Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References: General Accounting Office (GAO) Report GAO/HEHS-96-4, "Senior Community Service Employment Program Delivery Could Be Improved Through Legislative and Administrative Actions." Background: The GAO Report, described by a member of Congress as "flawed," looked at SCSEP operations in Program Year 1994. Among other things, the Report stated that some State officials "expressed concern about duplicative national sponsor programs in certain areas," providing examples of a northeastern State where nine national sponsors served an area that the State felt to be overserved, and a southern State where two national sponsors were operating in a city along with the State sponsor. The Report noted that the Department endorses an unwritten agreement among the national sponsors -- "to prevent enrollees from different sponsors from working at the same local host agency. The agreement is to help avoid situations in which host agencies or sponsors must explain why enrollees performing the same job tasks are compensated with different benefits and, perhaps, even wages." At a recent meeting of national sponsors, it was agreed that an effort would be undertaken to address the issue of multiple sponsors in a single political jurisdiction. While many sponsors felt that there was no real problem that needed to be addressed, a few felt strongly that the issue was a contentious one that merited action. Therefore, this Bulletin was prepared. Efforts To Be Undertaken: The Department is forming a work group to address this issue. Donald L. Davis, National Director of the Senior Community Service Project for the National Council on the Aging, Inc., has volunteered to chair the work group; Karen Davis of the Division of Older Worker Programs will serve as co-chair. Other interested parties should contact either of the two by October 10 to let them know of their willingness to serve on the work group. A maximum of 10 people total, from State and national sponsors, should serve on the work group; a smaller number would be preferable from the standpoint of effective working relationships. Tasks of the Group: A report to the Department, to be distributed to SCSEP sponsors and other interested parties, should be completed by November 28, 1997. The report should include the following: (a) A discussion of the history of SCSEP, including the rationale for why the program would envision multiple sponsors, especially those serving particular minority communities, in larger urban areas; (b) Descriptions of the unique circumstances of some of the sponsors, such as the U. S. Forest Service (which typically is located principally in rural National Forest areas); (c) Suggestions about proper oversight procedures to reinforce the need for equitable distribution of SCSEP positions, particularly in underserved areas; (d) Discussion of progress made in overcoming past inequities (such as the outcomes following telephone calls the past few years, and improvements in several States -- including Alabama and Kentucky -- that occurred over the past several years, as well as the decrease in number of sponsors in Philadelphia, and the increase in the number of positions in underserved New York City); (e) The extent to which inequities in provision of services, if any, are more often concentrated in national or State sponsors, or whether there is any discernible difference by type of sponsor; and (f) Policy recommendations, such as (1) Making formal the "unwritten agreeement" noted above; or (2) Setting a minimal number of positions for an area (some sponsors have a "rule of thumb" of 40 to 60 positions as a minimum for administrative efficiency); or (3) Setting a maximum number of sponsors that may serve older workers in a given jurisdiction; or (4) Some general guidance on the above, with exceptions based on population of the jurisdiction, the number of national sponsors in the State, the multiplicity of ethnic groupings in an area, and other demographic considerations that might temper a general rule on "duplication." The report of the work group should, among other things, be viewed as an educational document to assist congressional staff to better understand the issues and to interpret the statements in the GAO Report. An elaboration of Department of Labor comment #8, contained on page 65 of the Report, should be included within the work group's report.

To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

If your web browser does not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in, it can be downloaded from the Adobe website at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

If your web browser does not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in, it can be downloaded from the Adobe website at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

If your web browser does not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in, it can be downloaded from the Adobe website at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html