The court in Meek v. Martinez also found that persons 65 years old and older living alone were not necessarily socially isolated. Many older persons who live alone have higher incomes than those living with families. Living alone has no independent significance as an indicator of loneliness or social isolation, the court stated, and must be analyzed along with other factors, such as economic status, availability of a support group, whether the decision to live alone was voluntary, and cultural patterns. In addition, the court found that minority elderly lived more frequently with members of their family than nonminorities. The court, therefore, ruled that this factor in Florida's formula discriminated against minorities. Eight states distribute funds using a factor focusing on persons living alone. Formulas of seven states-Alabama, California, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington-direct funds to persons 60 years old and older living alone, while Wisconsin's formula directs funds to persons 75 years old and older living alone. in Thirty-six states have revised their original Title III funding formulas. Eighteen of the states with revised formulas made changes that became effective after 1985. The changes in eight of these states became effective in 1989. States changed the formulas for various reasons, but primarily to attempt to address changes to the act and regulations. Fifteen changed the formulas to give preference to required categories of individuals, while officials in four states said the formulas were revised because of Meek v. Martinez. Although few states changed their funding formulas because of Meek v. Martinez, all but three of the officials we spoke with were aware of the case. No federal agency approves funding formulas. Section 305 of the act requires the state agency to submit its formula to the Commissioner of AOA for review and comment. The implementing regulations provide more guidance. The regulations require the state agency to review and update the formula as often as it submits its state plan for approval. Although the regulations require the state agency to submit the formula to AOA for review and comment, they specify that the formula be submitted separately from the plan. 13 Includes one state that estimates the changes will become effective in July 1990. Officials in 44 of the 45 states with formulas told us they submit the formulas to AOA for review and comment.14 The Acting Commissioner (now Commissioner) said that AOA follows a standardized guide in reviewing formulas to determine whether they meet the act's requirements. Although AOA suggests changes to state funding formulas, the states are not required to make such changes. Fourteen state officials told us that when providing comments, AOA requested or encouraged that they consider changing the formula. For example, one official said AOA Suggested that the state review the formula as a result of the Meek v. Martinez case, while another said AOA strongly encouraged the state to change formula factors. Both of these states revised their formulas in 1989 by, among other things, adding a minority factor. However, although AOA has encouraged another state to consider adding a minority factor, a state official told us the state did not plan to do so. With the issuance of the program instruction in November 1989 (See p. 5.), AOA initiated a review of all state formulas to determine whether funds are targeted for services to low-income minorities. That review will result in comments or suggestions to the states, not the approval or disapproval of their formulas. Although AOA approves the service plan developed by the state agency, it does not consider the funding formula to be part of the plan and, therefore, does not approve the formula. AOA believes that because the act discusses the formula in section 305 (42 U.S.C. 3025)—which addresses state agency duties—rather than in section 307 (42 U.S.C. 3027)—which deals with the approval by AOA of state plans-the act does not authorize AOA to approve intrastate funding formulas. AOA's position is that the statutory language authorizing it to “review and comment" on formulas prohibits it, by implication, from disapproving formulas. We believe AOA's authority to "review and comment" on formulas does not preclude it from disapproving formulas that fail to comply with its guidelines. A condition of grant eligibility is that a state must have a funding formula that conforms to AOA's guidelines. An agency has authority to enforce grant conditions. Since a funding formula that complies with the guidelines is a grant condition, it follows that the agency has authority to enforce them. 14One state did not provide this information. We believe the act gives AOA two chances to consider the formula. First, AOA can review and comment on the formula as it is being developed by the state agency. This puts the state on notice of potential problems, although AOA lacks the authority to prevent the state from adopting the formula. Second, once the state has adopted the formula, AOA can determine whether it meets the agency's guidelines and, if it does not, can initiate the procedure to declare the state ineligible to receive funds. Although we disagree with AOA's position, we recognize that the law leaves room for different interpretations. The act does not clearly state that formulas are to be included as part of the plan or are to be submitted to AOA for approval; it states only that AOA must “review and comment" on them. This language arguably limits, by implication, AOA's authority. Without clearer statutory authority, and in view of its current position that it lacks authority, AOA might be in a vulnerable legal position if it disapproved formulas and withheld funds from the states. We believe AOA has the authority to disapprove funding formulas that do not comply with its guidelines. Because AOA does not believe it has the authority to approve or disapprove formulas, states distribute Title III funds according to formulas that receive no federal approval. In Meek v. Martinez, a U.S. district court determined that Florida was distributing federal funds through its formula in a manner that discriminated against minorities. We recognize that the Meek v. Martinez decision is not applicable to other states; however, other state formulas that contain the same, similar, or other untested factors may also be distributing funds contrary to the intent of the act and its regulations. If the Congress wants AOA to (1) approve or disapprove the factors and weights contained in intrastate funding formulas to better ensure that each state's formula meets the intent of the act and AOA regulations and (2) withhold funds for disapproved formulas, it should consider amending Title III of the Older Americans Act to clarify this intent. As agreed with your offices, we did not request written comments from AOA, but we discussed the matters in this report with AOA officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate. Unless its contents are announced earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to interested parties and will make copies available to others on request. |