The appellants, Kentucky Region Eight Mental Health-Mental Retardation Board, Inc., Nineteenth Regional Mental Health-Mental Retardation Board, Inc., and Twentieth Regional Mental Health-Mental Retardation Board, Inc., are three of eighteen charitable, nonprofit corporations organized in various areas of Kentucky to assist, in accordanсe with KRS 210.370, in administering mental health programs and clinics under KRS 210.370 to 210.460. The judgment from which they are apрealing required them to participate in the Kentucky Employes Retirement System. The prinсipal grounds on which they appeal are (1) that they are not state agencies within thе meaning of the statutes providing for the Kentucky Employes Retirement System specifically KRS 61.-510(3), аnd (2) that the executive order of former Governor Edward T. Breathitt providing that the corpоrations “are permitted to become and are participating agencies in the Kentucky Employes’ Retirement System” was merely permissive and not mandatory. We find merit in the first proposition and therefore it is unnecessary that we pass on the second one.
The Kentucky Employes Retirement System provided for in KRS 61.510 to 61.700 is for employes of “departments,” definеd in KRS 61.510 to mean “any state department or board or agency” participating in the system (our emphasis).
The regional mental health-mental retardation boards are private nonprоfit corporations organized under KRS Chapter 273 to participate in administering mental health-mental retardation programs and clinics under KRS 210.370 to 210.460. KRS 210.370 provides that the programs and clinics may be administered by a community health board established pursuant to KRS 210.370 to 210.460 “or by a nonprоfit corporation.” The nonprofit corporations are eligible for state grants under KRS 210.370 to 210.460 as well as federal grants under the Community Mental Health Centers Act, private donations, lоcal government contributions, etc.
Statements from studies predating the enactment of KRS 210.370 tо 210.460 were to the effect that use of nonprofit corporations to implement the рrogram was intended to be an alternative to use of direct state agencies; that thе corporations were to be treated as being separate and apart frоm state government in order to encourage local community support, and to qualify fully fоr receipt of federal grants and tax-deductible charitable donations.
The mere fаct that the corporations receive and administer grants of state funds does not mean that they are state
*491
agencies. See Kentucky Building Commission v. Effron,
It is an established rule of statute construction that the policy and purpose of the statute will be considerеd in determining the meaning of the words used. City of Louisville v. Helman, Ky.,
A retirеment system ordinarily is an integral part of an overall personnel program. It goes along with salary increment schedules and merit system protections in forming a program calculаted to make employment attractive. It would be rare indeed for particular employes to be afforded through their employer the benefits of a retirement plan without the employes also being covered by the other standard features of a personnel program.
The mental health-mental retardation corporations here involved are not claimed to be state agencies for any purpose other than retirement system participation. Their employes are not under the merit system, state salary schedules, or any other state personnel regulations. In our opinion it is inconceivable thаt ICRS 61.510 could have been intended to bring into the Kentucky Employes Retirement System persons who аre not considered state employes for any other purpose. We think that “state dеpartment or board or agency” as used in KRS 61.510 plainly means departments, boards or agencies that are such integral parts of state government as to come within regular patterns of administrative organization and structure and to be subject to standard personnel рolicies having general application in the administration of government.
Since we hоld that the appellant corporations are not state agencies within the meaning of KRS 61.510, it follows that they were not brought into the retirement system by Governor Breathitt’s executive order.
The judgment is reversed with directions to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.