Older worker training at risk: Trump seeks big federal funding cuts

X Facebook WhatsApp

When Ronald Williams joined a local training program after a friend suggested it, he didn’t expect it to change his life. Two years after completing Goodwill’s training through a federal program for older adults, he still works as a custodian — a steady job that followed years of homelessness and addiction recovery. The program that helped him is now facing an uncertain future as the federal government reconsiders its funding.

What the program does and who it serves

The Senior Community Service Employment Program, commonly known as SCSEP, places low-income adults age 55 and older in part-time community service positions while providing job training and support. Participants are paid at least whichever is higher: the state, local or federal minimum wage, and commonly work around 20 hours a week, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Who qualifies: Age 55+, unemployed, household income at or below 125% of the federal poverty level.

Scale: More than 42,000 participants in 2023 (Labor Department progress report).

Funding: About $405 million for FY2025 and $395 million for FY2026; the Trump administration proposes eliminating funding in its 2027 budget.

Origins: Created under the Older Americans Act in 1965 to help older adults reenter the workforce.

Why the debate matters now

Last year, the Labor Department withheld over $300 million in SCSEP grants, triggering a months-long pause that left many programs unable to operate. Providers across the country temporarily furloughed staff and stopped services — a disruption that advocates say had immediate, harmful impacts on low-income participants who relied on the wages and training.

The pause and the administration’s call to eliminate SCSEP entirely are occurring against a broader policy backdrop: new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP and an increasingly older population entering or remaining in the labor force. For older adults living hand-to-mouth, the stakes are concrete — loss of income, interrupted training, and fewer pathways back into steady employment.

What supporters say

Program managers and advocates argue SCSEP serves some of the toughest-to-place jobseekers: people with chronic health problems, limited English, past incarceration, or unstable housing. Christine Osasu, director of a Georgia nonprofit that runs SCSEP locally, says the program sometimes does more than lead to paid work — it helps participants use modern technology and handle everyday tasks independently.

Researchers who study aging and work also warn that demand for programs targeting older workers will likely grow. Cal Halvorsen, a researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, notes population shifts and limited alternative services in many communities. He says cancellation would leave a gap for people who have few other options for retraining.

What critics argue

The White House budget document labels SCSEP duplicative and points to other federal workforce and employment programs as covering similar ground. Republican lawmakers who have scrutinized the program say outcomes — especially rates of unsubsidized employment after placement — do not justify continued federal investment.

Supporters counter that raw placement metrics miss the program’s role as a safety net and a bridge back to self-sufficiency for people with multiple barriers to employment.

Real consequences from the funding pause

The pause in grant payments last year provides a recent example of the potential fallout. At one Georgia nonprofit, all staff handling SCSEP were let go and multiple offices were consolidated, leaving the program operating at roughly a third of its previous capacity. Some former participants slid back into homelessness, others lost transportation or saw health decline because they could not afford prescriptions.

National organizations that usually offer training reported they were unable to provide services during the interruption. When funding resumed, many programs scrambled to reenroll participants and rebuild relationships with community partners — but recovery has been slow and incomplete in some areas.

Voices from participants

For many older Americans, the program represents a practical route to income and skills rather than charity. Vonda Jones, 72, who now works part-time as a receptionist after SCSEP classes refreshed her computer skills, says the extra pay helps stretch a modest Social Security check. Tina Williams, 57 and recovering from cancer, described SCSEP as “like college for older adults,” giving her typing skills and interview practice as she seeks remote work.

Other participants underline the program’s adaptability: Dennis White, who lost the ability to speak after surgery, was matched to a mostly non-speaking role in a local library. For people with specific limitations, SCSEP offered a pathway back to meaningful, manageable work.

Policy context and political stakes

Congress ultimately controls appropriations, and while the administration has repeatedly proposed cutting SCSEP, lawmakers have continued to fund it — though at slightly reduced levels in recent years. With the budget debate underway, supporters in Congress, including Sen. Tammy Baldwin, have vowed to fight proposals to eliminate the program.

At the same time, broader federal policy changes that increase work requirements for benefits could push more people near retirement age into the labor market, increasing demand for programs that can help older adults update skills and secure paid work.

Bottom line

For participants like Ronald Williams, the program has meant steady work, dignity and a daily routine that supports recovery and stability. For policymakers, the question is whether those outcomes — sometimes hard to quantify — merit continued federal investment amid competing budget priorities.

The debate over SCSEP is unfolding now, and its outcome will determine whether thousands of older adults continue to access paid training, or whether local providers must further shrink services just as the nation’s workforce ages.

Reporting for this story included input from program operators, researchers, and participants. The author received fellowship support from organizations focused on aging and health policy.