing face of that population. It has also facilitated the development of a linguistically and culturally competent community based infrastructure within the Asian Pacific community through its support of enrollees at host agencies. Finally, the program provides a critical bridge by placing bilingual elders in the aging network to assist thousands of other elders to access much needed programs and services.

For example, a senior center located right in the middle of the largest Cambodian population in the country was unable to reach Cambodian elders until provided the assistance of a bilingual SCSEP enrollee to bridge the language barrier.

In the San Fernando Valley, which I understand includes much of the Chairman’s district, two SCSEP enrollees have provided ESL instruction, citizenship classes and assistance to over 1000 Korean speaking elders who came from throughout the San Fernando Valley. They have helped over 700 Korean elders to realize their dreams of becoming an American citizen.

A former Vice Minister of Commerce in Vietnam was unable to find work in the United States until NAPCA placed him as an enrollee in a mental health center in Long Beach. The center hired him but he states, "I would not have been given the chance had I not been given the opportunity to prove myself as a SCSEP enrollee first".

We serve over 1000 low-income seniors each year. For any senior getting a job is tough but for Asian Pacific elders who face language and cultural barriers, the likelihood of finding a job seems slim to none. With ESL classes and counseling we provide elders with support and most importantly confidence to become full participants in the American dream.

Thank you for letting me share our thoughts about the Senior Community Service Employment Program. It is clearly an important program for seniors and community service organizations. Those of us representing the Asian Pacific Island seniors applaud your interest in the program.