What's spent, who's helped
The following shows how much the Council on Aging spent annually on senior services and how many senior citizens it served, beginning in 1994, the first full year the council received money from the senior services levy:
1994 - $11,583,588; served 9,880.
1995 - $13,702,250; served 11,800.
1996 - $16,281,814; served 12,500.
Projected 1997 - $16,410,264; served 12,527.
Possible scenarios for 1998
If the senior services levy generates $15 million a year, the Council on Aging would serve 10,629 senior citizens; if the senior services levy raises $17 million annually, 12,345 senior citizens would receive services.
|
In light of a critical audit and news that Hamilton County spends millions more on its senior citizens than any other county in Ohio, commissioners said Monday it is time to rein in the generosity.
''What we're struggling with here is the appropriate level of funding,'' Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus said.
''It's obvious there are people being helped. The question is how much good work can we afford to do?''
The answer lies somewhere between $12.8 million a year and $17 million - less than the $18.2 million the Council on Aging says it needs to maintain services, such as home care, transportation and meals for needy senior citizens.
Commissioners John Dowlin and Tom Neyer support a levy that will raise $15 million to $17 million a year.
Mr. Bedinghaus favors even tighter penny-pinching, saying he is inclined to renew, rather than hike, the levy.
The council now gets $12.8 million from the county's senior services levy, but spends $16.4 million, thanks to a one-time subsidy from the county's general fund.
In contrast:
The only other Ohio county that receives comparable funding through a tax levy is Franklin County, which takes in $10.5 million a year.
Butler County is next in line, generating $4 million annually for its senior services.
Out of 88 counties statewide, 45 get by without a senior services levy, and rely on federal and state dollars to provide senior citizens with home care, transportation and meals.
Robert Logan, director of the Council on Aging, said the lowest figure, or $12.8 million, would force the Council on Aging to close its doors and turn clients away.
''It would wipe out the program,'' he said.
The funding level supported by Mr. Dowlin and Mr. Neyer of $15 million to $17 million also would force the council to trim its client base and drastically reduce, if not eliminate, its legal services contract with PRO Seniors.
PRO Seniors was blasted last month for misspending $70,512 of the $600,000 a year it receives from the senior services levy.
Tim Fogarty, president of the PRO Seniors Board of Trustees, acknowledged PRO Seniors will have to make major changes if it loses the lucrative $600,000 a year contract with the Council on Aging.
The Council on Aging, which served 12,500 senior citizens in 1996, has forsaken its initial levy request of $21 million a year.
Mr. Logan conceded the county spends far more on elderly services, but said it is the most prudent way to address the needs of the fastest-growing segment of the population.
He said it costs less than $300 a month to provide in-home care to seniors, compared with the $3,000 monthly tab for a nursing home.
''More people are getting old. This will be one of the biggest needs we'll be facing in the next 20 years,'' he said.
The county commissioners will decide the amount of the senior services levy, as well as the amounts of levies for the Cincinnati Zoo and CLEAR (County Law Enforcement Applied Regionally) at their Aug. 13 meeting.
