The Butler County Area Agency on Aging might be correct in having decided to tighten its service guidelines because of uncertainties dealing with state funding.

But the key word in that paragraph is "might." Agency and county officials haven't proven that they've worked hard enough to determine the amount of money the agency will be receiving under the state's 2008-09 budget, which took effect in July.

At this point, it appears that, rather than aggressively seeking the needed information, officials here simply have resorted to verbally expressing unhappiness that the state has been slow in providing the needed financial data.

If that's in fact so, it epitomizes a lazy approach to what is a serious issue.

The agency serves more than 4,500 county residents, with more than 600 of those receiving in-home care. The service-tightening that the agency plans will reduce the number of people it serves — and that is a matter of deep concern.

The state pays all but about 1 percent of the agency's $4 million budget.

That state officials haven't come forward with the information that the agency needs to plan future services is troubling.

But agency and county officials shouldn't be overlooking their responsibility in regard to the data.

More persistent contacts with state officials in Harrisburg and with lawmakers representing this county might have produced the sought-after information, or at least provided a close estimate on what the aging agency will be getting, if the final figure is not yet available.

Instead, Lisa Monday, agency administrator, said "we're going with it" (the changes), despite not knowing for sure whether state funding will be cut, will stay the same, or be increased.

"It concerns me," said county Commissioner James Lokhaiser, who is the agency's liaison with the full board of commissioners. Lokhaiser was lamenting that the state doesn't provide enough money for services for the elderly.

He said he planned to speak with state officials about the funding issue.

But three months into the state's fiscal year, he and agency officials can be faulted for not being more aggressive in trying to ascertain the information in question.

In the end, after all of the needed information is obtained — whenever that is — the agency's decision to cut back services might be proven correct. However, for now, it appears that the agency's action is premature.

The agency owes its clients service based on correct, up-to-date data. What evolved this week is the possibility that the agency is intent on deviating from that responsibility.