Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Page 7
AFFAIRS OF STATE (Column)
Department of Aging Deserves Special Status
By DAVID KLINE
Among the many budget-cutting suggestions making the rounds is a proposal to merge the California Department of Aging into another state agency to save on administrative costs. It’s a well-intentioned idea, but one that could unwittingly do more harm than good.
The consolidation proposal comes from the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. As the LAO sees it, the state could save $3.4 million—just $908,000 from the General Fund—by shifting the Department of Aging’s responsibilities to the Department of Social Services and laying off 37 Department of Aging employees in the process.
The analyst notes that the Department of Social Services already administers In-Home Supportive Services, Adult Protective Services and the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment programs. The reasoning is that adding the Department of Aging’s programs — Adult Day Health Care, Foster Grandparents, Senior Companion, Brown Bag and the Multipurpose Senior Services Program, to name a few— would put all senior-related services under one roof.
Combining the programs would result in “program efficiencies,” primarily because administrative positions could be eliminated, the LAO says in a two-page description of its plan.
The idea seems to make sense at first blush, but it isn’t quite as straightforward at the LAO makes it sound.
The biggest problem is that the Department of Social Services is a welfare agency, while the Department of Aging exists to help seniors of all incomes and walks of life. The idea behind many Department of Aging programs is not o help the poor, but to spend money to help seniors stay active and independent so they won’t need more costly taxpayer-funded nursing home care and welfare checks down the road.
Most seniors who are helped by Department of Aging programs are not welfare recipients “and would strongly object to being classified or linked as such,” the California Commission on Aging says in its official response to the LAO proposal.
“Should the real or perceived stigma of means testing be attached to the [Department of Aging] programs, the Commission believes we would eventually see a greater future demand for costly services because seniors will shy away from preventive and community support services offered under the Older Americans Act,” the commission says.
Merging seniors’ programs into the welfare department also would turn back the clock on efforts to focus on “prevention, education and changing the image of aging in California from poor, wrinkled elders sitting in rocking chairs to active, vibrant contributors to our society,” the Commission says.
As the effects of an aging population begin to manifest themselves in California, it will be more important than ever to have a special division of government with expertise in helping seniors. Eliminating this division and adding the stigma of welfare undoubtedly would hamper the services provided to seniors, and would prove to be penny wise, pound foolish.
Rather than burying the state’s aging experts under a new layer of bureaucracy, the Legislature and governor should order the Health and Human Services Agency, which oversees both departments, to tighten belts in all quarters.
It’s well known that state agencies are inefficient, often by the design of unionized workers who know that firings are almost unheard of. In fact, a newly hired state employee recently reported that during his first week, a supervisor told him, “Slow down, this is a state job!”
The take-it-slow attitude pervades the state government, including every department in the Health and Human Services Agency. Rather than shuffling people from one department to another, the state should make personnel cutbacks in just about every department to eliminate the dead wood and turn up the heat on the remaining employees.
If we could get more work out of fewer employees, while still maintaining a Department of Aging to provide needed services and leadership as the state ages, we’d have the best of both worlds.
— Capitol News Service
Copyright 2003, Metropolitan News Company