An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in Department of Aging, further providing for evaluation.
Summary
HB372 amends the Administrative Code of 1929 to change how the Pennsylvania Department of Aging evaluates area agencies and programs. The bill keeps the existing requirement for continual review and annual onsite evaluations, but adds a new directive that each area agency be identified as compliant or noncompliant with the act and that compliance results be reported using established performance measures.
The bill also preserves and reinforces public transparency requirements. Written compliance reports must still be provided to the evaluated area agency, and they must be made publicly available on the Department of Aging’s website within 30 days. The department must continue to gather input from program beneficiaries and submit an annual report to the Governor and General Assembly with statistical data on services provided to older persons. The act takes effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB372 would affect the Department of Aging’s oversight of area agencies on aging by formalizing compliance determinations and performance-measure reporting. It does not create a new program or funding stream, but it strengthens administrative accountability and public reporting obligations for agencies that deliver aging services. The practical effect is to make evaluations more standardized, more transparent, and easier for policymakers and the public to compare across agencies.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. The House Aging and Older Adult Services Committee adopted an amendment and then reported the bill as amended, both by unanimous 26-0 votes. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous votes indicate little or no visible opposition at the committee stage and a generally favorable view of the bill’s oversight and transparency goals.
Contention
No major points of contention are evident in the available record. The main policy issue appears to be whether the Department of Aging should go beyond general evaluation and explicitly classify area agencies as compliant or noncompliant using performance measures. Supporters likely view this as a way to improve accountability and public confidence, while any concerns would center on administrative burden, the fairness of performance metrics, or the effect of public compliance labels on local agencies. However, the unanimous committee votes suggest these concerns were not significant enough to produce recorded opposition.
In powers and duties of the Department of State and its departmental administrative board, establishing the Pharmaceutical Collection Sites Educational Program.
In powers and duties of the Department of General Services and its departmental administrative and advisory boards and commissions, providing for automated external defibrillators in State buildings.
In powers and duties of the Department of General Services and its departmental administrative and advisory boards and commissions, providing for program for sale of used pursuit vehicles.