As is the tradition, President Clinton (Clinton, 2000) wrote the House and Senate of his interest in reauthorizing and funding the Older Americans Act. He praised the Act and the benefits that increase the quality of life for the older American. However, the Congress does not always follow the suggestions of the White House Conference on Aging. Such was the case in 2000 when the Senate did not pass all of the suggested Older Americans Act reforms. Most of the reforms suggested by the Conference in 2000 were considered and many implemented (Authorizing Legislation, n.d.) although the funding has not been sufficient (Authorizations and Appropriations: What’s the Difference?, n.d.).

The many differences between the amendments of 2000 and prior years is found at “Side By Side Comparison of 1992 and 2000 Amendments to the Older Americans Act (OAA) (n.d.). A summary of the OAA amendments through 2000 is found at Summary of Key Changes in the 2000 Amendments (n.d.). The U.S. Administration on Aging Strategic Action Plan for years 2003-2008 followed the 2000 White House Conference on Aging.

     The Older Americans Act amendments must be implemented to follow the bills passed by Congress and signed by the President. As an important road map to this procedure, the AoA writes specific action plans for implementation. The AoA then   requires the state aging services to write their own specific ways to meet the AoA’s directives. Of course, the state aging services lobby their state legislatures to change any state laws that may conflict with the AoA directives and to ask for appropriations to implement the changes. The state aging services also require the local Area Agency of Aging (AAA) directors to help in the lobbying efforts on the state level and to write their local five-year action plans that coordinate with the states action plans. On the state and local AAA levels, senior citizen advisory boards give input and must sign off in agreement to the action plans (Executive Summary, n.d.).

     Diane Justice (1995) complains that the actual practice of implementation of OAA policy is flawed due to distinctly different viewpoints of the federal government and the state governments. While the federal government takes a universal outlook for the benefits of OAA to all people over 60 years of age, the necessary funding is not supplied to the states. The funding is so inadequate that the states have the outlook that the money that is provided must be used selectively; the worst situations must be dealt with before any consideration of a universal approach is reasonable. She further states that the OAA itself does not meet the needs of the oldest, poorest, and sickest portion older Americans.  Justice boldly states that “The promise of a universal program capable of serving all older people regardless of their functional status or income holds obvious political appeal. Advocates have increasingly referred to the OAA as an entitlement program, although neither its structure nor its funding level approximates that lofty policy status” (p. 60).    

    In offering evidence for her position, Justice (1995) claims that the states have moved more of the block grant money to Meals on Wheels and cut funding for congregate meals as one way to shore up the needs of the elderly who are worse off than others. This approach by the states of ignoring the federal ideal of universalism is expected to “become the predominate one for both federal and state aging services programs as policy makers are forced to respond to the prospects of significantly reduced resources in the years ahead” (p. 62)